Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/11/2018 05:47 pm
Objective skeptical inquiry is strongly welcome. Disagreements should be expressed politely, concentrating on the technical, engineering and scientific aspects, instead of focusing on people. As such, the use of experimental data, mathematics, physics, engineering, drawings, spreadsheets and computer simulations are strongly encouraged, while subjective wordy statements are discouraged. Peer-reviewed information from reputable journals is strongly encouraged. Please acknowledge the authors and respect copyrights.
Commercial advertisement is discouraged.
In order to minimize bandwidth and maximize information content, when quoting, one can use an ellipsis (...) to indicate the clipped material.
Only use the embed [img ]http://code when the image is small enough to fit within the page. Anything wider than the width of the page makes the page unreadable as it stretches it (we're working on auto reduction, but different browsers work different ways, etc.)
This link
http://math.typeit.org/
enables typing of mathematical symbols, including differentiation and integration, Greek letters, etc.
--
Links to previous threads:
Thread 1:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.0
Thread 2:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.0
Thread 3:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.0
Thread 4:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.0
Thread 5:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.0
Thread 6:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.0
Thread 7:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.0
Thread 8:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.0
Thread 9:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.0
Thread 10:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.0
--
Entry level thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.0
Baseline NSF Article:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/
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 6 million thread reads and 1 million article reads. Most people are reading and not posting, so when you post it is in front of a very large audience.
Also, and it should go without saying, amateur experiments are discouraged unless you have gained educated and/or professional advice for safety reasons.
--
Additional requirements:
No boring back and forth "you're wrong" "no you're wrong". No spamming silly messages in every post like "time to come out of the shadows". Mods will trim posts that are not of wrthwhile quality.
Post by: X_RaY on 06/11/2018 08:29 pm
There is a great old info thread initiated by Dr. Rodal to look up some of the relevant basics of cavity resonator physics in addition to the actual EM-Drive thread series.
For those interested in EMDrive, it may be worth reading the few pages, as they contain some relevant information and calculations on the subject that should be known for general understanding.
Resonant Cavity Space-Propulsion: institutional experiments and theory (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1469290#msg1469290)
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/12/2018 02:26 am
No boring back and forth "you're wrong" "no you're wrong". No spamming silly messages in every post like "time to come out of the shadows". Mods will trim posts that are not of wrthwhile quality.
Chris,
IT IS TIME for the EmDrive to come out of the shadows. Not a silly nor spamming message at all.
For far too long replicators have either failed to measure thrust or measured thrust equivalent to several snow flakes falling on a scale. None that I know of followed Roger's advise, well not all of it. As a result their replications were not very good.
I have engaged a process to stop DIYers building EmDrive that will not work, to provide a very clear build methodology and to explain why doing it that way is important.
After the videos of the KISS thruster going round and round are released, further more detailed theory as to why the EmDrive works inside existing physics will be engaged. Plus I'll be doing a series of public demos around the planet.
While an EmDrive with enough specific force to build a 1g spacecraft is some time in the future, current tech EmDrives can deliver 10x the specific force as can the best Ion Drives and do it with electricity (well actually photon momentum and energy) as the fuel.
I do appreciate your patience, especially during theory debates, as the future of space propulsion is revealed.
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/12/2018 04:02 am
Now includes Open, Shorted and 50 ohm calibration SMAs.
The miniVNA tiny+ is a very important tool what will be used to confirm TE013 resonance via S11 rtn loss sweep, confirm TE013 excitation via E field probe inserted inside the excited cavity and to tune the 1/4 excitation wave stub coupler to coupling factor 1.0, to 50 ohm impedance and to lowest VSWR.
Waiting on arrival of the Silver Epoxy to start frustum fabrication.
Post by: SteveD on 06/12/2018 04:49 am
Quote
Thank you for summarizing. I have some comments here. I am biased the opposite way as you so it is useful to counter balance with yours.
First, TT suspected there might not be resonance in Tajmar's cavity, probably because there was no thrust. I think the same kind of suspicion should be cast on the Polish cavity too, because there was also no definite evidence that there was resonance.
Second, Monomorphic's experiment I think was a power on test; there was no microwave involved.
Third, you said "1. The EMDrive surrounded by a plastic insulator might not be working." This is a strange conclusion, as strange as Shawyer's belief that there must be acceleration for the EmDrive to enter "motor" mode. It is not far from saying that the EMDrive made by people younger than 50 might not be working. After all, this statement has some support because Shawyer, TT, Paul claimed thrust but Tajmar, the California PhD students and monomorphic didn't.
« Last Edit: 06/10/2018 01:50 PM by PotomacNeuron »
I base my conclusion on these data points:
1. Jamie's drive is likely to be in resonance given the quality of his work.
2. The Polish researcher reported about 9 uN with the drive in Null configuration.
3. The Polish researcher reported about 27 uN with the drive in a non-Null configuration.
4. Jamie reported about 9 uN with the drive in a non-Null configuration.
5. Shell seemed to believe an effect was taking place outside the can (but presented no data).
6. Noether's theorem would suggest that an EMDrive cannot accelerate without some interaction with the universe outside of the can.
7. WarpTech was working on a theory requiring exchange of heat with the outside universe.
8. It would seem that insulating the can has stopped the effect, whatever it is, from interacting with the outside universe, turning this into an isolated system and killing the effect as Noether would predict.
9. If true this is an important datapoint in figure out what is actually going on here.
So my question to you, how do we falsify the hypothesis that the 9uN being detected is the result of Lorentz forces in the wiring?
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 06/12/2018 05:35 am
I base my conclusion on these data points:
1. Jamie's drive is likely to be in resonance given the quality of his work.
2. The Polish researcher reported about 9 uN with the drive in Null configuration.
3. The Polish researcher reported about 27 uN with the drive in a non-Null configuration.
4. Jamie reported about 9 uN with the drive in a non-Null configuration.
5. Shell seemed to believe an effect was taking place outside the can (but presented no data).
6. Noether's theorem would suggest that an EMDrive cannot accelerate without some interaction with the universe outside of the can.
7. WarpTech was working on a theory requiring exchange of heat with the outside universe.
8. It would seem that insulating the can has stopped the effect, whatever it is, from interacting with the outside universe, turning this into an isolated system and killing the effect as Noether would predict.
9. If true this is an important datapoint in figure out what is actually going on here.
You have also an implicit one:
0. That EmDrive likely works,
while mine is that it does not work. This difference could explain the different observations we made
As to whether Monomorphic's recent experiment involved microwave, we just need him to tell us. [update: 25W involved. see Monomorphic's answer]
Quote
So my question to you, how do we falsify the hypothesis that the 9uN being detected is the result of Lorentz forces in the wiring?
A good built without ground loop and untwisted power supply leads should be able to avoid the Lorentz problem. So the hypothesis is only a hypothesis for some of the experiments, such as EW's.
Monomorphic's test bed has built-in ability to assess Lorentz force by being built on top of wheels and by not using magnetic damping or step motors. He only needs to rotate his test bed to different angles and plot force against angle to see whether force changes with angle.
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/12/2018 08:15 am
A good built without ground loop and untwisted power supply leads should be able to avoid the Lorentz problem. So the hypothesis is only a hypothesis for some of the experiments, such as EW's.
Monomorphic's test bed has built-in ability to assess Lorentz force by being built on top of wheels and by not using magnetic damping or step motors. He only needs to rotate his test bed to different angles and plot force against angle to see whether force changes with angle.
Every EmDrive builder needs to verify the mode they have excited is the desired mode and not a system resonance.
The only real way to do that is to insert an E field probe into the cavity and map out the E field lobes. As far as I know only Roger and I have done that.
As example is this VNA scan done by Paul. Don't know if the excited mode was never found as it was not shown on the COMSOL resonance mode analysis.
Very unwise to spend all the time and money building an EmDrive and test rig and then assume the VNA scan freq, because it is close to a simulation freq, is the mode you expect to excite. Wish it were so easy.
Post by: X_RaY on 06/12/2018 09:02 am
A good built without ground loop and untwisted power supply leads should be able to avoid the Lorentz problem. So the hypothesis is only a hypothesis for some of the experiments, such as EW's.
Monomorphic's test bed has built-in ability to assess Lorentz force by being built on top of wheels and by not using magnetic damping or step motors. He only needs to rotate his test bed to different angles and plot force against angle to see whether force changes with angle.
Every EmDrive builder needs to verify the mode they have excited is the desired mode and not a system resonance.
The only real way to do that is to insert an E field probe into the cavity and map out the E field lobes. As far as I know only Roger and I have done that.
As example is this VNA scan done by Paul. Don't know if the excited mode was never found as it was not shown on the COMSOL resonance mode analysis.
Very unwise to spend all the time and money building an EmDrive and test rig and then assume the VNA scan freq, because it is close to a simulation freq, is the mode you expect to excite. Wish it were so easy.
The idea sounds good at first glance, but in TE0np mode the E-field is theoretically only zero on the central infinitesimal-thin axis of symmetry. However, such a probe has a spatial extension greater than zero (length and diameter) and is conductive.
I guess a probe in the cavity will distort the pattern and shift the resonant frequency, as the EM field must satisfy the boundary conditions on the coaxial outer conductor.
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/12/2018 09:12 am
A good built without ground loop and untwisted power supply leads should be able to avoid the Lorentz problem. So the hypothesis is only a hypothesis for some of the experiments, such as EW's.
Monomorphic's test bed has built-in ability to assess Lorentz force by being built on top of wheels and by not using magnetic damping or step motors. He only needs to rotate his test bed to different angles and plot force against angle to see whether force changes with angle.
Every EmDrive builder needs to verify the mode they have excited is the desired mode and not a system resonance.
The only real way to do that is to insert an E field probe into the cavity and map out the E field lobes. As far as I know only Roger and I have done that.
As example is this VNA scan done by Paul. Don't know if the excited mode was never found as it was not shown on the COMSOL resonance mode analysis.
Very unwise to spend all the time and money building an EmDrive and test rig and then assume the VNA scan freq, because it is close to a simulation freq, is the mode you expect to excite. Wish it were so easy.
The idea sounds good at first glance, but in TE0np mode the E-field is theoretically only zero on the central infinitesimal-thin axis of symmetry. However, such a probe has a spatial extension greater than zero (length and diameter) and is conductive.
I guess a probe in the cavity will distort the pattern and shift the resonant frequency, as the EM field must satisfy the boundary conditions on the coaxial outer conductor.
Need a VNA to gen the Rf to drive the coupler plus another freq scanner that is isolated from the cavity and the other Rf gen. That way the coax shield of the E field probe coax from the freq scanner is not connected to the cavity shell.
What you do is to use the E field probe to find the location of the highest E field lobes inside the cavity.
Will demo how to do this.
Post by: X_RaY on 06/12/2018 09:49 am
Isolated or not, my argument is that any additional structure within the cavity, especially a conductive one, changes the natural frequencies of the resonator. The second point I do not understand from your contributions is why an additional spectrum analyzer is needed to map the amplitudes of the E field. This could be done with a 2-port SNA* or VNA** in S21 mode.A good built without ground loop and untwisted power supply leads should be able to avoid the Lorentz problem. So the hypothesis is only a hypothesis for some of the experiments, such as EW's.
Monomorphic's test bed has built-in ability to assess Lorentz force by being built on top of wheels and by not using magnetic damping or step motors. He only needs to rotate his test bed to different angles and plot force against angle to see whether force changes with angle.
Every EmDrive builder needs to verify the mode they have excited is the desired mode and not a system resonance.
The only real way to do that is to insert an E field probe into the cavity and map out the E field lobes. As far as I know only Roger and I have done that.
As example is this VNA scan done by Paul. Don't know if the excited mode was never found as it was not shown on the COMSOL resonance mode analysis.
Very unwise to spend all the time and money building an EmDrive and test rig and then assume the VNA scan freq, because it is close to a simulation freq, is the mode you expect to excite. Wish it were so easy.
The idea sounds good at first glance, but in TE0np mode the E-field is theoretically only zero on the central infinitesimal-thin axis of symmetry. However, such a probe has a spatial extension greater than zero (length and diameter) and is conductive.
I guess a probe in the cavity will distort the pattern and shift the resonant frequency, as the EM field must satisfy the boundary conditions on the coaxial outer conductor.
Need a VNA to gen the Rf to drive the coupler plus another freq scanner that is isolated from the cavity and the other Rf gen. That way the coax shield of the E field probe coax from the freq scanner is not connected to the cavity shell.
What you do is to use the E field probe to find the location of the highest E field lobes inside the cavity.
Will demo how to do this.
By the way, you can only isolate the DC component, which is irrelevant in this case, but not the AC RF. ;)
* scalar network analyzer (SNA)—measures amplitude properties only
** vector network analyzer (VNA)—measures both amplitude and phase properties
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/12/2018 10:28 am
Isolated or not, my argument is that any additional structure within the cavity, especially a conductive one, changes the natural frequencies of the resonator. The second point I do not understand from your contributions is why an additional spectrum analyzer is needed to map the amplitudes of the E field. This could be done with a 2-port VNA in S21 mode.
By the way, you can only isolate the DC component, which is irrelevant in this case, but not the AC RF. ;)
XRay,
This is something that you need to try. It does work.
I use 300mm of the thinnest and stiffest GHz coax as the probe, plus a longer more flexible coax to the 10dB or 20 dB or 40dB attenuator to the freq scanner.
Post by: R.W. Keyes on 06/12/2018 10:35 am
Quote from: PotomacNeuron
...it is not far from saying that the EMDrive made by people younger than 50 might not be working....
Wow, I am glad I am 51. Some advantage to it after all :)
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 06/12/2018 11:31 am
Need a VNA to gen the Rf to drive the coupler plus another freq scanner that is isolated from the cavity and the other Rf gen. That way the coax shield of the E field probe coax from the freq scanner is not connected to the cavity shell.
What you do is to use the E field probe to find the location of the highest E field lobes inside the cavity.
Will demo how to do this.
I highlighted the part I have a concern with. I think a probe with its shield not contacting to the cavity shell will leak out microwave. Just let them contact, and the probe can still probe E field near the wall from inside of the cavity. If the stud is very short and impedance does not match, the disturbance to the resonance mode should be minimal.
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/12/2018 11:38 am
As to whether Monomorphic's recent experiment involved microwave, we just need him to tell us.
Monomorphic's test bed has built-in ability to assess Lorentz force by being built on top of wheels and by not using magnetic damping or step motors. He only needs to rotate his test bed to different angles and plot force against angle to see whether force changes with angle.
The recent experiment did involve ~25W of RF. You can see that by the dark pink line in the chart below. The label says Ambient RF, as that is how I detect if RF is present - by using an antenna, a band pass filter (2.35Ghz - 2.5ghz), and a RF power detector to detect the leaked RF from the cavity at very close range.
Since I have taken care to reduce Lorentz force by using short and highly twisted pairs, I am seeing very little of that. It is present, but it is at the edge of my detection abilities, about ~0.2uN. I will have some tests with the test bed at different angles to the geomagnetic field.
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/12/2018 12:03 pm
The idea sounds good at first glance, but in TE0np mode the E-field is theoretically only zero on the central infinitesimal-thin axis of symmetry. However, such a probe has a spatial extension greater than zero (length and diameter) and is conductive.
I guess a probe in the cavity will distort the pattern and shift the resonant frequency, as the EM field must satisfy the boundary conditions on the coaxial outer conductor.
This is exactly what I was thinking. Inserting a coax cable into the cavity will cause the resonant frequency to rise the further in the coax is inserted. Then RF will couple with the coax shielding at varying degrees as the coax is inserted, leaking RF to the outside, which will probably be very non-linear. I would be very surprised if we could make sense of spectrum analyser readings in these conditions.
I suppose we could drill small holes all over the frustum and insert a small antenna a known distance into the cavity in each hole to map it that way. This would also allow us to seal the cavity using nuts between each test. Sounds like a huge hassle though!
The US Navy team uses thermocouples along the outside of the cavity to detect temperature changes which correspond to mode shape. This is the same principle as the infrared camera and the best option IMHO. I do not think that is possible with the 3D printed cavity as the walls are fairly thick and mostly hollow, but I do hope it will work with Oyzw's solid copper cavity and my older cavity with acetate and copper foil walls.
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/12/2018 02:01 pm
This is exactly what I was thinking. Inserting a coax cable into the cavity will cause the resonant frequency to rise the further in the coax is inserted. Then RF will couple with the coax shielding at varying degrees as the coax is inserted, leaking RF to the outside, which will probably be very non-linear. I would be very surprised if we could make sense of spectrum analyser readings in these conditions.
Holes in the walls and end plates do work to a limited extent. Really good are holes in the small and big end plate where the max E field intensity is projected to be.
Suggest you sim an electrically isolated 1mm dia coax inserted into the cavity from a hole in the middle of the big end, centered and at various penetration depths and see what happens to resonance.
Sorry but way too much theory and no experimental data to back it up. Heavy on theory and light on experimental data is why DIYers struggle to generate significant P-P force.
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/12/2018 02:32 pm
How many Joules of Work will be done by a P-P drive that can generate 60,000 Newtons of Force, while accelerating a 60,000kg spaceship's mass for 100 seconds that is mid way between the orbits of Earth and Mars?
Post by: Jim Davis on 06/12/2018 03:30 pm
How many Joules of Work will be done by a P-P drive that can generate 60,000 Newtons of Force, while accelerating a 60,000kg spaceship's mass for 100 seconds that is mid way between the orbits of Earth and Mars?
It depends on the reference frame since energy is not conserved if P-P drives work.
Post by: wicoe on 06/12/2018 05:18 pm
How many Joules of Work will be done by a P-P drive that can generate 60,000 Newtons of Force, while accelerating a 60,000kg spaceship's mass for 100 seconds that is mid way between the orbits of Earth and Mars?
It depends on the reference frame since energy is not conserved if P-P drives work.
It depends on the reference frame regardless of the drive type (i.e. even ignoring the P-P part). The kinetic energy difference (after - before) depends on the ref. frame, which is quite obvious. As a consequence, the amount of work done by the drive must depend on the ref. frame to counteract this (i.e. so that the total energy is conserved). This is only possible if this involves propellant or some other interaction that introduces frame dependence (simply spending chemical or electric energy is not enough since it is not frame-dependent).
Post by: Jim Davis on 06/12/2018 05:28 pm
It depends on the reference frame regardless of the drive type (i.e. even ignoring the P-P part).
I don't believe this is correct. Different reference frames will disagree on how much work was done on the ship and how much on the exhaust but all should agree with the total amount of work done.
Post by: wicoe on 06/12/2018 05:36 pm
It depends on the reference frame regardless of the drive type (i.e. even ignoring the P-P part).
I don't believe this is correct. Different reference frames will disagree on how much work was done on the ship and how much on the exhaust but all should agree with the total amount of work done.
I don't think there is any disagreement... I was talking about the work done to accelerate a specific object (i.e. to change its kinetic energy), ignoring the other parts. Of course if you include everything, the total work to accelerate all parts of the system (i.e. exhaust + object) will be the same in any reference frame, and will equal the total amount of chemical (or other frame-independent) energy spent. My point was that this frame independence is only achievable if you include some type of exhaust (or some external object(s) you push against or interact with) in the equation.
Post by: meberbs on 06/12/2018 05:37 pm
Work is defined as change of energy of an object. If you add up the work of everything, you always get zero because of conservation of energy. When one object does work on another, it has equal and opposite work done on it. The actual number is frame dependent.It depends on the reference frame regardless of the drive type (i.e. even ignoring the P-P part).
I don't believe this is correct. Different reference frames will disagree on how much work was done on the ship and how much on the exhaust but all should agree with the total amount of work done.
Post by: X_RaY on 06/12/2018 08:23 pm
Isolated or not, my argument is that any additional structure within the cavity, especially a conductive one, changes the natural frequencies of the resonator. The second point I do not understand from your contributions is why an additional spectrum analyzer is needed to map the amplitudes of the E field. This could be done with a 2-port VNA in S21 mode.
By the way, you can only isolate the DC component, which is irrelevant in this case, but not the AC RF. ;)
XRay,
This is something that you need to try. It does work.
I use 300mm of the thinnest and stiffest GHz coax as the probe, plus a longer more flexible coax to the 10dB or 20 dB or 40dB attenuator to the freq scanner.
I was busy regarding the impact level of the probe as suggested by TT.This is exactly what I was thinking. Inserting a coax cable into the cavity will cause the resonant frequency to rise the further in the coax is inserted. Then RF will couple with the coax shielding at varying degrees as the coax is inserted, leaking RF to the outside, which will probably be very non-linear. I would be very surprised if we could make sense of spectrum analyser readings in these conditions.
Holes in the walls and end plates do work to a limited extent. Really good are holes in the small and big end plate where the max E field intensity is projected to be.
Suggest you sim an electrically isolated 1mm dia coax inserted into the cavity from a hole in the middle of the big end, centered and at various penetration depths and see what happens to resonance.
Sorry but way too much theory and no experimental data to back it up. Heavy on theory and light on experimental data is why DIYers struggle to generate significant P-P force.
I found that there is a field distortion, but at a low level. I also found a frequency shift as assumed but, again, surprising low, in the order of ~50 kHz.
The first field simulations look promising.*
I would therefore ask the experimenters to subject the methodology described to a practical test.
Maybe using a Semi-Rigid Coaxial Cable like this one:
http://www.crossrf.com/coaxial-cables/semi-rigid-cables/sr-034-coaxial-cable-50ohm
http://crossrf.com/pdf/SR034.pdf
With connector:
https://coaxicom.com/product/straight-male-for-semi-rigid-or-ultra-flex-cable-10/
or
https://fieldcomponents.com/FC10DSF-B16-1.html
However, I am a little sceptical about the easy implementation and distinguishability of modes that also have an index in the form "TXmn3".
* TE013. Known Brady cone dimensions as it was used by EW. The three simulations where done with equal mesh densities.
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/12/2018 09:54 pm
I would therefore ask the experimenters to subject the methodology described to a practical test.
Maybe using a Semi-Rigid Coaxial Cable like this one:
Making SMA cables is not that easy. I ordered these for less than $10 and they will arrive Thursday: https://tinyurl.com/y743rjpu
I'll just cut off one of the SMA male connectors, leaving a very short stub of the inner conductor, and solder the frayed ends of the shields. That way the other end still has a male connector that can connect to the spectrum analyser.
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/13/2018 02:21 am
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/13/2018 02:28 am
How many Joules of Work will be done by a P-P drive that can generate 60,000 Newtons of Force, while accelerating a 60,000kg spaceship's mass for 100 seconds that is mid way between the orbits of Earth and Mars?
It depends on the reference frame since energy is not conserved if P-P drives work.
Energy is conserved. The KE gain of the mass during acceleration is provided by some of the input Rf energy. As a result the resonant photons wavelengths increase due to them transferring some of their energy to the accelerating mass, via asymmetric radiation pressure, and in high Q cavities the length must be increased to keep the cavity resonant.
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/13/2018 02:37 am
How many Joules of Work will be done by a P-P drive that can generate 60,000 Newtons of Force, while accelerating a 60,000kg spaceship's mass for 100 seconds that is mid way between the orbits of Earth and Mars?
It depends on the reference frame since energy is not conserved if P-P drives work.
It depends on the reference frame regardless of the drive type (i.e. even ignoring the P-P part). The kinetic energy difference (after - before) depends on the ref. frame, which is quite obvious. As a consequence, the amount of work done by the drive must depend on the ref. frame to counteract this (i.e. so that the total energy is conserved). This is only possible if this involves propellant or some other interaction that introduces frame dependence (simply spending chemical or electric energy is not enough since it is not frame-dependent).
As you accelerate mass, it's KE increases. This is not frame dependent. It is a part of how mass responds when it is accelerated.
Mass does not know it's velocity and some external value of velocity does not alter it's inertial mass.
You are in a spaceship 1/2 way between the Earth and Mars. The ship's mass is 60,000kg. It's P-P drive system can generate 60,000 Newtons of Force. The crew turn the drive system on for 100 seconds.
Simple question is how much Work was done on the Mass by the Force during the 100 seconds?
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/13/2018 02:47 am
It depends on the reference frame regardless of the drive type (i.e. even ignoring the P-P part).
I don't believe this is correct. Different reference frames will disagree on how much work was done on the ship and how much on the exhaust but all should agree with the total amount of work done.
I don't think there is any disagreement... I was talking about the work done to accelerate a specific object (i.e. to change its kinetic energy), ignoring the other parts. Of course if you include everything, the total work to accelerate all parts of the system (i.e. exhaust + object) will be the same in any reference frame, and will equal the total amount of chemical (or other frame-independent) energy spent. My point was that this frame independence is only achievable if you include some type of exhaust (or some external object(s) you push against or interact with) in the equation.
As an EmDrive accelerates, the resonant photons lose both momentum and energy at each inelastic end plate absorb and emit event. ie their emit wavelength is longer than their impact wavelength. As the tapered cavity creates an asymmetric radiation pressure enviroment, a Force differential is created. However Force alone will not do Work on Mass. There must be a source of both energy and momentum, which the photons also provide.
So the resonant photons both generate the Force and provide the Energy and Momentum to support Work being done on the Mass.
No frame other than the inside of the cavity is needed or required.
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/13/2018 02:51 am
Work is defined as change of energy of an object. If you add up the work of everything, you always get zero because of conservation of energy. When one object does work on another, it has equal and opposite work done on it. The actual number is frame dependent.It depends on the reference frame regardless of the drive type (i.e. even ignoring the P-P part).
I don't believe this is correct. Different reference frames will disagree on how much work was done on the ship and how much on the exhaust but all should agree with the total amount of work done.
When the resonant photons do Work on Mass, their wavelengths increase as a result of the Work they have done.
Energy is conserved, ie gained KE of the Mass is balanced by the lost energy of the longer wavelength photons.
Momentum is conserved, ie gained momentum of the Mass is balanced by the lost momentum of the longer wavelength photons.
Post by: Jim Davis on 06/13/2018 01:16 pm
You are in a spaceship 1/2 way between the Earth and Mars. The ship's mass is 60,000kg. It's P-P drive system can generate 60,000 Newtons of Force. The crew turn the drive system on for 100 seconds.
Simple question is how much Work was done on the Mass by the Force during the 100 seconds?
The simple answer is : it depends.
Work is defined as the integral of force over distance:
W=Integral(F ds)
Noting that ds = v dt we can substitute in the above
W=Integral(F v dt)
Since in your example F and m are constant, a is constant, and velocity at a given time is
v = v0 + at
where v0 is the velocity at initial time t0.
Substituting
W=Integral(F (v0 + at) dt)
Since a = F/m we have
W=Integral(F v0 dt) + Integral(F^2 t dt /m)
Integrating we get
W = F v0 (t - t0) + F^2/(2 m)(t^2 - t0^2)
As you can see the work done depends on the initial velocity, ie the reference frame.
Post by: meberbs on 06/13/2018 01:43 pm
As you accelerate mass, it's KE increases. This is not frame dependent. It is a part of how mass responds when it is accelerated.No, it is obviously frame dependent because the kinetic energy is proportional to velocity squared. In some frames velocity (and therefore kinetic energy would be decreasing.
Mass does not know it's velocity and some external value of velocity does not alter it's inertial mass.And therefore it does not know it's kinetic energy.
You are in a spaceship 1/2 way between the Earth and Mars. The ship's mass is 60,000kg. It's P-P drive system can generate 60,000 Newtons of Force. The crew turn the drive system on for 100 seconds.This was already answered, it is frame dependent. Work is force times distance. Distance is 0.5*a*t^2+ v*t. In this equation a=F/m and v is the initial velocity in the reference frame you choose.
Simple question is how much Work was done on the Mass by the Force during the 100 seconds?
Quote
There must be a source of both energy and momentum, which the photons also provide.The energy of the photons came from the battery, and the momentum came from the cavity/attached antenna. Since the momentum came from the cavity to begin with, the photons are not an independent momentum source. Energy coming from the battery is a problem because that energy is essentially frame independent, while kinetic energy is frame dependent.
Most of this has already been explained to you, so this is bordering on violating the warning in the opening post. To avoid such a problem, you need to stop acting like repeating things makes them true, and acknowledge the explanations you have been given.
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/13/2018 07:28 pm
I was busy regarding the impact level of the probe as suggested by TT.
I found that there is a field distortion, but at a low level. I also found a frequency shift as assumed but, again, surprising low, in the order of ~50 kHz.
The first field simulations look promising.*
I don't know if you cut a hole in the frustum for the probe, so I went ahead and gave it a try using Phil's latest dimensions. The same field distortions are present, but the overall mode shape is still intact. As I suspected, there is significant RF leaking from the coax shielding through the hole. But interestingly, the leaking is lower if the cavity is in peak resonance. Off resonance, by as much as ~90Khz causes the cavity to leak noticeably. Ferrite cores are recommended between the hole and the spectrum analyser.
As soon as the rigid coax sma cable arrives tomorrow, I can test this using the older acetate and copper foil cavity that resonates at 2.45Ghz. If it works, then I can see about using the same technique on the 3D printed cavity.
One thing to note, I have not been able to excite TE013 using a stub off the side wall using Phil's latest dimensions. I had to use a loop or half loop. So i'm not sure a stub is the best coupler for this build.
Post by: Mark7777777 on 06/14/2018 06:27 am
emdrives.com redirects to the latest post on this Thread 11.
Regards
Mark
Post by: X_RaY on 06/14/2018 03:52 pm
I was busy regarding the impact level of the probe as suggested by TT.
I found that there is a field distortion, but at a low level. I also found a frequency shift as assumed but, again, surprising low, in the order of ~50 kHz.
The first field simulations look promising.*
I don't know if you cut a hole in the frustum for the probe, so I went ahead and gave it a try using Phil's latest dimensions. The same field distortions are present, but the overall mode shape is still intact. As I suspected, there is significant RF leaking from the coax shielding through the hole. But interestingly, the leaking is lower if the cavity is in peak resonance. Off resonance, by as much as ~90Khz causes the cavity to leak noticeably. Ferrite cores are recommended between the hole and the spectrum analyser.
As soon as the rigid coax sma cable arrives tomorrow, I can test this using the older acetate and copper foil cavity that resonates at 2.45Ghz. If it works, then I can see about using the same technique on the 3D printed cavity.
One thing to note, I have not been able to excite TE013 using a stub off the side wall using Phil's latest dimensions. I had to use a loop or half loop. So i'm not sure a stub is the best coupler for this build.
I only concentrated on the distortion and possible frequency shift due to the stub inside, so in my simulation there was no hole in the end plate and no galvanic contact between rod and cavity.
Interesting however is the additional frequency shift through the hole! With a low forward power VNA it could at least confirm the excited pattern as suggested by TT.
As for the stub antenna... It gives an very small couppling coefficient, it will not work this way. Bend the stub into phi-direction that should work for this mode.
Already suggested in Thread 3:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1412912#msg1412912
Post by: Star One on 06/15/2018 12:00 pm
£720m Large Hadron Collider upgrade 'could upend particle physics'
Quote
Collider will be far more sensitive to anomalies that could lead to entirely new theories of the universe
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jun/15/720m-large-hadron-collider-upgrade-could-upend-particle-physics
Post by: RotoSequence on 06/16/2018 03:23 am
This may be of interest to posters on here.
£720m Large Hadron Collider upgrade 'could upend particle physics'QuoteCollider will be far more sensitive to anomalies that could lead to entirely new theories of the universe
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jun/15/720m-large-hadron-collider-upgrade-could-upend-particle-physics
Not likely. The LHC luminosity upgrade will let them get a lot more collision data a lot more quickly, but particle physics at terrestrially attainable energy levels is looking like a dead end for reconciling General Relativity and the Standard Model.
Post by: Bob Woods on 06/16/2018 04:16 am
Bravo. And light speed to you Stephen....
Post by: Star One on 06/16/2018 10:16 am
This may be of interest to posters on here.
£720m Large Hadron Collider upgrade 'could upend particle physics'QuoteCollider will be far more sensitive to anomalies that could lead to entirely new theories of the universe
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jun/15/720m-large-hadron-collider-upgrade-could-upend-particle-physics
Not likely. The LHC luminosity upgrade will let them get a lot more collision data a lot more quickly, but particle physics at terrestrially attainable energy levels is looking like a dead end for reconciling General Relativity and the Standard Model.
That’s a curiously pessimistic viewpoint. You almost make it sound like they are wasting their money?
Post by: RotoSequence on 06/16/2018 11:17 am
That’s a curiously pessimistic viewpoint. You almost make it sound like they are wasting their money?
The LHC managed to confirm the worst fears of particle physicists when it discovered the Higgs Boson, discovered that the Higgs Boson is exactly what the standard model predicted was, and wholly ruled out the simplest model of Supersymmetry, while casting doubt on some of its more complex cousins. It's not a waste of money to improve the LHC's ability to collect data, but based on what we've seen so far, I'd be pleasantly surprised by any radical new discoveries that upend modern physics. The Standard Model is proving to be frustratingly accurate in all viable particle accelerator experiments.
Post by: Star One on 06/16/2018 11:37 am
That’s a curiously pessimistic viewpoint. You almost make it sound like they are wasting their money?
The LHC managed to confirm the worst fears of particle physicists when it discovered the Higgs Boson, discovered that the Higgs Boson is exactly what the standard model predicted was, and wholly ruled out the simplest model of Supersymmetry, while casting doubt on some of its more complex cousins. It's not a waste of money to improve the LHC's ability to collect data, but based on what we've seen so far, I'd be pleasantly surprised by any radical new discoveries that upend modern physics. The Standard Model is proving to be frustratingly accurate in all viable particle accelerator experiments.
Is that because you believe we cannot generate high enough energies on the Earth for the foreseeable future? That the more interesting physics exists in the extremely high energy realms?
Post by: Star One on 06/16/2018 01:57 pm
Post by: Augmentor on 06/16/2018 02:58 pm
PT Barnum is claimed to have said, "I don't care what the newspapers say about me as long as they spell my name right." but that does not apply to this paper.
As for the quality of the report, there are conflicts. One is that brand new, state of the ar equipment was being used. Another issue is the magnetic shielding. Stray magnetic fields can create issues and false positives as well as false negatives.
Dr. Tajmar et al have done their best so far to reduce the number of artifacts and identify thrust signatures. In this particular case, two papers should have been done since there are three tests going on: emDrive, Mach Effect MEGA, and that of experimental setup with new test equipment.
The show is not over yet. The media loves controversy and their acceptance of negative preliminary results is good in that larger thrusts will now be a "surprise" and therefore, worthy news of reporting widely. Time will tell.
Work on the theory, experiments, modeling and simulations will continue in the drilling down to the essence of thrust using particles and waves as well as EM and gravitational forces.
Post by: Star One on 06/16/2018 04:55 pm
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 06/16/2018 06:58 pm
The reason I mention it again is I have been catching up on my back issues of New Scientist magazine and a fairly small report, though prominently placed on page seven, headlined ’Impossible’ space drive doesn’t work can be found in issue number 3179 for those interested.
Yes, the sceptics often need even less thoroughness of the scientific reports in order to see their premises confirmed than the "wishful thinkers" do. ::)
Post by: RotoSequence on 06/16/2018 07:10 pm
Is that because you believe we cannot generate high enough energies on the Earth for the foreseeable future? That the more interesting physics exists in the extremely high energy realms?
The experimental data supports that we cannot generate interesting physics results at terrestrial energy levels, while cosmology shows that existing knowledge falls short of fully explaining the universe. I'm not confident that ever higher energies would help explain the missing links either, but I don't believe that particle accelerators like the LHC are the future of discovery in physics.
Post by: meberbs on 06/16/2018 07:24 pm
It annoys me about the Tajmar paper that even though on here his setup has received criticism and the sceptics elsewhere have criticised his setup as well its still been widely reported.And it annoys me when people claim that the paper has been criticized despite the fact that no valid criticisms have been provided. (The only provided criticisms have been saying that they should do the things that the paper explicitly states they plan to do as part of future work.)
If you want to criticize the way the media is reporting on the paper, that is fine, but old news since the media exaggerates every scientific report they can (which annoys me too). Making false claims about criticisms of the paper is just as bad as any misrepresentations the media makes though.
There is a reason for this, and it is rooted in actual scientific data:The reason I mention it again is I have been catching up on my back issues of New Scientist magazine and a fairly small report, though prominently placed on page seven, headlined ’Impossible’ space drive doesn’t work can be found in issue number 3179 for those interested.
Yes, the sceptics often need even less thoroughness of the scientific reports in order to see their premises confirmed than the "wishful thinkers" do. ::)
https://xkcd.com/1132/
Post by: Star One on 06/16/2018 10:35 pm
It annoys me about the Tajmar paper that even though on here his setup has received criticism and the sceptics elsewhere have criticised his setup as well its still been widely reported.And it annoys me when people claim that the paper has been criticized despite the fact that no valid criticisms have been provided. (The only provided criticisms have been saying that they should do the things that the paper explicitly states they plan to do as part of future work.)
If you want to criticize the way the media is reporting on the paper, that is fine, but old news since the media exaggerates every scientific report they can (which annoys me too). Making false claims about criticisms of the paper is just as bad as any misrepresentations the media makes though.There is a reason for this, and it is rooted in actual scientific data:The reason I mention it again is I have been catching up on my back issues of New Scientist magazine and a fairly small report, though prominently placed on page seven, headlined ’Impossible’ space drive doesn’t work can be found in issue number 3179 for those interested.
Yes, the sceptics often need even less thoroughness of the scientific reports in order to see their premises confirmed than the "wishful thinkers" do. ::)
https://xkcd.com/1132/
You say that yet this very thread criticism of his setup is clearly given.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1823724#msg1823724
Post by: meberbs on 06/17/2018 12:09 am
You say that yet this very thread criticism of his setup is clearly given.I clearly stated that the only things provided have just been repeating the "future work" information in the paper, which is not criticism, just an indication that the person saying those things did not read the paper. More power, and better magnetic shielding are both explicitly stated in the paper. The linked post is a perfect example of how claiming there are "criticisms" of the paper is at least as disingenuous as any misreporting that has happened in the media.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1823724#msg1823724
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/17/2018 07:19 am
I clearly stated that the only things provided have just been repeating the "future work" information in the paper, which is not criticism, just an indication that the person saying those things did not read the paper.
I read the paper and watched Tajmar's presentation, thank you very much. >:(
The criticisms noted are valid even though Tajmar plans on ruling most of them out in future experiments. Some of the items pointed out, such as why they claim to be exciting mode TM212 during their presentation, when that mode is 500Mhz away in simulations, and why they are 15Mhz away from any known mode for those dimensions, AND the fact that they chose not to share their smith chart plot, are serious problems that need to be addressed specifically in the next paper.
We also pointed out that the wiring was sophomoric at best as the twisted pairs were not twisted very well, the main power leads were over a meter long, and the ground loops have not been identified. We also pointed out that the amplifier and most other electrical components rotate with the copper frustum, instead of only the frustum rotating. It is not clear if Tajmar plans on addressing these issues in the future.
Once Tajmar confirms the resonant mode with IR camera, or other means, then that will alleviate most of my concerns. I am glad this is planned and look forward to the results. I know that is one of the last hurdles I am working on before I throw in the towel...
Post by: Star One on 06/17/2018 08:27 am
I clearly stated that the only things provided have just been repeating the "future work" information in the paper, which is not criticism, just an indication that the person saying those things did not read the paper.
I read the paper and watched Tajmar's presentation, thank you very much. >:(
The criticisms noted are valid even though Tajmar plans on ruling most of them out in future experiments. Some of the items pointed out, such as why they claim to be exciting mode TM212 during their presentation, when that mode is 500Mhz away in simulations, and why they are 15Mhz away from any known mode for those dimensions, AND the fact that they chose not to share their smith chart plot, are serious problems that need to be addressed specifically in the next paper.
We also pointed out that the wiring was sophomoric at best as the twisted pairs were not twisted very well, the main power leads were over a meter long, and the ground loops have not been identified. We also pointed out that the amplifier and most other electrical components rotate with the copper frustum, instead of only the frustum rotating. It is not clear if Tajmar plans on addressing these issues in the future.
Once Tajmar confirms the resonant mode with IR camera, or other means, then that will alleviate most of my concerns. I am glad this is planned and look forward to the results. I know that is one of the last hurdles I am working on before I throw in the towel...
Thank you for this update. I put a lot of weight on what you have to say about these things in this thread.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/17/2018 12:03 pm
The reason I mention it again is I have been catching up on my back issues of New Scientist magazine and a fairly small report, though prominently placed on page seven, headlined ’Impossible’ space drive doesn’t work can be found in issue number 3179 for those interested.
Here is the news in brief of the print version attached, as an excerpt so small in the whole journal does not contravene the Right to Quote of the Berne convention. The online and longer version is here:
• New Scientist: ‘Impossible’ EM drive doesn’t seem to work after all (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2169809-impossible-em-drive-doesnt-seem-to-work-after-all/)
The vast majority of the media is aligning with this pessimistic "case closed" headline:
• Ars Technica: NASA’s EM-drive is a magnetic WTF-thruster (https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/nasas-em-drive-is-a-magnetic-wtf-thruster/)
• BGR: NASA’s ‘impossible’ fuel-free engine actually is impossible after all (http://bgr.com/2018/05/25/emdrive-test-nasa-research-failure/)
• Dailymail: Blow for NASA's 'impossible' EM Drive as study finds thrust seen in previous tests were caused by Earth's magnetic fields (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5759763/Blow-NASAs-EM-Drive-study-finds-results-previous-tests-caused-magnetic-fields.html)
• Engadget: 'Impossible' EM drive may actually be impossible after all (https://www.engadget.com/2018/05/23/impossible-em-drive-is-actually-impossible-after-all/)
• Forbes: The EmDrive, NASA's 'Impossible' Space Engine, Really Is Impossible (https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/05/23/the-emdrive-nasas-impossible-space-engine-really-is-impossible/)
• Interesting Engineering: NASA's "Impossible" EmDrive Space Thruster Could Be Impossible After All (https://interestingengineering.com/nasas-impossible-emdrive-space-thruster-could-be-impossible-after-all)
• Space.com: 'Impossible' EmDrive Space Thruster May Really Be Impossible (https://www.space.com/40682-em-drive-impossible-space-thruster-test.html)
• Science Alert: The Latest Test on The 'Impossible' EM Drive Concludes It Doesn't Work (https://www.sciencealert.com/impossible-em-drive-test-concludes-external-thrust)
• The Register: EmDrive? More like BS drive: Physics-defying space engine flunks out (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/23/emdrive_flunks_test/)
What is criticized here is these media have put the final nail in the EmDrive coffin whereas Tajmar just presented a work in progress report at a conference, investigating spurious effects and listing what to do in future experiments to characterize and reduce these sources of error.
However some rare medias have written neutral titles more in line with reality and the long-lost journalists' code of deontology:
• Popular Mechanics: New Study Casts Doubt on the "Impossible" EmDrive (But this weird propulsion idea isn't dead yet) (https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a20896657/new-study-doubt-impossible-em-drive/)
• National Geographic: NASA's 'Impossible' Space Engine Tested—Here Are the Results (https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/05/nasa-emdrive-impossible-physics-independent-tests-magnetic-space-science/)
• Motherboard: A German Team Is Now Trying to Make the ‘Impossible’ EmDrive Engine (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/d3kpyx/emdrive-spacedrive-germany-nasa-interstellar-spacecraft)
But they are all pessimistic in the end, since absolutely no journalist criticized the experiment like Monomorphic did (about the effective resonance and EM mode, the possibility of a phantom rtn loss dip, the use of a right-angle RF connector, loosely twisted pairs, very long mean power leads, wires jointly rotating with the cavity, no side wall coupler, etc.) simply because none of these journalists have the minimum expertise to do so, and they didn't bother to ask experts. I even suspect, due to the very similarity in their headlines, that they almost all embroidered the same short story from some news agency like Reuters or AP.
Post by: Star One on 06/17/2018 12:59 pm
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 06/17/2018 02:12 pm
I clearly stated that the only things provided have just been repeating the "future work" information in the paper, which is not criticism, just an indication that the person saying those things did not read the paper.
I read the paper and watched Tajmar's presentation, thank you very much. >:(
The criticisms noted are valid even though Tajmar plans on ruling most of them out in future experiments. Some of the items pointed out, such as why they claim to be exciting mode TM212 during their presentation, when that mode is 500Mhz away in simulations, and why they are 15Mhz away from any known mode for those dimensions, AND the fact that they chose not to share their smith chart plot, are serious problems that need to be addressed specifically in the next paper.
We also pointed out that the wiring was sophomoric at best as the twisted pairs were not twisted very well, the main power leads were over a meter long, and the ground loops have not been identified. We also pointed out that the amplifier and most other electrical components rotate with the copper frustum, instead of only the frustum rotating. It is not clear if Tajmar plans on addressing these issues in the future.
Once Tajmar confirms the resonant mode with IR camera, or other means, then that will alleviate most of my concerns. I am glad this is planned and look forward to the results. I know that is one of the last hurdles I am working on before I throw in the towel...
Also they should rotate their test bed as a whole to assess the influence of the Earth magnetic field. Shielding is much harder and costly. We can't tell definitely how good the shielding is. They could probably give up shielding and use rotation test instead. They may additionally try Helmholtz coils.
Post by: meberbs on 06/17/2018 02:34 pm
No, when you make criticisms that someone has already stated they are working on, especially when you don't acknowledge they are working on them, you are not criticizing them. With acknowledgement, you are just summarizing their paper, without acknowledgement you are slandering them by implicit claims that they don't know they should work on basic things.I clearly stated that the only things provided have just been repeating the "future work" information in the paper, which is not criticism, just an indication that the person saying those things did not read the paper.
I read the paper and watched Tajmar's presentation, thank you very much. >:(
The criticisms noted are valid even though Tajmar plans on ruling most of them out in future experiments.
Some of the items pointed out, such as why they claim to be exciting mode TM212 during their presentation, when that mode is 500Mhz away in simulations, and why they are 15Mhz away from any known mode for those dimensions, AND the fact that they chose not to share their smith chart plot, are serious problems that need to be addressed specifically in the next paper.Strange, none of those things were pointed out in the referenced post. If you read the paper carefully, they claim to be using the resonance at 1865 MHz, while they show TM212 at 1971MHz by simulation. They don't claim to be exciting TM212 in the paper, though they should have explicitly stated which mode they are exciting. While more data is always good, I am not aware of any specific information from a Smith chart that is required for a good emDrive experiment.
We also pointed out that the wiring was sophomoric at bestSophomoric is a word used to insult a person, and does not detail an issue with wiring.
We also pointed out that the amplifier and most other electrical components rotate with the copper frustum, instead of only the frustum rotating.The attenuator test he ran isolates issues due to wiring, it is not obvious that a "flip without moving wiring" test like he did for the Mach drive would be necessary.
Overall, you are not providing helpful criticism, and instead you are misrepresenting the paper, and even using personal insults.
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/17/2018 03:38 pm
Strange, none of those things were pointed out in the referenced post. If you read the paper carefully, they claim to be using the resonance at 1865 MHz, while they show TM212 at 1971MHz by simulation. They don't claim to be exciting TM212 in the paper, though they should have explicitly stated which mode they are exciting. While more data is always good, I am not aware of any specific information from a Smith chart that is required for a good emDrive experiment.
I'm sorry you missed it, but this and more was posted in follow-up posts by me and others such as this one: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1825716#msg1825716
They did make the claim in their presentation that they thought they were exciting mode TM212 (at time 48:20). This was in response to a question from Dr. Rodal. But TM212 is 570Mhz away according to COMSOL and FEKO. Perhaps they meant TE212, but that is 15Mhz away from where they are seeing the RL. The student clearly said he thinks it is TM212, but that he is not sure. Another thing to note is the mode Tajmar claims is TM212 at 1971 Mhz (1.971 Ghz) was identified as Tx3xx by NASA using COMSOL. If they are not sure, or are confused on this, then they need to get it straight soon.
The smith chart plot is necessary to 1. make sure there is a circular plot, which indicates resonance, and 2. to make sure there are no modes too close, as there appears to be with Tajmar's RL plot. Every serious experiment I know of has provided a smith chart plot.
Then you lament about personal insults directly after insulting our intelligence by claiming we didn't read the paper. ::)
Post by: meberbs on 06/17/2018 04:47 pm
I read those posts, but did not go into detail, since that is not what Star One referenced as examples of "criticism."Strange, none of those things were pointed out in the referenced post. If you read the paper carefully, they claim to be using the resonance at 1865 MHz, while they show TM212 at 1971MHz by simulation. They don't claim to be exciting TM212 in the paper, though they should have explicitly stated which mode they are exciting. While more data is always good, I am not aware of any specific information from a Smith chart that is required for a good emDrive experiment.
I'm sorry you missed it, but this and more was posted in follow-up posts by me and others such as this one: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1825716#msg1825716
They did make the claim in their presentation that they thought they were exciting mode TM212 (at time 48:20). This was in response to a question from Dr. Rodal. But TM212 is 570Mhz away according to COMSOL and FEKO. Perhaps they meant TE212, but that is 15Mhz away from where they are seeing the RL. The student clearly said he thinks it is TM212, but that he is not sure.So your actual criticism is that someone misspoke about a detail they didn't specifically remember during an oral presentation?
Another thing to note is the mode Tajmar claims is TM212 at 1971 Mhz (1.971 Ghz) was identified as Tx3xx by NASA using COMSOL. If they are not sure, or are confused on this, then they need to get it straight soon.Well, their simulation results in the paper clearly show a mode that is not a Tx3xx. Someone is wrong here, or some information has been miscommunicated so that apples and oranges are being compared, while assuming they are both apples. As I said, more information from them would be good to clarify this, but they have a cavity and took data from it. They were tracking resonance, which clearly existed in the VNA plot.
The smith chart plot is necessary to 1. make sure there is a circular plot, which indicates resonance, and 2. to make sure there are no modes too close, as there appears to be with Tajmar's RL plot. Every serious experiment I know of has provided a smith chart plot.Resonance and nearby modes can be seen in the RL plot, which you even just pointed out. Every experiment has had a return loss plot, not all have shown the Smith chart as well to my knowledge. The paper is preliminary results mostly focused on their generic test setup capabilities and methodologies, showing how it can be generic and used for multiple types of devices. The details of either device tested are secondary to the main point in the paper, describing progress on their general test setup, which people on both ends of reactions to this seem to be struggling to understand.
Then you lament about personal insults directly after insulting our intelligence by claiming we didn't read the paper. ::)Saying that your statements indicate that you didn't read the paper is not an insult to your intelligence. It is a statement that what you said either contradicts the paper (in the case of modes) or presents information in the paper as if it is new information you came up with and they didn't think of. I only am pointing out these are statements that someone who carefully read the paper shouldn't be making. The possibilities from there are either that you didn't read the paper or you did. If you didn't, that explains your statements, if you did, then your statements start to sound malicious. I assumed the first because I don't like assuming malice. None of the options say anything about your intelligence. Comparing any of that to the literal direct insult you used is ... I'm not sure how to describe that.
Post by: D_Dom on 06/17/2018 05:55 pm
Again quoting Chris "Be excellent to each other". We all benefit from the open exchange of ideas, many thanks to everyone who posts. Lets keep the sigal to noise ratio high.
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/17/2018 05:58 pm
Drilling the holes seemed to have had a very large effect on Q as the RL dip wasn't nearly as narrow after each hole. It could be because there are little bits of copper in the cavity from drilling that I need to clean out, or it could be the holes themselves. This is why I hate the idea of drilling into the 3D printed cavity or Oyzw's solid copper cavity.
https://youtu.be/_EDGO5-eCLo
Post by: RonM on 06/17/2018 06:24 pm
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/18/2018 02:35 pm
Here is the first attempt at confirming mode shape using a probe inside the cavity. Of course, it sounds a lot easier than it actually is. Not only is it hard to know if i'm aligned with the side-wall, small movements with my hand have a huge effect. A probe mount that can slide in and out in a controlled fashion would be very helpful.Jamie:
Drilling the holes seemed to have had a very large effect on Q as the RL dip wasn't nearly as narrow after each hole. It could be because there are little bits of copper in the cavity from drilling that I need to clean out, or it could be the holes themselves. This is why I hate the idea of drilling into the 3D printed cavity or Oyzw's solid copper cavity.
When trying to confirm resonant modes in the frustum that won't load the cavity, you can either spray paint the exterior of the cavity a flat black then IR camera check the exterior surfaces for temp differentials and/or just use a strip of black vinyl electrical tape along the side wall and across both the small and large OD ends of the frustum as I did at the Eagleworks Lab. However I do understand that if your frustum sidewalls and endcaps are too thick, that the thermal diffusion of the surface current induced joule heating of the copper side walls and endcaps will make the IR camera resonant-mode monitoring challenging at best.
BTW, the Eagleworks (EW) Lab's copper frustum sidewalls were 0.024" thick, alloy 110 copper sheet while the endcaps were 0.063" thick, single sided FR4 PC board with 1.0oz per square or ~35.6 micron copper thickness, see attached slides.
PS: These thermal pictures are of the EW copper frustum's 1,937.115 MHz, TM212 resonant-mode.
Best,
Paul M.
Post by: Star One on 06/18/2018 04:24 pm
Marc Millis on Mach Effect Thruster, EmDrive Tests
Quote
by PAUL GILSTER on JUNE 18, 2018
Marc Millis spent the summer of 2017 at the Technische Universität Dresden, where he taught a class called Introduction to Interstellar Flight and Propulsion Physics, a course he would also teach at Purdue University last November. The former head of NASA’s Breakthrough Propulsion Physics project and founding architect of the Tau Zero Foundation, Marc participated in the SpaceDrive project run by Martin Tajmar in Dresden, an effort that has been in the news with its laboratory testing of two controversial propulsion concepts: The Mach Effect Thruster and the EmDrive. Marc’s review comments on modeling for the former were almost as long as Tajmar’s draft paper. Described below, the SpaceDrive project is a wider effort that includes more than these two areas — neither the EmD or MET thruster had reached active test phase during the summer he was there — but the ongoing work on both occupies Millis in the essay that follows.
My bolding.
Quote
You may have noticed a renewed burst of articles about the EmDrive. What prompted this round of coverage was an interim report, part of the progress on Martin Tajmar’s ‘SpaceDrive’ project to carefully test such claims. Tajmar’s conference paper [citation below] is one of the early steps to check for false-positives. I expect more papers to follow, each progressing to other possibilities. It might take a year or so more before irrefutable results are in. Until then, treat the press stories about certain conclusions as highly suspect.
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2018/06/18/marc-millis-on-mach-effect-thruster-emdrive-tests/
Notice that the Mach Effect thruster is looking to be a very different beast than the EM Drive. I imagine this is a attempted corrective article to some of the poor press reporting.
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/18/2018 09:49 pm
When trying to confirm resonant modes in the frustum that won't load the cavity, you can either spray paint the exterior of the cavity a flat black then IR camera check the exterior surfaces for temp differentials and/or just use a strip of black vinyl electrical tape along the side wall and across both the small and large OD ends of the frustum as I did at the Eagleworks Lab. However I do understand that if your frustum sidewalls and endcaps are too thick, that the thermal diffusion of the surface current induced joule heating of the copper side walls and endcaps will make the IR camera resonant-mode monitoring challenging at best.
Thanks Paul, I have an IR camera, so I will definitely be trying that method with Oyzw's solid copper spun cavity. For when the cavity is mounted inside the draft enclosure, behind plexiglass windows that do not transmit IR, I am looking at thermochromatic paint. It is available at a variety of color transition temperatures such as 72F, 77F, 82F, 88F, 99F and so on: https://www.amazon.com/Temperature-Activated-Changing-Thermochromic-changing/dp/B0714F3KZ6?th=1
That way I can see the mode shape through the plexiglass windows for a period until the entire cavity heated up beyond the transition temp.
Otherwise, I may need to install a small window of material that is IR transparent. The Flir One I use operates between 8-15um, so I'm looking at Potassium Bromide (KBr) or Sodium Chloride (NaCl) windows. Zinc Selenide (ZnSe) is too costly.
Post by: AnalogMan on 06/18/2018 10:47 pm
[...]
Otherwise, I may need to install a small window of material that is IR transparent. The Flir One I use operates between 8-15um, so I'm looking at Potassium Bromide (KBr) or Sodium Chloride (NaCl) windows. Zinc Selenide (ZnSe) is too costly.
There are one or two modestly priced IR windows on Ebay that might be suitable - try this link (https://www.ebay.com/sch/12576/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=%28infrared%2C+IR%29+window+%28flir%2C+fluke%2C+hawk%2C+cordex%29&_fsrp=1&_fcid=1&_sop=15).
Post by: demofsky on 06/19/2018 02:14 am
Post by: Tcarey on 06/19/2018 03:47 am
I just ran a quick test on Saran Wrap as an IR window. Using a Harbor Freight IR gun measuring the temperature of a burner on a gas stove I measured 276° direct and 235° through a single layer of Saran Wrap.
Since you are looking for relative differences more than absolute temperature this might be a quick and very low cost solution for your IR window. I have no idea what IR frequency range the Harbor Freight gun uses but doing a quick test with your IR camera will tell you if Saran Wrap will work for your requirements.
Just a thought.
Post by: OttO on 06/19/2018 08:22 am
Otherwise, I may need to install a small window of material that is IR transparent. The Flir One I use operates between 8-15um, so I'm looking at Potassium Bromide (KBr) or Sodium Chloride (NaCl) windows. Zinc Selenide (ZnSe) is too costly.
You can try to use thin sheet of HDPE (0.5mm) (it is the material for passive IR detector lenses)
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/19/2018 02:25 pm
Jamie:
When trying to confirm resonant modes in the frustum that won't load the cavity, you can either spray paint the exterior of the cavity a flat black then IR camera check the exterior surfaces for temp differentials and/or just use a strip of black vinyl electrical tape along the side wall and across both the small and large OD ends of the frustum as I did at the Eagleworks Lab. However I do understand that if your frustum sidewalls and endcaps are too thick, that the thermal diffusion of the surface current induced joule heating of the copper side walls and endcaps will make the IR camera resonant-mode monitoring challenging at best.
Thanks Paul, I have an IR camera, so I will definitely be trying that method with Oyzw's solid copper spun cavity. For when the cavity is mounted inside the draft enclosure, behind plexiglass windows that do not transmit IR, I am looking at thermochromatic paint. It is available at a variety of color transition temperatures such as 72F, 77F, 82F, 88F, 99F and so on: https://www.amazon.com/Temperature-Activated-Changing-Thermochromic-changing/dp/B0714F3KZ6?th=1
That way I can see the mode shape through the plexiglass windows for a period until the entire cavity heated up beyond the transition temp.
Otherwise, I may need to install a small window of material that is IR transparent. The Flir One I use operates between 8-15um, so I'm looking at Potassium Bromide (KBr) or Sodium Chloride (NaCl) windows. Zinc Selenide (ZnSe) is too costly.
Thanks much to you and everyone else on this thread for their possible alternative IR transmission windows for these types of experiments, much appreciated.
BTW, you don't have to IR view the resonant cavity in the wind enclosure or vacuum chamber all the time. You can just view it while in the lab and not on the torque pendulum to make sure that the selected drive frequency and tuning configuration is driving the desired resonant mode over the desired RF input power range. And as long as there are no nearby frequency resonant modes that might be inadvertently driven, you can be fairly confident of what mode you are driving while you have the resonant cavity on the thrust balance by just verifying the drive frequency and Smith chart display pattern previously documented.
Best,
Paul M.
Post by: Mulletron on 06/20/2018 01:47 am
Post by: spupeng7 on 06/20/2018 06:06 am
Monomorphic,I clearly stated that the only things provided have just been repeating the "future work" information in the paper, which is not criticism, just an indication that the person saying those things did not read the paper.
I read the paper and watched Tajmar's presentation, thank you very much. >:(
The criticisms noted are valid even though Tajmar plans on ruling most of them out in future experiments. Some of the items pointed out, such as why they claim to be exciting mode TM212 during their presentation, when that mode is 500Mhz away in simulations, and why they are 15Mhz away from any known mode for those dimensions, AND the fact that they chose not to share their smith chart plot, are serious problems that need to be addressed specifically in the next paper.
We also pointed out that the wiring was sophomoric at best as the twisted pairs were not twisted very well, the main power leads were over a meter long, and the ground loops have not been identified. We also pointed out that the amplifier and most other electrical components rotate with the copper frustum, instead of only the frustum rotating. It is not clear if Tajmar plans on addressing these issues in the future.
Once Tajmar confirms the resonant mode with IR camera, or other means, then that will alleviate most of my concerns. I am glad this is planned and look forward to the results. I know that is one of the last hurdles I am working on before I throw in the towel...
I do not like the notion of you throwing in the towel... please run as full a test series on each frustum you have, and record the results in exquisite detail, before you even consider any such thing. You may have taken this further than any other amateur and it would be a crying shame if it were not taken to its conclusion after all the work you have put in.
Remember, all the theory that says this can't work is deeply intimate with paradox, it simply cannot be relied upon to rule out Machian effects completely. Please run this movie to the end because there are many of us holding our breath for your results and some of us are confident that you will not be disappointed in the long run. Your methodology is an inspiration to us so please do not quit till you must.
Post by: jankeman on 06/20/2018 09:45 pm
So, I think it's a no for now
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 06/21/2018 08:19 am
EM drives sounds more like a warp drive, basically you open up a wormhole to another place. We don't have the technology to bend time and space to reach a place faster. Look at the proposed alcubierre drive, which would connect the space in front of the drive with space behind the drive, thus reach faster-than-light travel. It has similar capabilities, give the vehicle a FTL travel speed, and that requires 'exotic' matter, which has exotic properties. Maybe in 2 decades, we may research newer space technologies that can allow us to create a wormhole to the whole cosmosPlease take the time to read as much of the past 10 threads as possible. The goal of our research is to memorize (try to) and reprocess the contents of emdrive.wiki
So, I think it's a no for now
UPDATE: It appears emdrive.wiki has been dehosted??? Latest archive: https://web.archive.org/web/*/emdrive.wiki
If dehosted permanently this would be a huge loss. I know many of us contributed to it.
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 06/21/2018 04:40 pm
EM drives sounds more like a warp drive, basically you open up a wormhole to another place. We don't have the technology to bend time and space to reach a place faster. Look at the proposed alcubierre drive, which would connect the space in front of the drive with space behind the drive, thus reach faster-than-light travel. It has similar capabilities, give the vehicle a FTL travel speed, and that requires 'exotic' matter, which has exotic properties. Maybe in 2 decades, we may research newer space technologies that can allow us to create a wormhole to the whole cosmosSorry, but it is none of those things. If you'd like to contribute, you have a lot of catching up to do - I did when I first heard of this concept and it took me the better part of 2 years (part time) to be able to understand the problems and concepts the builders and theorists were talking about.
So, I think it's a no for now
And given all that, I'm pretty sure the answer is YES, but I'm not sure of the magnitude :)
Post by: X_RaY on 06/25/2018 06:51 pm
Testing the miniVNA tiny+ with a 1/4 wave stub antenna.Phil (TT),
would you like to report on your current activities regarding the KISS engine? The community is still curious!
Jamie (Monomorphic) (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1831593#msg1831593) has delivered and generally confirmed the applicability of mode confirmation as suggested by you (although handling the probe does not seem to be easy).
However, a good discussion could result from the publication of your current experiments.
Are you ready to step out of the shadows with real experimental data? :)
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/25/2018 08:52 pm
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/26/2018 10:54 am
Yes, I can't wait for TheTraveller's KISS thruster going round and round! Hope he won't go dark again at the same time the EmDrive has to come out of the shadows. A few breadcrumbs would be welcome, as 2018 had to be a very interesting year.
Phil is probably realizing it is not as easy as he thought to form the copper using a plastic flower pot. I remember I had to use a thick metal pipe to get the bends needed and it was still not very easy. I was going to recommend that he fill the flower pot with cement to make it more rigid.
Post by: RERT on 06/26/2018 03:16 pm
If The Traveller can't make this work, nobody can: he does seem to have a hotline to Shawyer, and talks a decent game on RF engineering, though I suppose metalwork skills (as above) etc are not a given.
I will try and make myself quit worrying if there is nothing forthcoming from TT this year, or on another announced schedule.
I would regard a positive result from Monomorphic as equally definitive in the opposite direction.
So no pressure....
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 06/27/2018 02:59 pm
...Don't count out Monomorphic and SeeShells!!
If The Traveller can't make this work, nobody can: ...
So no pressure....
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 06/27/2018 08:45 pm
P.S. Read Asimov and Herbert if you even remotely like this topic. Sometimes the best inspiration is in the imaginative and the fictional, for it is there that one must confront ones own assumptions.
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/27/2018 11:03 pm
I'm up to browser bookmark 414 in this blog. I really need a criteria to enable me to get on with my life!
If The Traveller can't make this work, nobody can: he does seem to have a hotline to Shawyer, and talks a decent game on RF engineering, though I suppose metalwork skills (as above) etc are not a given.
I will try and make myself quit worrying if there is nothing forthcoming from TT this year, or on another announced schedule.
I would regard a positive result from Monomorphic as equally definitive in the opposite direction.
So no pressure....
Hi Rert,
Still waiting for the Silver Epoxy. Seems the supplier had no stock when I ordered. Don't want to clean the edge and outer surface before I have the epoxy and then have it start to oxidize.
As for forming over the flower pot, some of the hoop ring are installed internally, help in position with hot glue, to make the form much stiffer. Then more hoop rings are used externally to form and hold the copper frustum in place. Have done this before, so know it can be done fairly easily. The hoop rings are the trick.
Between that I have installed new side and back fencing plus rebuilding bedroom furniture for a friends son. So no rest.
Post by: zen-in on 06/30/2018 03:33 pm
I'm up to browser bookmark 414 in this blog. I really need a criteria to enable me to get on with my life!
If The Traveller can't make this work, nobody can: he does seem to have a hotline to Shawyer, and talks a decent game on RF engineering, though I suppose metalwork skills (as above) etc are not a given.
I will try and make myself quit worrying if there is nothing forthcoming from TT this year, or on another announced schedule.
I would regard a positive result from Monomorphic as equally definitive in the opposite direction.
So no pressure....
Hi Rert,
Still waiting for the Silver Epoxy. Seems the supplier had no stock when I ordered. Don't want to clean the edge and outer surface before I have the epoxy and then have it start to oxidize.
As for forming over the flower pot, some of the hoop ring are installed internally, help in position with hot glue, to make the form much stiffer. Then more hoop rings are used externally to form and hold the copper frustum in place. Have done this before, so know it can be done fairly easily. The hoop rings are the trick.
Between that I have installed new side and back fencing plus rebuilding bedroom furniture for a friends son. So no rest.
You don't have to worry about Copper oxidation. Copper oxidizes very slowly at room temperature, in dry air. Conductive epoxy contains Silver and will produce a contact potential with Copper. Another method you might want to look into is to use Copper rivets.
Post by: X_RaY on 06/30/2018 09:12 pm
The joint of different metals and its contact potential is only of interest for different temperatures between the contact points because of the Seebeck effect (http://Thermoelectric_effect).I'm up to browser bookmark 414 in this blog. I really need a criteria to enable me to get on with my life!
If The Traveller can't make this work, nobody can: he does seem to have a hotline to Shawyer, and talks a decent game on RF engineering, though I suppose metalwork skills (as above) etc are not a given.
I will try and make myself quit worrying if there is nothing forthcoming from TT this year, or on another announced schedule.
I would regard a positive result from Monomorphic as equally definitive in the opposite direction.
So no pressure....
Hi Rert,
Still waiting for the Silver Epoxy. Seems the supplier had no stock when I ordered. Don't want to clean the edge and outer surface before I have the epoxy and then have it start to oxidize.
As for forming over the flower pot, some of the hoop ring are installed internally, help in position with hot glue, to make the form much stiffer. Then more hoop rings are used externally to form and hold the copper frustum in place. Have done this before, so know it can be done fairly easily. The hoop rings are the trick.
Between that I have installed new side and back fencing plus rebuilding bedroom furniture for a friends son. So no rest.
You don't have to worry about Copper oxidation. Copper oxidizes very slowly at room temperature, in dry air. Conductive epoxy contains Silver and will produce a contact potential with Copper. Another method you might want to look into is to use Copper rivets.
To use copper rivets would lead to high conductive but located contact points and do not fit to TT's ( &"Roger's") definition of a good cavity since he states that even small scratches (some µm depth) will lower the Q of the cavity to much.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1719903#msg1719903
However it is possible to weld the copper wall. I think an expert for such a welding process would be necessary to make the seam, but it is feasible.
A weld seam could be abraded and polished adequately.
Picture source:
https://www.kupferinstitut.de/fileadmin/user_upload/kupferinstitut.de/de/Documents/Shop/Verlag/Downloads/Verarbeitung/i012.pdf
Sorry the text is written in german language but i am sure you will find something similar in english when you search for.
Post by: scienceguy on 07/01/2018 10:28 pm
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 07/01/2018 10:43 pm
Hey so I've been leisurely skimming these threads for quite some time and I want to know if I understand this EM drive correctly. The microwaves bounce of the walls and then bounce off a quantum particle and back to the wall, imparting momentum. Please see attached diagram. Is this correct?
Nobody has a generally accepted theory of how an EmDrive actually would work at the physical level. However, one thing I think I can say that most if not all will agree on, is that the wave interaction would look nothing like that - it is WAY WAY more complex. The systems are sized to produce standing waves at resonant frequencies within the cavity. The TE013 mode which is the predominant system people are trying essentially produces 3 stacked toroidal standing waves. But how those waves move within the cavity, and how they interact with the cavity walls and/or the outside world is the subject of several years debate on this forum!
Post by: aero on 07/02/2018 12:52 am
Hey so I've been leisurely skimming these threads for quite some time and I want to know if I understand this EM drive correctly. The microwaves bounce of the walls and then bounce off a quantum particle and back to the wall, imparting momentum. Please see attached diagram. Is this correct?
Nobody has a generally accepted theory of how an EmDrive actually would work at the physical level. However, one thing I think I can say that most if not all will agree on, is that the wave interaction would look nothing like that - it is WAY WAY more complex. The systems are sized to produce standing waves at resonant frequencies within the cavity. The TE013 mode which is the predominant system people are trying essentially produces 3 stacked toroidal standing waves. But how those waves move within the cavity, and how they interact with the cavity walls and/or the outside world is the subject of several years debate on this forum!
Doesn't the standing wave consist of two waves propagating in opposite directions? The standing wave occurs at the stationary point of constructive interference of the two waves. If this is the case then the illustration shows one of the two waves. The other wave is in the opposite direction but are they necessarily equal? No, there are always losses on the bounce defined in a roundabout way by the quality factor. One of the waves has always bounced more than the other except when the antenna is exactly centered on the node of the standing wave. But of course, it can't be centered on all three nodes. That brings us right back to the differential internal radiation pressure within the frustum. Quantum particles were introduced because the differential radiation pressure argument was dismissed. Quantum particles are judged to have more mass and lower velocity than light waves, hence more thrust for the same energy. But it is not at all clear that the radiation pressure of the light wave is the mechanism coupling the microwave to the quantum particles. If that is so, then the fact that the quantum particles do not reflect from the copper walls gives the resulting momentum reaction to the frustum, thrust in other words. If radiation pressure is not the coupling mechanism then there is yet another mystery, what is the coupling mechanism? Well, this whole EM Drive is a mystery so what's one more mystery added to the soup?
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 07/02/2018 12:03 pm
Hey so I've been leisurely skimming these threads for quite some time and I want to know if I understand this EM drive correctly. The microwaves bounce of the walls and then bounce off a quantum particle and back to the wall, imparting momentum. Please see attached diagram. Is this correct?
Hi,
What do you call a "quantum particle"? (I would say all particles are quantum particles)
Apart from that:
1) the EmDrive may not work at all,
2) If it does work, there is no consensus about how/why it should work,
3) If such an explanation is a bit like you draw it here, it is in conflict with conservation of momentum (and would therefore need quite some extra explanation).
Peter
Post by: scienceguy on 07/02/2018 03:54 pm
Post by: zen-in on 07/02/2018 04:28 pm
The joint of different metals and its contact potential is only of interest for different temperatures between the contact points because of the Seebeck effect (http://Thermoelectric_effect).I'm up to browser bookmark 414 in this blog. I really need a criteria to enable me to get on with my life!
If The Traveller can't make this work, nobody can: he does seem to have a hotline to Shawyer, and talks a decent game on RF engineering, though I suppose metalwork skills (as above) etc are not a given.
I will try and make myself quit worrying if there is nothing forthcoming from TT this year, or on another announced schedule.
I would regard a positive result from Monomorphic as equally definitive in the opposite direction.
So no pressure....
Hi Rert,
Still waiting for the Silver Epoxy. Seems the supplier had no stock when I ordered. Don't want to clean the edge and outer surface before I have the epoxy and then have it start to oxidize.
As for forming over the flower pot, some of the hoop ring are installed internally, help in position with hot glue, to make the form much stiffer. Then more hoop rings are used externally to form and hold the copper frustum in place. Have done this before, so know it can be done fairly easily. The hoop rings are the trick.
Between that I have installed new side and back fencing plus rebuilding bedroom furniture for a friends son. So no rest.
You don't have to worry about Copper oxidation. Copper oxidizes very slowly at room temperature, in dry air. Conductive epoxy contains Silver and will produce a contact potential with Copper. Another method you might want to look into is to use Copper rivets.
To use copper rivets would lead to high conductive but located contact points and do not fit to TT's ( &"Roger's") definition of a good cavity since he states that even small scratches (some µm depth) will lower the Q of the cavity to much.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1719903#msg1719903
However it is possible to weld the copper wall. I think an expert for such a welding process would be necessary to make the seam, but it is feasible.
A weld seam could be abraded and polished adequately.
Picture source:
https://www.kupferinstitut.de/fileadmin/user_upload/kupferinstitut.de/de/Documents/Shop/Verlag/Downloads/Verarbeitung/i012.pdf
Sorry the text is written in german language but i am sure you will find something similar in english when you search for.
Another method would be to use a bead roller on each edge and then crimp the beads together. If you started with a flat sheet of Copper cut to size and with 3/4" - 1" excess on each end, the firs step would be to roll it into a cone, by setting a roller so it has more pressure on one side than the other. Then roll beads at each end that will lock together and roll them flat. These steps are done every day by HVAC sheet metal specialists.
Post by: Jim Davis on 07/02/2018 04:29 pm
By "quantum particle" I meant a particle that is created briefly and then annihilated in the quantum vacuum. You're right, I should have been more specific.
Isn't "virtual particle" the accepted nomenclature in that case? Or am I misremembering?
Post by: OnlyMe on 07/02/2018 04:32 pm
Hey so I've been leisurely skimming these threads for quite some time and I want to know if I understand this EM drive correctly. The microwaves bounce of the walls and then bounce off a quantum particle and back to the wall, imparting momentum. Please see attached diagram. Is this correct?
Nobody has a generally accepted theory of how an EmDrive actually would work at the physical level. However, one thing I think I can say that most if not all will agree on, is that the wave interaction would look nothing like that - it is WAY WAY more complex. The systems are sized to produce standing waves at resonant frequencies within the cavity. The TE013 mode which is the predominant system people are trying essentially produces 3 stacked toroidal standing waves. But how those waves move within the cavity, and how they interact with the cavity walls and/or the outside world is the subject of several years debate on this forum!
Doesn't the standing wave consist of two waves propagating in opposite directions? The standing wave occurs at the stationary point of constructive interference of the two waves. If this is the case then the illustration shows one of the two waves. The other wave is in the opposite direction but are they necessarily equal? No, there are always losses on the bounce defined in a roundabout way by the quality factor. One of the waves has always bounced more than the other except when the antenna is exactly centered on the node of the standing wave. But of course, it can't be centered on all three nodes. That brings us right back to the differential internal radiation pressure within the frustum. Quantum particles were introduced because the differential radiation pressure argument was dismissed. Quantum particles are judged to have more mass and lower velocity than light waves, hence more thrust for the same energy. But it is not at all clear that the radiation pressure of the light wave is the mechanism coupling the microwave to the quantum particles. If that is so, then the fact that the quantum particles do not reflect from the copper walls gives the resulting momentum reaction to the frustum, thrust in other words. If radiation pressure is not the coupling mechanism then there is yet another mystery, what is the coupling mechanism? Well, this whole EM Drive is a mystery so what's one more mystery added to the soup?
The radiation pressure argument/model, whether addressed as bouncing photons or electromagnetic waves, has been addressed repeatedly in the past. In each case the net force should wind up zero... no net asymmetric force or acceleration. Even while there are continuing attempts to revive the basic idea, probably because it would seem “a simple” way to reconcile the conservation of momentum/energy issue... Still it seems a beaten into the ground approach...
That said, should anyone conclusively demonstrate any anomalous force/acceleration associated with the operation of an EmDrive, the anomalous force/acceleration must.., would seem to be derived from an interaction between the frustum itself and the asymmetry of the “standing waves” introduced/generated within the frustum, which would mean that any acceleration would be relative to the frame of reference of the asymmetric electromagnetic magnetic field(s) within the frustum. If this turns out to be the case it would require a reevaluation of just how we interpret some conservation laws. Conservation of momentum becoming less important than conservation of energy... and it would seem unlikely that one could expect an unlimited constant force/acceleration from a constant and unvarying energy input.
Just how any interaction between the frustum and the contained asymmetric electromagnetic field(s) within might generate an anomalous force/acceleration remains an unknown. However, it seems far easier to imagine that some interaction between the asymmetric distribution of the toroidal electromagnetic fields within the frustum and the induced electric currents and corresponding electromagnetic fields in the frustum walls, might generate some small asymmetric anomalous force, even acceleration of the frustum... If an interaction along this line were found to be the source of thrust/acceleration, is would be directly proportional to the intensity of the asymmetric electromagnetic filed(s) and corresponding/resulting electric and magnetic properties induced in the frustum walls... and ultimately the total power/magnitude of the electromagnetic energy introduced into the frustum.
One last point, at this time it does not seem that anyone has published accurate design parameters together with conclusive evidence of successful generation of useable thrust, which leaves most of the DIY and other known experimenters, still searching for the best or proper design.., or holding critical information to theirselves.
P.S. the above was only intended to present the possibility of a more or less classical explanation for a successful EmDrive generating thrust. There are and have been several other models presented in the past, involving interactions with the quantum vacuum, manipulation of inertia and or gravitation and probably others. Though, personally I am skeptical about the manipulation inertia/gravity, I have seen past research arguing that there is an electromagnetic contribution to frame-dragging, which could be extended to linear frame dragging and used as an argument supporting the idea that an EmDrive or similar device might affect the local curvature of “spacetime” and result in some small acceleration, as seen from an outside observer.... A long stretch... The quantum vacuum involvement even a further stretch since the vacuum itself remains highly theoretical at present and any supporting experimental evidence requires far high energies than involved in any published EmDrive experiments.
Post by: X_RaY on 07/02/2018 07:12 pm
Everyone who has been here for a long time probably knows videos like this... looks fast and relatively easy** ;)The joint of different metals and its contact potential is only of interest for different temperatures between the contact points because of the Seebeck effect (http://Thermoelectric_effect).I'm up to browser bookmark 414 in this blog. I really need a criteria to enable me to get on with my life!
If The Traveller can't make this work, nobody can: he does seem to have a hotline to Shawyer, and talks a decent game on RF engineering, though I suppose metalwork skills (as above) etc are not a given.
I will try and make myself quit worrying if there is nothing forthcoming from TT this year, or on another announced schedule.
I would regard a positive result from Monomorphic as equally definitive in the opposite direction.
So no pressure....
Hi Rert,
Still waiting for the Silver Epoxy. Seems the supplier had no stock when I ordered. Don't want to clean the edge and outer surface before I have the epoxy and then have it start to oxidize.
As for forming over the flower pot, some of the hoop ring are installed internally, help in position with hot glue, to make the form much stiffer. Then more hoop rings are used externally to form and hold the copper frustum in place. Have done this before, so know it can be done fairly easily. The hoop rings are the trick.
Between that I have installed new side and back fencing plus rebuilding bedroom furniture for a friends son. So no rest.
You don't have to worry about Copper oxidation. Copper oxidizes very slowly at room temperature, in dry air. Conductive epoxy contains Silver and will produce a contact potential with Copper. Another method you might want to look into is to use Copper rivets.
To use copper rivets would lead to high conductive but located contact points and do not fit to TT's ( &"Roger's") definition of a good cavity since he states that even small scratches (some µm depth) will lower the Q of the cavity to much.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1719903#msg1719903
However it is possible to weld the copper wall. I think an expert for such a welding process would be necessary to make the seam, but it is feasible.
A weld seam could be abraded and polished adequately.
Picture source:
https://www.kupferinstitut.de/fileadmin/user_upload/kupferinstitut.de/de/Documents/Shop/Verlag/Downloads/Verarbeitung/i012.pdf
Sorry the text is written in german language but i am sure you will find something similar in english when you search for.
Another method would be to use a bead roller on each edge and then crimp the beads together. If you started with a flat sheet of Copper cut to size and with 3/4" - 1" excess on each end, the firs step would be to roll it into a cone, by setting a roller so it has more pressure on one side than the other. Then roll beads at each end that will lock together and roll them flat. These steps are done every day by HVAC sheet metal specialists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snOeWb1Io0o
**with knowledge, experience and the right equipment
Post by: scienceguy on 07/05/2018 03:56 pm
Hi,
What do you call a "quantum particle"? (I would say all particles are quantum particles)
Apart from that:
1) the EmDrive may not work at all,
2) If it does work, there is no consensus about how/why it should work,
3) If such an explanation is a bit like you draw it here, it is in conflict with conservation of momentum (and would therefore need quite some extra explanation).
Peter
Just out of curiosity, how would that explanation conflict with conservation of momentum? After the virtual particle transfers momentum to the microwave, it disappears. Or does momentum need to be conserved in the vacuum as well?
Post by: OnlyMe on 07/05/2018 05:13 pm
Hi,
What do you call a "quantum particle"? (I would say all particles are quantum particles)
Apart from that:
1) the EmDrive may not work at all,
2) If it does work, there is no consensus about how/why it should work,
3) If such an explanation is a bit like you draw it here, it is in conflict with conservation of momentum (and would therefore need quite some extra explanation).
Peter
Just out of curiosity, how would that explanation conflict with conservation of momentum? After the virtual particle transfers momentum to the microwave, it disappears. Or does momentum need to be conserved in the vacuum as well?
In your earlier hypothetical ...
Hey so I've been leisurely skimming these threads for quite some time and I want to know if I understand this EM drive correctly. The microwaves bounce of the walls and then bounce off a quantum particle and back to the wall, imparting momentum. ...?
... and that, in that post you agree “quantum particle” should have been “virtual particle”, ... as far as I can remember no one has presented a convincing argument where the net force or momentum transferred to the frustum would be any different than bouncing photons or waves around the inside of the frustum. There should still be a net null asymmetric force (IOW no net force or acceleration). Any gain a photon might acquire interacting with a virtual particle should still wind up transferring momentum to the walls of the frustum in an overall symmetrical manner. The photons, waves still bounce off all interior surfaces, in the same way they would had they not interacted with virtual particles.
In any case, for the most part the conservation of momentum issue revolves around the issue that if an EmDrive does accelerate, it does so without exchanging any momentum with an external mass or even known field... the acceleration would seam to occur from a completely internally contained process.
Dr. White’s quantum vacuum model attempts to get around this by essentially arguing that the EmDrive is interacting with the quantum vacuum as a whole (inside and outside the frustum so to speak). And there have been a few attempts past and present that attempt to argue that the EmDrive can locally change the shape of spacetime (use gravity) or alter the intial charteristics of the drive in a manner that results in an acceleration as viewed by an outside observer.
But until someone provides a truly functional drive to work with, theory of operation remains largely dependent on imagination.
Post by: meberbs on 07/05/2018 05:24 pm
Answered your own question. If momentum disappears, then it is not conserved.Hi,
What do you call a "quantum particle"? (I would say all particles are quantum particles)
Apart from that:
1) the EmDrive may not work at all,
2) If it does work, there is no consensus about how/why it should work,
3) If such an explanation is a bit like you draw it here, it is in conflict with conservation of momentum (and would therefore need quite some extra explanation).
Peter
Just out of curiosity, how would that explanation conflict with conservation of momentum? After the virtual particle transfers momentum to the microwave, it disappears. Or does momentum need to be conserved in the vacuum as well?
Noether's theorem on conservation laws applies everywhere.
Post by: scienceguy on 07/05/2018 05:27 pm
Post by: meberbs on 07/05/2018 05:42 pm
what about if the virtual particle moves a little while transferring momentum to the microwave? Maybe while it transfers momentum to the left to the microwave, it moves to the right for a tiny distance, conserving momentum, THEN it disappears.No, to conserve momentum, it has to transfer the momentum to something else before it disappears. When it does so, it by definition cancels out the momentum that it transferred to the photon. This is no different than the photons just bouncing around transferring momentum on their own, and does not lead to net motion.
Post by: OnlyMe on 07/06/2018 03:17 pm
what about if the virtual particle moves a little while transferring momentum to the microwave? Maybe while it transfers momentum to the left to the microwave, it moves to the right for a tiny distance, conserving momentum, THEN it disappears.No, to conserve momentum, it has to transfer the momentum to something else before it disappears. When it does so, it by definition cancels out the momentum that it transferred to the photon. This is no different than the photons just bouncing around transferring momentum on their own, and does not lead to net motion.
There is a great deal of theoretical stuff and “if’s” involved in this whole line of discussion but,...
If one first accepts that virtual particles can be created within an EmDrive, any interaction of those virtual particles with photons, electromagnetic waves or even real particles within the frustum, May transfer some momentum in the process. From there it would seem that momentum could still be conserved, in that the virtual particle would be losing momentum in that transfer... the disappearing virtual particle would have a lower “energy, momentum or perhaps even mass” than it did when first created... and we would be essentially extracting energy/momentum from the vacuum, without violating conservation laws.
I don’t believe this is what is happening and the whole quantum vacuum interaction seems a difficult stretch, for too many reasons to get into in a discussion here. That said.., again, if one accepts the existence of a quantum vacuum with characteristics that allow interaction with conventional classical physical systems, we cannot reject out of hand the possibility that a transfer of momentum between components of the quantum vacuum and physical systems is possible. It could even be argued that Unruh radiation may be an example of an exchange of momentum/energy between the quantum vacuum and an accelerating physical object... once more a far more complex discussion than warranted here.
My point is that most of our understanding of and rules dealing with conservation of energy and momentum are tied to conventional classical physical systems, while much of the discussion begins to explore conditions that may not be fully defined as a classical physical system. We don’t really know how conservation laws fit with any interaction between a physical system and the “quantum vacuum”, when we can’t even reach a consensus as to the existence and characteristics of the quantum vacuum.
And to beat a dead horse, I don’t personally believe an interaction with virtual particles is at play here, or that radiation pressure of any sort leads to any anomalous force/acceleration... I do remain hopefully optimistic that these experiments will reveal even a small useable thrust/acceleration.
Post by: aero on 07/06/2018 05:01 pm
If so,
"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/arthur_conan_doyle_134512"
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 07/07/2018 12:47 pm
The quantum vacuum involvement even a further stretch since the vacuum itself remains highly theoretical at present and any supporting experimental evidence requires far high energies than involved in any published EmDrive experiments.Hey so I've been leisurely skimming these threads for quite some time and I want to know if I understand this EM drive correctly. The microwaves bounce of the walls and then bounce off a quantum particle and back to the wall, imparting momentum. Please see attached diagram. Is this correct?
Nobody has a generally accepted theory of how an EmDrive actually would work at the physical level. However, one thing I think I can say that most if not all will agree on, is that the wave interaction would look nothing like that - it is WAY WAY more complex. The systems are sized to produce standing waves at resonant frequencies within the cavity. The TE013 mode which is the predominant system people are trying essentially produces 3 stacked toroidal standing waves. But how those waves move within the cavity, and how they interact with the cavity walls and/or the outside world is the subject of several years debate on this forum!
Doesn't the standing wave consist of two waves propagating in opposite directions? The standing wave occurs at the stationary point of constructive interference of the two waves. If this is the case then the illustration shows one of the two waves. The other wave is in the opposite direction but are they necessarily equal? No, there are always losses on the bounce defined in a roundabout way by the quality factor. One of the waves has always bounced more than the other except when the antenna is exactly centered on the node of the standing wave. But of course, it can't be centered on all three nodes. That brings us right back to the differential internal radiation pressure within the frustum. Quantum particles were introduced because the differential radiation pressure argument was dismissed. Quantum particles are judged to have more mass and lower velocity than light waves, hence more thrust for the same energy. But it is not at all clear that the radiation pressure of the light wave is the mechanism coupling the microwave to the quantum particles. If that is so, then the fact that the quantum particles do not reflect from the copper walls gives the resulting momentum reaction to the frustum, thrust in other words. If radiation pressure is not the coupling mechanism then there is yet another mystery, what is the coupling mechanism? Well, this whole EM Drive is a mystery so what's one more mystery added to the soup?
The radiation pressure argument/model, whether addressed as bouncing photons or electromagnetic waves, has been addressed repeatedly in the past. In each case the net force should wind up zero... no net asymmetric force or acceleration. Even while there are continuing attempts to revive the basic idea, probably because it would seem “a simple” way to reconcile the conservation of momentum/energy issue... Still it seems a beaten into the ground approach...
That said, should anyone conclusively demonstrate any anomalous force/acceleration associated with the operation of an EmDrive, the anomalous force/acceleration must.., would seem to be derived from an interaction between the frustum itself and the asymmetry of the “standing waves” introduced/generated within the frustum, which would mean that any acceleration would be relative to the frame of reference of the asymmetric electromagnetic magnetic field(s) within the frustum. If this turns out to be the case it would require a reevaluation of just how we interpret some conservation laws. Conservation of momentum becoming less important than conservation of energy... and it would seem unlikely that one could expect an unlimited constant force/acceleration from a constant and unvarying energy input.
Just how any interaction between the frustum and the contained asymmetric electromagnetic field(s) within might generate an anomalous force/acceleration remains an unknown. However, it seems far easier to imagine that some interaction between the asymmetric distribution of the toroidal electromagnetic fields within the frustum and the induced electric currents and corresponding electromagnetic fields in the frustum walls, might generate some small asymmetric anomalous force, even acceleration of the frustum... If an interaction along this line were found to be the source of thrust/acceleration, is would be directly proportional to the intensity of the asymmetric electromagnetic filed(s) and corresponding/resulting electric and magnetic properties induced in the frustum walls... and ultimately the total power/magnitude of the electromagnetic energy introduced into the frustum.
... The quantum vacuum involvement even a further stretch since the vacuum itself remains highly theoretical at present and any supporting experimental evidence requires far high energies than involved in any published EmDrive experiments.
Your points about side wall interaction and the layering of the field are correct and your post is very useful but the energy density argument is WRONG. I have repeatedly proven in prior posts that the peak field density along the central modal points is above vacuum permittivity!!!! I will share my old posts again to clarify this point.
My old post #1 regarding repeated CoM bias:
would you agree that stimulated emissions from a laser or spaser exceed the activation energy? Would you agree that the hamiltonian for a system is unrelated to the specific charge imbalance/stress tensors or rather the magnetic dipoles which occur in a metal can cause the electrons to break the non-crossing condition if the refractive index is different (among other reasons such as the entire Octupole/Quadrupole discussion)? Do you recognize that anisotropic effects throughout a cold plasma and or resonant phonons can transmit force without equivalent input energy? Then you will see that OU is nonsense in the context of intra-cavity reactions. CoE and CoM is a dead end I have said it before and I will say it again.
----------
07/02/2017
Hyperplanck's posts about phonons fit perfectly into this.
@Monomorphic, yes I was referring to some spherical/parabolic end simulations. Since proposing the hypothesis here - credit to Flux_Capacitor for being the first to notice that the field strength was high enough for dielectric breakdown and for proposing the white noise injection via klystron in thread 8, as we now recently discovered that the system will store a wide bandwidth.
2.4x10^7kV/m was quoted in my previous posts, so I assumed this was a modal peak value from one of the simulations. I did some extensive digging through the past two threads and found some examples of both realistic and futuristic peak values which I included below. As expected, parabolic mirrors or spherical ends work best at creating a focal point for maximum density, though the modal shape is usually something symmetric along the wrong axis* or a TM sidewall pressure (versus endcap pressure) which decreases thrust because the resonant wave's information caught in the plasma/ions/wavelets/phonons/electron soup (take your pick) has a more similar time-to-wall. There is a lesser pressure gradient in a desirable direction if your field is symmetric across the perpendicular of your acceleration vector or if it is symmetric and each peak is equally strong. Most simulated peak fields are around 700kV/m, which is not close enough to the 3000kV/m (or ~3300kV/m) to appear to matter. There is natural ambient ionization in the air which is increased once you begin injecting large amounts of energy into the cavity*** even if the ionization cycle does not begin for hot plasma, like you would see in a tokomak**. The behaviour of the plasma depends on the voltage, the geometry, the wave shape, the waveguide and most crucially the eigenmodes.
Max E-Fields Old Simulations
Spherical endplate TE012 - 36MV/m - https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1610054#msg1610054
TT - 7.5MV/m - https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1616337#msg1616337
Cannae - 25.6MV/m - https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1612540#msg1612540
Sphere - 6.5MV/m - https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1611016#msg1611016
Tapered prism (Similar to Yang) - 3.017MV/m https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1610152#msg1610152
Spherical endplate TE013 - ~27MV/m - https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1608904#msg1608904
Helical Antenna clover leaf - very high - https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1608617#msg1608617
I think the old posts by Dr. Rodal regarding fluid mechanics are also interesting and worth considering though they rely on the exchange of kinetic energy of massive particles, not electron pressure between current layers(=standing waves) and therefore do not solve CoM issues as they are not directional unlike field line relaxations.
* For example: TE011 where both endcaps more or less share the same central field (or only a few 'layers of the onion' when compared to TE013 or TE019). The layers cause the lag in information through magnetic reconnection, while the location of the modal peak determines the source of the information.
**All this rephrases my previous posts a bit and makes a lot more sense after you read Yamada's 2010 guide to magnetic reconnection. The theory is that the reconnection rate scales with how collisionless the plasma is as a function of the mean free path of the electron and furthermore strong guide fields slow down the reconnection rate. If you have a fairly weak system like the EM Drive then you either need: a long distance to build charge needed for realignment (like the Earth's cold magnetotail) or boundary conditions which keep the pressure locked in and the waves resonate along more or less closed paths. I cannot hope to explain the entire concept better than Yamada did so read his guide and mentally add in the recent discoveries about fast reconnection, relativistic electrons, electron behaviour in metallic lattices, plasmonics, and phonons. If we even achieve 1% ionization equilibrium (assuming only the atmosphere matters) then you will be getting thrust. If you achieve 99% ionization then you will need strong guide fields to prevent turbulence which in turn reduces reconnections. The golden zone is somewhere in the middle where the cold plasma does not pose a danger when unstable. All of this is some late night thoughts so apologies for typos...
***Among others, it is clear since the 1970s that in their excited state many of the elements in air will disassociate. If you keep injecting energy, more of the electrons will be excited on average. https://www.nist.gov/publications/ionization-carbon-nitrogen-and-oxygen-electron-impact-0
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/07/2018 03:33 pm
Max E-Fields Old Simulations
Spherical endplate TE012 - 36MV/m - https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1610054#msg1610054
TT - 7.5MV/m - https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1616337#msg1616337
Cannae - 25.6MV/m - https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1612540#msg1612540
Sphere - 6.5MV/m - https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1611016#msg1611016
Tapered prism (Similar to Yang) - 3.017MV/m https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1610152#msg1610152
Spherical endplate TE013 - ~27MV/m - https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1608904#msg1608904
Helical Antenna clover leaf - very high - https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1608617#msg1608617
As you pointed out, these are older simulations, and as such they are not entirely accurate. TT's and a couple of others for example were simulated at 1,000W, instead of the usual 30W I run the simulations at now (since that is the power of my amplifier). The helical antenna very high reading I think was a bug with the software as when I closed it down and opened it the next day, that was not a repeatable result. Others were run with what amounts to a perfect conductor instead of copper, which makes a huge difference.
It would probably be best to rerun all of those simulations under the same conditions. As an example, the spherical end-plate cavity when rerun under normal conditions (copper walls and 30W), tops out around 150kV/m. Between 100kV/m and 200kV/m seems to be about the typical I would be able to get using the current amplifier and coupler setup.
Post by: OnlyMe on 07/07/2018 06:14 pm
....
The quantum vacuum involvement even a further stretch since the vacuum itself remains highly theoretical at present and any supporting experimental evidence requires far high energies than involved in any published EmDrive experiments.
Your points about side wall interaction and the layering of the field are correct and your post is very useful but the energy density argument is WRONG. I have repeatedly proven in prior posts that the peak field density along the central modal points is above vacuum permittivity!!!! I will share my old posts again to clarify this point.
...
Your argument seems to me one of apples and oranges.
First, though I believe the existence of the quantum vacuum (QV) is generally accepted, the exact composition of the QV and its potential interaction with “ordinary” matter remains theoretical and hotly debatable.
Second, any attempt to compare any localized field intensity with the energy required to create a massive particle., even a short lived massive virtual particle, is more speculation than even a theoretical predictions of QFT/QED.
Consider that the energy content of one proton would be 938.257 MeV and that so far the highest powered experiments have employed magnetrons... assume a 1000 watt magnetron and 100% of that energy reaching the field within the frustum... 1kWh= 2.246943e+25eV which leaves a significant gap and assumes the magnetron was transmitting for a full hour, not seconds or even minutes. Just not enough energy is added to the system to create massive particles for even short periods of time.
Is it possible that a resonant microwave field within a frustum alters how the physical structure of the EmDrive might interact with the QV? Sure but that is something yet to be proven and depends on just how we describe the fundament characteristics of the QV...
Beyond that I was referring to what little we know from experimental data, opposed to the theoretical implications of simulations. Again, what is really needed is to pin down a functional design, that generates reproducible results. Even while simulations have and will continue to be useful tools, the proof will be in the data generated from experiment.
Post by: scienceguy on 07/08/2018 02:06 am
Post by: SeeShells on 07/08/2018 06:00 am
what does it take to reflect a microwave? A metal? Or will another microwave reflect a microwave?No it will not, although it's not that simple.
Great reading.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism
Even more thoughts to ponder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism#Chaotic_and_emergent_phenomena
Back to stealth mode and being very busy.
My Very Best,
Shell
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/08/2018 07:45 am
what does it take to reflect a microwave? A metal? Or will another microwave reflect a microwave?
Microwave photons do not reflect nor bounce.
Instead the photon impacts an orbital electron, is absorbed and almost immediatley re emitted. If the impact and emit events are elastic, ie there is no momentum nor energy transfer between photon and atom, the emitted photon freq is the same as the impacted photon freq. If the event is nonelastic, ie momentum and energy are exchanged between photon and atom, then the freq of the emitted photon will not match that of the impacted photon.
EmDrive acceleration is the result of assymetric nonelastic impact and emit events where the gained accelerated mass' momentum and KE is sourced from lost photon momentum and energy, which causes the photon emitted freq to decrease. As the photons lose monentum to the gained accelerated mass momentum, CofM is conserved. Likewise gained acceelerated mass KE is sourced from loss photon energy and CofE is conserved.
Question to be experimentally proved is can a tapered resonant cavity generate an assymetric force? If it can be shown to happen, then it follows why and how CofM and CofE are conserved without expelling mass. Ie the wavelength lengthened photons, with lower momentum, are what carries away the required Newton 3 momentum gain of the accelerated mass.
Would be interesting for someone to ray trace an averaged photon pathway, from say big end plate to small end plate and back to big end plate, in a TE013 resonant cavity. Some may be very surprised what that exercise will reveal. Can share that for a round trip there will be 8 side wall & end plate impact and emit events.
Even more interesting to work out the radiation pressure that will be generated at each impact and emit event. Thoughts the radiation pressure will be the same at each impact and emit event site are very wrong. Likewise thoughts that the overall force will be zero are also very wrong.
Such a simple exercise but after so many years, as far as I know, no one here has ever actually done the calculations but instead made statement, without any proof, the overall force would be zero.
Post by: meberbs on 07/08/2018 08:29 am
Your statements about the waves being absorbed and re-emitted is simply not how quantum mechanics works. You are completely ignoring the wave nature of photons. It is much more complicated than that, and also irrelevant to the energy and momentum balance. It is reflected, and you can go back to one of my first posts on this site to see the amount of Doppler shift that happens.what does it take to reflect a microwave? A metal? Or will another microwave reflect a microwave?
Microwave photons do not reflect nor bounce.
Question to be experimentally proved is can a tapered resonant cavity generate an assymetric force? If it can be shown to happen, then it follows why and how CofM and CofE are conserved without expelling mass. Ie the wavelength lengthened photons, with lower momentum, are what carries away the required Newton 3 momentum gain of the accelerated mass.How many times do you have to be told that the photons are part of the system? They never leave the cavity and all momentum they have originally came from the cavity. If the drive were to work as you claim, by the time you turn it off, it will have changed momentum, and there is nothing remaining in the universe that has corresponding opposite momentum. That is the definition of breaking conservation of momentum.
Would be interesting for someone to ray trace an averaged photon pathway, from say big end plate to small end plate and back to big end plate, in a TE013 resonant cavity. Some may be very surprised what that exercise will reveal. Can share that for a round trip there will be 8 side wall & end plate impact and emit events.Wait so, you are admitting that their is force on the sidewalls? If you have done the calculation you claim, share the details. If you got any result other than no net force, you made a mistake. The whole concept is a mistake anyway, since at every point in the cavity, there are photons travelling in many different directions, and no photon can be localized to a point, they are spread out in space on the order of a wavelength. A hypothetical path more representative of an atom bouncing around in vacuum could still be used to show you why momentum conservation means that there can be no asymmetric force.
Even more interesting to work out the radiation pressure that will be generated at each impact and emit event. Thoughts the radiation pressure will be the same at each impact and emit event site are very wrong. Likewise thoughts that the overall force will be zero are also very wrong.You are lying here. You have been shown the calculations many times:
Such a simple exercise but after so many years, as far as I know, no one here has ever actually done the calculations but instead made statement, without any proof, the overall force would be zero.
http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
You have never pointed out a single mathematical mistake in that (there is none), and it is derived directly from the same Maxwell's equations that Cullen used. (And you also haven't given a single experimental example where the experiment has resonance results that disagree with the theory, despite being challenged to support your claims many times.)
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/08/2018 10:16 am
.....
When a photon impacts an orbital metallic electron, the photon energy and momentum are gained by the orbital electron. As it is not enough energy to alter the electron orbit, the absorbed energy and momentum are remitted as a newly created photon with either the same freq as impacted or a lower freq if the atom gained energy and momentum from the impact. Well established physics and what happens with a solar sail.
The photons in a resonant cavity have energy and momentum that was created by the Rf energy that flowed in the coupler and resulted in the creation of the photons. So Rf electrial energy is converted into photon momentum and energy. If some of those photons lose some of their energy and momentum via inelastic events, the emitted photons having a longer wavelength. Well estabished physics.
Only question is can a tapered resonant cavity generate an assymetric force?
Post by: RERT on 07/08/2018 01:19 pm
Noether's theorem regarding energy conservation relates to space(time) which is translationally invariant. It's quite difficult to arrange an experiment containing physical objects which is translationally invariant. One is probably left arguing that translational invariance is the correct approximation when some small test apparatus is much smaller than the translations you care about. The immediate proximity of a tapered copper can is definitely not.
Others -
My guess on the physics discussions: we won't get anywhere with linear theories. Having said that, there are opportunities for interesting non-linear calculations just by letting the skin resistance in the copper depend on temperature ~ current ~ field, though the MEGA concept seems to finger GR as the obvious non-linear starting point.
I'm not wildly concerned about energy or momentum conservation. 120 years ago we thought mass was conserved, until we figured out it wasn't. We will have to follow where the data leads, though at the moment that doesn't look to be very far :(!
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 07/08/2018 02:39 pm
Meberbs -
Noether's theorem regarding energy conservation relates to space(time) which is translationally invariant. It's quite difficult to arrange an experiment containing physical objects which is translationally invariant. One is probably left arguing that translational invariance is the correct approximation when some small test apparatus is much smaller than the translations you care about. The immediate proximity of a tapered copper can is definitely not.
Others -
My guess on the physics discussions: we won't get anywhere with linear theories. Having said that, there are opportunities for interesting non-linear calculations just by letting the skin resistance in the copper depend on temperature ~ current ~ field, though the MEGA concept seems to finger GR as the obvious non-linear starting point.
I'm not wildly concerned about energy or momentum conservation. 120 years ago we thought mass was conserved, until we figured out it wasn't. We will have to follow where the data leads, though at the moment that doesn't look to be very far :(!
Quote
Having said that, there are opportunities for interesting non-linear calculations just by letting the skin resistance in the copper depend on temperature ~ current ~ field,So some sort of metal alloy which has variable resisitivity based on temperature? Or a feedback mechanism based on wall temperature?
Piezoelectrics come to mind... maybe we need a wall made of micro copper filaments which share a field when excited but in their nonexcited state it is merely a grid. We know the wavelength is too long to leak out. This would also dissipate heat better.
What about thin copper wire rings are used in the upper cavity for the first half wavelength and a mesh/grid for the lower cavity? The reasoning is the coils will compress the upper field while the lower field has no directional compression in either lateral or vertical components of the internal field?
If done with 3D printing you could even create a design with a gradient from rings to grid. To help visualize, imagine the upper wall being a long thin copper spiral while the lower wall is like a chicken coop fence/sieve.
Additionally, this would help characterize the wall interactions and determine whether the effect is even related to the walls or if we can keep one end open as was suggested earlier. I had a theory that the thrust may be caused due to wall discontinuities (microscopic scratches/null points in the evanescent waves). The roughness and field along the wall must be imaged. If it behaves as expected, electrons should "jump the gap" between wall segments when excited sufficiently. If, however, they merely adapt and follow the lattice and the metallics then we may have a way of experimentally disproving the relativistic nature of electrons as suggested by recent experiments. Thoughts?
Post by: OnlyMe on 07/08/2018 03:31 pm
...
How many times do you have to be told that the photons are part of the system? They never leave the cavity and all momentum they have originally came from the cavity. If the drive were to work as you claim, by the time you turn it off, it will have changed momentum, and there is nothing remaining in the universe that has corresponding opposite momentum. That is the definition of breaking conservation of momentum.
...
meberbs,
Part of this argument has always bothered me, but first remember that I do not believe that bouncing anything inside a frustum generates any net anomalous force/acceleration.
The part that bothers me is the emphasis on conservation of momentum, where it seems obvious that a significant amount of the electromagnetic energy introduced into the frustum is converted to and dissipated as heat, and for the EmDrive as a whole, Lorentz forces etc., which moves the problem to one of conservation of energy rather than just momentum.
Even in classical everyday mechanical systems like a vehicle moving down a roadway a portion of the initial momentum generated by an engine never makes it to an end stage transfer of momentum. Except in hypothetical situations it is almost always a conservation of energy balancing act and situation, while if all you follow is momentum in and out, conservation of momentum will always appear to be broken.
This is part of what has lead to so much focus on improving experimental design, an account of energy in vs. energy out. And the possibility that some as yet undetermined mechanism might generate some useable force/acceleration... or not.
Post by: meberbs on 07/08/2018 03:44 pm
Meberbs -The asymmetry has to be embedded in the laws of physics themselves. Just arranging objects in an asymmetric way does not allow you to break conservation laws. For theories short of GR there is simply nothing in them that has the necessary type of asymmetry.
Noether's theorem regarding energy conservation relates to space(time) which is translationally invariant. It's quite difficult to arrange an experiment containing physical objects which is translationally invariant. One is probably left arguing that translational invariance is the correct approximation when some small test apparatus is much smaller than the translations you care about. The immediate proximity of a tapered copper can is definitely not.
GR is a bit more complicated. On a global level conservation of momentum can no longer be easily defined due to asymmetries, but it still holds on a local level. Even with the global definition problem, gravitational waves are the one way to lose break what conservation of momentum intuitively says, and they have the same energy momentum ratio as photons, at least in the realistic limit where such calculations can be done. Local is relative to the curvature of spacetime, and based on the speed of light, at the mass and size scale of an emDrive, it is completely negligible. If you include the whole mass of the Earth, you can measure a slight decrease of momentum from photons travelling vertically up, but even then, this decrease corresponds to the decrease a physical object would have from travelling upwards in a gravitational field. It prevents you from getting around conservation of momentum and energy by sending massless particles straight up out of a gravitational well, showing that for our purposes even GR generally is aligned against propellantless propulsion claims.
Post by: OnlyMe on 07/08/2018 03:55 pm
.....
When a photon impacts an orbital metallic electron, the photon energy and momentum are gained by the orbital electron. As it is not enough energy to alter the electron orbit, the absorbed energy and momentum are remitted as a newly created photon with either the same freq as impacted or a lower freq if the atom gained energy and momentum from the impact. Well established physics and what happens with a solar sail.
The photons in a resonant cavity have energy and momentum that was created by the Rf energy that flowed in the coupler and resulted in the creation of the photons. So Rf electrial energy is converted into photon momentum and energy. If some of those photons lose some of their energy and momentum via inelastic events, the emitted photons having a longer wavelength. Well estabished physics.
Only question is can a tapered resonant cavity generate an assymetric force?
TT,
I believe this implies a simplistic and inaccurate situation. If the microwaves inside of the frustum interacted as you describe there would be no degradation of the conductive walls.
I am pretty sure that past DIY experimental attempts have shown pitting of the inside copper surface(s). That alone proves that there is enough electromagnetic energy to alter electron orbits even to the point of ionizing atoms resulting surface pitting...
Then again maybe those ionized (charged) copper atoms flying around inside the frustum under the influence of an asymmetric electromagnetic field is the source of an anomalous thrust... but then, if this were the case, wouldn’t the surface pitting degrade the Q, affect the over all efficiency and limit the drives usesful life cycle/span?
Point is contrary to your comment above, ”As it is not enough energy to alter the electron orbit,...” microwaves inside a frustum have been shown to interact destructively with the conductive walls of the frustum.
Post by: meberbs on 07/08/2018 03:58 pm
The choice between considering conservation of momentum or energy can go either way for these discussions. Breaking conservation of momentum trivially leads to a situation where conservation of energy is violated. The same may be true in reverse, though possibly dependent on what form a hypothetical device makes the energy appear in, I have never tried working out a general case, which would get confusing since you need to start with an essentially contradictory assumption....
How many times do you have to be told that the photons are part of the system? They never leave the cavity and all momentum they have originally came from the cavity. If the drive were to work as you claim, by the time you turn it off, it will have changed momentum, and there is nothing remaining in the universe that has corresponding opposite momentum. That is the definition of breaking conservation of momentum.
...
meberbs,
Part of this argument has always bothered me, but first remember that I do not believe that bouncing anything inside a frustum generates any net anomalous force/acceleration.
The part that bothers me is the emphasis on conservation of momentum, where it seems obvious that a significant amount of the electromagnetic energy introduced into the frustum is converted to and dissipated as heat, and for the EmDrive as a whole, Lorentz forces etc., which moves the problem to one of conservation of energy rather than just momentum.
Even in classical everyday mechanical systems like a vehicle moving down a roadway a portion of the initial momentum generated by an engine never makes it to an end stage transfer of momentum. Except in hypothetical situations it is almost always a conservation of energy balancing act and situation, while if all you follow is momentum in and out, conservation of momentum will always appear to be broken.
This is part of what has lead to so much focus on improving experimental design, an account of energy in vs. energy out. And the possibility that some as yet undetermined mechanism might generate some useable force/acceleration... or not.
For the example of a vehicle on a roadway, the problem is equally energy or momentum conservation. The main momentum loss is to air resistance, so you have to track either the energy or momentum loss to the air, which are both equally difficult to do from my perspective. For hills, I will agree that tracking energy is easier than tracking changes in the Earth's momentum.
I don't think it is accurate to be described as experiments focusing on "energy in/ energy out" To do that, they would need to determine the heat capacity of the cavity and track its temperature accurately. Given non-uniformities in the heat distribution, this would be almost impossible to get right. Instead efforts have been focused on isolating from external forces, which is more of a momentum balance perspective.
Although honestly this is basically a po-tay-to po-tah-to situation, as far as anything important goes I think we completely agree.
Post by: Jim Davis on 07/08/2018 04:00 pm
I'm not wildly concerned about energy or momentum conservation. 120 years ago we thought mass was conserved, until we figured out it wasn't.
Just out of curiosity, does that attitude extend to other contexts? For example, would you think there might be something to an engine that runs only on water because, after all, 120 years ago we thought mass was conserved?
Post by: meberbs on 07/08/2018 04:12 pm
Thanks, I was trying to figure out how to respond to that post since most of what it says simply ignores my previous post, and my response is to go re-read the part about how the momentum of the photons doesn't spontaneously appear, since that would by definition break conservation of momentum......
When a photon impacts an orbital metallic electron, the photon energy and momentum are gained by the orbital electron. As it is not enough energy to alter the electron orbit, the absorbed energy and momentum are remitted as a newly created photon with either the same freq as impacted or a lower freq if the atom gained energy and momentum from the impact. Well established physics and what happens with a solar sail.
The photons in a resonant cavity have energy and momentum that was created by the Rf energy that flowed in the coupler and resulted in the creation of the photons. So Rf electrial energy is converted into photon momentum and energy. If some of those photons lose some of their energy and momentum via inelastic events, the emitted photons having a longer wavelength. Well estabished physics.
Only question is can a tapered resonant cavity generate an assymetric force?
TT,
I believe this implies a simplistic and inaccurate situation. If the microwaves inside of the frustum interacted as you describe there would be no degradation of the conductive walls.
I am pretty sure that past DIY experimental attempts have shown pitting of the inside copper surface(s). That alone proves that there is enough electromagnetic energy to alter electron orbits even to the point of ionizing atoms resulting surface pitting...
Then again maybe those ionized (charged) copper atoms flying around inside the frustum under the influence of an asymmetric electromagnetic field is the source of an anomalous thrust... but then, if this were the case, wouldn’t the surface pitting degrade the Q, affect the over all efficiency and limit the drives usesful life cycle/span?
Point is contrary to your comment above, ”As it is not enough energy to alter the electron orbit,...” microwaves inside a frustum have been shown to interact destructively with the conductive walls of the frustum.
To add to what you said, the description of electrons in "orbits" is inherently wrong in itself. The valence band electrons in metals exist in a continuous "sea", they already aren't in a single "orbit" and are capable of absorbing essentially infinitesimal amounts of energy as a result. In this situation the extreme number of overlapping electrons have to be treated together as a wave rather than individual particles, just like the photons can't be correctly treated individually. Every event affects every member of the group, because they are all non-localized and indistinguishable. One of the many oddities of quantum.
Post by: RERT on 07/09/2018 08:44 am
It's right to be very sceptical of all claims with no mechanism of action within known physical laws.
It's also wrong to lose sight of the fact that those laws change from time to time, eg conservation of mass.
Perhaps contracting this to being not wildly concerned about conservation of momentum - though implicitly somewhat concerned - might have left something on the cutting room floor...
Post by: RERT on 07/09/2018 09:14 am
I was meaning something quite prosaic really, which may actually be embedded in the mode shape simulations seen here, though I suspect not.
A frustrum in resonance has wall currents. The current densities are not uniform, in a gross sense: by which I mean that the current round the sides of the frustrum might be very different to the current in the end caps. If I'm understanding right, the mutual Lorentz forces from these currents are meant to be in balance, producing zero net force.
But as the current densities differ, ohmic heating differs - that's why mode shapes have been viewed with a thermal camera.
When copper gets hot, it's resistance increases, and you would expect the pattern of current flows to change. If they stayed the same, power dissipation would rise, and that's fixed by the input power to the frustrum. So that's a different current pattern to the one which previously had no net Lorentz force, and one which is slowly changing to boot.
At this point intuition fails me: but I would guess that COMSOL might be able to simulate resistance changing with temperature, and temperature with current.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 07/09/2018 11:54 am
You are lying here. You have been shown the calculations many times:
http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
Please, not this page again…
Rodal explained back to the EM Drive Thread #3 (three years ago!) that aero's simulations (as predicted by Notsosureofit BTW) showed how Greg Egan's "demonstration" you quoted, involving standing waves only, was wrong as it didn't reflect the reality of what is going on in a real asymmetric cavity, when considering the flow of time and the presence of an antenna constantly feeding new RF energy:
Quote from: Rodal
So people that proclaim left to right symmetry fail to take into account time.
Greg Egan's analysis assumes a sinusoidal change with time. Clearly this is not the case. There is TIME-ASYMMETRY left to right. The origin of the asymmetry is the RF feed, that Greg Egan does not take into account. There is an interaction between standing waves and the travelling waves from the RF feed.
As Notsosureofit said: steady state standing waves by themselves never occurs as long as the RF feed is on.
Quote from: Rodal
YES, they contradict Egan. http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
Egan assumed that the time variation of the fields was symmetric, given by a sinusoid in time. His weakness is that he failed to consider the effect of the RF feed travelling wave. Greg Egan's results only apply for the RF feed being OFF.
Quote from: Rodal
NEW INFORMATION: We show here that those (Greg Egan, etc.) that pontificate that the electromagnetic fields inside the EM Drive produce a Poynting vector that sums up to zero over integer periods of time are plain wrong. The reason is that the Poynting vector sums up to zero over integer periods of time only when the electromagnetic fields are standing waves (waves that do not travel in the longitudinal direction). The RF feed antenna disturbs what would otherwise be a standing wave frozen in space and results in waves that travel in the longitudinal direction back and forth and a time variation of the amplitude electromagnetic field that is not a simple sinuosoid, as long as the RF feed is on. This results in a non-zero Poynting vector with a net pointing from the small base to the big base over integer periods of time (probably due to geometric attenuation of the travelling waves due to the conical taper). During EM Drive experiments, the RF feed is on: it is only with the RF feed on that forces have been measured.
Notice that the period of this non-sinusoidal variation of the Poynting vector is half the period of the electromagnetic field (as expected from theoretical considerations).
See here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1395710#msg1395710), here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1396189#msg1396189) and there (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1399795#msg1399795). Of course, as also pointed out obviously by Rodal (miss you a lot José, long time no see…) such an asymmetry does not explain on itself how propellantless propulsion could be achieved, bus since Egan's oversimplistic explanation has been contradicted, we should definitely stop referring to it. More especially when using such a flawed explanation (incomplete and far from reality) to prove someone's quote is flat wrong or that he would even lie.
Post by: Jim Davis on 07/09/2018 12:59 pm
It's right to be very sceptical of all claims with no mechanism of action within known physical laws.
It's also wrong to lose sight of the fact that those laws change from time to time, eg conservation of mass.
Well, then let me rephrase.
Both an Em drive and a water engine violate conservation laws.
Why does only the latter case raise a red flag with you? Why does only the Em drive rate the "those laws change from time to time" qualification?
Post by: meberbs on 07/09/2018 01:57 pm
That page obviously doesn't include antenna distortion or turn on transients. It is physically correct version of the "add up the momentum changes as a photon bounces in a closed path," that TT suggested. Saying that that page should never be referenced again ignores that it does correct calculations for an ideal cavity, which makes it useful for multiple things such as predicting resonance modes and disproving nonsense from TT.You are lying here. You have been shown the calculations many times:
http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
Please, not this page again…
Rodal explained back to the EM Drive Thread #3 (three years ago!) that aero's simulations (as predicted by Notsosureofit BTW) showed how Greg Egan's "demonstration" you quoted, involving standing waves only, was wrong as it didn't reflect the reality of what is going on in a real asymmetric cavity, when considering the flow of time and the presence of an antenna constantly feeding new RF energy:
...
See here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1395710#msg1395710), here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1396189#msg1396189) and there (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1399795#msg1399795). Of course, as also pointed out obviously by Rodal (miss you a lot José, long time no see…) such an asymmetry does not explain on itself how propellantless propulsion could be achieved, bus since Egan's oversimplistic explanation has been contradicted, we should definitely stop referring to it. More especially when using such a flawed explanation (incomplete and far from reality) to prove someone's quote is flat wrong or that he would even lie.
If you want to get strict about it, the simulations you reference are wrong too. They only match cavity geometry at discrete points, and only model the field at discrete points as well, plus there is limited precision in the numbers used. On the other hand, what I linked accounts for the exact shape of an ideal cavity, and describes the fields perfectly at every point, within the constraints mentioned above. None of that means the simulations should be banished forever either, it means you need to know what you are working with and its limitations.
So as I originally said, TT was straight up lying with his "no one here has ever actually done the calculations but instead made statement, without any proof, the overall force would be zero." You have been around here enough where you should know that TT wasn't thinking of any of your objections even if they were relevant. Besides, as far as TT's statement goes, the link I provided also has a general proof for an arbitrary cavity shape. The fact of momentum conservation is built straight into Maxwell's equations, and as the quotes you provided from Rodal said, none of the details he mentioned change that fact. The full, general momentum conservation proof in any case ever is in any decent textbook.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 07/09/2018 02:53 pm
However as Rodal also pointed out many times on these boards, such calculations and simulations fail to take into account the possibility that the EmDrive is not a closed system. If there is any kind of field propulsion making the EmDrive an open system, propellantless propulsion (not reactionless propulsion!) becomes non-impossible. No current calculation or EM simulation based on Maxwell laws only can predict such an effect.
On the other hand I agree that Shawyer's simple explanation about the radiation pressure imbalance between the two end plates as the cause of thrust does not correctly fall in the true definition of an "open system".
But Mach effects, quantised inertia, scalar–tensor theories -among others- qualify for the possibility of an open system and a field-effect propulsion for the EmDrive.
Post by: meberbs on 07/09/2018 03:33 pm
Theoretical calculation for ideal cavities that fail to predict several real experimental phenomena, as well as discrete and incomplete simulations involving Maxwell equations only, can't account for any propellantless thrust. This is true.I was responding to TT's post where he incorrectly represents the results of standard electrodynamics. I would appreciate it if you stopped misrepresenting the context of what I was saying, obviously I was not talking about a situation where there is some background that the emDrive pushes off. Your tangent here is a waste of everyone's time, and can only serve to confuse anyone who doesn't know better about whether or not TT has a point. (Based on likes, at least one person was tricked by his non-response that literally ignored what I had already said.)
However as Rodal also pointed out many times on these boards, such calculations and simulations fail to take into account the possibility that the EmDrive is not a closed system. If there is any kind of field propulsion making the EmDrive an open system, propellantless propulsion (not reactionless propulsion!) becomes non-impossible. No current calculation or EM simulation based on Maxwell laws only can predict such an effect.
On the other hand I agree that Shawyer's simple explanation about the radiation pressure imbalance between the two end plates as the cause of thrust does not correctly fall in the true definition of an "open system".
But Mach effects, quantised inertia, scalar–tensor theories -among others- qualify for the possibility of an open system and a field-effect propulsion for the EmDrive.
We clearly are in agreement about the basic physics here, so can we just agree that we are in violent agreement, and move on to something useful?
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 07/09/2018 06:04 pm
LowerAtmosphere -Intuition is useless for resistivity and temperature since it is a nonlinear effect. Earlier we investigated whether the sawtooth like thrust profile was related to heating. I strongly agree COMSOL would be helpful though I think an experiment with periodically placed antennas/imaging points would be better to gain an experimental view of how the field behaves in the wall. My theory is that there are nullpoints which cause each segment to become a quasi-ion and perhaps it is the repulsion between each segment which is then relevant. Alternatively it could also be time-to-wall. Also quite perplexing is the oscillation of the internal field. I imagine that the rate of oscillation is not constant throughout the interior. The copper sidewalls ought to form magnetic dipoles when excited sufficiently, but the internal oscillation and splatter may lead to misalignment. Earlier I considered some sort of momentum transfer occuring between the various modal peaks and surrounding field lines but this supposes a plasma based model of the internal atmosphere. The walls must be the solution to the phenomenon since they define the boundary conditions and form discrete segments (which in turn are weakly coupled to both endcaps and the internal field). Perhaps a simulation without an internal field is needed? We already know (from other sims) the typical vectors and orientation of the evanescent waves/absorbed waves in the walls. We should try to see it evolve over time and add up the wall segment potentials in order to see if a net force occurs along the wall. The easy part is that we can approximate it with a 2D sheet but wrap the x axis around to simulate the cone. Or, we could try MHD style fluid mechanics in the wall like Dr. Rodal suggested, though this would produce more eddies than actually occur, I assume. Intuitively, a wall segment with higher charge density repels one with lower charge density, more surface area means more absorption, however, less field compression. The higher density modal peak are in the upper cavity thus the upper cavity should have more momentum? In conclusion: the evanescent/transmitted/absorbed waves in the wall need to be mapped out properly.
I was meaning something quite prosaic really, which may actually be embedded in the mode shape simulations seen here, though I suspect not.
A frustrum in resonance has wall currents. The current densities are not uniform, in a gross sense: by which I mean that the current round the sides of the frustrum might be very different to the current in the end caps. If I'm understanding right, the mutual Lorentz forces from these currents are meant to be in balance, producing zero net force.
But as the current densities differ, ohmic heating differs - that's why mode shapes have been viewed with a thermal camera.
When copper gets hot, it's resistance increases, and you would expect the pattern of current flows to change. If they stayed the same, power dissipation would rise, and that's fixed by the input power to the frustrum. So that's a different current pattern to the one which previously had no net Lorentz force, and one which is slowly changing to boot.
At this point intuition fails me: but I would guess that COMSOL might be able to simulate resistance changing with temperature, and temperature with current.
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 07/09/2018 06:13 pm
Meberbs, if you wish to have us laud you or agree then back up your points with mathematics not attempts to bully the opposing party into agreement. On behalf of all the "tangent"* creators, we thank you.Theoretical calculation for ideal cavities that fail to predict several real experimental phenomena, as well as discrete and incomplete simulations involving Maxwell equations only, can't account for any propellantless thrust. This is true.I was responding to TT's post where he incorrectly represents the results of standard electrodynamics. I would appreciate it if you stopped misrepresenting the context of what I was saying, obviously I was not talking about a situation where there is some background that the emDrive pushes off. Your tangent here is a waste of everyone's time, and can only serve to confuse anyone who doesn't know better about whether or not TT has a point. (Based on likes, at least one person was tricked by his non-response that literally ignored what I had already said.)
However as Rodal also pointed out many times on these boards, such calculations and simulations fail to take into account the possibility that the EmDrive is not a closed system. If there is any kind of field propulsion making the EmDrive an open system, propellantless propulsion (not reactionless propulsion!) becomes non-impossible. No current calculation or EM simulation based on Maxwell laws only can predict such an effect.
On the other hand I agree that Shawyer's simple explanation about the radiation pressure imbalance between the two end plates as the cause of thrust does not correctly fall in the true definition of an "open system".
But Mach effects, quantised inertia, scalar–tensor theories -among others- qualify for the possibility of an open system and a field-effect propulsion for the EmDrive.
We clearly are in agreement about the basic physics here, so can we just agree that we are in violent agreement, and move on to something useful?
*Tangents... in physics? A good joke!
Post by: meberbs on 07/09/2018 07:29 pm
Meberbs, if you wish to have us laud you or agree then back up your points with mathematics not attempts to bully the opposing party into agreement. On behalf of all the "tangent"* creators, we thank you.I did, I posted a link to a page covered in mathematics. I have provided the math to back up what I am saying whenever relevant. If you go read my original reply to TT in this chain, you will see I referenced math I did in one of my first posts on this forum. I am not bullying anyone into agreement, just pointing out facts, and when others are stating contradictions.
*Tangents... in physics? A good joke!
I don't care about being "lauded." There is no requirement to agree with me either, but at least in this section I don't post much that I am not confident in, that isn't backed up with facts. Disagreeing with me therefore usually indicates a misunderstanding/miscommunication or being wrong, though I can and do make mistakes (and try to admit it if I notice, or someone points out a specific issue)
Post by: RERT on 07/09/2018 08:43 pm
Post by: rq3 on 07/10/2018 12:32 am
what does it take to reflect a microwave? A metal? Or will another microwave reflect a microwave?
Microwave photons do not reflect nor bounce.
Instead the photon impacts an orbital electron, is absorbed and almost immediatley re emitted. If the impact and emit events are elastic, ie there is no momentum nor energy transfer between photon and atom, the emitted photon freq is the same as the impacted photon freq. If the event is nonelastic, ie momentum and energy are exchanged between photon and atom, then the freq of the emitted photon will not match that of the impacted photon.
EmDrive acceleration is the result of assymetric nonelastic impact and emit events where the gained accelerated mass' momentum and KE is sourced from lost photon momentum and energy, which causes the photon emitted freq to decrease. As the photons lose monentum to the gained accelerated mass momentum, CofM is conserved. Likewise gained acceelerated mass KE is sourced from loss photon energy and CofE is conserved.
Question to be experimentally proved is can a tapered resonant cavity generate an assymetric force? If it can be shown to happen, then it follows why and how CofM and CofE are conserved without expelling mass. Ie the wavelength lengthened photons, with lower momentum, are what carries away the required Newton 3 momentum gain of the accelerated mass.
Would be interesting for someone to ray trace an averaged photon pathway, from say big end plate to small end plate and back to big end plate, in a TE013 resonant cavity. Some may be very surprised what that exercise will reveal. Can share that for a round trip there will be 8 side wall & end plate impact and emit events.
Even more interesting to work out the radiation pressure that will be generated at each impact and emit event. Thoughts the radiation pressure will be the same at each impact and emit event site are very wrong. Likewise thoughts that the overall force will be zero are also very wrong.
Such a simple exercise but after so many years, as far as I know, no one here has ever actually done the calculations but instead made statement, without any proof, the overall force would be zero.
So two guys wearing inelastic base-ball gloves toss base balls back and forth, in a funnel shaped can in free space (no outside influence), other than the third guy tossing base balls through a small window into the funnel shaped can makes the can accelerate in a preferred direction.
Assume anything you like. Wall reflection of base ball mass. Wall absorption of base ball mass. Base balls changing mass from catch to toss. Base balls reflecting, sticking, or anything else on end walls or side walls. Base balls changing mass in any of the above conditions, with energy being conserved.
There is no preferred thrust direction. It's been years, and still waiting for your spinning EmDrive on a wooden plank suspended from fishing line. Saying "just you wait and see" indeed makes me wait and see at just how gullible folks can be.
Truly, I expected anti-gravity cars by now per your claims (see thread 3, and my prediction. Only 6 years left. How time flies, even as EmDrives don't).
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 07/10/2018 02:29 pm
Back to stealth mode and being very busy.
Somewhat OT, Shell, but... I hope you're ok !
Time ago I heard about your health issues, I just hope your "stealth mode" is just due to some personal business and that you're fine
All the best.
Post by: SeeShells on 07/10/2018 04:49 pm
Back to stealth mode and being very busy.
Somewhat OT, Shell, but... I hope you're ok !
Time ago I heard about your health issues, I just hope your "stealth mode" is just due to some personal business and that you're fine
All the best.
I'm fine, much better, thanks for asking. True I have been making up lost time in research, personal work and haven't posted much.
Look forward to the time to read NSF. One post perked my interest. It was a reference to the comment that Dr. Rodal stated several times the EM drive must interact outside world and cannot be a closed thruster. I've also stated the very things. Honestly, not sure who posted it first (doesn't matter really) but for the drive to work with universal conservation laws it has to. Either by the Woodward Mach Effect or even Dr. White's QV Pilot Wave theory or something else involving a mix of both.
Very slowly it's happening. Work by EagleWorks Labs and Dr. White is quiet and Dr. Woodward's team is just now preparing to garner more concrete data on the MEGA. March is buried in his new lab doing his thing (I have a feeling we will be impressed with Paul's work). Jamie is setting the bar for his work. Me? I've been working towards building a cloud chamber because nobody has done one and it's sorely needed.
Jokes on having my head in the clouds are welcome... ::)
My very Best,
Shell
Slight edit...
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 07/11/2018 12:24 pm
I'm fine, much better, thanks for asking. True I have been making up lost time in research, personal work and haven't posted much.
Happy to hear this :)
Look forward to the time to read NSF. One post perked my interest. It was a reference to the comment that Dr. Rodal stated several times the EM drive must interact outside world and cannot be a closed thruster. I've also stated the very things. Honestly, not sure who posted it first (doesn't matter really) but for the drive to work with universal conservation laws it has to. Either by the Woodward Mach Effect or even Dr. White's QV Pilot Wave theory or something else involving a mix of both.
Agreed, otherwise we should assume that the EMdrive (or the MET) works due to "invisible fairies generating the thrust" :)
Very slowly it's happening. Work by EagleWorks Labs and Dr. White is quiet and Dr. Woodward's team is just now preparing to garner more concrete data on the MEGA. March is buried in his new lab doing his thing (I have a feeling we will be impressed with Paul's work). Jamie is setting the bar for his work. Me? I've been working towards building a cloud chamber because nobody has done one and it's sorely needed.
I just hope that they (or someone else on their behalf) will post some informations/links about the progress, either positive or negative, no problem with that, all in all, when it comes to experimenting stuff the greatest mistake one may make is to blindly believe that it works, despite any test results, so... well, it ends when it ends, till then, tests, experiments and hope goes on :)
As for the cloud chamber, if you build one big enough, "monomorphic" may even pick his rig, bring it to your chamber and start some tests there :) !!
Jokes on having my head in the clouds are welcome... ::)
LOL
Thank you again for taking the time to answer, all the best
Post by: Ricvil on 07/12/2018 01:15 am
There are two localized resonances, with one on each side of flat end plates cavity.
One localized resonance has majority negative pressure on one end plate surface( but total net forces equals zero over all cavity surface ).
Te other localized resonance has positive pressure on the other end plate (but again, total net forces equals zero over all cavity surface ).
The localized modes arises from frequency shifts of natural modes of propagation of conical waveguide, turned on a closed cavity by the flat end plates a la "ghost modes".
All system act like a dimer system (with gain and loss), where the photons of one resonance TUNNELS to the other resonance(instanton like tunneling between two different vacuums).
The tunneling causes the non zero net forces acting on cavity.
Ps: The Tx3xx "mode" is suspect in this theory.
Post by: saucyjack on 07/13/2018 03:54 pm
UPDATE: It appears emdrive.wiki has been dehosted??? Latest archive: https://web.archive.org/web/*/emdrive.wiki
If dehosted permanently this would be a huge loss. I know many of us contributed to it.
Hi all-
I'm back from a short vacation but can assure you, the wiki still lives! I forgot who registered the domain emdrive.wiki, but they appear to have let that registration lapse. But you can still get to the site at http://emdrive.echothis.com.
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 07/13/2018 11:01 pm
My theory:Please explain this further. The resonance is occurring inside the endplate and this is reconciled via the standing wave? Perhaps illustrate your idea with vector arrows or some other diagram which shows us exactly how you believe the endplates are behaving. Negative pressure due to squeezed vacuum or? More details please. Thank you.
There are two localized resonances, with one on each side of flat end plates cavity.
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/13/2018 11:36 pm
Ps: The Tx3xx "mode" is suspect in this theory.
In addition to Tx3xx, perhaps TM11x could also be a candidate. Using the same naming convention, I would expect TM11x could have been labelled Tx11x.
Post by: Ricvil on 07/14/2018 04:01 am
My theory:Please explain this further. The resonance is occurring inside the endplate and this is reconciled via the standing wave? Perhaps illustrate your idea with vector arrows or some other diagram which shows us exactly how you believe the endplates are behaving. Negative pressure due to squeezed vacuum or? More details please. Thank you.
There are two localized resonances, with one on each side of flat end plates cavity.
Not inside the endplate, but close the endplates.
Look the Tx3xx figure above. One resonance is a TE mode at one side, and the other resonance is a TM mode at the other side.
These resonances are better explained as localized bound states rather standing waves.
I think these resonances are confined modes, resulting of a mixing of PEC mirror reflection at endplates, and reflection by cutoff frequency atenuation along the "tapered conical waveguide".
In fact, I think these two resonances are two "ghost modes" of a "tapered conical waveguide", where the trigger "disturbance/imperfection" of these "ghost modes" are just the flat endplates.
The flat endplates are not natural as boundary conditions for the natural spherical front waves inside a tapered conical waveguide.
Each flat endplate, as a electrical mirror, produces an equivalent junction of simmetric pieces of tapered conical waveguide, in "><" or "<>" shapes.
These "equivalent electrical junctions" are the disturbances wich triggers the ghost-modes.
The TE mode always produces a endplate pushing force (positive pressure).
The TM mode will produce a force on the endplate atractive or repulsive as result of balance of normal electric field (atractive) and tangent magnetic field ( repulsive),
By curiosity, the figure attached is from a TM mode at 1, 97 GHz ( very close the frequency of "Tx3xx mode")
The figure was copied from link below:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.0
Post by: Star One on 07/14/2018 11:41 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ1dWKm2g6Q
German scientists have just tested NASA’s EM drive... Does it work now
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/14/2018 12:12 pm
From Seeker.
German scientists have just tested NASA’s EM drive... Does it work now
I stopped watching when she said the force is most likely due to the "interaction of the metal drive with the earth's magnetic field." They even show a graphic! The paper clearly stated the interaction was likely with the wires, not the copper frustum.
Post by: Star One on 07/14/2018 12:58 pm
From Seeker.
German scientists have just tested NASA’s EM drive... Does it work now
I stopped watching when she said the force is most likely due to the "interaction of the metal drive with the earth's magnetic field." They even show a graphic! The paper clearly stated the interaction was likely with the wires, not the copper frustum.
I posted it because Seeker has huge reach into the public, their videos get into the millions of views so for many this will be the received wisdom on the matter.
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/15/2018 06:54 pm
Back to stealth mode and being very busy.
Somewhat OT, Shell, but... I hope you're ok !
Time ago I heard about your health issues, I just hope your "stealth mode" is just due to some personal business and that you're fine
All the best.
I'm fine, much better, thanks for asking. True I have been making up lost time in research, personal work and haven't posted much.
Look forward to the time to read NSF. One post perked my interest. It was a reference to the comment that Dr. Rodal stated several times the EM drive must interact outside world and cannot be a closed thruster. I've also stated the very things. Honestly, not sure who posted it first (doesn't matter really) but for the drive to work with universal conservation laws it has to. Either by the Woodward Mach Effect or even Dr. White's QV Pilot Wave theory or something else involving a mix of both.
Very slowly it's happening. Work by EagleWorks Labs and Dr. White is quiet and Dr. Woodward's team is just now preparing to garner more concrete data on the MEGA. March is buried in his new lab doing his thing (I have a feeling we will be impressed with Paul's work). Jamie is setting the bar for his work. Me? I've been working towards building a cloud chamber because nobody has done one and it's sorely needed.
Jokes on having my head in the clouds are welcome... ::)
My very Best,
Shell
Slight edit...
Michelle:
How large a cloud chamber are you planning to or are you building now? The last time I built a cloud chamber it was back in my 1965 high school physics lab where we built a cloud chamber out of a glass Erlenmeyer flask with 70% rubbing alcohol and dry ice at the bottom that we could then pull a partial vacuum on it with a bicycle hand pump. We could see various decay products coming off a uranium sample at the bottom of the chamber that our physics teach Mr. Eblen supplied for the experiment.
"March is buried in his new lab doing his thing (I have a feeling we will be impressed with Paul's work)."
Sadly a lot less work has been accomplished in my home lab of late than I would have liked due to my right arm bicep tendon injury last April that I experienced while trying to lift a 215 pound cabinet in the lab, and the lack of funds needed for lab upgrades and builds due to other more pressing family commitments. Thus it appears that I will have little to show when Sue and I go up to Estes Park for this coming September 2018 SSI Mach-Effect workshop. However, Woodward and Fearn should have some interesting new experiments to talk about. Hope to see your there.
Best, Paul M.
Post by: SeeShells on 07/16/2018 09:22 pm
Hi Paul,Back to stealth mode and being very busy.
Somewhat OT, Shell, but... I hope you're ok !
Time ago I heard about your health issues, I just hope your "stealth mode" is just due to some personal business and that you're fine
All the best.
I'm fine, much better, thanks for asking. True I have been making up lost time in research, personal work and haven't posted much.
Look forward to the time to read NSF. One post perked my interest. It was a reference to the comment that Dr. Rodal stated several times the EM drive must interact outside world and cannot be a closed thruster. I've also stated the very things. Honestly, not sure who posted it first (doesn't matter really) but for the drive to work with universal conservation laws it has to. Either by the Woodward Mach Effect or even Dr. White's QV Pilot Wave theory or something else involving a mix of both.
Very slowly it's happening. Work by EagleWorks Labs and Dr. White is quiet and Dr. Woodward's team is just now preparing to garner more concrete data on the MEGA. March is buried in his new lab doing his thing (I have a feeling we will be impressed with Paul's work). Jamie is setting the bar for his work. Me? I've been working towards building a cloud chamber because nobody has done one and it's sorely needed.
Jokes on having my head in the clouds are welcome... ::)
My very Best,
Shell
Slight edit...
Michelle:
How large a cloud chamber are you planning to or are you building now? The last time I built a cloud chamber it was back in my 1965 high school physics lab where we built a cloud chamber out of a glass Erlenmeyer flask with 70% rubbing alcohol and dry ice at the bottom that we could then pull a partial vacuum on it with a bicycle hand pump. We could see various decay products coming off a uranium sample at the bottom of the chamber that our physics teach Mr. Eblen supplied for the experiment.
"March is buried in his new lab doing his thing (I have a feeling we will be impressed with Paul's work)."
Sadly a lot less work has been accomplished in my home lab of late than I would have liked due to my right arm bicep tendon injury last April that I experienced while trying to lift a 215 pound cabinet in the lab, and the lack of funds needed for lab upgrades and builds due to other more pressing family commitments. Thus it appears that I will have little to show when Sue and I go up to Estes Park for this coming September 2018 SSI Mach-Effect workshop. However, Woodward and Fearn should have some interesting new experiments to talk about. Hope to see your there.
Best, Paul M.
So sorry to hear about your bicep causing issues. They take time to heal I understand. Healing thoughts.
You have that right, hardware is very costly. I try to keep my eyes peeled on Ebay for deals.
I got my design for the cloud chamber from.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVF4H7B6PsM
and it's the size I want to do.
If all things go right (funds and such) I'll see you and Sue this September. It will be good to reconnect again.
My Very Best,
Shell
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/17/2018 12:33 am
EmDrive Propulsion
Roger Shawyer, SPR Ltd
Technical University Dresden
11th July 2018
as attached
Would be interesting to know what was the reaction from Martin Tajmar and his team?
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/17/2018 01:25 am
Roger Shawyer conducted a seminar at Dresden Technical University last week and has released some new info:
EmDrive Propulsion
Roger Shawyer, SPR Ltd
Technical University Dresden
11th July 2018
as attached
Would be interesting to know what was the reaction from Martin Tajmar and his team?
Interesting that in slide 29, 1st line, Roger is claiming the USAF/NSA Flight Qualified the SPR designed Flight Thruster.
PLUS in the 2nd line Roger claims the USAF/NSA have agreed with SPR on the theory behind why the EmDrive works.
Fairly major stuff.
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/17/2018 02:52 am
Interesting that in slide 29, 1st line, Roger is claiming the USAF/NSA Flight Qualified the SPR designed Flight Thruster.
How would the USAF/NSA Flight Qualify the SPR designed Flight Thruster?
Maybe in the USAF/DARPA/Boeing X37B spaceplane?
Post by: tchernik on 07/17/2018 03:55 am
Post by: Bob Woods on 07/17/2018 05:12 am
Proof, not claims. No physical evidence provided. We need more Phil.
The rest was mostly things we've seen before in various forms.
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/17/2018 05:48 am
Shawyer slide 17: Q 7.7x10^8 Specific Thrust =3,900N/kW Acceleration = 0.1 m/s
Proof, not claims. No physical evidence provided. We need more Phil.
The rest was mostly things we've seen before in various forms.
Bob,
Roger's data, not mine.
Do you find it interesting that Martin Tajmar apparently invited Roger to Dresden so to teach his team and himself how to design and build EmDrives and how to measure the acceleration result?
As for proof, it seems we have at least a 2 horse race between Martin's team and myself to do the 1st public rotary test rig demo and video. Must say I'm a bit jealous Roger spent time with Martin and his team. He never did that with me. For sure Roger gave them a few breadcrumbs not in the power point that will accelerate their efforts.
Don't believe Roger will be doing any public demos, as his UK MoD partners are not that way inclined. So it seems he is reaching out to others and basically teaching them how to design and build gen 1 devices, plus how to measure the accelerative force they generate, using either his static spring and scale method or the rotary method. This alone should help DIY replicators to build fairly simple spring and scale test rigs. That is a major step forward.
As for the PPT, there are several critical shares in that document that have not been shared before. Probably only noticeable to DIYers who have some idea as to what is happening and why.
Also notice the thrust bandwidth is much less than the Q bandwidth. Freq control is shown to be very critical and is why I developed the tech to use reflected power to sync the freq to a changing cavity resonant freq. However if the DIY build uses a circulator that dumps reflected power into an open port, well then the build neeeds to use an internal to the cavity E field probe as Roger uses.
So for a informed DIYers, there is a lot of new and very useful info in the PPT.
BTW the Kmn in Roger's equations is, for TE01x mode, 0.819894. It changes for each mode. This is the basis for Roger's TE01x mode, rule of thumb, cutoff dia = external wavelength / 0.82. There is an equation that generates it based on freq and excited mode Bessel value.
Post by: Bob Woods on 07/17/2018 07:48 am
Bob,All talk and no data is a big problem.
Roger's data, not mine.
Do you find it interesting that Martin Tajmar apparently invited Roger to Dresden so to teach his team and himself how to design and build EmDrives and how to measure the acceleration result?
As for proof, it seems we have at least a 2 horse race between Martin's team and myself to do the 1st public rotary test rig demo and video. Must say I'm a bit jealous Roger spent time with Martin and his team. He never did that with me. For sure Roger gave them a few breadcrumbs not in the power point that will accelerate their efforts.
Don't believe Roger will be doing any public demos, as his UK MoD partners are not that way inclined. So it seems he is reaching out to others and basically teaching them how to design and build gen 1 devices, plus how to measure the accelerative force they generate, using either his static spring and scale method or the rotary method. This alone should help DIY replicators to build fairly simple spring and scale test rigs. That is a major step forward.
As for the PPT, there are several critical shares in that document that have not been shared before. Probably only noticeable to DIYers who have some idea as to what is happening and why.
Also notice the thrust bandwidth is much less than the Q bandwidth. Freq control is shown to be very critical and is why I developed the tech to use reflected power to sync the freq to a changing cavity resonant freq. However if the DIY build uses a circulator that dumps reflected power into an open port, well then the build neeeds to use an internal to the cavity E field probe as Roger uses.
So for a informed DIYers, there is a lot of new and very useful info in the PPT.
BTW the Kmn in Roger's equations is, for TE01x mode, 0.819894. It changes for each mode. This is the basis for Roger's TE01x mode, rule of thumb, cutoff dia = external wavelength / 0.82. There is an equation that generates it based on freq and excited mode Bessel value.
Phil, I'd like nothing better than to see a rig performing well out of the noise. But we never see anything except for those folks who have actively posted their results for all to see.
Dave Distler made a good first effort but it was not conclusive. Since he turned rig over to a private company to evaluate, nothing.
Jamie has been doing real science. Testing and improving. I know, I saw his rig up close and personal and was extremely impressed. But as of yet he hasn't published his test results.
One thing that did get my attention was the notation on one of Shawyers slides, #18, showing he introduced "piezoelectric elements" near the small end of the Ver. 3 frustum. What the hell is that? An introduction of Mach Effects from Woodward's research? Aimed at the likely static electric field in a TEXXX mode? If so, that fits into things I have been thinking about, induced quantum spin in an electric quanta to create transient mass.
But that's not what Shawer proposes.
As far as Tajmar inviting Shawyer, he's been in discussions with Shawyer as long as I have been following this. Appearing to teach/discuss with a bunch of sharp students doesn't surprise me at all.
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/17/2018 08:05 am
One thing that did get my attention was the notation on one of Shawyers slides, #18, showing he introduced "piezoelectric elements" near the small end of the Ver. 3 frustum. What the hell is that? An introduction of Mach Effects from Woodward's research? Aimed at the likely static electric field in a TEXXX mode? If so, that fits into things I have been thing about induced quantum spin in an electric quanta to create transient mass.
But that's not what Shawer proposes.
As far as Tajmar inviting Shawyer, he's been in discussions with Shawyer as long as I have been following this. Appearing to teach/discuss with a bunch of sharp students doesn't surprise me at all.
Bob,
The piezoelectric elements are used to lengthen the cavity.
When an EmDrive does work, the photon wavelengths increase to represent the enery loss to that gained by the accelerated mass.
To keep the cavity resonant with longer and longer wavelength photons, the cavity length needs to continually increase. That length increase is done via the piezo elements pushing the small end plate further from the big end plate as the cavity stored photons lose energy to support the increasing KE of the accelerating mass.
Only required for very high Q cavities.
To do this requires the EmDrive to be fed with pulsed RF. See attached.
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 07/17/2018 10:09 am
Roger Shawyer conducted a seminar at Dresden Technical University last week and has released some new info:
EmDrive Propulsion
Roger Shawyer, SPR Ltd
Technical University Dresden
11th July 2018
as attached
Would be interesting to know what was the reaction from Martin Tajmar and his team?
I am curious too, Phil, to know how they responded.
"EmDrive is not a reactionless thruster, it is simply a new class of electrical machine"
Did they nod politely and said 'we will think about it' or...
Post by: flux_capacitor on 07/17/2018 10:30 am
The correct dimensions and aspect ratio of that thruster stirred a lot of debate in NSF EM Drive Thread 3.
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/17/2018 10:53 am
Roger Shawyer conducted a seminar at Dresden Technical University last week and has released some new info:
EmDrive Propulsion
Roger Shawyer, SPR Ltd
Technical University Dresden
11th July 2018
as attached
Would be interesting to know what was the reaction from Martin Tajmar and his team?
I am curious too, Phil, to know how they responded.
"EmDrive is not a reactionless thruster, it is simply a new class of electrical machine"
Did they nod politely and said 'we will think about it' or...
Hi Peter,
Have emailed Tajmar with a few questions about the seminar. When he responds, and he normally does reply to my emails, will post his reply here, that is if he agrees.
For sure Roger gave out lots of helpful info during the seminar as he did when he visited Prof Yang to assist her replication.
How I read it is in the past Roger gave Tajmar very little info, as he did to me, wanting him to work out the answers from the supplied breadcrumbs. That approach has now changed with Roger going to Dresden and basically laying it all out. How to design the cavity, get optimal coupler impedance and coupling factor plus how to build a simple spring and scale static test rig that can measure either the big end directed Thrust force or the small end directed Reaction force.
This is a major How To Do It reveal by Roger. Which I trust will see Tajmar and his team building a proper EmDrive and test rig that will generate at least 0.1N/kWrf and maybe up to 0.4N/kWrf.
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/17/2018 10:57 am
Had such picture of the Chinese NWPU EmDrive (Pr Yang's 1st thruster with a magnetron) ever surfaced before? Seen in slide #5.
The correct dimensions and aspect ratio of that thruster stirred a lot of debate in NSF EM Drive Thread 3.
Hi FC,
I earlier shared the image of one of Prof Yang's EmDrive builds.
To me it looked like the Rf amp driven unit and not the magnetron driven unit. However the Rf input looks more like a waveguide connection than an Rf connector.
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/17/2018 12:18 pm
From James, "I designed and constructed a replication of a NASA experiment that claimed to demonstrate a novel propellant-less rocket thruster. As this device appears to violate the laws of conservation of momentum and energy I did not expect it to produce thrust, as has turned out to be the case in experiments so far. Such an experiment is technically challenging as it involves measuring μNewton level forces in a large apparatus consuming over 1 kW of electrical power. Many possibilities for artifacts, thermal, electrical and magnetic, exist and have to be eliminated. A paper on this failed replication is in preparation."
Post by: Jim Davis on 07/17/2018 01:18 pm
Shawyer slide 17: Q 7.7x10^8 Specific Thrust =3,900N/kW ...
So at a mere 0.26 m/s the EM drive begins to do more work than it consumes power.
The utility companies should be breaking down Shawyer's door.
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/17/2018 01:57 pm
Shawyer slide 17: Q 7.7x10^8 Specific Thrust =3,900N/kW ...
So at a mere 0.26 m/s the EM drive begins to do more work than it consumes power.
The utility companies should be breaking down Shawyer's door.
Hi Jim,
Accelerated mass KE gain can never be greater than input Rf energy. Roger makes that very clear in the presentation.
As accelerated mass KE gain increases, generated force drops due to reduced cavity energy from the drain by KE.
The EmDrive, while accelerating, does NOT generate a constant force. Its generated accelerative force reduces as accelerating mass KE increases.
EmDrive is not an energy creator, but instead it is an energy conversion device. Like an electrical motor converts input electrical energy into output torque force, the EmDrive converts input Rf energy into accelerative force.
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 07/17/2018 02:08 pm
Hi Jim,
Accelerated mass KE gain can never be greater than input Rf energy. Roger makes that very clear in the presentation.
...
The question is then how the EMDrive knows which inertial frame it is sitting in. This had been discussed over and over again...
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/17/2018 02:37 pm
Hi Jim,
Accelerated mass KE gain can never be greater than input Rf energy. Roger makes that very clear in the presentation.
...
The question is then how the EMDrive knows which inertial frame it is sitting in. This had been discussed over and over again...
Hi PM,
When an EmDrive accelerates mass, the work done from start of acceleration is always the same. ie initial mass velocity is zero. The work done accelerating the mass can be frame invarient if the work done is related to the Dv of the mass in any frame.
Work Joules = (N^2 x t^2) / ( 2 x m) where N = Newtons of force, t = time of acceleration in seconds & m = mass in kgs.
However as accelerated mass KE grows, the Netwons of force that are generated by the EmDrive drop due to reducing cavity energy. This loss of cavity energy is seen as increased wavelength or lower freq photons. Which is why very high Q EmDrive need piezo elements to lengthen the cavity so it stays in resonance as the trapped photons, continually losing energy to the increasing KE, grow longer and longer wavelengths.
Same thing happens with accelerator cavities as the stored cavity energy is used to accelerate particles. As those accelerated particles gain KE from the stored cavity energy, the stored cavity energy drops. This drops the accelerative E field strength and the accelerative force drops.
No Free Lunches here.
BTW I do plan to be able to experimentally show increasing photon wavelength occurs during acceleration. ie there is no CofE violation. The EmDrive is nothing more than an energy conversion machine.
Post by: meberbs on 07/17/2018 03:27 pm
These equation is simply gibberish, it simply gives the wrong answer in almost any situation, since you derived it ignoring the velocity term in d = v*t+0.5*a*t^2.Hi Jim,
Accelerated mass KE gain can never be greater than input Rf energy. Roger makes that very clear in the presentation.
...
The question is then how the EMDrive knows which inertial frame it is sitting in. This had been discussed over and over again...
Hi PM,
When an EmDrive accelerates mass, the work done from start of acceleration is always the same. ie initial mass velocity is zero. The work done accelerating the mass can be frame invarient if the work done is related to the Dv of the mass in any frame.
Work Joules = (N^2 x t^2) / ( 2 x m) where N = Newtons of force, t = time of acceleration in seconds & m = mass in kgs.
Go back and read the end of the last thread:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1829855#msg1829855
or early posts in this thread:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1830452#msg1830452
It has been demonstrated repeatedly that your equation is simply wrong. This is entry level physics, so please stop repeating the nonsense.
However as accelerated mass KE grows, the Netwons of force that are generated by the EmDrive drop due to reducing cavity energy. This loss of cavity energy is seen as increased wavelength or lower freq photons.The source is constantly providing photons at the same frequency, and is moving with the cavity (because the antenna is obviously attached.) These photons are not shifted from the cavity's perspective, so it doesn't matter if the cavity is moving, certainly not once the energy fills the cavity and reaches steady state.
BTW I do plan to be able to experimentally show increasing photon wavelength occurs during acceleration. ie there is no CofE violation. The EmDrive is nothing more than an energy conversion machine.You can't demonstrate conservation of energy if you do not know how to calculate energy. If you did understand the simple fact that kinetic energy is frame dependent, and none of the other forms of energy you are working with are frame dependent, you would realize that demonstrating conservation of energy for a propelantless propulsion device is mathematically impossible.
Post by: RonM on 07/17/2018 05:25 pm
BTW I do plan to be able to experimentally show increasing photon wavelength occurs during acceleration. ie there is no CofE violation. The EmDrive is nothing more than an energy conversion machine.You can't demonstrate conservation of energy if you do not know how to calculate energy. If you did understand the simple fact that kinetic energy is frame dependent, and none of the other forms of energy you are working with are frame dependent, you would realize that demonstrating conservation of energy for a propelantless propulsion device is mathematically impossible.
We need to clarify terminology. TT is describing a reactionless drive, which is impossible. Propellantless propulsion works if there is an external field the device can interact with (field propulsion). While using gravitational fields or interacting with space-time are science fiction concepts, we have devices that use magnetic fields, such as maglev trains and electric motors.
Post by: meberbs on 07/17/2018 08:31 pm
You are correct, I debated which word to use. For the case of field propulsion, forces get transferred back to the source of the field. I figured TT might not understand that difference, since the specific caveat to my statement is "something external that is pushed against," but TT seems to have trouble understanding that the photons inside the cavity are not external, and no amount of talking about internal photons changes that what he is describing is a reactionless drive.BTW I do plan to be able to experimentally show increasing photon wavelength occurs during acceleration. ie there is no CofE violation. The EmDrive is nothing more than an energy conversion machine.You can't demonstrate conservation of energy if you do not know how to calculate energy. If you did understand the simple fact that kinetic energy is frame dependent, and none of the other forms of energy you are working with are frame dependent, you would realize that demonstrating conservation of energy for a propelantless propulsion device is mathematically impossible.
We need to clarify terminology. TT is describing a reactionless drive, which is impossible. Propellantless propulsion works if there is an external field the device can interact with (field propulsion). While using gravitational fields or interacting with space-time are science fiction concepts, we have devices that use magnetic fields, such as maglev trains and electric motors.
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/17/2018 11:45 pm
We need to clarify terminology. TT is describing a reactionless drive, which is impossible. Propellantless propulsion works if there is an external field the device can interact with (field propulsion). While using gravitational fields or interacting with space-time are science fiction concepts, we have devices that use magnetic fields, such as maglev trains and electric motors.
Hi Ron,
EmDrive is not an reactionless drive. It generates assymetric radiation pressure due to the tapered cavity.
There is action reaction via the photon impacts and emission. As the photons transfer momentum and energy to the accelerating mass, their wavelengths increase or the freq decreases. So instead of throwing away mass, photons react to loss energy and momentum by increasing their wavelength. Which is how a solar sail works.
There is an action / reaction event and Newton 3 is fine. Just the reaction is not one you may be experienced with.
If the photon were a billiard ball, then the rebounded velocity would be smaller but as photons only travel at c, their velocity doesn't change. What happens is their rebounded or emitted wavelength is increased.
Same leg action, just a different dog.
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/17/2018 11:51 pm
You are correct, I debated which word to use. For the case of field propulsion, forces get transferred back to the source of the field. I figured TT might not understand that difference, since the specific caveat to my statement is "something external that is pushed against," but TT seems to have trouble understanding that the photons inside the cavity are not external, and no amount of talking about internal photons changes that what he is describing is a reactionless drive.
Hi Meberbs,
You are entitled to you opinion. However it is incorrect and the EmDrive works just fine.
Might be time for you and others here to look outside the square for why it does so. Maybe study what Roger shares, instead of just ignoring it?
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/17/2018 11:59 pm
...
Hi Meberbs,
Mass does not know velocity. Current, initial or final.
The work done to accelerate a mass for say 1 sec from a state of constant velocity never varies. What some observer in another frame observes as the mass' velocity has no effect on the work that is needed to be done to accelerate a mass.
Every observer can measure the same work done, ie a frame invarient result, if they use the Dv caused by the acceleration of the mass, instead of calculating final KE - initial KE, which as we know is not correct and is frame variant.
This may not be what you were taught but it is correct and does work to produce a frame invarient way to calc the work done, resultant change in KE, momentum and velocity when accelerating mass.
Or do it you way and get a useless frame varient result.
Post by: oyzw on 07/18/2018 12:13 am
I'm pretty sure the "LA Company" is the work by James Spottiswoode. His results have never been published here as the author has chosen not to. However, I just checked his Linkedin page and he has a picture posted! He achieved the proper resonance, which he confirmed with IR camera, but his results were ultimately null.Hi Mr. Jimaes, I haven't seen your speech for a long time. It’s been a long time, how is your experiment going? Is the work not going well?
From James, "I designed and constructed a replication of a NASA experiment that claimed to demonstrate a novel propellant-less rocket thruster. As this device appears to violate the laws of conservation of momentum and energy I did not expect it to produce thrust, as has turned out to be the case in experiments so far. Such an experiment is technically challenging as it involves measuring μNewton level forces in a large apparatus consuming over 1 kW of electrical power. Many possibilities for artifacts, thermal, electrical and magnetic, exist and have to be eliminated. A paper on this failed replication is in preparation."
Post by: meberbs on 07/18/2018 04:22 am
EmDrive is not an reactionless drive. It generates assymetric radiation pressure due to the tapered cavity.And you just demonstrated the reason why I decided to use the word propellantless instead of reactionless. You simply don't understand what the word means. As I said:
TT seems to have trouble understanding that the photons inside the cavity are not external, and no amount of talking about internal photons changes that what he is describing is a reactionless drive.To conserve momentum, and not be a reactionless drive something has to leave the drive or it has to push against something external.
You are entitled to you opinion. However it is incorrect and the EmDrive works just fine.None of the statements you are responding to involve opinion, they are facts like 1+1=2. There is nothing incorrect about them. You need to say something more than "they are wrong," mods have warned about that already
Might be time for you and others here to look outside the square for why it does so. Maybe study what Roger shares, instead of just ignoring it?I have looked at what he shares and explained exactly why it is wrong. You however have not even bothered actually reading the definition of terms shared with you such as "reactionless."
The work done to accelerate a mass for say 1 sec from a state of constant velocity never varies. What some observer in another frame observes as the mass' velocity has no effect on the work that is needed to be done to accelerate a mass.Work at one of its most basic definitions is force times distance. How far the object travels is a function of its velocity.
This may not be what you were taught but it is correct and does work to produce a frame invarient way to calc the work done, resultant change in KE, momentum and velocity when accelerating mass.Kinetic energy by definition is a function of velocity, any result that claims otherwise is obviously wrong. The previous posts I linked you to show with numeric calculations that your method gives unequivocally wrong and inconsistent answers.
Or do it you way and get a useless frame varient result.
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/18/2018 01:58 pm
Hi Mr. Jamie, I haven't seen your speech for a long time. It’s been a long time, how is your experiment going? Is the work not going well?
The torsional pendulum works great now that I switched to liquid metal contacts and covered everything in insulation. I have a sensitivity of ~0.2uN, which I am very pleased with. However, now that I've eliminated most of the error sources, I only appear to be seeing what I think is asymmetric thermal expansion of the amplifier PCB board. This is also what I suspect is behind the ~10uN that the Polish group has also detected as we use identical main amplifiers.
Next, I plan on modifying the cavity you sent me so that I can attempt to create traveling waves instead of standing waves. This may involve drilling a hole into the side so I can insert the antenna along the side-walls as recommended by Shawyer. It may also be useful to run some simulations in the time domain rather than only the frequency domain, that way we can see if there are traveling waves in specific configurations.
I'm also interested in testing some of the lower order modes such as TM010, TE111, TM011 and Tx11x - but that will require a couple of more cavities, albeit smaller than the huge TE013 cavity.
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 07/18/2018 03:08 pm
Hi Mr. Jamie, I haven't seen your speech for a long time. It’s been a long time, how is your experiment going? Is the work not going well?
The torsional pendulum works great now that I switched to liquid metal contacts and covered everything in insulation. I have a sensitivity of ~0.2uN, which I am very pleased with. However, now that I've eliminated most of the error sources, I only appear to be seeing what I think is asymmetric thermal expansion of the amplifier PCB board. This is also what I suspect is behind the ~10uN that the Polish group has also detected as we use identical main amplifiers.
Next, I plan on modifying the cavity you sent me so that I can attempt to create traveling waves instead of standing waves. This may involve drilling a hole into the side so I can insert the antenna along the side-walls as recommended by Shawyer. It may also be useful to run some simulations in the time domain rather than only the frequency domain, that way we can see if there are traveling waves in specific configurations.
I'm also interested in testing some of the lower order modes such as TM010, TE111, TM011 and Tx11x - but that will require a couple of more cavities, albeit smaller than the huge TE013 cavity.
If it is the expansion of the PCB board, there should be ways to make it certain. Say, test with different arrangements of the board.
Post by: Notsosureofit on 07/18/2018 03:17 pm
Edit: (an interesting thought is that the complete "mirror" space, including radial, is quite distorted. Does it have a universal asymmetry?)
Post by: wicoe on 07/18/2018 08:18 pm
The work done to accelerate a mass for say 1 sec from a state of constant velocity never varies.
This is so wrong... it is clearly easier to accelerate an object to a certain dV when it's standing still than to accelerate it by the same amount when it's already moving. This follows right from the formula for kinetic energy. The work required to accelerate an object clearly depends on the ref. frame. I'm really confused as to why this is not obvious... anyone care to explain?
Post by: OnlyMe on 07/19/2018 12:55 am
The work done to accelerate a mass for say 1 sec from a state of constant velocity never varies.
This is so wrong... it is clearly easier to accelerate an object to a certain dV when it's standing still than to accelerate it by the same amount when it's already moving. This follows right from the formula for kinetic energy. The work required to accelerate an object clearly depends on the ref. frame. I'm really confused as to why this is not obvious... anyone care to explain?
You are correct and it is obvious!
The problem is the theory that TT is attempting to promote claims the EmDrive as the frame for its own acceleration... That is almost like saying it pushes against itself to accelerate. If taken to a reputable Physics discussion Forum(s), it would be set straight in short order. Going down that kind of rabbit hole here is just a bit outside the thread’s primary purpose.
There may be room at some point to work out how a self contained propellant-less drive might function, without violating CoE. But that really adds nothing to the experimental efforts at present.
Post by: RERT on 07/19/2018 09:31 am
I don't think this is even self-consistent speculation.
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 07/19/2018 12:37 pm
I'm pretty sure the "LA Company" is the work by James Spottiswoode. His results have never been published here as the author has chosen not to. However, I just checked his Linkedin page and he has a picture posted! He achieved the proper resonance, which he confirmed with IR camera, but his results were ultimately null.
From James, "I designed and constructed a replication of a NASA experiment that claimed to demonstrate a novel propellant-less rocket thruster. As this device appears to violate the laws of conservation of momentum and energy I did not expect it to produce thrust, as has turned out to be the case in experiments so far. Such an experiment is technically challenging as it involves measuring μNewton level forces in a large apparatus consuming over 1 kW of electrical power. Many possibilities for artifacts, thermal, electrical and magnetic, exist and have to be eliminated. A paper on this failed replication is in preparation."
Well, well, James Spottiswoode also built an EmDrive setup (I know him from another field of research). It looks quite professional (I hope he also measured inside an enclosure, though).
'Failed replication'. This probably means he measured no anomalous force.
We just have to wait for his publication, I guess. :-\
Post by: Jim Davis on 07/19/2018 05:09 pm
This is so wrong... I'm really confused as to why this is not obvious... anyone care to explain?
Yes, it is obvious.
It is because we all here have this strong emotional attachment to space and all things space. If the Em drive and Mach effect drives were pitched as free energy machines (and they could have been) we would sneer at them. But since they're pitched as space drives we embrace them. We make excuses for them like "people thought mas was conserved at one time", or "kinetic energy is proportional to (dv)^2, not v^2" or "it's pushing against the entire universe". We even spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours trying to build them.
Deep down we're all still ten year olds when it comes to space. I don't exclude myself.
And that's not entirely a bad thing. Great things come just as often from strong emotional attachment as from detached rationalism. Musk is an obvious example, with his fascination with Mars.
Post by: RERT on 07/19/2018 09:55 pm
I said a few threads back that I thought Shawyer was either right, delusional, or crooked - he has spent more than enough money and time to know the answer on the EMdrive. Sadly I'm leaning towards delusional today.
Post by: Jim Davis on 07/19/2018 11:37 pm
Jim - maybe it has something to do with the EMdrive being worth $10^13 or so if real.
No, it goes further than that. If free energy scams turned out to be real they would be worth just as much but we don't gush over them and spend thousands trying to build them. But since Em drives, etc are pitched as space drives the pitch goes right to our hearts bypassing our brains.
Post by: tchernik on 07/20/2018 02:12 am
Children in general are true scientists, discovering the world as it is without preconceptions unless we stop them. Education, even good well meaning one, takes off some of that child like curiosity. Life tends to peel off the rest if we allow it.
It is very easy to overlook many things in your older ages if you don't keep some of this ability to keep your eyes open and see things as they are before making your own opinion.
So, I try to keep and open mind and an evidence based approach, even with weird, unlikely assertions.
You say this contraption pushes when microwaves are resonating inside it? good. Prove it.
While the information about this particular assertion is still inconclusive, I feel as time passes that such inconclusiveness is never going to end, precisely because we are dealing with real things (thermal and EM noise) and wishes (we want this to be real).
In any case, I still think it's necessary to go to the bottom of this, regardless of the conclusions. At least it will become a lesson on the pitfalls of wishful thinking, or a body of experience for those making similar claims in the future, about the many challenges there are to prove any similar claims.
Who knows? we may be seeing things that really linger at the limit of measurement, but that we may learn eventually that were true, but only after the 'magic ingredient' to amplify them is found.
Post by: Bob Woods on 07/20/2018 06:55 am
Personally, I still keep a ten year old spot in my heart and mind, and I do it on purpose.Brilliantly said.
Children in general are true scientists, discovering the world as it is without preconceptions unless we stop them. Education, even good well meaning one, takes off some of that child like curiosity. Life tends to peel off the rest if we allow it.
It is very easy to overlook many things in your older ages if you don't keep some of this ability to keep your eyes open and see things as they are before making your own opinion.
So, I try to keep and open mind and an evidence based approach, even with weird, unlikely assertions.
You say this contraption pushes when microwaves are resonating inside it? good. Prove it.
While the information about this particular assertion is still inconclusive, I feel as time passes that such inconclusiveness is never going to end, precisely because we are dealing with real things (thermal and EM noise) and wishes (we want this to be real).
In any case, I still think it's necessary to go to the bottom of this, regardless of the conclusions. At least it will become a lesson on the pitfalls of wishful thinking, or a body of experience for those making similar claims in the future, about the many challenges there are to prove any similar claims.
Who knows? we may be seeing things that really linger at the limit of measurement, but that we may learn eventually that were true, but only after the 'magic ingredient' to amplify them is found.
Post by: RotoSequence on 07/20/2018 09:23 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfffy12uQ7g
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/21/2018 12:56 pm
"We report on rotating an optically trapped silica nanoparticle in vacuum by transferring spin angular momentum of light to the particle’s mechanical angular momentum. At sufficiently low damping, realized at pressures below 10−5 mbar, we observe rotation frequencies of single 100 nm particles exceeding 1 GHz. We find that the steady-state rotation frequency scales linearly with the optical trapping power and inversely with pressure, consistent with theoretical considerations based on conservation of angular momentum. Rapidly changing the polarization of the trapping light allows us to extract the pressure-dependent response time of the particle’s rotational degree of
freedom."
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.11160.pdf
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/22/2018 11:32 pm
I will need to fabricate a spacer that is ~18mm thick to reduce the resonant frequency from ~2.49Ghz to ~2.4ghz. I will do this using foam insulation covered with copper foil adhesive. This spacer will also allow me to adjust the large end-plate so that it is parallel with the small end-plate.
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/23/2018 04:38 pm
https://twitter.com/PeterlooPete/status/1020597177029201920
Should be interesting.
Post by: SteveD on 07/23/2018 07:00 pm
BTW it might be worth it to try measure EMDrive force from the small endplate of the device and not an rotating attachment in the middle.
Post by: Mark7777777 on 07/23/2018 09:03 pm
Apparently DARPA has granted Dr. Mike McCulloch $1.5m to build a demo QI based propellant less drive for them.
https://twitter.com/PeterlooPete/status/1020597177029201920
Should be interesting.
I wonder what that might look like? E.g.
A) 15 people @100k for 1 year
B) 7 people for 2 years
C) 3 people for 4 years
I suppose it might be something like B) or C) with extra PhD students and unpaid interns.
Or maybe some of that budget is for cubesat? Perhaps DARPA has a place on their shuttle-like space vehicle I think they have.
Post by: Bob Woods on 07/23/2018 10:50 pm
If it proves out, money will not be an object and the real space race will begin.Apparently DARPA has granted Dr. Mike McCulloch $1.5m to build a demo QI based propellant less drive for them.
https://twitter.com/PeterlooPete/status/1020597177029201920 (https://twitter.com/PeterlooPete/status/1020597177029201920)
Should be interesting.
I wonder what that might look like? E.g.
A) 15 people @100k for 1 year
B) 7 people for 2 years
C) 3 people for 4 years
I suppose it might be something like B) or C) with extra PhD students and unpaid interns.
Or maybe some of that budget is for cubesat? Perhaps DARPA has a place on their shuttle-like space vehicle I think they have.
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 07/24/2018 12:22 am
If it proves out, money will not be an object and the real space race will begin.Apparently DARPA has granted Dr. Mike McCulloch $1.5m to build a demo QI based propellant less drive for them.
https://twitter.com/PeterlooPete/status/1020597177029201920 (https://twitter.com/PeterlooPete/status/1020597177029201920)
Should be interesting.
I wonder what that might look like? E.g.
A) 15 people @100k for 1 year
B) 7 people for 2 years
C) 3 people for 4 years
I suppose it might be something like B) or C) with extra PhD students and unpaid interns.
Or maybe some of that budget is for cubesat? Perhaps DARPA has a place on their shuttle-like space vehicle I think they have.
From my own study, QI is very likely wrong and it will not prove out.
Post by: oyzw on 07/24/2018 12:47 am
Apparently DARPA has granted Dr. Mike McCulloch $1.5m to build a demo QI based propellant less drive for them.Is the Q thruster emdrive? Or is it a working medium microwave propeller?
https://twitter.com/PeterlooPete/status/1020597177029201920
Should be interesting.
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/24/2018 01:55 am
Apparently DARPA has granted Dr. Mike McCulloch $1.5m to build a demo QI based propellant less drive for them.Is the Q thruster emdrive? Or is it a working medium microwave propeller?
https://twitter.com/PeterlooPete/status/1020597177029201920
Should be interesting.
Hi Oyzw,
Neither. Something else. Based on Mike's Qi theory.
While Mike does have a thrust equation that works with some EmDrive data, his theory is not the SPR theory.
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/24/2018 02:09 am
Interesting that DARPA are apparently funding Mike with more money than NASA is funding the MEGA drive. Just maybe DARPA has experience with the EmDrive and desires to see if Mike's Qi drive can do a better job.
Mike has claimed his Qi drive should be able to do heavy lift in a 1g gravity well.
Roger has also claimed heavy lift in a 1g gravity well but with very limited acceleration, ie 0.005g for Gen 2 due to Doppler shift and 0.01g for Gen 3 due to CofE.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 07/24/2018 10:27 am
Apparently DARPA has granted Dr. Mike McCulloch $1.5m to build a demo QI based propellant less drive for them.
https://twitter.com/PeterlooPete/status/1020597177029201920
Should be interesting.
I wonder what that might look like? E.g.
A) 15 people @100k for 1 year
B) 7 people for 2 years
C) 3 people for 4 years
I suppose it might be something like B) or C) with extra PhD students and unpaid interns.
Or maybe some of that budget is for cubesat? Perhaps DARPA has a place on their shuttle-like space vehicle I think they have.
It's C)
Back in April, McCulloch said on Twitter that the funding would be used to support him and a new postdoc, as well as Profs Tajmar and Perez-Diaz to try different experimental "horizon drives" over a period of 4 years.
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/981857778493992960
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/989596027496882176
As already said here by cvbn (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1807514#msg1807514) in June:
- Mike McCulloch and a post-doc at the University of Plymouth, UK, will develop the theory further
- Martin Tajmar at TU Dresden, Germany, will build and test Travis Shane Taylor's EmDrive based on lasers: http://www.jbis.org.uk/paper.php?p=2017.70.238
- José Luis Pérez-Díaz at the University of Alcalá, Spain, will test the "LEMdrive" based on a light-loop in a fiber optic whose working principle is explained at http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/lemdrive.html - The LEMdrive has actually been designed in 2016 and already tested in 2017 and showed anomalous thrust, but they won't talk about it before determining if the measured forces are artifacts, and a paper is published.
BTW anyone has the Taylor paper?
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/24/2018 01:03 pm
Is the Q thruster emdrive? Or is it a working medium microwave propeller?
My understanding is it is a 5cm long frustum-shaped optical cavity designed to operate in the infrared band. It uses a gain medium like a typical laser to increase the energy in the cavity. So it definitely has more in common with the Emdrive than it does with say the mach effect thruster.
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/24/2018 11:36 pm
Different dog, same leg action.
Biggest problem is supplying enough input energy to support high g acceleration.
Assume constant Ns of force generation. As the N/kWrf increases, the amount of input energy drops to generate a fix amount of Ns of force. As this input energy is converted into KE, there is less energy available to support acceleration. Thus high N/kWrf drives suffer with low acceleration due to low energy input.
Unless the Qi drives has a new energy source, other than the input, it too may suffer low acceleration.
There is a solution but that is another story.
Post by: dustinthewind on 07/24/2018 11:57 pm
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/25/2018 12:15 am
I think with some of the claims that the EM drive is changing the frequency of light by transference of its energy to some unseen medium (acceleration of light) could be tested. Injection into the cavity could be chosen to be continuous and at a set frequency. One can then use the frequency injected to compare that frequency that exists inside the cavity via a sensing antenna. Lower Q allows some bandwidth to exist in the cavity so it might be there. Shift the phase of the injected frequency and amplify/attenuate the wave so the sensed frequency in the cavity cancels with the injected frequency. What remains would be what ever is left that changed in frequency.
Hi,
As an EmDrive accelerates, the gained KE is from the internal photons energy loss, which causes the emitted photons to have a longer wavelength than on impact. Nothing new here. Happens with solar sails.
Using short pulse Rf injection (limited to 5x cavity TC) and allowing the cavity to accelerate while the cavity energy rings down, enables this increasing wavelength effect to be measured.
During acceleration, other effects occur such as decreased Q due to some cavity energy conversion into KE and impedance changes due to increased photon wavelength moving away from ideal resonant freq.
Post by: dustinthewind on 07/25/2018 02:43 am
I think with some of the claims that the EM drive is changing the frequency of light by transference of its energy to some unseen medium (acceleration of light) could be tested. Injection into the cavity could be chosen to be continuous and at a set frequency. One can then use the frequency injected to compare that frequency that exists inside the cavity via a sensing antenna. Lower Q allows some bandwidth to exist in the cavity so it might be there. Shift the phase of the injected frequency and amplify/attenuate the wave so the sensed frequency in the cavity cancels with the injected frequency. What remains would be what ever is left that changed in frequency.
Hi,
As an EmDrive accelerates, the gained KE is from the internal photons energy loss, which causes the emitted photons to have a longer wavelength than on impact. Nothing new here. Happens with solar sails.
Using short pulse Rf injection (limited to 5x cavity TC) and allowing the cavity to accelerate while the cavity energy rings down, enables this increasing wavelength effect to be measured.
During acceleration, other effects occur such as decreased Q due to some cavity energy conversion into KE and impedance changes due to increased photon wavelength moving away from ideal resonant freq.
Ok. You talk as if you have taken measurements of this ring down? Do you have any measurements of this change in frequency you could share? Thanks.
Also I am assuming that your thinking that more reflections at the top lead to more momentum transfer than a single reflection below. Even though multiple reflections at top, add less forward momentum per strike via the angle of reflection. So multiple strikes and photon energy loss win out causing the back strike not to be able to finish momentum cancellation.
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/25/2018 03:56 am
I think with some of the claims that the EM drive is changing the frequency of light by transference of its energy to some unseen medium (acceleration of light) could be tested. Injection into the cavity could be chosen to be continuous and at a set frequency. One can then use the frequency injected to compare that frequency that exists inside the cavity via a sensing antenna. Lower Q allows some bandwidth to exist in the cavity so it might be there. Shift the phase of the injected frequency and amplify/attenuate the wave so the sensed frequency in the cavity cancels with the injected frequency. What remains would be what ever is left that changed in frequency.
Hi,
As an EmDrive accelerates, the gained KE is from the internal photons energy loss, which causes the emitted photons to have a longer wavelength than on impact. Nothing new here. Happens with solar sails.
Using short pulse Rf injection (limited to 5x cavity TC) and allowing the cavity to accelerate while the cavity energy rings down, enables this increasing wavelength effect to be measured.
During acceleration, other effects occur such as decreased Q due to some cavity energy conversion into KE and impedance changes due to increased photon wavelength moving away from ideal resonant freq.
Ok. You talk as if you have taken measurements of this ring down? Do you have any measurements of this change in frequency you could share? Thanks.
Also I am assuming that your thinking that more reflections at the top lead to more momentum transfer than a single reflection below. Even though multiple reflections at top, add less forward momentum per strike via the angle of reflection. So multiple strikes and photon energy loss win out causing the back strike not to be able to finish momentum cancellation.
Hi,
Momentum transfer is highly dependent on the angle of incidence, which is also the angle of emission. So there is a double cosine loss function at work. As the angle of incidence varies with the diameter, this is why the rad pressure drops in a very non linear way as the diameter drops.
Yes it has been measured and the data will be shared when the KISS drive build and testing is completed.
Will also show that Q drops as the drive accelerates, which is caused by increased cavity energy loss per cycle due to accelerated mass KE gain.
EmDrive cavities have 3 Qs:
Qu = only eddy current losses per cycle
Ql = as above plus coupler losses per cycle
Qe = as above plus cavity energy loss to accelerated mass KE gain per cycle
The above also apply to accelerator cavities, which experience cavity energy loss as the particles accelerated by the cavities axial E field gradient, gain KE from the stored cavity energy and the Q drops.
Post by: meberbs on 07/25/2018 07:12 am
Momentum transfer is highly dependent on the angle of incidence, which is also the angle of emission. So there is a double cosine loss function at work. As the angle of incidence varies with the diameter, this is why the rad pressure drops in a very non linear way as the diameter drops.In this (overly simplistic) view where the photons are particles rather than distributed waves, you have made a couple mistakes.
-The cosine should not be squared, the incident equals reflected angle is handled by the factor of 2 in your equation.
-You are talking about radiation pressure reducing as the diameter decreases, but you ignore the fact that if that is what happened, the drive would accelerate in the wrong direction
-You are ignoring that since the pressure on the sidewalls includes a component in the axial direction, this adds additional force that exactly makes up the difference between the force on the small and large ends.
Now stop demonstrating that you have trouble with entry level physics, stop claiming that NASA or other agency agree with Shawyer on anything (no one competent agrees with his theory, because it is obviously inconsistent) That chart from Shawyer is meaningless, it is just one more set of claims from him that is almost certainly not representative of reality in any way, shape, or form.
And seriously stop with claims like "it has been measured and will be shared" You have not given a shred of evidence that you have ever built anything. Either share the data, or stop with the false promises.
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/25/2018 07:38 am
Momentum transfer is highly dependent on the angle of incidence, which is also the angle of emission. So there is a double cosine loss function at work. As the angle of incidence varies with the diameter, this is why the rad pressure drops in a very non linear way as the diameter drops.In this (overly simplistic) view where the photons are particles rather than distributed waves, you have made a couple mistakes.
-The cosine should not be squared, the incident equals reflected angle is handled by the factor of 2 in your equation.
-You are talking about radiation pressure reducing as the diameter decreases, but you ignore the fact that if that is what happened, the drive would accelerate in the wrong direction
-You are ignoring that since the pressure on the sidewalls includes a component in the axial direction, this adds additional force that exactly makes up the difference between the force on the small and large ends.
Now stop demonstrating that you have trouble with entry level physics, stop claiming that NASA or other agency agree with Shawyer on anything (no one competent agrees with his theory, because it is obviously inconsistent) That chart from Shawyer is meaningless, it is just one more set of claims from him that is almost certainly not representative of reality in any way, shape, or form.
And seriously stop with claims like "it has been measured and will be shared" You have not given a shred of evidence that you have ever built anything. Either share the data, or stop with the false promises.
The equation is correct:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure see attached.
Note that Roger has explained how the rad pressure at the end plates is different as in slides 8 & 9. BTW do you have any issues with those 2 attached slides?
I did not make any claims about Roger's recent presentation. What I did was share what I read from his slides. Maybe you should email Roger and tell him to stop making such claims? Or maybe email the USAF and tell them that Roger is making false claims about their Flight Certification of the SPR Flight Thruster and false claims that they agree with SPR on the 3G EmDrive theory?
Post by: meberbs on 07/25/2018 01:40 pm
The equation is correct:That equation is for a fixed area plate in fixed irradiance (energy per area) radiation field, where the total amount of energy that hits the plate per area is a function of the projected area of the plate into the field. The result is the pressure on the plate (force per physical area of the plate). The equation you gave is a function of total energy hitting the surface, not energy per area. As a result the second factor of cos is already built in to the energy. This makes sense, because inside the cavity, all of the energy will be reflected off something, you don't need to reduce it by the extra factor, since non of the energy can miss the walls entirely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure see attached.
Thank you for demonstrating yet again that you don't apply any critical thinking at all on physical principles, and just copy paste things that are only sometimes relevant. Now, please stop doing that, and either start thinking, or stop making claims about things you don't understand.
Note that Roger has explained how the rad pressure at the end plates is different as in slides 8 & 9. BTW do you have any issues with those 2 attached slides?No, he nothing in those slides states anything about the radiation pressure is a frustum shaped cavity. As stated many times, in a frustum shaped cavity, the radiation pressure on the sidewalls averages out to a net force in the direction of the small end, and this is exactly equal to the difference between the forces on the small and large end.
As to the content of the slides themselves, there is nothing directly wrong with the math, though it would be more representative of physical reality if he also for the waveguide showed that the reason for the reduction in group velocity is related to the steepness of the path as the photons bounce between the walls of the waveguide, in mathematical terms, this means the v_g/c term coud just be replaced by a cosine(theta). Similarly, in the second slide, he makes it look like there is only force on 2 walls of the cavity, instead of all of them. Normally I'd just call that sloppy diagramming, but with Shawyer it is fundamental to why all of his claims are wrong.
I did not make any claims about Roger's recent presentation. What I did was share what I read from his slides. Maybe you should email Roger and tell him to stop making such claims? Or maybe email the USAF and tell them that Roger is making false claims about their Flight Certification of the SPR Flight Thruster and false claims that they agree with SPR on the 3G EmDrive theory?You supposedly have a good relationship with Shawyer, how about youask him to stop with his false and misleading claims, because it is embarrassing to any legitimate people trying to put this issue to bed?
USAF is not an organization you could e-mail and get some logical response out of on this, mostly you would just get a "what are you talking about?" response if anything, and honestly if some guy who is obviously a crackpot is making misleading claims in another country they aren't going to do anything about it. Kind of outside their jurisdiction. You can stop repeating the nonsense though. You have posted that slide at least twice now, and it didn't get any more meaningful the second time.
Post by: OnlyMe on 07/25/2018 04:30 pm
....
Yes it has been measured and the data will be shared when the KISS drive build and testing is completed. ...
If you already have the data why wait for the KISS drive build, to share it?
The KISS drive itself can not prove where any rotary force comes from. Once the drive used for a rotary rig has been tested on a rig like Monomorphic’s, and proven to produce some force/acceleration, it could be used to demonstrate constant force/acceleration, with a rotary rig.
....
Note that Roger has explained how the rad pressure at the end plates is different as in slides 8 & 9. BTW do you have any issues with those 2 attached slides?
... Or maybe email the USAF and tell them that Roger is making false claims about their Flight Certification of the SPR Flight Thruster and false claims that they agree with SPR on the 3G EmDrive theory?
It has been my understanding that Roger’s background was in the area of microwave engineering, not theoretical physics. There have been past claims that his “explanation” of how his EmDrive works is supported by authorities on both sides of the pond, but those authorities remain unnamed, no?
Tell me why would the USAF care or comment on Roger’s claims? ... And if the USAF had any evidence supporting Roger’s 3G claims, it would seem obvious that DARPA would have access to the data and it would affect just where they put their funding...
How does...
Different dog, same leg action.
...
Follow from...
Apparently DARPA has granted Dr. Mike McCulloch $1.5m to build a demo QI based propellant less drive for them.Is the Q thruster emdrive? Or is it a working medium microwave propeller?
https://twitter.com/PeterlooPete/status/1020597177029201920
Should be interesting.
Hi Oyzw,
Neither. Something else. Based on Mike's Qi theory.
While Mike does have a thrust equation that works with some EmDrive data, his theory is not the SPR theory.
Only if we are really talking about bouncing photons does a microwave wavelength frustum have anything in common with a 5cm frustum operating in the infrared range. Microwaves interact with the copper walls of a frustum in a far different manner than EM radiation in the infrared band. For one the microwave EM field inside a frustum has both electric and magnetic properties, inducing eddy currents and corresponding magnetic fields in the walls... and ultimately heat. Infrared radiation would heat up the copper, yes..., but would there be electric and magnetic components associated with the field inside the frustum and the walls?
Nowhere near a, “Different dog, same leg action.” ...
If the USAF has a working EmDrive, even still in development, they are not going to talk about it. And there is no advantage in responding to claims made by anyone. As for DARPA, they have a reputation for throwing money at all sorts of, even fringe projects on the off chance that sooner or later something may prove useful.
All this to arrive at my point, if you have data share it. Until you do talk is just that talk.
Post by: Josave on 07/25/2018 11:01 pm
https://www.nxp.com/products/rf/rf-power/rf-ism-and-broadcast/rf-energy-systems/rf-energy-lab-box:RFEL24-500
In this video they present and test the full solution, the control capabilities are amazing, precise phase and frequency sweep, SWR monitoring, and maybe more can be done with the Matlab dll. With two modules included in the RFEL24-500, a complex pattern of resonances can be explored in the frustum...
https://www.nxp.com/video/:RF_LAB_BOX
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 07/25/2018 11:09 pm
The equation is correct:That equation is for a fixed area plate in fixed irradiance (energy per area) radiation field, where the total amount of energy that hits the plate per area is a function of the projected area of the plate into the field. The result is the pressure on the plate (force per physical area of the plate). The equation you gave is a function of total energy hitting the surface, not energy per area. As a result the second factor of cos is already built in to the energy. This makes sense, because inside the cavity, all of the energy will be reflected off something, you don't need to reduce it by the extra factor, since non of the energy can miss the walls entirely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure see attached.
...
Maybe somebody on the forum can recall that a few years ago a German student wrote a simulation of EMDrive based on bouncing photons with a probability of being absorbed. He obtained thrust and posted the document and code here. I reviewed his code and found probably exactly the same problem (square or not of the cos(theta)). After he corrected the problem, the thrust was reduced to input momentum. I tried but I can not find his post nor my review.
Post by: meberbs on 07/25/2018 11:59 pm
Found it, https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1536759#msg1536759The equation is correct:That equation is for a fixed area plate in fixed irradiance (energy per area) radiation field, where the total amount of energy that hits the plate per area is a function of the projected area of the plate into the field. The result is the pressure on the plate (force per physical area of the plate). The equation you gave is a function of total energy hitting the surface, not energy per area. As a result the second factor of cos is already built in to the energy. This makes sense, because inside the cavity, all of the energy will be reflected off something, you don't need to reduce it by the extra factor, since non of the energy can miss the walls entirely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure see attached.
...
Maybe somebody on the forum can recall that a few years ago a German student wrote a simulation of EMDrive based on bouncing photons with a probability of being absorbed. He obtained thrust and posted the document and code here. I reviewed his code and found probably exactly the same problem (square or not of the cos(theta)). After he corrected the problem, the thrust was reduced to input momentum. I tried but I can not find his post nor my review.
Just as you remembered, the problem was an inappropriate cos^2 term.
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 07/26/2018 12:18 am
Found it, https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1536759#msg1536759
Just as you remembered, the problem was an inappropriate cos^2 term.
Thank you! I forgot that I had other ID's on the forum.
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/26/2018 01:57 am
.....
There are 2 momentum transfer events involved. One upon photon impact and another when the photon is emitted. That is why the radiation pressure equation starts with 2.
The cosine loss is squared as there are 2 x cosine loss events that reduce the radiation pressure, one on impact and one on emit.
So the equation is correct and is why radiation pressure on the side walls and end plates inside a tapered cavity is not constant but drops much quicker than the diameter drop.
Post by: meberbs on 07/26/2018 02:47 am
Did you even read my post? If you did, you would already realize that you picked the wrong equation. There literally is no reason in this situation to square the cosine......
There are 2 momentum transfer events involved. One upon photon impact and another when the photon is emitted. That is why the radiation pressure equation starts with 2.
The cosine loss is squared as there are 2 x cosine loss events that reduce the radiation pressure, one on impact and one on emit.
So the equation is correct and is why radiation pressure on the side walls and end plates inside a tapered cavity is not constant but drops much quicker than the diameter drop.
First, to be clear, there are not "two events." That is not how reflection of an electromagnetic wave from a metal surface works. For the purpose of calculating the momentum, there is no difference though, so lets break it down:
The first "event" imparts momentum in the direction perpendicular to the surface of (E/c) * cos(alpha), this gets added to the second "event" which imparts (E/c) * cos(alpha) as well, because it is departing at the same angle. When you add these together, you get 2*(E/c) * cos(alpha). Nothing gets squared.
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/26/2018 03:55 am
Did you even read my post? If you did, you would already realize that you picked the wrong equation. There literally is no reason in this situation to square the cosine......
There are 2 momentum transfer events involved. One upon photon impact and another when the photon is emitted. That is why the radiation pressure equation starts with 2.
The cosine loss is squared as there are 2 x cosine loss events that reduce the radiation pressure, one on impact and one on emit.
So the equation is correct and is why radiation pressure on the side walls and end plates inside a tapered cavity is not constant but drops much quicker than the diameter drop.
First, to be clear, there are not "two events." That is not how reflection of an electromagnetic wave from a metal surface works. For the purpose of calculating the momentum, there is no difference though, so lets break it down:
The first "event" imparts momentum in the direction perpendicular to the surface of (E/c) * cos(alpha), this gets added to the second "event" which imparts (E/c) * cos(alpha) as well, because it is departing at the same angle. When you add these together, you get 2*(E/c) * cos(alpha). Nothing gets squared.
You are correct.
It is cos^2 in the case of a solar sail as the incident angle drops both area and momentum transfer. But in the case of an EmDrive end plate it is just reduced momentum transfer small end plate with small incident angle vs big end plate with larger incident angle as the same number of photons hits both the small and big end plates.
Glad to see you now understand the rad pressure inside a trappered resonant cavity is not the same for all the surface area as some have incorrectly assumed. ie the photons do not act like a fluid.
Post by: meberbs on 07/26/2018 06:55 am
You are correct.Thank you for finally acknowledging anything I have said, and accepting a correction. As PotomacNeuron pointed out, you are not the first one to make this specific mistake.
Glad to see you now understand the rad pressure inside a trappered resonant cavity is not the same for all the surface area as some have incorrectly assumed. ie the photons do not act like a fluid.I never said the pressure was constant everywhere. In fact due to mode shape, it is variable over any surface you pick in the cavity. What hasn't changed is that the net axial force on the sidewalls plus the force on the small end together exactly cancel the force on the large end.
(I did originally have confusion thinking Shawyer claimed force on the small end was somehow larger than the big end, since that is what would be required to accelerate the drive in the direction it supposedly moves.)
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/26/2018 07:33 am
I never said the pressure was constant everywhere. In fact due to mode shape, it is variable over any surface you pick in the cavity. What hasn't changed is that the net axial force on the sidewalls plus the force on the small end together exactly cancel the force on the large end.
Yes the rad pressure varies as the mode varies and yes it is not constant over the surface. However you are incorrect in assuming all the rad pressure on the interior surfaces of an EmDrive sum to zero.
Have a look at this graphic of how a typical resonant photon impacts and emits itself off of the side walls and the end plates. Yes I know it is not what Roger has shared as the impact angle on the small end plate is larger than on the big end plate, so more rad pressure on the small end plate than the big end plate and the side wall rad pressure is basically very small.
Post by: meberbs on 07/26/2018 12:59 pm
There is no assumption that the forces sum to zero, it is a simple fact. It has been proven multiple ways.I never said the pressure was constant everywhere. In fact due to mode shape, it is variable over any surface you pick in the cavity. What hasn't changed is that the net axial force on the sidewalls plus the force on the small end together exactly cancel the force on the large end.
Yes the rad pressure varies as the mode varies and yes it is not constant over the surface. However you are incorrect in assuming all the rad pressure on the interior surfaces of an EmDrive sum to zero.
Have a look at this graphic of how a typical resonant photon impacts and emits itself off of the side walls and the end plates. Yes I know it is not what Roger has shared as the impact angle on the small end plate is larger than on the big end plate, so more rad pressure on the small end plate than the big end plate and the side wall rad pressure is basically very small.
Your diagram is not representative of a "typical" photon, because a "typical" photon acts like a wave not a particle in this situation. You can do a particle model if you want, and it will still conserve momentum if you actually do it right. Your first clue that something is wrong with your picture should be your obviously unphysical result of more pressure on the small plate than the large one. The issue is that you did not sketch a path consistent with incident and reflected angles equal to each other. Do that and things will start making more sense. Then you can do the math and add up the momentum from each transfer. With 6 reflections off the side wall per loop, and all of those reflections having the axial component of their momentum pointed in the same direction, you are not going to find the sidewall force contribution to be "small"
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/26/2018 10:11 pm
There is no assumption that the forces sum to zero, it is a simple fact. It has been proven multiple ways.I never said the pressure was constant everywhere. In fact due to mode shape, it is variable over any surface you pick in the cavity. What hasn't changed is that the net axial force on the sidewalls plus the force on the small end together exactly cancel the force on the large end.
Yes the rad pressure varies as the mode varies and yes it is not constant over the surface. However you are incorrect in assuming all the rad pressure on the interior surfaces of an EmDrive sum to zero.
Have a look at this graphic of how a typical resonant photon impacts and emits itself off of the side walls and the end plates. Yes I know it is not what Roger has shared as the impact angle on the small end plate is larger than on the big end plate, so more rad pressure on the small end plate than the big end plate and the side wall rad pressure is basically very small.
Your diagram is not representative of a "typical" photon, because a "typical" photon acts like a wave not a particle in this situation. You can do a particle model if you want, and it will still conserve momentum if you actually do it right. Your first clue that something is wrong with your picture should be your obviously unphysical result of more pressure on the small plate than the large one. The issue is that you did not sketch a path consistent with incident and reflected angles equal to each other. Do that and things will start making more sense. Then you can do the math and add up the momentum from each transfer. With 6 reflections off the side wall per loop, and all of those reflections having the axial component of their momentum pointed in the same direction, you are not going to find the sidewall force contribution to be "small"
The emission angle alters as the diameter alters. That is why the guide wavelength at the small end is longer than at the big end. As the diameter drops, the emission angle increases. At cutoff diameter, the emission angle causes the emitted photon to hit the opposite wall at such an angle that the photon reverses it's big to small propogation. Image attached is of a resonant cavity that has no small end plate. Instead the proton propogation is reversed via the just described cutoff action. BTW this action is what caused the eddy current ring at the small end to become much greater than on the small end plate. 2nd image is cutoff and the 3rd image is boarderline cutoff. Ideally the small end side wall eddy current ring is much weaker than the small end plate eddy current ring at in the 4th image
If you search in a good microwave engineering book, you will find the equation that describes the relationship between mode, freq, waveguide diameter and emission angle.
Yes you are correct, the rad pressure is greater on the small end plate than on the big end plate. This is why the EmDrive accelerates small end forward. The action/reaction occurs from the photons doing their impact and emit N3 events at each end plate with an overall N3 effect generation a net effect small end forward. There is some side wall force but it is small end directed and not big end directed. So the small side wall force actually adds to the overall small end forward action.
Post by: meberbs on 07/27/2018 02:22 am
The emission angle alters as the diameter alters. That is why the guide wavelength at the small end is longer than at the big end. As the diameter drops, the emission angle increases.Correlation, not causation between angle and diameter. The real causation is that incident angle equals reflected angle. (Still using the bouncing particle approximation rather than the wave equations you need to get all of the details right. It at least provides for easier intuition this way.)
Each bounce on the way to the small end, the angle becomes closer to perpendicular to the side walls due to the effect of the previous reflection and the angle between these walls. This translate into a shallow angle bounce of the end plate which leads to the reduced pressure there. The approximation of cutoff conditions as you described is a smooth continuation of this trend. No reason that this would suddenly become a bad thing.
If you search in a good microwave engineering book, you will find the equation that describes the relationship between mode, freq, waveguide diameter and emission angle.Yes, I have had classes where I had to derive those equations for waveguides. We are talking about a resonator, not a waveguide. In some ways more significantly, we are talking about an object with sloped sides. This significantly changes the boundary conditions, invalidating those equations.
Yes you are correct, the rad pressure is greater on the small end plate than on the big end plate.There seems to have been some sort of miscommunication. I have never said that there was more pressure on the small end than the large end. I said the exact opposite of that. Even Shawyer said the exact opposite of that once I read what he was saying more carefully.
This is why the EmDrive accelerates small end forward.No, since the correct statement is that there is less pressure on the small end, Shawyer's theory that ignores the sidewalls predicts movement in the wrong direction.
There is some side wall force but it is small end directed and not big end directed.Yes, it is small end directed, so it adds to the force from the small end, to have the same magnitude as the force on the big end, which is why if you do the math right you see that this kind of explanation does not result in force generation. (Remember, the force on the small end is clearly less than the force on the big end since the photon reflection from that end happens at more of a glancing angle.)
Post by: Req on 07/27/2018 06:44 am
Post by: fran640 on 07/27/2018 01:03 pm
First time poster, though I have been following this thread for 3 or 4 years now. I am a portrait artist but I also have a degree in electromechanical engineering. This was my introduction.
I think I will be the voice of all the silent viewers like me, who are desesperate to know if the em-drive is working or not.
My opinion : At this point, I think debating the same theories ad infinitum and will not lead to any progress toward the ultimate goal which is determining if the signal is real or not.
I also make this post to congratulate everyone who has invested their time and money into working on a device or working on the physics of this thing. I don't think of many examples where sunday scientists put so much effort and dedication to a cause. From all the silent viewers, thank you.
I am looking forward to see the results of the main reaserch teams whu publish public papers (Dr. Tajmar, Dr White) as much as I am looking forward to hear about results of all the DIYers here, including forum member The Traveller which seems to have direct access to "the designer".
Meilleurs vœux, salutations sincères
Post by: X_RaY on 07/27/2018 09:23 pm
TT,There is no assumption that the forces sum to zero, it is a simple fact. It has been proven multiple ways.I never said the pressure was constant everywhere. In fact due to mode shape, it is variable over any surface you pick in the cavity. What hasn't changed is that the net axial force on the sidewalls plus the force on the small end together exactly cancel the force on the large end.
Yes the rad pressure varies as the mode varies and yes it is not constant over the surface. However you are incorrect in assuming all the rad pressure on the interior surfaces of an EmDrive sum to zero.
Have a look at this graphic of how a typical resonant photon impacts and emits itself off of the side walls and the end plates. Yes I know it is not what Roger has shared as the impact angle on the small end plate is larger than on the big end plate, so more rad pressure on the small end plate than the big end plate and the side wall rad pressure is basically very small.
Your diagram is not representative of a "typical" photon, because a "typical" photon acts like a wave not a particle in this situation. You can do a particle model if you want, and it will still conserve momentum if you actually do it right. Your first clue that something is wrong with your picture should be your obviously unphysical result of more pressure on the small plate than the large one. The issue is that you did not sketch a path consistent with incident and reflected angles equal to each other. Do that and things will start making more sense. Then you can do the math and add up the momentum from each transfer. With 6 reflections off the side wall per loop, and all of those reflections having the axial component of their momentum pointed in the same direction, you are not going to find the sidewall force contribution to be "small"
The emission angle alters as the diameter alters. That is why the guide wavelength at the small end is longer than at the big end. As the diameter drops, the emission angle increases. At cutoff diameter, the emission angle causes the emitted photon to hit the opposite wall at such an angle that the photon reverses it's big to small propogation. Image attached is of a resonant cavity that has no small end plate. Instead the proton propogation is reversed via the just described cutoff action. BTW this action is what caused the eddy current ring at the small end to become much greater than on the small end plate. 2nd image is cutoff and the 3rd image is boarderline cutoff. Ideally the small end side wall eddy current ring is much weaker than the small end plate eddy current ring at in the 4th image
If you search in a good microwave engineering book, you will find the equation that describes the relationship between mode, freq, waveguide diameter and emission angle.
Yes you are correct, the rad pressure is greater on the small end plate than on the big end plate. This is why the EmDrive accelerates small end forward. The action/reaction occurs from the photons doing their impact and emit N3 events at each end plate with an overall N3 effect generation a net effect small end forward. There is some side wall force but it is small end directed and not big end directed. So the small side wall force actually adds to the overall small end forward action.
I did a few simulations on TE013 to compare the bandwidth of a truncated conical cavity and a equivalent cylindrical one at nearly the same frequency...
However, I notice that the result shows an interesting current pattern at the end plate as compared to the strength at the sidewall. The cut off frequency is well below the resonant frequency for the cylindrical cavity. Mesh size is chosen equal also in this simulations.
Ignore the tapered cavity for a moment please.
Can you explain why the current at the sidewall is much stronger as compared to the end plates while the diameters of the end plate(s) is much larger than the cut off diameter for TE01p in the case of the cylindrical resonator? :o
It should be stronger at the end plate when applying your theory due to the smaller current ring area at the end plate(s).
Thanks.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 07/27/2018 10:48 pm
Yes you are correct, the rad pressure is greater on the small end plate than on the big end plate. This is why the EmDrive accelerates small end forward. The action/reaction occurs from the photons doing their impact and emit N3 events at each end plate with an overall N3 effect generation a net effect small end forward. There is some side wall force but it is small end directed and not big end directed. So the small side wall force actually adds to the overall small end forward action.
Sorry Phil but I agree with meberbs: what you said is exactly the opposite of what Shawyer claims. Attached, an excerpt of his controversial theory paper (http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf) from emdrive.com
showing an effect which, even if real, could never ever accelerate such a cavity small end leading*
* The only way I could see "Shawyer's effect" possible is according to McCulloch's idea (http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2016/05/clearer-explanation-of-mihsc-emdrive.html), where he assumes (from an effect due to his fringe theory of quantised inertia) that the collective massive photons, i.e. the effective inertial mass that would be acquired by photons in resonant cavities, get "heavier" when travelling from small end to big end, and "lighter" when going back from big to small end. So the centre of mass of the cavity is continually being shifted by quantised inertia towards the wide end. This way, the cavity needs to react the opposite way to conserve momentum: it accelerates small end leading. As a side note, the radiation pressure becomes greater at the big end indeed, but since the two ends and the side wall are all rigidly connected together, RD does not play a role in the propulsion. Continuous shifting of COM would.
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/28/2018 08:05 am
Can you explain why the current at the sidewall is much stronger as compared to the end plates while the diameters of the end plate(s) is much larger than the cut off diameter for TE01p in the case of the cylindrical resonator? :o
It should be stronger at the end plate when applying your theory due to the smaller current ring area at the end plate(s).
Thanks.
Hi XRay,
Consider the attached. Your answer is in the photon ray trace and how dual travelling waves generate the standing waves that cause the mode localised eddy current heating.
Note the guide wavelength / 4 equation. Knowing where the E field peak lobes and their null zones are located helps to define how the average photons much transit so their E fields can combine to generate the E field lobes, nulls and localised eddy current heating rings that Feko simulates.
Then do the same thing with a EmDrive resonant cavity to see the photon pathways and from that to see how a asymmetric tapered waveguide resonat cavity can generate asymmetic radiation pressure that accelerates an EmDrive small end forward.
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/28/2018 08:11 am
Yes you are correct, the rad pressure is greater on the small end plate than on the big end plate. This is why the EmDrive accelerates small end forward. The action/reaction occurs from the photons doing their impact and emit N3 events at each end plate with an overall N3 effect generation a net effect small end forward. There is some side wall force but it is small end directed and not big end directed. So the small side wall force actually adds to the overall small end forward action.
Sorry Phil but I agree with meberbs: what you said is exactly the opposite of what Shawyer claims. Attached, an excerpt of his controversial theory paper (http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf) from emdrive.com
showing an effect which, even if real, could never ever accelerate such a cavity small end leading*
* The only way I could see "Shawyer's effect" possible is according to McCulloch's idea (http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2016/05/clearer-explanation-of-mihsc-emdrive.html), where he assumes (from an effect due to his fringe theory of quantised inertia) that the collective massive photons, i.e. the effective inertial mass that would be acquired by photons in resonant cavities, get "heavier" when travelling from small end to big end, and "lighter" when going back from big to small end. So the centre of mass of the cavity is continually being shifted by quantised inertia towards the wide end. This way, the cavity needs to react the opposite way to conserve momentum: it accelerates small end leading. As a side note, the radiation pressure becomes greater at the big end indeed, but since the two ends and the side wall are all rigidly connected together, RD does not play a role in the propulsion. Continuous shifting of COM would.
What can I say? Roger, in the early days, did not get it entirely correct.
Do the ray trace and figure out for yourself the angles and rad pressure generated.
What is very clear is that for microwave photons to propogate down a waveguide, they MUST bounce, ping, reflect, do impact/emit events, what every you wish to call it. No way do photons propogate in a waveguide from one end to the other without touching the side walls. So travelliing waves "travel" by pinging from side wall to side wall. Roger got that very wrong. By error or intention to confuse is not clear. But how photons propogate down a waveguide is very clear and Roger is wrong that they do not blounce from side wall to side wall.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 07/28/2018 10:52 am
Yes you are correct, the rad pressure is greater on the small end plate than on the big end plate. This is why the EmDrive accelerates small end forward. The action/reaction occurs from the photons doing their impact and emit N3 events at each end plate with an overall N3 effect generation a net effect small end forward. There is some side wall force but it is small end directed and not big end directed. So the small side wall force actually adds to the overall small end forward action.
Sorry Phil but I agree with meberbs: what you said is exactly the opposite of what Shawyer claims. Attached, an excerpt of his controversial theory paper (http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf) from emdrive.com
showing an effect which, even if real, could never ever accelerate such a cavity small end leading*
* The only way I could see "Shawyer's effect" possible is according to McCulloch's idea (http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2016/05/clearer-explanation-of-mihsc-emdrive.html), where he assumes (from an effect due to his fringe theory of quantised inertia) that the collective massive photons, i.e. the effective inertial mass that would be acquired by photons in resonant cavities, get "heavier" when travelling from small end to big end, and "lighter" when going back from big to small end. So the centre of mass of the cavity is continually being shifted by quantised inertia towards the wide end. This way, the cavity needs to react the opposite way to conserve momentum: it accelerates small end leading. As a side note, the radiation pressure becomes greater at the big end indeed, but since the two ends and the side wall are all rigidly connected together, RD does not play a role in the propulsion. Continuous shifting of COM would.
What can I say? Roger, in the early days, did not get it entirely correct.
Do the ray trace and figure out for yourself the angles and rad pressure generated.
What is very clear is that for microwave photons to propogate down a waveguide, they MUST bounce, ping, reflect, do impact/emit events, what every you wish to call it. No way do photons propogate in a waveguide from one end to the other without touching the side walls. So travelliing waves "travel" by pinging from side wall to side wall. Roger got that very wrong. By error or intention to confuse is not clear. But how photons propogate down a waveguide is very clear and Roger is wrong that they do not blounce from side wall to side wall.
Finally you see some of Shawyer's mistakes. You may agree however that Shawyer's equations are based on Cullen's equations measuring the radiation pressure upon different plates put in waveguides of various cross-sections.
If Shawyer "got it wrong in the early days" then all his theory is wrong (as many people here point out). If the radiation pressure is not greater on the wide end, then the group velocity (which is related and used everywhere in his model) is not greater there, neither. Hence his "Design Factor" Df is wrong, the "Thrust equation" too, etc.
BTW this is not only "in the early days" as Shawyer still claims in his latest presentation you uploaded a few days ago (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1838390#msg1838390) that:
• F1 + F2 + Fw = 0 (radiation pressures on the big end, small end and on the side wall cancel out in the case of a standing wave, so no propulsive force)
• Fw = 0 (no sidewall force -or negligible- in the particular case of a travelling wavefront with spherically-shaped ends)
• F1 > F2 (radiation pressure on the big end is greater than radiation pressure on the small end)
See slide 11, attached. This is not some rough draft paper from "the early days". This is current "SPR theory" presented at TU Dresden, July 11, 2018.
Post by: JohnFornaro on 07/28/2018 12:50 pm
Mass does not know velocity.
Wouldn't this be part of the definition of inertia?
Post by: X_RaY on 07/28/2018 09:39 pm
The E-component of the ExH field has nothing to do with the wall currents, tangential E-fields are zero on the conductive wall. It is the H-component that causes the wall currents. You should know this as well.Can you explain why the current at the sidewall is much stronger as compared to the end plates while the diameters of the end plate(s) is much larger than the cut off diameter for TE01p in the case of the cylindrical resonator? :o
It should be stronger at the end plate when applying your theory due to the smaller current ring area at the end plate(s).
Thanks.
Hi XRay,
Consider the attached. Your answer is in the photon ray trace and how dual travelling waves generate the standing waves that cause the mode localised eddy current heating.
Note the guide wavelength / 4 equation. Knowing where the E field peak lobes and their null zones are located helps to define how the average photons much transit so their E fields can combine to generate the E field lobes, nulls and localised eddy current heating rings that Feko simulates.
Then do the same thing with a EmDrive resonant cavity to see the photon pathways and from that to see how a asymmetric tapered waveguide resonat cavity can generate asymmetic radiation pressure that accelerates an EmDrive small end forward.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1646352#msg1646352
No question, the ray trajectory point of view is a helpful but as a tool in this case only to calculate the wavelength inside of a waveguide. However, you take this tool and ignore the wave like nature of the photon on one hand by trying to apply the particle picture to explain what you think the possible thrust causes. On the other hand you are talking of traveling waves (which lead to the correct description of the problem).
I think there is no reason to apply the particle image to an AC-driven cavity resonator which is excited by a wavelength of the same order as its own dimensions.
My current understanding is that photons as well as all other quantums are excitations of the underlying background (zeropoint-) fields. They are no corpuscles at all in the sense of a massive ball.
Anyway, as others members pointed out so many times, if you would apply the particle point of view correctly by taking each relevant vector component into the equations you would get no thrust at all. This is what all energy&momentum conservation equations tell. Neglecting terms in the equations leads to false positive results.
Nowadays there are some other nice theories on the market which are consistent with known physics and that could much better explain what happens than your inconsistent explanations, assuming the thrust signals are real.
You need "new physics" or an action on something external to explain thrust for such a system.
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/28/2018 11:15 pm
See slide 11, attached. This is not some rough draft paper from "the early days". This is current "SPR theory" presented at TU Dresden, July 11, 2018.
What can I say?
Photons in an EmDrive propogate from one end plate to the other end plate and back again by pinging off the side walls. They DO NOT propogate directly from one end plate to the other. As such any statement that the photons do not impact the side walls is not correct.
Those pings cause some of the photons to impact on free electrons and increase their energy. Those photons are totally absorbed and not emitted and are the energy loss per cycle. Then the other photons H fields direct the flow of these energised free electrons. Have a look at the direction the current flows in the side wall rings. One flows CW, the next CCW and the next CW. Then go to the lower right control and alter the phase through 360 deg and see the current flow switch from CW, CCW, CW to CCW, CW, CCW as the H field polarity reverses.
Photons propogate down a waveguide by pinging off the side walls of the waveguide as my earlier drawing shows. This is basic microwave waveguide physics.
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/28/2018 11:30 pm
The E-component of the ExH field has nothing to do with the wall currents, tangential E-fields are zero on the conductive wall. It is the H-component that causes the wall currents. You should know this as well.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1646352#msg1646352
No question, the ray trajectory point of view is a helpful but as a tool in this case only to calculate the wavelength inside of a waveguide. However, you take this tool and ignore the wave like nature of the photon on one hand by trying to apply the particle picture to explain what you think the possible thrust causes. On the other hand you are talking of traveling waves (which lead to the correct description of the problem).
I think there is no reason to apply the particle image to an AC-driven cavity resonator which is excited by a wavelength of the same order as its own dimensions.
My current understanding is that photons as well as all other quantums are excitations of the underlying background (zeropoint-) fields. They are no corpuscles at all in the sense of a massive ball.
Anyway, as others members pointed out so many times, if you would apply the particle point of view correctly by taking each relevant vector component into the equations you would get no thrust at all. This is what all energy&momentum conservation equations tell. Neglecting terms in the equations leads to false positive results.
Nowadays there are some other nice theories on the market which are consistent with known physics and that could much better explain what happens than your inconsistent explanations, assuming the thrust signals are real.
You need "new physics" or an action on something external to explain thrust for such a system.
X_Ray,
You asked me to explain the result you got. Which I did.
The eddy current rings are caused by photons impacting on free electrons, being absorbed and not emitted. This photon loss to excited free electrons, which shortly turn into heat and IR photons are what causes the cavity energy loss / cycle.
The excited free electrons are then directionally controlled by the remaining photon H fields. Each eddy current ring rotates in the opposite direction to it's neighbours. ie CW, CCW, CW and then as the H field phase flips, CCW, CW, CCW.
I understand that some here may not like this information but is it what it is.
Post by: meberbs on 07/29/2018 01:30 am
I understand that some here may not like this information but is it what it is.Why would anyone not like this information? Your last couple posts have been more or less accurate, although they don't support your previous statements of there being more force on the small end than the large end or any overall unbalanced force.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 07/31/2018 03:38 pm
According to the two previous pages, it seems that:
1) you still base your understanding of the propellantless propulsion effect of the EmDrive in the same origin as Shawyer's, i.e. the existence of a force resulting from a non-zero sum of all radiation pressures upon materials within the cavity.
but:
2) you however now refute Shawyer's claim that the radiation pressure is greater at the big end, saying it would be the opposite: that the radiation pressures on side walls + small end combined are greater than the radiation pressure on the wide end, resulting in the EmDrive being pushed by this forward radiation pressure, small end leading. So no more invisible "thrust force" directed in the opposite, rear direction without matter ejected, that Shawyer yet introduced to try to mimic his system with classical Newtonian action-reaction.
You argue based on the momentum exchange with all walls and the photon incident angle varying across the tapered section.
Shawyer bases his "EmDrive theory" on Cullen's experiments and his 1952 paper (http://ayuba.fr/pdf/emdrive/cullen1952a.pdf), extrapolating measurement made with open cylindrical waveguides to tapered closed cavities, since he assumes that a closed tapered cavity is the same as a series of many shallow cylindrical open waveguides of decreasing diameter connected the one after the others (from the point of view of travelling waves, hence a pulsed operation).
Therefore Shawyer claims that the radiation pressure (and the group velocity) of microwaves is greater on the big end of the EmDrive than on the small end, which seems sound, but doing so he may neglect the wall component, which should add and sum up to zero (he claims this zero sum is indeed the case for a standing wave, but not for travelling waves).
Cullen showed (eq. 15 in his paper) that:
F = 2P/c ( λ / λg )
Since λ < λg (always) and the smaller the waveguide diameter, the longer the guide wavelength λg, it is easy to show that the force due to the radiation pressure of microwaves at the same input power acting on a plate in a wider waveguide is greater than the force acting on a plate in a narrow waveguide.
So do you now disagree with Cullen; or do you agree with him but saying instead that what is going on in open cylindrical waveguides cannot be extrapolated to closed tapered cavities?
Post by: X_RaY on 07/31/2018 08:23 pm
The Traveller,You should take the energy density per area into account. According to the work of Dr. Rodal we know that the field strength in the area of the smaller end plate is much larger than at the bigger plate. However, the total amount of incident power at the small end plate plus the equivalent vector component at conical sidewall should be the same per area unit squared, -F (small end plus sidewall vector component in this direction) +F (at the large plate), ...from a pure topological point of view.
According to the two previous pages, it seems that:
1) you still base your understanding of the propellantless propulsion effect of the EmDrive in the same origin as Shawyer's, i.e. the existence of a force resulting from a non-zero sum of all radiation pressures upon materials within the cavity.
but:
2) you however now refute Shawyer's claim that the radiation pressure is greater at the big end, saying it would be the opposite: that the radiation pressures on side walls + small end combined are greater than the radiation pressure on the wide end, resulting in the EmDrive being pushed by this forward radiation pressure, small end leading. So no more invisible "thrust force" directed in the opposite, rear direction without matter ejected, that Shawyer yet introduced to try to mimic his system with classical Newtonian action-reaction.
You argue based on the momentum exchange with all walls and the photon incident angle varying across the tapered section.
Shawyer bases his "EmDrive theory" on Cullen's experiments and his 1952 paper (http://ayuba.fr/pdf/emdrive/cullen1952a.pdf), extrapolating measurement made with open cylindrical waveguides to tapered closed cavities, since he assumes that a closed tapered cavity is the same as a series of many shallow cylindrical open waveguides of decreasing diameter connected the one after the others (from the point of view of travelling waves, hence a pulsed operation).
Therefore Shawyer claims that the radiation pressure (and the group velocity) of microwaves is greater on the big end of the EmDrive than on the small end, which seems sound, but doing so he may neglect the wall component, which should add and sum up to zero (he claims this zero sum is indeed the case for a standing wave, but not for travelling waves).
Cullen showed (eq. 15 in his paper) that:
F = 2P/c ( λ / λg )
Since λ < λg (always) and the smaller the waveguide diameter, the longer the guide wavelength λg, it is easy to show that the force due to the radiation pressure of microwaves at the same input power acting on a plate in a wider waveguide is greater than the force acting on a plate in a narrow waveguide.
So do you now disagree with Cullen; or do you agree with him but saying instead that what is going on in open cylindrical waveguides cannot be extrapolated to closed tapered cavities?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=37642.0;attach=1030954
However I think for traveling (reflected) waves there is a time related difference related to the reflection on both ends. I guess the reflection at the smaller side has a broad band characteristic compared to the big end. I.e. the wave is partly reflected before it reaches the small plate (partially earlier times). If the big end is flat there is also a phase dependent time dependent reflection involved. But for a proper curved big plate and a small end below cutoff the time difference of the reflected signal should be located at the small end. So maybe a time-delayed reflection of the incident wave at a undersized small end combined with a spherical big end plate leads to a nice net force because of the time delayed reflection at one end only?
Just a thought.. ::)
It is hard to think about such problems while the room temperature is still way over 30°C/86°F :-\ :-[
Post by: oyzw on 08/01/2018 01:22 am
The electromagnetic force of each wall must be calculated according to Maxwell's equation, and the geometric vector calculations are all combined into zero.The Traveller,You should take the energy density per area into account. According to the work of Dr. Rodal we know that the field strength in the area of the smaller end plate is much larger than at the bigger plate. However, the total amount of incident power at the small end plate plus the equivalent vector component at conical sidewall should be the same per area unit squared, -F (small end plus sidewall vector component in this direction) +F (at the large plate), ...from a pure topological point of view.
According to the two previous pages, it seems that:
1) you still base your understanding of the propellantless propulsion effect of the EmDrive in the same origin as Shawyer's, i.e. the existence of a force resulting from a non-zero sum of all radiation pressures upon materials within the cavity.
but:
2) you however now refute Shawyer's claim that the radiation pressure is greater at the big end, saying it would be the opposite: that the radiation pressures on side walls + small end combined are greater than the radiation pressure on the wide end, resulting in the EmDrive being pushed by this forward radiation pressure, small end leading. So no more invisible "thrust force" directed in the opposite, rear direction without matter ejected, that Shawyer yet introduced to try to mimic his system with classical Newtonian action-reaction.
You argue based on the momentum exchange with all walls and the photon incident angle varying across the tapered section.
Shawyer bases his "EmDrive theory" on Cullen's experiments and his 1952 paper (http://ayuba.fr/pdf/emdrive/cullen1952a.pdf), extrapolating measurement made with open cylindrical waveguides to tapered closed cavities, since he assumes that a closed tapered cavity is the same as a series of many shallow cylindrical open waveguides of decreasing diameter connected the one after the others (from the point of view of travelling waves, hence a pulsed operation).
Therefore Shawyer claims that the radiation pressure (and the group velocity) of microwaves is greater on the big end of the EmDrive than on the small end, which seems sound, but doing so he may neglect the wall component, which should add and sum up to zero (he claims this zero sum is indeed the case for a standing wave, but not for travelling waves).
Cullen showed (eq. 15 in his paper) that:
F = 2P/c ( λ / λg )
Since λ < λg (always) and the smaller the waveguide diameter, the longer the guide wavelength λg, it is easy to show that the force due to the radiation pressure of microwaves at the same input power acting on a plate in a wider waveguide is greater than the force acting on a plate in a narrow waveguide.
So do you now disagree with Cullen; or do you agree with him but saying instead that what is going on in open cylindrical waveguides cannot be extrapolated to closed tapered cavities?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=37642.0;attach=1030954
However I think for traveling (reflected) waves there is a time related difference related to the reflection on both ends. I guess the reflection at the smaller side has a broad band characteristic compared to the big end. I.e. the wave is partly reflected before it reaches the small plate (partially earlier times). If the big end is flat there is also a phase dependent time dependent reflection involved. But for a proper curved big plate and a small end below cutoff the time difference of the reflected signal should be located at the small end. So maybe a time-delayed reflection of the incident wave at a undersized small end combined with a spherical big end plate leads to a nice net force because of the time delayed reflection at one end only?
Just a thought.. ::)
It is hard to think about such problems while the room temperature is still way over 30°C/86°F :-\ :-[
Post by: mwvp on 08/01/2018 03:53 am
...
You should take the energy density per area into account.
Funny how the frustrum even looks like a rocket nozzle. Energy density decreases if work is done by the microwaves, accelerating the frustrum (forward), via Doppler-effect.
But you may say, the red-shift at the small-end is undone by the blue shift at the large-end? No, I think not!
A multi-mode cavity has more modes, density of states (in that foul tongue of QM which I abhor uttering) at the large end. More degrees of freedom. An increase in Entropy! Just like a heat engine.
...
However I think for traveling (reflected) waves there is a time related difference related to the reflection on both ends.
This is what is perhaps most difficult to wrap your mind around. The time and velocity differences between matter and radiation WRT conservation of energy!
Fermions never have velocity >= C. Light, only at C. In matter-radiation scattering, the Doppler equation describes conservation of momentum. Radiation conserves momentum in changing wavelength. Matter, in changing velocity. Fermions are time-like, bosons space-like (in the foul-tongue of SR/GR), IIRC. Bosons know no time; there clocks are frozen.
...
So maybe a time-delayed reflection of the incident wave at a undersized small end combined with a spherical big end plate leads to a nice net force because of the time delayed reflection at one end only?
Just a thought.. ::)
It is hard to think about such problems while the room temperature is still way over 30°C/86°F :-\ :-[
Please, consider the graphs below carefully?:
(http://photofridge.jpg)
(http://photofridge2.jpg)
Consider the red-cooled end. Imagine filling a high-Q frustrum with a microwave pulse, and then shaking it. Imagine the Fourier plot, with the center frequency being split into sum/difference, upper/lower sidebands that diverge from the center frequency with each shake.
Because of the difference in density of states, entropy increases; sidebands diverge, getting both higher and lower with each shake moving away from center; NOT going back and forth, from center to a fixed distance. But since we're red-detuned with finite Q, the lower sideband dissipates faster than the upper. Lower frequencies shake down, high frequencies shake-up.
What happens in a fractional distillation column, with a tap for lower-boiling point fraction?
We have here an energy fractional-distillation column (a dispersive line) that preserves the upper sideband energy at the top until its converted to kinetic energy (effective inertia reduction), and dissipates the lower sideband energy at the bottom as heat exhaust. Since energy is exhausting out the bottom (heat, or if you want perhaps radiation) you would feel more inertia on the downstroke than the upstroke. Push-heavy/pull-light, apparently experiencing ersatz friction against empty space.
Imagine a perfect, brick-wall, low pass dissipative filter cavity. If you don't shake it, no energy gets out. Energy would only dissipate (exhaust) if shaken, and then only the lower sideband, at one end, leaving the other end at higher radiation pressure, more apparent inertia.
You have to keep several thoughts in mind to get it. Diabolical devious, insidiously subtle. You appear to push against empty space, but your really just scattering photons, Doppler shifting microwaves.
Dispersion is to energy what a nozzle is to gas; a nozzle transduces momentum via pressure and velocity; dispersion transduces momentum via energy density/field strength and wavelength.
But, one must have extreme Q and dispersion to shake the sidebands apart to be significantly deferentially dissipated (see the curve above) and radiation pressure unbalance. Or extreme acceleration/vibration and Doppler shift. And if you got high Q, the field strength will soon reach breakdown values.
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/01/2018 04:49 am
So do you now disagree with Cullen; or do you agree with him but saying instead that what is going on in open cylindrical waveguides cannot be extrapolated to closed tapered cavities?
FC,
What I saying is you need to do a ray trace of the photon movement such that the superposition of their incident and reflected E fields, as they reflect off the walls and end plates, produces the E field lobes shown by various modeling software.
Then you can work the radiation pressure angle and force for each of the 8 points of reflection.
The attachment is just a quick effort, so don't use it to do your calcs. You need to work out the average photon pathways that will allow superposition of the incident and reflected E fields to paint the E field lobes as shown. As the eddy current band widths show, there is no single pathway and is spread out over a large area. However there is an averaged photon pathway that can be used to do a simple 8 point radiation pressure calc.
Post by: meberbs on 08/01/2018 06:08 am
What I saying is you need to do a ray trace of the photon movement such that the superposition of their incident and reflected E fields, as they reflect off the walls and end plates, produces the E field lobes shown by various modeling software.You need to do one where reflected angle equals incident angle, basic optics.
Despite the path you drew being completely unphysical, if you do the momentum calculations correctly, accounting for the different angles at each reflection, and the fact that this would involve momentum transfer in a direction that is not perpendicular to the surface, you still will find no net force.
Your responsibility to provide these calculations though. You are the one claiming momentum can appear out of nowhere, you get to do the math behind your claim.
The shapes are due to the wave nature of photons and do not indicate a "typical path" the way you seem to be thinking. Go look up some diagrams of waves propagating in a waveguide to see some examples of how different lobes and photon travel path are. In a waveguide a frequency propagating at a steep angle with many bounces back and forth to move forward a little bit will appear to have lobes separated by large distances, since they correspond to one wavelength projected perpendicular to the direction of travel.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 08/01/2018 12:35 pm
The electromagnetic force of each wall must be calculated according to Maxwell's equation, and the geometric vector calculations are all combined into zero.
This is perfectly true, but it only considers Maxwell and a steady-state situation. What about time dependance, delays, travelling waves associated to phenomena other than Maxwell as suggested by the posts of X_RaY and mwvp following ours?
By the way mwvp, I always find your posts profoundly interesting (like notsosureofit's posts about dispersion). I don't get all your story about optomechanics, but as I have the feeling that there might be something down there, I regret that not many skilled people comment much on your ideas.
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/01/2018 01:24 pm
You need to do one where reflected angle equals incident angle, basic optics.
Despite the path you drew being completely unphysical, if you do the momentum calculations correctly, accounting for the different angles at each reflection, and the fact that this would involve momentum transfer in a direction that is not perpendicular to the surface, you still will find no net force.
Your responsibility to provide these calculations though. You are the one claiming momentum can appear out of nowhere, you get to do the math behind your claim.
The shapes are due to the wave nature of photons and do not indicate a "typical path" the way you seem to be thinking. Go look up some diagrams of waves propagating in a waveguide to see some examples of how different lobes and photon travel path are. In a waveguide a frequency propagating at a steep angle with many bounces back and forth to move forward a little bit will appear to have lobes separated by large distances, since they correspond to one wavelength projected perpendicular to the direction of travel.
Glad to see you understand why the guide wavelength increases and the group velocity decreases as the cavity diameter drops. At one time on this forum, that actuality would have brought howls of disbelief and denial.
Sure the angle of incidence equals the angle of emission. As the resultant radiation pressure from such side wall events is orthogonal to the side wall, the overall side wall radiation pressure is toward the small end.
You really sure the small end + side wall radiation pressure equals that on the big end?
Attached for your consideration.
Post by: meberbs on 08/01/2018 01:34 pm
It is perfectly true period. Electrodynamics is a perfectly conservative theory. Quantum Electrodynamics is also a perfectly conservative theory. These are simple facts with textbook proofs.The electromagnetic force of each wall must be calculated according to Maxwell's equation, and the geometric vector calculations are all combined into zero.
This is perfectly true, but it only considers Maxwell and a steady-state situation. What about time dependance, delays, travelling waves associated to phenomena other than Maxwell as suggested by the posts of X_RaY and mwvp following ours?
None of the things you listed can in any way lead to useful forces. Listing a bunch of things with no explanation of how they could be relevant is simply not a scientific argument.
Post by: meberbs on 08/01/2018 01:47 pm
Glad to see you understand why the guide wavelength increases and the group velocity decreases as the cavity diameter drops. At one time on this forum, that actuality would have brought howls of disbelief and denial.The only howls of disbelief and denial were from you as you insisted on there being no sidewall force.
The facts of guide wavelength in waveguide have never been denied. The fact that something similar happens in the cavity has not been denied. What has been pointed out is that waveguide equations do not translate directly to the slanted sidewalls of an emdrive cavity and that the nature of resonance prevents the waveguide definition of guide wavelength from having any physical meaning in a resonator. Your false accusations of otherwise are insulting and not appreciated.
Sure the angle of incidence equals the angle of emission. As the resultant radiation pressure from such side wall events is orthogonal to the side wall, the overall side wall radiation pressure is toward the small end.Your attachment yet again shows incident angle different from reflected angle. Try actually making a precise drawing with angles and distances labelled, and then add up the momentum.
You really sure the small end + side wall radiation pressure equals that on the big end?
Attached for your consideration.
Post by: OnlyMe on 08/01/2018 02:57 pm
Funny how the frustrum even looks like a rocket nozzle. Energy density decreases if work is done by the microwaves, accelerating the frustrum (forward), via Doppler-effect.
But you may say, the red-shift at the small-end is undone by the blue shift at the large-end? No, I think not!
............
None of the arguments based on a direct transfer of momentum between photons (or EM waves) and the frustum are realistic explanations.... If you were to assume that 100% of the theoretical momentum potential associated with the “microwave photons” were transferred to one surface inside the frustum (all potential momentum transferred in a single direction), you would at best be dealing with a perfect photon rocket. At the 1000 watts of a magnetron how much actual momentum potential do you believe that represents? No matter how you bounce the photons/waves around, invoking Doppler-effects and red/blues shifts, you cannot get more momentum potential than that initial 1000 watts of EM radiation.
There just isn’t any way that radiation or photon pressure can explain any useable anomalous force.... it just is not reasonable to believe the frustum—microwave relationship (based on bouncing photons) winds up a self contained perfect photon rocket. Let alone something better!
If/when an EmDrive is demonstrated to produced useable anomalous force, it will be by some mechanism other than bouncing photons and Doppler shifts.
Because it seems to be a contained system, any acceleration of the frustum would seem to be relative to the EM field within the frustum. Whether that winds up being the result of an electromagnetic affect on the local shape of spacetime, some rendition of a/the Mach effect or simply a Lentz law like effect between the contained asymmetric EM field and corresponding induced eddy currents and magnetic fields in the walls of the frustum, that is something we will never know until a functional build is available for further study and investigation.
Post by: Augmentor on 08/01/2018 04:46 pm
My dear soothsaying analyst,
Would you be so kind to put your comments into a mathematical form?
What might help to define is any invariance in the system such as volume, weight or charge.
DM
Post by: meberbs on 08/01/2018 06:13 pm
Meberbs,Please point to where I made any predictions of the future in this thread. Otherwise, please apologize for this insulting slander.
My dear soothsaying analyst,
Would you be so kind to put your comments into a mathematical form?I have made specific mathematical statements many times. I have no idea what comments you are referring to here. If you think any statements I made were unclear due to some lack of statement of some assumption, please be specific as to what statements were unclear and what you don't understand about them.
What might help to define is any invariance in the system such as volume, weight or charge.
Post by: mwvp on 08/01/2018 07:03 pm
The electromagnetic force of each wall must be calculated according to Maxwell's equation, and the geometric vector calculations are all combined into zero.
This is perfectly true, but it only considers Maxwell and a steady-state situation. What about time dependance, delays, travelling waves associated to phenomena other than Maxwell as suggested by the posts of X_RaY and mwvp following ours?
There are several traps that, at first glance with a facile, naivete, perspective, justify common-sense skepticism of counter-intuitive phenomena. Consider laser-cooling! Sunlight makes you warm, even hot. Lasers burn through even tungsten. The first time, decades ago, I heard of laser cooling, I didn't believe it. I researched it, and didn't understand side-band cooling. Very few marvelous, incredible things are, in fact, true! But the technological potential of graphene pales in comparison to photonic technology; from ultra-cold Bose-Einstein condensates, to Teller-Ulam hydrogen bombs, photonics has demonstrably defined technological boundaries.
Its said energy isn't conserved; the frustrum is closed. Its said you can't push against empty space.
The frustrum isn't closed, it must dissipate heat, which arises from radiation momentum. As a rocket nozzle exhausts mass with negative momentum relative to the rocket, a frustrum exhausts negative, lower sideband momentum by absorption (skin effect/copper losses) and radiating it as heat. There's more metal at the bottom, losses are far more inductive than capacitive, for the red-shifted lower sideband.
I agree, in the static case, no "thrust", unbalanced radiation pressure, is produced. The cavity must accelerate, whether linearly or vibrate, on convert/transduce electromagnetic, radiation momentum into mechanical momentum.
It must be understood, when you accelerate a hollow shell (frustrum), you do not accelerate the empty space inside the shell. The Sagnac effect, applied in laser-gyroscopes must be understood. You don't really push against empty space. You release electromagnetic (EM) momentum into empty space, pushing against it/exchanging momentum with it, with time-delay, and a phase shift. Just as in BAE's "photon recycling" rocket.
This is really hard to get; many probably think they understand, but THEY DON"T!
The speed of light, is the speed of light, is the speed of light
If you trap a counter-propagating standing wave in an anisotropic bottle (like a linear waveguide), you have, in a sense, created an inertial reference frame/context. If you accelerate yourself later, you necessarily must exchange momentum with that bottle-trapped momentum. The difference manifest as side-band, wavelength-shifted energy STILL AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT. Unlike ping-pong balls, photons do not change there speed. This is not true of sound. Or there is a high dielectric/permittivity material in the bottle (polarized mass) that will reduce the refractive index. As is evident in the Sagnac effect, and responsible for Fresnel Drag.
You do a devious, dastardly, despicable trick now when your bottle separates short and long wavelegths in different directions, colinear to your acceleration axis. It's like the energy is a fluid in a tube you've balance on a knife edge, and when you tip it a little, half shoots forward and half out the back. Its unstable. You either radiate the low frequency rocket-style, or, even more viciously subtle, absorb and radiate it as heat.
The reason a photon rocket is so inefficient is, for reasonable accelerations (<1 G, or 10m/s^2), you only get a phase shift in parts per billion. You only exchange momentum in parts per billion. Ghastly! But if you recycle photons (high-Q required), you integrate the billions of little impulses to significance.
The maximum power transfer theorem, in the context of photonics, must be understood.
You only let the nasty photons out of the gulag after you've beat them down in frequency, absorbing momentum with each reverberation at the top, and finally burying the heat-dead corpses at bottom.
...
By the way mwvp, I always find your posts profoundly interesting (like notsosureofit's posts about dispersion). I don't get all your story about optomechanics, but as I have the feeling that there might be something down there, I regret that not many skilled people comment much on your ideas.
Thanks flux_capacitor. I grew weary of posting, wondering when something will come of this, some real news. Or an expert, waveguide microwave engineer would show up. I know there are other ways side-band heating/cooling, in Lorentz-invariant or Sagnac-like devices; molecular, chemical, laser, Peltier/electro-thermal, plasma, et. might be contrived.
I had posted references to cavity optomechanic papers, dispersion, Sagnac, et. I've got to run now, I'll repost links later.
It is rather frustrating to know, I'm practically certain, what's going on here. And nobody else seems to get it except, IMHO Traveller in some vague way. Others, maybe you and X-ray, with your sense of time-delay, understand that, in this Sagnac context, the speed of light is the speed of light and as you accelerate you shift freqquency, integrate the minute phase-shift with immense Q, exhaust low frequency as heat, and turn high frequency into frustrum momentum.
No frequency is shifted if no work, acceleration, Doppler shift, occurs. You will hardly find static thrust, unless you vibrate the cavity.
Post by: mwvp on 08/01/2018 10:00 pm
Funny how the frustrum even looks like a rocket nozzle. Energy density decreases if work is done by the microwaves, accelerating the frustrum (forward), via Doppler-effect.
But you may say, the red-shift at the small-end is undone by the blue shift at the large-end? No, I think not!
............
None of the arguments based on a direct transfer of momentum between photons (or EM waves) and the frustum are realistic...At the 1000 watts of a magnetron how much actual momentum potential do you believe that represents? No matter how you bounce the photons/waves around, invoking Doppler-effects and red/blues shifts, you cannot get more momentum potential than that initial 1000 watts of EM radiation.
That's kind of fuzzy. Momentum depends on mass*velocity or field strength*wavelength. You're giving me an absolute rate of energy input, and leaving the mass issue out of the equation.
If I have a virtually massless reflector of radiation, and hit it with radiation, being near massless it near instantly accelerates to C, converting nearly all radiant energy to kinetic. The more massive, the more energetic the reflection and less energetic the recoiling mass. So it is evident that, without resonant impedance matching network, 1/4 wave etalon, et. mass is at the bad end of an exponential curve for propulsive efficiency.
You need a hell of a gear-box to match the impedance of massless photons/ EM waves to massive systems of particles.
Or, as an afterthought, you need an energy pulse = 1/2 m C^2. Whoohoooo!
There just isn’t any way that radiation or photon pressure can explain any useable anomalous force.... it just is not reasonable to believe the frustum—microwave relationship (based on bouncing photons) winds up a self contained perfect photon rocket. Let alone something better!
It's very reasonable not to deduce the consequences of a dozen or so arcane and esoteric abstractions and principles. Alas, that I had the patience and eloquence.
Post by: meberbs on 08/02/2018 05:14 am
But you may say, the red-shift at the small-end is undone by the blue shift at the large-end? No, I think not!The second statement literally does nothing to support your "No, I think not." It doesn't make the blue shift go away by some kind of magic. Entropy is not relevant to the discussion, since energy and momentum won't just appear out of nowhere just to make entropy increase. Nothing you are describing increases the density of states anyway.
A multi-mode cavity has more modes, density of states (in that foul tongue of QM which I abhor uttering) at the large end. More degrees of freedom. An increase in Entropy! Just like a heat engine.
There is nothing fuzzy about OnlyMe's statements. The total momentum that can be present in EM waves is purely a function of their energy. Power is the only variable needed to determine the rate of momentum change (force). Mass is literally irrelevant since photons are massless.None of the arguments based on a direct transfer of momentum between photons (or EM waves) and the frustum are realistic...At the 1000 watts of a magnetron how much actual momentum potential do you believe that represents? No matter how you bounce the photons/waves around, invoking Doppler-effects and red/blues shifts, you cannot get more momentum potential than that initial 1000 watts of EM radiation.
That's kind of fuzzy. Momentum depends on mass*velocity or field strength*wavelength. You're giving me an absolute rate of energy input, and leaving the mass issue out of the equation.
Also, momentum depends on field strength squared. Wavelength only comes into it if you want to work in the quantum realm and count photons, in which case it is proportional to number of photons / wavelength. Note, division not multiplication.
Luckily there are statements that can be made with complete generality where it doesn't matter if there are 10^100 steps in between. If all of those steps obey simple equations (Maxwell's equations with special relativity for example), and you can show something that is fundamentally true for any interaction obeying those laws (for example momentum is conserved), then no amount of complications can change that fact, all of the interactions added together will still behave according to the simple rule (momentum and energy conservation).There just isn’t any way that radiation or photon pressure can explain any useable anomalous force.... it just is not reasonable to believe the frustum—microwave relationship (based on bouncing photons) winds up a self contained perfect photon rocket. Let alone something better!
It's very reasonable not to deduce the consequences of a dozen or so arcane and esoteric abstractions and principles. Alas, that I had the patience and eloquence.
Hi, guess what experts are already here, you apparently would rather ignore what they say though. The things you are posting about have been shown to be wrong so many times over it gets tedious to repeat the difference between have a mirror on a spacecraft with another on a planet versus two mirrors glued to the same spacecraft. Or facts like the existence of absolute rotational motion is irrelevant....
By the way mwvp, I always find your posts profoundly interesting (like notsosureofit's posts about dispersion). I don't get all your story about optomechanics, but as I have the feeling that there might be something down there, I regret that not many skilled people comment much on your ideas.
Thanks flux_capacitor. I grew weary of posting, wondering when something will come of this, some real news. Or an expert, waveguide microwave engineer would show up. I know there are other ways side-band heating/cooling, in Lorentz-invariant or Sagnac-like devices; molecular, chemical, laser, Peltier/electro-thermal, plasma, et. might be contrived.
It is rather frustrating to know, I'm practically certain, what's going on here. And nobody else seems to get it except, IMHO Traveller in some vague way. Others, maybe you and X-ray, with your sense of time-delay, understand that, in this Sagnac context, the speed of light is the speed of light and as you accelerate you shift freqquency, integrate the minute phase-shift with immense Q, exhaust low frequency as heat, and turn high frequency into frustrum momentum.What is frustrating is when people like you who apparently don't even know how to calculate momentum of an EM wave think they are somehow smarter than people who actually know what they are talking about. Try to recognize that maybe the reason that qualified people don't agree with you is because you are wrong.
Post by: mwvp on 08/02/2018 05:51 pm
Bradshaw: "Dispersion, controlled dispersion, and three applications" https://arxiv.org/abs/1005.5467
Contains interesting stuff about dispersion and Complex, dynamic Doppler shift (conservation of momentum in mass-radiation exchanges; optomechanics)
Quote
Here is the good news - we have a nozzle folks. It's called dispersion. It's highest on the phase-slope on the edge of the resonance curve. It in effect multiplies the beat frequency and momentum transfer.
See fig. 4 of "Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum", and on pg 3 reference to "phase angle quality factor".
Read what Bradshaw writes, pg 17 eq. 2.19: (group index = delta ln lambda / delta ln omega ) in
"Dispersion, controlled dispersion, and three applications" https://arxiv.org/abs/1005.5467
He describes the case where an interferometer has 100 x resolution with ng=100.
Quote
I read something very interesting in EW's latest paper @ http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/1.B36120
pg. 3:
Quote
"The change in phase angle over frequency [dispersion!] was also calculated, and a new parameter dubbed the phase angle quality factor was developed to help quantify the characteristics of a given resonance condition. The phase angle quality factor was the change in phase angle over a given frequency range, and it was determined using the phase plot fromVNA and only considering the region of the steepest phase angle change centered on the resonance. Figure 4 depicts ...The bottom-left pane is the variation in phase angle for the system, and the bottom-right pane is the group delay.
The tuning study determined that, for this particular tapered test article, optimal thrust was present if the system had a quality factorat least several thousand and the maximum phase angle quality factor ["phase angle quality factor" - dispersion!] that could be achieved."
****
Now, a stationary electron can be (whether accurately or not) thought of (modeled) as a standing electromagnetic standing wave in a nonlinear Kerr-effect media (quantum vacuum). A moving electron, as a marching wave. If similar conditions are created in an appropriate waveguide (frustrum), will it too move, similar to how particles move? Is the EM drive system acting like a macroscopic particle?
https://www.academia.edu/11093756/Confinement_of_Light_Standing_Wave_Transformations_in_a_Phase-Locked_Resonator (link courtesy Shells)
See appendix to Ch. 1 here:
"Only Spacetime" pg 3-13 http://onlyspacetime.com/OnlySpacetime.pdf
Quote
I've read there is a sort of privileged frame, and space, the vacuum itself is the road...
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.3519v4
Quote
"Consider that the vacuum medium is described by the vacuum states of
quantum fields and then its total momentum vanishes, it is reasonable for us to assume that
the vacuum medium as a whole is always resting with respect to all inertial observers. In
other words, the relative velocity between the vacuum medium and an arbitrary inertial
observer cannot be measured (i.e., it is an unobservable quantity), such that one can think it
always vanishes. On the other hand, consider that the velocity of light in vacuum is
invariant with respect to all inertial observers, and the eigenvalues of electron’s velocity
operator are equal to the velocity of light in vacuum, one can present the following
hypotheses: the velocity of light in vacuum ( 1 c = ) and the velocity of the vacuum medium
( ) are only two genuine velocities in our universe, they are invariant constants for all
inertial frames of reference; all other velocities are the apparent (or average) velocities of
massless fields moving in a zigzag manner. Such a zigzag motion, just as the
electromagnetic waves that are reflected back and forth by perfectly conducting walls as
they propagate along the length of a hollow waveguide, concerns two mutually orthogonal
0 u =
114D momentum components, i.e., a time-like 4D momentum (called the longitudinal
component) and a space-like 4D momentum (called the transverse component), respectively,
where the former corresponds to the usual 4D momentum of particles while the latter
contributes to the rest mass of particles."
the classic: "Cavity Optomechanics" fig.14 pg 1410.
http://aspelmeyer.quantum.at/docs/82/downloads/revmodphys.pdf
Quote
According to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_gas SF6 can get you 3 - 6 times 30kv/cm breakdown for air, and freon up to 17, pressurized.
Post by: moreno7798 on 08/02/2018 06:12 pm
Meberbs,Please point to where I made any predictions of the future in this thread. Otherwise, please apologize for this insulting slander.
My dear soothsaying analyst,Would you be so kind to put your comments into a mathematical form?I have made specific mathematical statements many times. I have no idea what comments you are referring to here. If you think any statements I made were unclear due to some lack of statement of some assumption, please be specific as to what statements were unclear and what you don't understand about them.
What might help to define is any invariance in the system such as volume, weight or charge.
Talk is cheap. The language of physics is mathematics. Equations would give those that are versed in the subject (probably not me - but others) plenty of clarification.
Post by: mwvp on 08/02/2018 06:15 pm
But you may say, the red-shift at the small-end is undone by the blue shift at the large-end? No, I think not!The second statement literally does nothing to support your "No, I think not." It doesn't make the blue shift go away by some kind of magic. Entropy is not relevant to the discussion, since energy and momentum won't just appear out of nowhere just to make entropy increase. Nothing you are describing increases the density of states anyway.
A multi-mode cavity has more modes, density of states (in that foul tongue of QM which I abhor uttering) at the large end. More degrees of freedom. An increase in Entropy! Just like a heat engine.
Literally, I think so. The blue shift goes away either by cavity dissipation or by being red-shifted at the cavity apex if the cavity accelerates. IF...
What is frustrating is when people like you who apparently don't even know how to calculate momentum of an EM wave think they are somehow smarter than people who actually know what they are talking about. Try to recognize that maybe the reason that qualified people don't agree with you is because you are wrong.
I have never found a highly qualified microwave engineer here, that is one that has years of EM simulation experience with waveguides and antennas, R&D. Shell, Dave maybe the best, one Nasa test engineer showed up for maybe one post, and Dr. Rodal's math expertise seems to be with gravity and fluid dynamics. One other guy with military radar.
Hmmm, Shall I care if you are frustrated because I think I am smarter than people who you think actually know what they are talking about? Hmmm
I have alluded to a bit of uncertainty regarding my conjectures and reasoning, which are based on references I link. Of course I concede I may be wrong.
I think not.
I wouldn't spend time here if I didn't think I was right.
It sure as hell wouldn't be to feed trolls who provoke hapless travelers >:(
Post by: meberbs on 08/02/2018 09:20 pm
Talk is cheap. The language of physics is mathematics. Equations would give those that are versed in the subject (probably not me - but others) plenty of clarification.As I said, point me to where I haven't provided detailed enough mathematics and I can correct. I have provided plenty of math, but there is no reason I should have to re-type the math every time someone makes a baseless claim that has already been disproven.
No it doesn't go away. The cavity accelerating increases the blue shift, since by the time the light hits the back wall, the cavity is moving faster. This makes the new force be larger so the direction of cavity motion reverses, so you get nothing but vibration. If you think otherwise do the math and try to show it.But you may say, the red-shift at the small-end is undone by the blue shift at the large-end? No, I think not!The second statement literally does nothing to support your "No, I think not." It doesn't make the blue shift go away by some kind of magic. Entropy is not relevant to the discussion, since energy and momentum won't just appear out of nowhere just to make entropy increase. Nothing you are describing increases the density of states anyway.
A multi-mode cavity has more modes, density of states (in that foul tongue of QM which I abhor uttering) at the large end. More degrees of freedom. An increase in Entropy! Just like a heat engine.
Literally, I think so. The blue shift goes away either by cavity dissipation or by being red-shifted at the cavity apex if the cavity accelerates. IF...
Your statement about "dissipation" is literally just handwaving.
You don't need years of experience to answer the questions you have. Anyway I don't provide my credentials deliberately, in part because my statements should stand on their own. Experts are in this thread already, more than enough to say that your claims are incorrect.What is frustrating is when people like you who apparently don't even know how to calculate momentum of an EM wave think they are somehow smarter than people who actually know what they are talking about. Try to recognize that maybe the reason that qualified people don't agree with you is because you are wrong.
I have never found a highly qualified microwave engineer here, that is one that has years of EM simulation experience with waveguides and antennas, R&D. Shell, Dave maybe the best, one Nasa test engineer showed up for maybe one post, and Dr. Rodal's math expertise seems to be with gravity and fluid dynamics. One other guy with military radar.
I have alluded to a bit of uncertainty regarding my conjectures and reasoning, which are based on references I link. Of course I concede I may be wrong.This is simple then. You are wrong. You have been told repeatedly that no matter how you add it up, the momentum is going to balance, and the device will not go anywhere. If you start with a wave in the cavity, and ignore the initial momentum imparted by the antenna inputting the wave, the total net momentum imparted to the cavity by the wave will be no more than the initial momentum of the wave. It doesn't matter whether it is absorbed immediately, or bounces back and forth a million times, possibly gradually losing energy. You can now stop wasting your time here.
I think not.
I wouldn't spend time here if I didn't think I was right.
If you still think you are anything but wrong, please provide some math to support your statements so that specific errors can be pointed out to you. (For example, that means not statements like the one below, which has no relevant meaning.)
Quote
Now, a stationary electron can be (whether accurately or not) thought of (modeled) as a standing electromagnetic standing wave in a nonlinear Kerr-effect media (quantum vacuum). A moving electron, as a marching wave. If similar conditions are created in an appropriate waveguide (frustrum), will it too move, similar to how particles move? Is the EM drive system acting like a macroscopic particle?
Post by: mwvp on 08/02/2018 09:47 pm
...
do the math and try to show it.
"Try and show it". LOL. I save my pearly nuggest for the biggest and best ;D
Post by: rq3 on 08/02/2018 10:09 pm
I wouldn't spend time here if I didn't think I was right.
[/quote]
That's funny! I wouldn't spend time here if there wasn't the infinitisimal chance that I was wrong!
Post by: mwvp on 08/03/2018 06:17 am
[quote}
I wouldn't spend time here if I didn't think I was right.
That's funny! I wouldn't spend time here if there wasn't the infinitisimal chance that I was wrong!
[/quote]
Your motive's probably more popular here than mine.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 08/03/2018 02:50 pm
1) We have already discussed in the past here a particular blue/redshift effect, due to the presence of a gravitational potential (or time dilatation as some like to consider) with the Pound-Rebka experiment. Which is not apparently directly related to the EmDrive (or is it?) bu still a very interesting effect.
2) An EM wave is redshifted when losing its energy upon each collision with a reflecting wall (side wall, small and big ends).
3) Dynamic Doppler shifts occur with the acceleration of the cavity.
What I call a "dynamic" Doppler shift is:
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-23ee7c63d562f1a9d004f40d7a1966f2)
How do all this (except point #1) combine together?
Shawyer says that dynamic Doppler shifts limit the acceleration of the EmDrive.
According to point #3, he specifically talks about the frequency of the travelling wave moving outside the narrow resonant bandwidth of the cavity, leading to a reduction in stored energy, thus a reduction in Q, and a reduction in thrust.
Let's put this claim aside for now and focus on blue vs red shifts only. The acceleration of the cavity (small end leading) indeed introduces Doppler shifts: EM waves are being redshifted (their wavelength becomes longer and the EM wave looses energy) after their reflection on the "receding" small end, while they are being blueshifted (their wavelength gets
Quote from: Roger Shawyer
Assume the EM wavefront propagates initially from the large end plate towards the small end plate. At the end of this forward transit, the wavefront is reflected at the small end plate. At this time, due to cavity acceleration, the cavity velocity has increased to Vr whereas the wavefront has a constant guide velocity of Vg2. The relative addition of these velocities, gives the reflected wavefront a Doppler Shift, resulting in a reduced frequency Fr for the reverse transit.
On reaching the large end plate, the wavefront is again reflected and subjected to a second Doppler shift, resulting in the forward frequency Ff. The increase in frequency is calculated from the relative addition of the guide velocity Vg1 and the new cavity velocity Vf."
(http://ayuba.fr/images/emdrive/emdrive_doppler_shifts.png)
Some may say that the velocity increase of the cavity during such rapid transit is infinitesimally small with respect to the speed of light, so such effect would be negligible and undetectable. This would be forgetting that when small end diameter is made just above the cut-off diameter of a cylindrical open waveguide at that same frequency, then the guide velocity Vg2 would become very small.*
As mwvp said:
But you may say, the red-shift at the small-end is undone by the blue shift at the large-end? No, I think not!
The blue shift goes away either by cavity dissipation or by being red-shifted at the cavity apex if the cavity accelerates. IF...
Maybe I see what you are thinking. When combining points #2 and #3 above, blueshift at big end is somewhat "dissipated" or "neutralized" wrt to redshift throughout the ringing time of the cavity, since just upon each bounce/reflection (on sidewalls, big and small ends) the new emitted photon has lost some of its energy (via momentum transfer to the cavity, photo-electric effect with electrons, IR radiation through the larger heatsink). So the redshift due to photon reflection substracts to the dynamic (i.e. due to the acceleration) Doppler blueshift at big end, while it adds to the redshift dynamically produced at small end. Finally, re-emitted photons are more redshifted there than they are blueshifted at the other end, when the cavity accelerates. Therefore "redshift eventually wins" after complete decay, and a new pulse of fresh input RF energy is needed.
* Even more fringe hypothesis: Some people asked many time TheTraveller to quantify Shawyer's claims about the importance of the ability of the cavity to "vibrate" and being "free to accelerate", in order for the thrust to appear and induce a dynamic movement of the cavity, as well as to justify so-called "motor" and "generator" modes. So maybe such "vibration" along the axis just need to trigger enough Doppler shifts at the small end to produce a velocity increase exceeding the locally very slow value of the guide velocity. This way one could understand that some "kick" in the positive direction (small end leading) would trigger "motor mode"; while a kick in the negative direction (big end leading) would conversely produce a blueshifted wave upon reflection on small end, triggering "generator mode". This would only work with a properly designed EmDrive, i.e. with a small end diameter being made "just above cut-off". On the contrary, if the small end diameter is made too large, well above cut-off, the value of the minimum vibration (its amplitude and acceleration) mandatory to trigger either mode increases with the guide velocity, maybe up to an impracticable value.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 08/03/2018 06:20 pm
About the EM lobes (antinodes) in a frustum cavity that look (in FEKO/COMSOL/etc) at the same time:
- axially stretched (and radially squeezed) near small end
- axially squeezed (and radially stretched) near big end
(http://ayuba.fr/images/emdrive/TE013_frustum.png)
Is the following animated representation of this effect correct, from the point of view of the spatial shape and temporal evolution of the standing wave in a cylindrical vs frustum resonant cavities?
(http://ayuba.fr/images/emdrive/standing_wave_cylinder_frustum.gif)
(http://ayuba.fr/images/emdrive/standing_wave_cylinder_frustum.png)
Post by: meberbs on 08/03/2018 06:53 pm
According to point #3, he specifically talks about the frequency of the travelling wave moving outside the narrow resonant bandwidth of the cavity, leading to a reduction in stored energy, thus a reduction in Q, and a reduction in thrust.Which is nonsensical because the blueshift restores energy to the wave. The cavity Q is unaffected, because the waves all originate form the cavity so the velocity can't matter.
Let's put this claim aside for now and focus on blue vs red shifts only. The acceleration of the cavity (small end leading) indeed introduces Doppler shifts: EM waves are being redshifted (their wavelength becomes longer and the EM wave looses energy) after their reflection on the "receding" small end, while they are being blueshifted (their wavelength gets longer, and their energy increases) after reflection on the "approaching" big end. Such effect being amplified by the acceleration, as the velocity of the cavity between two bounces keeps increasing. Shawyer explains this effect:But the more blueshift there is, the more cancelling force there will be that will produce acceleration in the opposite direction. This always happens in the direction opposite the original acceleration, so can never be the cause of initial acceleration.
How many times do Shawyer's statements have to be proven self contradictory before people stop using them as a basis for thinking? Starting at 1=0 you can prove anything you want, but it is meaningless.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 08/03/2018 08:11 pm
According to point #3, he specifically talks about the frequency of the travelling wave moving outside the narrow resonant bandwidth of the cavity, leading to a reduction in stored energy, thus a reduction in Q, and a reduction in thrust.Which is nonsensical because the blueshift restores energy to the wave. The cavity Q is unaffected, because the waves all originate form the cavity so the velocity can't matter.Let's put this claim aside for now and focus on blue vs red shifts only. The acceleration of the cavity (small end leading) indeed introduces Doppler shifts: EM waves are being redshifted (their wavelength becomes longer and the EM wave looses energy) after their reflection on the "receding" small end, while they are being blueshifted (their wavelength gets longer, and their energy increases) after reflection on the "approaching" big end. Such effect being amplified by the acceleration, as the velocity of the cavity between two bounces keeps increasing. Shawyer explains this effect:But the more blueshift there is, the more cancelling force there will be that will produce acceleration in the opposite direction. This always happens in the direction opposite the original acceleration, so can never be the cause of initial acceleration.
How many times do Shawyer's statements have to be proven self contradictory before people stop using them as a basis for thinking? Starting at 1=0 you can prove anything you want, but it is meaningless.
I'm not starting at 1=0, just want to check where are the flaws if any.
So you seem in agreement with the fact that there is some redshift occurring at the front and blueshift at the rear when a cavity accelerates. Then for a cylindrical cavity your explanation is obvious, but a subtlety due to the taper is introduced in the IAC 2014 conference paper (http://www.emdrive.com/IAC14publishedpaper.pdf) published in 2015 in Acta Astronautica:
Quote from: Roger Shawyer
Because the guide velocity is different at each end, the Doppler shifts are different, even for a constant rate of acceleration.
Do you disagree here with the claim that the guide velocities Vg1 > Vg2 and subsequently, that they induce unequal Doppler shifts during the acceleration of a tapered cavity?
Quote from: Roger Shawyer
This build-up of net frequency shift causes a widening of the spectrum of the standing wave pattern, and causes much of the power spectrum to fall outside the narrow bandwidth of the resonant cavity. Clearly this effect will increase with increasing cavity Q, as the number of reflections increase, together with the reduction in bandwidth.
which has the same negative effect as a broadband microwave oven magnetron used instead of a narrowband solid state RF generator, the magnetron spattering among a wide unusable range of frequencies, especially for high-Q cavities with spherically-shaped ends, as shown many threads ago by SeeShells, Star-Drive and others.
Post by: RonM on 08/03/2018 08:36 pm
Quote from: Roger ShawyerBecause the guide velocity is different at each end, the Doppler shifts are different, even for a constant rate of acceleration.
Do you disagree here with the claim that the guide velocities Vg1 > Vg2 and subsequently, that they induce unequal Doppler shifts during the acceleration of a tapered cavity?
Quote from: Roger Shawyer
Note that this configuration ensures that there is no orthogonal component of the guide velocity reflected from the side wall, thus ensuring a zero side wall force component in the axial plane.
I thought we determined that this statement is incorrect. So, taking into account all Doppler shifts from both ends and the side wall, the net force should be zero. If you disagree, please show the math.
Post by: X_RaY on 08/03/2018 09:18 pm
To X_Ray and others.It is a oversimplification.
About the EM lobes (antinodes) in a frustum cavity that look (in FEKO/COMSOL/etc) at the same time:
- axially stretched (and radially squeezed) near small end
- axially squeezed (and radially stretched) near big end
(http://ayuba.fr/images/emdrive/TE013_frustum.png)
Is the following animated representation of this effect correct, from the point of view of the spatial shape and temporal evolution of the standing wave in a cylindrical vs frustum resonant cavities?
(http://ayuba.fr/images/emdrive/standing_wave_cylinder_frustum.gif)
(http://ayuba.fr/images/emdrive/standing_wave_cylinder_frustum.png)
The animation is correct as long as it should illustrate the polarity(vector E into phi direction) of the E-field component of the EM-field within the dielectric* only over time. The Field intensity at the very locations depend on the cavity shape. Please see the attached paper from Dr. Rodal for more details.
The following FEKO animation below shows what happens in detail over a full 360 deg cycle (for TE012 in this case) for both E & H.
FEKO EM animation of a TE012 cavity resonator (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39214.0;attach=1408300;sess=48531)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1646352#msg1646352
*vacuum or whatever dielectric material
Post by: meberbs on 08/03/2018 10:39 pm
I'm not starting at 1=0, just want to check where are the flaws if any.Shawyer's "theory" is self contradictory. It is actually kind of impressive that he has managed to say so many different things that are equivalent to 1=0, but if you take a random quote from him about the emDrive, it will likely be equivalent to 1=0.
So you seem in agreement with the fact that there is some redshift occurring at the front and blueshift at the rear when a cavity accelerates.To describe this situation clearly, it helps to just assume there is an outside force accelerating the cavity. This would clearly cause shifts. Intuitively this would produce an unbalanced force, but not a propulsive one. It would be an inertial force. The EM waves represent part of the mass-energy and therefore the inertia of the overall system. This would manifest as more radiation pressure on the back than the front, even for a perfectly cylindrical cavity. This is not some strange or useful effect. If you had a rubber ball bouncing between 2 ends of a cavity that you were accelerating, it would bounce harder off the back than the front in order to keep up with the overall acceleration of the cavity.
Since this boils down to nothing more than Newton's law of inertia, there is nothing truly new or useful here.
I disagree with the claim that anyone has ever come up with a precise definition of guide wavelength in a resonating cavity, so there is no meaningful direct answer to your question as stated. To the extent that the concept is useful, there is less force on the small end than the large end, which is due to some of the momentum change happening at the sidewalls. Any unbalanced red/blueshift from acceleration (which again I assume to be caused externally, since there is no internal cause), is just the inertial mass equivalent of the energy stored in the cavity in the form of EM waves. Whether the cavity is tapered has no effect on this.Quote from: Roger ShawyerBecause the guide velocity is different at each end, the Doppler shifts are different, even for a constant rate of acceleration.
Do you disagree here with the claim that the guide velocities Vg1 > Vg2 and subsequently, that they induce unequal Doppler shifts during the acceleration of a tapered cavity?
Quote from: Roger Shawyer
This build-up of net frequency shift causes a widening of the spectrum of the standing wave pattern, and causes much of the power spectrum to fall outside the narrow bandwidth of the resonant cavity. Clearly this effect will increase with increasing cavity Q, as the number of reflections increase, together with the reduction in bandwidth.It is possible that a sufficiently accelerating cavity could have Q drop a little, but for the relevant accelerations in any emDrive experiment, this should be at an impossible to measure level. Regardless of the level, this does not explain anything Shawyer tries to use it to explain. It is in the wrong direction to ever provide useful acceleration by definition. It would be proportional to acceleration, not velocity or how long the drive is on, so it does nothing to resolve conservation of energy (or momentum).
Post by: flux_capacitor on 08/03/2018 11:35 pm
Quote from: Roger ShawyerBecause the guide velocity is different at each end, the Doppler shifts are different, even for a constant rate of acceleration.
Do you disagree here with the claim that the guide velocities Vg1 > Vg2 and subsequently, that they induce unequal Doppler shifts during the acceleration of a tapered cavity?Quote from: Roger ShawyerNote that this configuration ensures that there is no orthogonal component of the guide velocity reflected from the side wall, thus ensuring a zero side wall force component in the axial plane.
I thought we determined that this statement is incorrect. So, taking into account all Doppler shifts from both ends and the side wall, the net force should be zero. If you disagree, please show the math.
Why do you resort to an obvious wrong claim ("no force on side walls") to disprove the one being discussed (Vg1 > Vg2) which has nothing to do with it? I am sorry, but this is a suggested irrelevant conclusion using an association fallacy.
Therefore I do not feel the obligation to agree or disagree (providing maths!) on the veracity of such unrelated sentence about THRUST, that I have not quoted nor broached, as my questions are about Doppler shifts, and Doppler shifts only… especially as I cared to precise in my first message about this:
… and a reduction in thrust.
Let's put this claim aside for now and focus on blue vs red shifts only.
If I wasn't clear enough from the beginning, let't write it extensively: I am not trying in the last couple of messages to prove the origin or even the reality of any anomalous thrust in relation with possible Doppler shifts. I just ask if we can discuss properly about these Doppler shifts, their origin and their behavior, in various cavity shapes accelerating (or not) by an arbitrary external force. Not any possible or impossible "thrust" as this is another story. That's all.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 08/04/2018 12:23 am
To X_Ray and others.It is a oversimplification.
About the EM lobes (antinodes) in a frustum cavity that look (in FEKO/COMSOL/etc) at the same time:
- axially stretched (and radially squeezed) near small end
- axially squeezed (and radially stretched) near big end
(http://ayuba.fr/images/emdrive/TE013_frustum.png)
Is the following animated representation of this effect correct, from the point of view of the spatial shape and temporal evolution of the standing wave in a cylindrical vs frustum resonant cavities?
(http://ayuba.fr/images/emdrive/standing_wave_cylinder_frustum.gif)
(http://ayuba.fr/images/emdrive/standing_wave_cylinder_frustum.png)
The animation is correct as long as it should illustrate the polarity(vector E into phi direction) of the E-field component of the EM-field within the dielectric* only over time. The Field intensity at the very locations depend on the cavity shape. Please see the attached paper from Dr. Rodal for more details.
The following FEKO animation below shows what happens in detail over a full 360 deg cycle (for TE012 in this case) for both E & H.
FEKO EM animation of a TE012 cavity resonator (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39214.0;attach=1408300;sess=48531)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1646352#msg1646352
*vacuum or whatever dielectric material
Yes I know this is an oversimplification, with only one component of the EM wave. It's to be clear enough.
The paper from Rodal you pointed out answers my questions about the stretching/squeezing of the EM waves, as he says in it that both the amplitude and the wavelength of the EM wave get longer when approaching the small end.
I was not sure and annoyed about the question of the amplitude variation, as I forgot it was studied in the paper. Makes sense as there is much greater energy density near small end, and the amplitude of an EM wave is directly proportional to its energy.
The amplitude of the EM wave being greater at the small end is something that was not shown at all in my simplistic 2D diagrams (on the contrary!).
Thanks for the monthly Rodal reminder ;)
PS: I had something in mind about this axial wavelength stretching at small end and squeezing at big end that may IMHO interfere negatively with Doppler shifts when the cavity is accelerating (by an arbitrary force, yes)… maybe it's too fringe and silly. Thank you for your appreciated help to separate the wheat from the chaff!
Post by: meberbs on 08/04/2018 12:28 am
If I wasn't clear enough from the beginning, let't write it extensively: I am not trying in the last couple of messages to prove the origin or even the reality of any anomalous thrust in relation with possible Doppler shifts. I just ask if we can discuss properly about these Doppler shifts, their origin and their behavior, in various cavity shapes accelerating (or not) by an arbitrary external force. Not any possible or impossible "thrust" as this is another story. That's all.Maybe you didn't see my last post before you posted, but my response convers these things, using an external force to provide the acceleration to avoid confusion with any anomalous force.
Here is a back of the envelope calculation of how much Doppler shift to expect:
Round trip length = 1 m (longer than 2*cavity to account for not moving in straight lines)
number of trips = 10^6
speed of light = 3e8 m/s
total time = 0.0033 s
acceleration = 1m/s^2 (way more than typical)
velocity change of cavity in photon lifetime = 0.0033 m/s
ratio of this velocity to speed of light = 1.11e-11.
That last ratio tells you the frequency shift to expect as a fraction of the original frequency as a sum of all individual Doppler shifts. You can pick different numbers, or do a more detailed calculation, but the effect will remain negligible in realistic cases.
Post by: RonM on 08/04/2018 12:36 am
Why do you resort to an obvious wrong claim ("no force on side walls") to disprove the one being discussed (Vg1 > Vg2) which has nothing to do with it? I am sorry, but this is a suggested irrelevant conclusion using an association fallacy.
The quote I used is from the same page in the same paper you quoted. Since these statements from Shawyer are only a few paragraphs apart, I think that's relevant.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 08/04/2018 12:38 am
Why do you resort to an obvious wrong claim ("no force on side walls") to disprove the one being discussed (Vg1 > Vg2) which has nothing to do with it? I am sorry, but this is a suggested irrelevant conclusion using an association fallacy.
The quote I used is from the same page in the same paper you quoted. Since these statements from Shawyer are only a few paragraphs apart, I think that's relevant.
Relevant to Shawyer's own broken explanation for thrust, for sure. Bur not for what I asked.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 08/04/2018 12:48 am
If I wasn't clear enough from the beginning, let't write it extensively: I am not trying in the last couple of messages to prove the origin or even the reality of any anomalous thrust in relation with possible Doppler shifts. I just ask if we can discuss properly about these Doppler shifts, their origin and their behavior, in various cavity shapes accelerating (or not) by an arbitrary external force. Not any possible or impossible "thrust" as this is another story. That's all.Maybe you didn't see my last post before you posted, but my response convers these things, using an external force to provide the acceleration to avoid confusion with any anomalous force.
Here is a back of the envelope calculation of how much Doppler shift to expect:
Round trip length = 1 m (longer than 2*cavity to account for not moving in straight lines)
number of trips = 10^6
speed of light = 3e8 m/s
total time = 0.0033 s
acceleration = 1m/s^2 (way more than typical)
velocity change of cavity in photon lifetime = 0.0033 m/s
ratio of this velocity to speed of light = 1.11e-11.
That last ratio tells you the frequency shift to expect as a fraction of the original frequency as a sum of all individual Doppler shifts. You can pick different numbers, or do a more detailed calculation, but the effect will remain negligible in realistic cases.
Thanks for the numbers. I think the velocity to take into account for the EM wave during such Doppler shifts is not the speed of light though, but the "guide velocity" which is nothing but the local value of the group velocity of the EM wave in the cavity (ie near small end vs big end). But as you already said, nobody ever shown that the group velocity varies (inversely proportionally to the guide wavelength) in a closed tapered resonator like it does in open waveguides of various diameters, so being suspicious topics (both the "guide velocity" and the "guide wavelength") I imagine this will be classified as a cold case and we have to move on for now.
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/04/2018 09:59 pm
Next step is to go back to the simulation and figure out the best place to drill the two holes for the couplers...
Post by: Mark7777777 on 08/05/2018 01:58 am
It took me a while to get the ~20mm spacer fabricated as I have been away on vacation. This spacer is used to reduce the resonant frequency of the cavity Oyzw sent me, from 2.5Ghz to 2.4Ghz (for mode TE013). The spacer will be compressed one or two mm while aligning the big end parallel with the small end using three bolts. I also polished the end plates as they arrived a little rough around the edges.
Next step is to go back to the simulation and figure out the best place to drill the two holes for the couplers...
Did you ever publish test results from your 3D printed frustum? Forgive me if you did and I missed it.
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/05/2018 12:16 pm
Did you ever publish test results from your 3D printed frustum? Forgive me if you did and I missed it.
I published one of the first tests with the 3D printed cavity, but nothing since then. Once I have two cavities that I can swap in and out, then I will run full sequences on both and publish those results. It will be interesting to compare the results between the copper foil and solid copper cavity.
Post by: RERT on 08/05/2018 07:29 pm
Am I mis-characterising your position, or if not can you comment on why you see thermal effects as the most likely explanation of this data.
Post by: meberbs on 08/05/2018 07:43 pm
Monomorphic - I recall you being negative about these results, ascribing the measured force to thermal effects. But the thermal signal is present and rising when the force measurement is solidly zero. The temperature is also stable when measured force is rising.Thermal effects can take time to travel from the thermal source to the location that causes false thrust measurements. They can also continue and increase after power is turned off as heat continues to spread out. Along with the slow rise of this measurement, that is 3 effects that can potentially be explained as thermal. None of those effects are expected measurements from a working emDrive (Except possibly the slow rise, but only if the torsion pendulum is overdamped, which at least is not the intention, and even then should have a faster start before slowing.)
Am I mis-characterising your position, or if not can you comment on why you see thermal effects as the most likely explanation of this data.
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/06/2018 01:55 am
Monomorphic - I recall you being negative about these results, ascribing the measured force to thermal effects. But the thermal signal is present and rising when the force measurement is solidly zero. The temperature is also stable when measured force is rising.
Am I mis-characterising your position, or if not can you comment on why you see thermal effects as the most likely explanation of this data.
No, you are correct, but one of the important traces is the vertical light gray. That is main power on/off to the amplifier board. If you watch the video (linked below), you notice that power was turned on way before the RF, so the idle amplifier board was drawing ~8A and beginning to heat up. Once the RF is present, the board draws ~13A and heats up even more. The new test procedure eliminates all of this and simply turns the power and RF on at the same time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykfM1Eyk3J0
Post by: Ricvil on 08/06/2018 03:26 am
Ps: The Tx3xx "mode" is suspect in this theory.
In addition to Tx3xx, perhaps TM11x could also be a candidate. Using the same naming convention, I would expect TM11x could have been labelled Tx11x.
Yep.
But in "Tx3xx" case, TM and TE visual distinction is much more clear.
Perhaps, this clear "visual distinction" may be an artifice.
These graphs are eigensolutions of electromagnetic equations, and if there are two eigenmodes per frequency ( degenerated) then that eigensolutions may be a linear combination of TE and TM localized modes , with arbitrary weights(or arbitrary orientation on subspace spanned by the degenerated eigenvectors).
When degenerated states arises in a eigenproblem, in general, there is a additional linear operator where the degenerated states has different eigenvalues for each eigenvector.
So, what would be the operator for differentiate TE states from TM states?
The answer may be a "duality/chirality" generator in some spinnor representation of electromagnetic fields (see the attached article).
Post by: RERT on 08/06/2018 07:20 pm
In general 'it's getting hot, that must be the cause' isn't particularly convincing. I would be more convinced by the opposite of your approach. Make the board draw 13A with or without RF on. Run for a long time until the system is in thermal equilibrium. Then show that RF on/ off makes no difference - or not, as the case may be.
Post by: X_RaY on 08/06/2018 07:37 pm
This is not a classic degenerated state of two field patterns with their own solutions at the same frequency. These are patterns that are only present in the frustum of the cone due to the topology. The pattern on the end plate of a cylindrical version is located on the side wall of the conical shape.Ps: The Tx3xx "mode" is suspect in this theory.
In addition to Tx3xx, perhaps TM11x could also be a candidate. Using the same naming convention, I would expect TM11x could have been labelled Tx11x.
Yep.
But in "Tx3xx" case, TM and TE visual distinction is much more clear.
Perhaps, this clear "visual distinction" may be an artifice.
These graphs are eigensolutions of electromagnetic equations, and if there are two eigenmodes per frequency ( degenerated) then that eigensolutions may be a linear combination of TE and TM localized modes , with arbitrary weights(or arbitrary orientation on subspace spanned by the degenerated eigenvectors).
When degenerated states arises in a eigenproblem, in general, there is a additional linear operator where the degenerated states has different eigenvalues for each eigenvector.
So, what would be the operator for differentiate TE states from TM states?
The answer may be a "duality/chirality" generator in some spinnor representation of electromagnetic fields (see the attached article).
By the way this is one of only a few things where i can not follow Frank Davies with its mode index denotation.
Due to the pattern in the Cylindrical case and only 2 wave length into phi direction i would label it as a deformed TM210 mode rather than, kind of cryptic, Tx3xx.
Post by: Ricvil on 08/06/2018 08:50 pm
This is not a classic degenerated state of two field patterns with their own solutions at the same frequency. These are patterns that are only present in the frustum of the cone due to the topology. The pattern on the end plate of a cylindrical version is located on the side wall of the conical shape.Ps: The Tx3xx "mode" is suspect in this theory.
In addition to Tx3xx, perhaps TM11x could also be a candidate. Using the same naming convention, I would expect TM11x could have been labelled Tx11x.
Yep.
But in "Tx3xx" case, TM and TE visual distinction is much more clear.
Perhaps, this clear "visual distinction" may be an artifice.
These graphs are eigensolutions of electromagnetic equations, and if there are two eigenmodes per frequency ( degenerated) then that eigensolutions may be a linear combination of TE and TM localized modes , with arbitrary weights(or arbitrary orientation on subspace spanned by the degenerated eigenvectors).
When degenerated states arises in a eigenproblem, in general, there is a additional linear operator where the degenerated states has different eigenvalues for each eigenvector.
So, what would be the operator for differentiate TE states from TM states?
The answer may be a "duality/chirality" generator in some spinnor representation of electromagnetic fields (see the attached article).
Yep, this is not the classic.
My claim is: these are two degenerated modes (same frequency) localized at two different points(each one at neighborhood of each flat endplate).
I think they are two ghost modes, one TE and other TM.
Post by: X_RaY on 08/06/2018 09:06 pm
Not at all. Maybe we're just looking at the problem from different angles, but two different modes, TM & TE, would change their eigenfrequencies differently, while reducing the small end plate. I.E. the eigenfrequencies of different modes (one TE and another TM) would shift to different values when reducing the diameter of the small end plate, even if they lay at the same frequency for a special shape. Regarding the simulations is this not the case.This is not a classic degenerated state of two field patterns with their own solutions at the same frequency. These are patterns that are only present in the frustum of the cone due to the topology. The pattern on the end plate of a cylindrical version is located on the side wall of the conical shape.Ps: The Tx3xx "mode" is suspect in this theory.
In addition to Tx3xx, perhaps TM11x could also be a candidate. Using the same naming convention, I would expect TM11x could have been labelled Tx11x.
Yep.
But in "Tx3xx" case, TM and TE visual distinction is much more clear.
Perhaps, this clear "visual distinction" may be an artifice.
These graphs are eigensolutions of electromagnetic equations, and if there are two eigenmodes per frequency ( degenerated) then that eigensolutions may be a linear combination of TE and TM localized modes , with arbitrary weights(or arbitrary orientation on subspace spanned by the degenerated eigenvectors).
When degenerated states arises in a eigenproblem, in general, there is a additional linear operator where the degenerated states has different eigenvalues for each eigenvector.
So, what would be the operator for differentiate TE states from TM states?
The answer may be a "duality/chirality" generator in some spinnor representation of electromagnetic fields (see the attached article).
Yep, this is not the classic.
My claim is: these are two degenerated modes (same frequency) localized at two different points(each one at neighborhood of each flat endplate).
I think they are two ghost modes, one TE and other TM.
To me it seems a pure geometrical property, a deformation of the field due to the very shape (and related to the boundary conditions) of the frustum as compared to the cylindrical cavity.
Post by: Ricvil on 08/06/2018 11:35 pm
Ghost modes arise by "local shift" of original (or undisturbed )mode cutoff frequency, and their Q, total frequency shift, and spacial extension depends on how large is the effect of "deformation/pertubation" causing it, and for me this pertubations are just the flat endplates, or better, the difference of shape/volume between the use of spherical endplates and flat endplates.Not at all. Maybe we're just looking at the problem from different angles, but two different modes, TM & TE, would change their eigenfrequencies differently, while reducing the small end plate. I.E. the eigenfrequencies of different modes (one TE and another TM) would shift to different values when reducing the diameter of the small end plate, even if they lay at the same frequency for a special shape. Regarding the simulations is this not the case.This is not a classic degenerated state of two field patterns with their own solutions at the same frequency. These are patterns that are only present in the frustum of the cone due to the topology. The pattern on the end plate of a cylindrical version is located on the side wall of the conical shape.Ps: The Tx3xx "mode" is suspect in this theory.
In addition to Tx3xx, perhaps TM11x could also be a candidate. Using the same naming convention, I would expect TM11x could have been labelled Tx11x.
Yep.
But in "Tx3xx" case, TM and TE visual distinction is much more clear.
Perhaps, this clear "visual distinction" may be an artifice.
These graphs are eigensolutions of electromagnetic equations, and if there are two eigenmodes per frequency ( degenerated) then that eigensolutions may be a linear combination of TE and TM localized modes , with arbitrary weights(or arbitrary orientation on subspace spanned by the degenerated eigenvectors).
When degenerated states arises in a eigenproblem, in general, there is a additional linear operator where the degenerated states has different eigenvalues for each eigenvector.
So, what would be the operator for differentiate TE states from TM states?
The answer may be a "duality/chirality" generator in some spinnor representation of electromagnetic fields (see the attached article).
Yep, this is not the classic.
My claim is: these are two degenerated modes (same frequency) localized at two different points(each one at neighborhood of each flat endplate).
I think they are two ghost modes, one TE and other TM.
To me it seems a pure geometrical property, a deformation of the field due to the very shape (and related to the boundary conditions) of the frustum as compared to the cylindrical cavity.
In other words, TE and TM ghost modes may coexist at a range of frequencys(or a range of small plate diameter as showed in yours simulations).
The cylindrical cavity may be thought as a limit case of conical cavity with spherical endplates when the apex point goes to infinity, and in this case there are no pertubation causing ghost modes, just the classical standing wave solutions.
Post by: Bob Woods on 08/09/2018 07:47 am
"Mary Golda Ross (August 9, 1908 – April 29, 2008) was the first known female engineer. She was one of the 40 founding engineers of the Skunk Works (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skunk_Works), and was known for her work at Lockheed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed) on "preliminary design concepts for interplanetary space travel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_spaceflight), manned and unmanned earth-orbiting flights, the earliest studies of orbiting satellites (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellites) for both defense and civilian purposes."
Seemed kind of right for this forum to me. Women are woefully underrepresented in STEM. Think how much brain power can be unleashed in the sciences if the research had more participants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_G._Ross (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_G._Ross)
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/09/2018 01:23 pm
I also wanted to report that I've been extended, and have accepted, another invitation to present at the upcoming Advanced Propulsion Workshop in Estes Park, Colorado. They were very interested in some of my recent simulations and tests of acoustic devices on the torsional pendulum. So I will be presenting on the torsional pendulum, my work with the emdrive and how that lead me to the acoustic tests, those results, and my plans for the future. I will also get to meet Jose Rodal, Jim Woodward, Heidi Fearn, Martin Tajmar and many more. Can't wait, but that also means I have lots of work to get done in ~4 weeks! The flight, room, and car are all booked, so there's no backing out this time... ;)
Post by: Ricvil on 08/09/2018 08:15 pm
I think this pattern can be explained by a Fano anti-resonance caused by a higher Q ghost mode at small flat endplate interacting with a lower Q standing wave resonance caused by the big spherical endplate.The Traveller,You should take the energy density per area into account. According to the work of Dr. Rodal we know that the field strength in the area of the smaller end plate is much larger than at the bigger plate. However, the total amount of incident power at the small end plate plus the equivalent vector component at conical sidewall should be the same per area unit squared, -F (small end plus sidewall vector component in this direction) +F (at the large plate), ...from a pure topological point of view.
According to the two previous pages, it seems that:
1) you still base your understanding of the propellantless propulsion effect of the EmDrive in the same origin as Shawyer's, i.e. the existence of a force resulting from a non-zero sum of all radiation pressures upon materials within the cavity.
but:
2) you however now refute Shawyer's claim that the radiation pressure is greater at the big end, saying it would be the opposite: that the radiation pressures on side walls + small end combined are greater than the radiation pressure on the wide end, resulting in the EmDrive being pushed by this forward radiation pressure, small end leading. So no more invisible "thrust force" directed in the opposite, rear direction without matter ejected, that Shawyer yet introduced to try to mimic his system with classical Newtonian action-reaction.
You argue based on the momentum exchange with all walls and the photon incident angle varying across the tapered section.
Shawyer bases his "EmDrive theory" on Cullen's experiments and his 1952 paper (http://ayuba.fr/pdf/emdrive/cullen1952a.pdf), extrapolating measurement made with open cylindrical waveguides to tapered closed cavities, since he assumes that a closed tapered cavity is the same as a series of many shallow cylindrical open waveguides of decreasing diameter connected the one after the others (from the point of view of travelling waves, hence a pulsed operation).
Therefore Shawyer claims that the radiation pressure (and the group velocity) of microwaves is greater on the big end of the EmDrive than on the small end, which seems sound, but doing so he may neglect the wall component, which should add and sum up to zero (he claims this zero sum is indeed the case for a standing wave, but not for travelling waves).
Cullen showed (eq. 15 in his paper) that:
F = 2P/c ( λ / λg )
Since λ < λg (always) and the smaller the waveguide diameter, the longer the guide wavelength λg, it is easy to show that the force due to the radiation pressure of microwaves at the same input power acting on a plate in a wider waveguide is greater than the force acting on a plate in a narrow waveguide.
So do you now disagree with Cullen; or do you agree with him but saying instead that what is going on in open cylindrical waveguides cannot be extrapolated to closed tapered cavities?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=37642.0;attach=1030954
However I think for traveling (reflected) waves there is a time related difference related to the reflection on both ends. I guess the reflection at the smaller side has a broad band characteristic compared to the big end. I.e. the wave is partly reflected before it reaches the small plate (partially earlier times). If the big end is flat there is also a phase dependent time dependent reflection involved. But for a proper curved big plate and a small end below cutoff the time difference of the reflected signal should be located at the small end. So maybe a time-delayed reflection of the incident wave at a undersized small end combined with a spherical big end plate leads to a nice net force because of the time delayed reflection at one end only?
Just a thought.. ::)
It is hard to think about such problems while the room temperature is still way over 30°C/86°F :-\ :-[
It was a time domain simulation?
Post by: Ricvil on 08/10/2018 10:51 am
Perhaps the Tx3xx mode is the TM211 after all.
The thrust occurs exactly at Fano resonances profiles, them two resonances are required, and one with Q much higher than other.
Very interesting!!
Post by: X_RaY on 08/10/2018 03:30 pm
No this is not a finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) analyses, it is a simulation based on boundary-element-method (BEM) using FEKO-software.
It was a time domain simulation?
Post by: oyzw on 08/11/2018 01:46 am
Post by: Ricvil on 08/11/2018 02:33 am
No this is not a finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) analyses, it is a simulation based on boundary-element-method (BEM) using FEKO-software.
It was a time domain simulation?
The big plate was spherical or flat in that simulation?
That chaotic poynting vector over a full cycle was a simulation transient, or that persist over a long range of time?
Post by: Mark7777777 on 08/11/2018 03:59 am
开放式半环耦合不是最佳，采用短路闭环耦合更好，Q值超过50000
https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=Google+translate+Chinese+to+English&rlz=1C9BKJA_enNZ596NZ596&hl=en-NZ&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8&spknlang=en-NZ&inm=vs&vse=1
Open half-ring coupling is not optimal, short-circuit closed-loop coupling is better, Q value exceeds 50000
Post by: Bob Woods on 08/11/2018 04:00 am
开放式半环耦合不是最佳，采用短路闭环耦合更好，Q值超过50000Jamie I think this is for you...
Open half-ring coupling is not optimal, short-circuit closed-loop coupling is better, Q value exceeds 50000
Post by: X_RaY on 08/11/2018 08:44 am
This was a numerical artifact / problem within the simulation.No this is not a finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) analyses, it is a simulation based on boundary-element-method (BEM) using FEKO-software.
It was a time domain simulation?
The big plate was spherical or flat in that simulation?
That chaotic poynting vector over a full cycle was a simulation transient, or that persist over a long range of time?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1633578#msg1633578
EDIT:
I found results for the average poynting vector field that looks very interesting in a special situation. See pics
EDIT 2:
Using a small loop antenna instead the magnetic dipole the vector pattern looks very different.
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/11/2018 01:09 pm
开放式半环耦合不是最佳，采用短路闭环耦合更好，Q值超过50000
I am only usinging the half-loop at the beginning since it is so easy to make. The closed loop antenna will be next, but those are more difficult to fabricate. What I will end up doing is 3D printing a stepped cone of various diameters and use that to wrap the wire around so I can get the right diameter for the antenna. I also need to order more SMA parts as I'm running low and only have the parts for one more antenna. :-\
Post by: demofsky on 08/11/2018 10:00 pm
I found results for the average poynting vector field that looks very interesting in a special situation. See pics
Very interesting! Be interesting to see what Fano resonance profiles might exist.
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/13/2018 05:54 am
Sin-Itiro Tomonaga - Nobel Lecture 1966
Two of the symmetries which are intrinsic to reality are, time itself, where each observer observes the same rate of passage of time locally even though these rates vary relative to each-other, and the speed of light which is isotropic and does not depend on the state of motion of the observer. But these symmetries are not compatible and cannot be mathematically described if time is linear because what is synchronous in linear time varies with the origin your perspective. These symmetries can only be resolved if time is a complex function. Coincidence between the emission and absorption of each instance of a quantum of radiation is possible if all separations at light speed occur at coincidence in complex time.
Consider, t the proper time for either the traveler or the observer, v their velocity, c the speed of light and i the square root of minus one,
t + ivt / c = 0
allowing direct connection between all mass.
Complex time allows an explanation for emdrive thrust. If all charges constantly interact then a highly charged resonant capacitor with greater duration of momentum storage at one extreme of linear dimension than another, does provide a mechanism whereby force may be exerted by a discreet mechanism upon the distant universe.
http://vixra.org/author/john_malcolm_newell (http://vixra.org/author/john_malcolm_newell)
Post by: RotoSequence on 08/13/2018 06:09 am
Quote from: The mass of sound
We show that the commonly accepted statement that sound waves do not transport mass is only true at linear order. Using effective field theory techniques, we confirm the result found in [Phys. Rev. B97, 134516 (2018), 1705.08914] for zero-temperature superfluids, and extend it to the case of solids and ordinary fluids. We show that, in fact, sound waves do carry mass---in particular, gravitational mass. This implies that a sound wave not only is affected by gravity but also generates a tiny gravitational field. Our findings are valid for non-relativistic media as well, and could have intriguing experimental implications.
Post by: meberbs on 08/13/2018 06:33 am
But these symmetries are not compatible and cannot be mathematically described if time is linear because what is synchronous in linear time varies with the origin your perspective. These symmetries can only be resolved if time is a complex function.False, special relativity resolves this perfectly, and does not need complex numbers. In fact it is essentially a linear theory.
http://vixra.org/author/john_malcolm_newell (http://vixra.org/author/john_malcolm_newell)Have you made any progress since we last had this conversation? It doesn't sound like you are saying anything new, and the linked articles aren't new enough to have resolved the impasse we ended at. I don't see any need to repeat the same conversation we have already had.
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/13/2018 11:38 pm
Post by: oyzw on 08/14/2018 12:40 am
I've drilled the holes in Oyzw's frustum so there's no turning back now. ??? You can see in the 3D image how the tuning is supposed to work. Simply turn the knob to rotate and move the antennas in and out - almost exactly like before, except the tuners must be designed to fit the curve of the frustum. I was able to use two knobs from another cavity so I only need to print the two parts that fit against the frustum. Those are printing now.You can use a short-circuit ring with a diameter of 20mm as the antenna.
Post by: RERT on 08/14/2018 11:14 am
Sadly I'm still not really getting it, at least not from the video. I wasn't seeing any LDS response at all, probably just a scale/eyesight issue. Same with temperature.
What was very convincing about Tajmar's work was that he could turn on a choke which essentially cut off all power to the frustrum, while still delivering power to the board. Despite that he still saw almost exactly the same effects. Onset was very rapid, and so thermal effects were not really an issue.
If you run a longer test to thermal equilibrium, the same kind of null test would apply if you could deliver the same power (heat) while switching RF to the frustrum on and off. If it made no difference, it signals no thrust.
If you run a longer test with RF and power tied together - i.e. on and off at the same time - you are expecting to see pendulum deflection from thermal effects. I'm not really getting how you extract a null from this. The pendulum moves, and you will be left asserting that there is no EMdrive effect because...heat. The last thing you want is to have to model the pendulum and say that it's movement is consistent with X not Y.
I suspect I'm just being slow here, but could you run me through the tests you plan to run and the logic you will use to assert a definitive positive or negative result?
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/14/2018 01:40 pm
What was very convincing about Tajmar's work was that he could turn on a choke which essentially cut off all power to the frustrum, while still delivering power to the board. Despite that he still saw almost exactly the same effects. Onset was very rapid, and so thermal effects were not really an issue.
...could you run me through the tests you plan to run and the logic you will use to assert a definitive positive or negative result?
It is not very clear from the graph below, but I also have the ability to cut RF power to the cavity using the PTT (Push To Talk) function on the amplifier. Power is still being delivered to the amplifier even without the PTT button pressed. In the graph below the PTT is yellow and the RF is red. Power to the amplifier was on from before the graph starts because I was busy talking. The green line, which is the amplifier board temperature, is constantly rising from the moment power was turned on. Then when the PTT is pressed and RF is present, the board goes from ~8A idle to ~12A. That's not exactly how Tajmar does it because he can keep the board at full power while diverting the RF, but it's a lot better than not having the ability at all.
If there was fast response thrust, like that reported by NASA, then one would expect the LDS to begin moving almost immediately upon pressing the PTT and begin to return to zero when PTT is released. That did not happen. Instead we see movement a full ~13 seconds after the RF is present. That the maximum displacement coincides with amplifier board max temperature is very suspect for thermal effects.
The big missing part of the test below is that I did not start the ADC soon enough to capture main power on. However, If you watch the video, you can see that there is no displacement from that event, just a steady rise in temperature beginning.
Obviously the test needs to be repeated many times. Those tests will not be video recorded and narrated, so I will be able to get the test done long before the amplifier board heats up the phase change heat sink too much. That way if there is no thrust/movement at all, then we can comfortably call that a null result.
Post by: RERT on 08/14/2018 10:38 pm
A test with PTT never pressed might show that the pattern of movement without RF was similar to that with, reinforcing the thermal conclusion.
Does the rig have a control loop to lock in resonance? If not, people might argue that thermal effects could cause resonance drift, and indirectly cause the kind of delay in the LDS signal onset you saw.
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/15/2018 01:13 am
meberbs,But these symmetries are not compatible and cannot be mathematically described if time is linear because what is synchronous in linear time varies with the origin your perspective. These symmetries can only be resolved if time is a complex function.False, special relativity resolves this perfectly, and does not need complex numbers. In fact it is essentially a linear theory.http://vixra.org/author/john_malcolm_newell (http://vixra.org/author/john_malcolm_newell)Have you made any progress since we last had this conversation? It doesn't sound like you are saying anything new, and the linked articles aren't new enough to have resolved the impasse we ended at. I don't see any need to repeat the same conversation we have already had.
progress! No, none of this constitutes progress yet but neither does engineering based on physics which is beyond question. Within that constraint the emdrive would never have been attempted at all. What I am asking is that folk consider the possibility that the energy exchange fundamental to the structure and interaction of all matter may be understandable. There is no need to wrap it in the mystery and superstition of quantum paradox when there is a seamless explanation that even a dunce like me can come up with :)
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/15/2018 01:26 am
(...)Thanks Monomorph,
Obviously the test needs to be repeated many times. Those tests will not be video recorded and narrated, so I will be able to get the test done long before the amplifier board heats up the phase change heat sink too much. That way if there is no thrust/movement at all, then we can comfortably call that a null result.
these results are beautifully communicated by the jpeg's you include, could you add a date stamp to them as well so that we are completely clear as to which is which :)
Post by: oyzw on 08/15/2018 03:29 am
Hello, my cavity, when do you start testing?What was very convincing about Tajmar's work was that he could turn on a choke which essentially cut off all power to the frustrum, while still delivering power to the board. Despite that he still saw almost exactly the same effects. Onset was very rapid, and so thermal effects were not really an issue.
...could you run me through the tests you plan to run and the logic you will use to assert a definitive positive or negative result?
It is not very clear from the graph below, but I also have the ability to cut RF power to the cavity using the PTT (Push To Talk) function on the amplifier. Power is still being delivered to the amplifier even without the PTT button pressed. In the graph below the PTT is yellow and the RF is red. Power to the amplifier was on from before the graph starts because I was busy talking. The green line, which is the amplifier board temperature, is constantly rising from the moment power was turned on. Then when the PTT is pressed and RF is present, the board goes from ~8A idle to ~12A. That's not exactly how Tajmar does it because he can keep the board at full power while diverting the RF, but it's a lot better than not having the ability at all.
If there was fast response thrust, like that reported by NASA, then one would expect the LDS to begin moving almost immediately upon pressing the PTT and begin to return to zero when PTT is released. That did not happen. Instead we see movement a full ~13 seconds after the RF is present. That the maximum displacement coincides with amplifier board max temperature is very suspect for thermal effects.
The big missing part of the test below is that I did not start the ADC soon enough to capture main power on. However, If you watch the video, you can see that there is no displacement from that event, just a steady rise in temperature beginning.
Obviously the test needs to be repeated many times. Those tests will not be video recorded and narrated, so I will be able to get the test done long before the amplifier board heats up the phase change heat sink too much. That way if there is no thrust/movement at all, then we can comfortably call that a null result.
Post by: oyzw on 08/15/2018 04:30 am
Derived from the thrust formula, consider that your cavity Q is only 5000, 7uN is the true thrust value. The cavity is deformed by heat, the resonance point is drifting, and when the temperature reaches a constant value, the thrust value shows a maximum value.What was very convincing about Tajmar's work was that he could turn on a choke which essentially cut off all power to the frustrum, while still delivering power to the board. Despite that he still saw almost exactly the same effects. Onset was very rapid, and so thermal effects were not really an issue.
...could you run me through the tests you plan to run and the logic you will use to assert a definitive positive or negative result?
It is not very clear from the graph below, but I also have the ability to cut RF power to the cavity using the PTT (Push To Talk) function on the amplifier. Power is still being delivered to the amplifier even without the PTT button pressed. In the graph below the PTT is yellow and the RF is red. Power to the amplifier was on from before the graph starts because I was busy talking. The green line, which is the amplifier board temperature, is constantly rising from the moment power was turned on. Then when the PTT is pressed and RF is present, the board goes from ~8A idle to ~12A. That's not exactly how Tajmar does it because he can keep the board at full power while diverting the RF, but it's a lot better than not having the ability at all.
If there was fast response thrust, like that reported by NASA, then one would expect the LDS to begin moving almost immediately upon pressing the PTT and begin to return to zero when PTT is released. That did not happen. Instead we see movement a full ~13 seconds after the RF is present. That the maximum displacement coincides with amplifier board max temperature is very suspect for thermal effects.
The big missing part of the test below is that I did not start the ADC soon enough to capture main power on. However, If you watch the video, you can see that there is no displacement from that event, just a steady rise in temperature beginning.
Obviously the test needs to be repeated many times. Those tests will not be video recorded and narrated, so I will be able to get the test done long before the amplifier board heats up the phase change heat sink too much. That way if there is no thrust/movement at all, then we can comfortably call that a null result.
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/15/2018 11:59 am
Does the rig have a control loop to lock in resonance? If not, people might argue that thermal effects could cause resonance drift, and indirectly cause the kind of delay in the LDS signal onset you saw.
At this point, the control loop is me. It is not difficult to maintain maximum return loss by manually tuning the frequency. The resonance drift is not too fast that I can't keep up with it. This is not ideal, and I would like to eventually create a custom interface for the signal generator. Unfortunately that requires somewhat advanced knowledge of LabView. Right now, I am a novice at best, but I haven't put much effort into it.
Post by: meberbs on 08/15/2018 02:56 pm
progress! No, none of this constitutes progress yet but neither does engineering based on physics which is beyond question. Within that constraint the emdrive would never have been attempted at all.But claiming that standard physics has paradoxes in places it doesn't is anti-progress. It makes people waste time looking in known dead ends.
What I am asking is that folk consider the possibility that the energy exchange fundamental to the structure and interaction of all matter may be understandable. There is no need to wrap it in the mystery and superstition of quantum paradox when there is a seamless explanation that even a dunce like me can come up with :)It is understandable, and doesn't need quantum for the explanation. Your statement about photons and zero travel time from their perspective is already in special relativity. Since distance also collapses to 0, you can't actually use that reference frame mathematically, just as a thought experiment. (Also quantum doesn't have actual paradoxes, just very, very unintuitive behavior)
Also, to be blunt, you haven't come up with a "seamless" explanation of anything. I am not trying to discourage you from thinking about these things, but to point out when you are going in a roundabout direction to say something physics already says, or solve a problem or paradox that doesn't actually exist.
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/15/2018 03:33 pm
Hello, my cavity, when do you start testing?
The cavity got a fresh coat of paint last night. This is so we can use an infrared camera to pick up resonant mode shape on exterior surface. I also used brasso to clean the interior surfaces. I have a few things left to do:
1. Fabricate two antennas.
2. Build the bracket for mounting the cavity to the torsional pendulum
3. Tune the cavity
4. Re-balance the pendulum for any difference between the mass of the 3D printed cavity and the solid copper.
Then we should be ready to go! I'm shooting for the weekend.
Post by: oyzw on 08/16/2018 01:07 am
Very beautiful device. My friend and I re-calculated the calculation of the electromagnetic radiation pressure, which should be very helpful for the cavity design. If the thrust can be measured this time, I can use it to verify the validity of the calculation formula.Hello, my cavity, when do you start testing?
The cavity got a fresh coat of paint last night. This is so I can use an infrared camera to pick up resonant mode shape on exterior surface. I also used brasso to clean the interior surfaces. I have a few things left to do:
1. Fabricate two antennas.
2. Build the bracket for mounting the cavity to the torsional pendulum
3. Tune the cavity
4. Re-balance the pendulum for any difference between the mass of the 3D printed cavity and the solid copper.
Then we should be ready to go! I'm shooting for the weekend.
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/16/2018 05:22 am
Thanks meberbs,progress! No, none of this constitutes progress yet but neither does engineering based on physics which is beyond question. Within that constraint the emdrive would never have been attempted at all.But claiming that standard physics has paradoxes in places it doesn't is anti-progress. It makes people waste time looking in known dead ends.What I am asking is that folk consider the possibility that the energy exchange fundamental to the structure and interaction of all matter may be understandable. There is no need to wrap it in the mystery and superstition of quantum paradox when there is a seamless explanation that even a dunce like me can come up with :)It is understandable, and doesn't need quantum for the explanation. Your statement about photons and zero travel time from their perspective is already in special relativity. Since distance also collapses to 0, you can't actually use that reference frame mathematically, just as a thought experiment. (Also quantum doesn't have actual paradoxes, just very, very unintuitive behavior)
Also, to be blunt, you haven't come up with a "seamless" explanation of anything. I am not trying to discourage you from thinking about these things, but to point out when you are going in a roundabout direction to say something physics already says, or solve a problem or paradox that doesn't actually exist.
it was Richard Feynman who said, if you think you understand it then you don't, or something equally silly. The separate mathematical approaches of quantum mechanics and relativity are accepted as being incompatible by too many sources to list, let alone quote.
Yes, I agree that the solution is already present in special relativity but what I am proposing is a little different. I think we have misinterpreted separation in time as; distance between two points separate in space but synchronous in linear (scalar) time. That distance is not mathematically defined for more than one perspective, which is why I included the Tomonaga quote. Complex time, wherein separate but synchronous points are possible from all perspectives, allows not only mathematical resolution but also allows the translation of energy (momentum for example) without it having to exist in-between those points.
It is the description of that energy in mid translation, within linear time, which raises quantum paradox and prevents our understanding of the communication of energy between the inside surface of a closed conductive frustum and the distant universe. I have taken great care to spell out why this is possible in my vixra contributions and I think better physicists than me should be able to describe how this is possible, if they can grasp the essence of time as an inherently complex dimension. I bring it to this forum because this is the only place that I know of where such an alternate view of energy might even be considered.
Please accept this as a compliment, as I accept your questions. Since distance, in my opinion, does collapse to 0 at the speed of light, then you can use that reference frame mathematically because math has been developed as a method of analysis of the real, as well as its complex conjugate :)
Post by: meberbs on 08/16/2018 06:02 am
what was it Feynman who said, if you think you understand it then you don't, or something equally silly. The separate mathematical approaches of quantum mechanics and relativity are accepted as being incompatible by too many sources to list, let alone quote.Since there are exactly zero knowledgeable sources that claim that, a list of them is trivial. Quantum mechanics is generally studied in the non-relativistic limit, since it is sufficiently unintuitive on its own. The full relativistic version is known as Quantum ElectroDynamics (QED).
Yes, I agree that the solution is already present in special relativity but what I am proposing is a little different. I think we have misinterpreted separation in time as; distance between two points separate in space but synchronous in linear (scalar) time. That distance is not mathematically defined for more than one perspective, which is why I included the Tomonaga quote.What you are looking for is the term "proper distance." You aren't discussing new or different concepts here.
What is possible is that complex time, wherein separate but synchronous points are possible from all perspectives, allows not only mathematical resolution but also allows the translation of energy (momentum for example) without it having to exist in-between those points.As we concluded our previous conversation with, you have not figured out a meaningful way to talk about "complex time" while writing down even the most basic of dynamics equations. Your assertions that this magically solves any problems whatsoever is baseless and a waste of time.
I have taken great care to spell out why this is possible in my vixra contributionsNo, you haven't. Go look up our previous discussion of this, since you seem to have forgotten.
Please accept this as a compliment, as I accept your questions.Since you are in actuality rejecting my questions, does that mean I should take it as an insult? We ended a previous discussion on this topic with you saying that you would work on writing down complex time in such a way that it could be used to do anything, yet here we are again, with you claiming your papers have everything needed for understanding, claiming holes in physics where there are none, even while admitting that you have nothing new to add, so there is no purpose in your posts.
A reminder of what you said:
Quote from: spupeng7
I certainly will attempt to "figure out a way to write down dynamics equations that don't break when you use complex time" as you suggest, my argument for gravity as an electrical effect relies on it.
Since distance, in my opinion, does collapse to 0 at the speed of light, then you can use that reference frame mathematically because math has been developed as a method of analysis of the real, as well as its complex conjugate :)
No, you cannot use it mathematically, since all calculations will boil down to 0/0. If you allow such calculations, you can easily prove that 1=0, and all results are therefore meaningless. Your statement about complex conjugates at the end is a non-sequiter, which even on its own does not make sense (the complex conjugate of a real number is itself, not a complex number).
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 08/17/2018 12:47 pm
The first thing I plan to change in the LabView control of the SynthNV is that you can use up and down arrows for frequency up and down. So you can keep your view on the screen with the output signals. That should be fairly easy, but I don't have the right version of LabView yet.Does the rig have a control loop to lock in resonance? If not, people might argue that thermal effects could cause resonance drift, and indirectly cause the kind of delay in the LDS signal onset you saw.
At this point, the control loop is me. It is not difficult to maintain maximum return loss by manually tuning the frequency. The resonance drift is not too fast that I can't keep up with it. This is not ideal, and I would like to eventually create a custom interface for the signal generator. Unfortunately that requires somewhat advanced knowledge of LabView. Right now, I am a novice at best, but I haven't put much effort into it.
For me, no activities with the EMDrive in the coming weeks, going on vacation first (yes, life can be though).
Post by: Ricvil on 08/17/2018 06:08 pm
I think I've "accidentally" discover a "new" composite spontaneus broken symmetry, involving one Poincare space-time symmetry , a geometric space-time duality, a conformal transformation, time reversal, and the know broken electromagnetic duality symmetry.
If I'm right, my first claim is:
The tapered conical cavity, with flat or spherical endplates may act, under some conditions, as a TE TM Topological Insulator, or in other words, a "TE TM Diode", with a "depletion zone" at some specific point between the endplates.
There are many other implications, but for now...That's all folks!!! :) :) :)
Post by: bad_astra on 08/17/2018 07:30 pm
At this point, the control loop is me. It is not difficult to maintain maximum return loss by manually tuning the frequency. The resonance drift is not too fast that I can't keep up with it. This is not ideal, and I would like to eventually create a custom interface for the signal generator. Unfortunately that requires somewhat advanced knowledge of LabView. Right now, I am a novice at best, but I haven't put much effort into it.
Really appreciate the effort you're both putting into this.
(https://i.giphy.com/media/3oKHWikxKFJhjArSXm/giphy.webp)
.
Post by: Jim Davis on 08/17/2018 08:16 pm
I think I've "acidentally" discover a "new" composite expontaneus broken symmetry, envolving one Poincare space-time symmetry , a geometric space-time duality, a conformal transformation, and the know broken electromagnetic duality symmetry.
Do you think you'll win the Nobel Prize for Physics this year or next year?
Post by: Pete on 08/17/2018 08:44 pm
I think I've "acidentally" discover a "new" composite expontaneus broken symmetry, envolving one Poincare space-time symmetry , a geometric space-time duality, a conformal transformation, and the know broken electromagnetic duality symmetry.
Wow, I have to admit I have difficulty even visualizing the implications what you are saying there.
.
.
.
.
Of course, That could be because I have never heard these words:
Acidentally
expontaneus
envolving
tappered
wow.
I have so much to learn
Post by: Ricvil on 08/17/2018 10:03 pm
My english is very poor.
:)
Post by: Bob Woods on 08/18/2018 04:59 am
From Pete:"Acidentally
expontaneus
envolving
tappered"
Maybe it's:
Accidentally
Spontaneous
Involving
Tapered
Trying to be helpful in language issues is more productive, especially in a topic that has many people from around the world as members.
Post by: demofsky on 08/18/2018 09:18 am
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.08771.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.08771.pdf)
The mass of sound
We show that the commonly accepted statement that sound waves do not transport mass is only true at linear order. Using effective field theory techniques, we confirm the result found in [1] for zero-temperature superfluids, and extend it to the case of solids and ordinary fluids. We show that, in fact, sound waves do carry mass—in particular, gravitational mass. This implies that a sound wave not only is affected by gravity but also generates a tiny gravitational field. Our findings are valid for non-relativistic media as well, and could have intriguing experimental implications.
Post by: Ricvil on 08/19/2018 02:45 pm
An interesting paper that may be relevant here:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.08771.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.08771.pdf)
The mass of sound
We show that the commonly accepted statement that sound waves do not transport mass is only true at linear order. Using effective field theory techniques, we confirm the result found in [1] for zero-temperature superfluids, and extend it to the case of solids and ordinary fluids. We show that, in fact, sound waves do carry mass—in particular, gravitational mass. This implies that a sound wave not only is affected by gravity but also generates a tiny gravitational field. Our findings are valid for non-relativistic media as well, and could have intriguing experimental implications.
Amazing!!!
Thank you very much for the article. Many linking ideas!!!
The Nature is beautiful, Isn't it?? :) :) :)
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/20/2018 05:51 am
(...)meberbs,
You aren't discussing new or different concepts here.
(...)
it is entirely possible that I have failed to make a clear mathematical argument, never having received comment on the mathematical structure I am attempting to create, beyond 'it all adds to zero' which is unhelpful because time and distance do add to zero at the speed of light. My work aims to specify a simpler, more productive perspective on the findings of special relativity, which is available to anyone who is not afraid to consider action at a distance without artificial constructs for the transport of energy necessitated only by the uniquely limited point perspective that all us humans share.
That my logic is invisible to you surprises me not at all but I do encourage all of you to consider it further because there may be insight within it which inspires comprehension of relativity in general and there are arguments within it which in the last few decades of reading I have not encountered anywhere else. Please consider with an open mind because nothing less will resolve emdrive thrust if it does prove to be a reality. Indeed, it will be far more complicated to resolve if I am wrong than if I am right.
Thank you for your questions, I may be able to answer them better after some consideration :)
Post by: meberbs on 08/20/2018 01:51 pm
it is entirely possible that I have failed to make a clear mathematical argument,Well that much is true.
never having received comment on the mathematical structure I am attempting to create, beyond 'it all adds to zero' which is unhelpful because time and distance do add to zero at the speed of light.Nope, try reading what I wrote again. 0/0 is an invalid mathematical structure. The technical term for it is "undefined." Your concept is what is unhelpful, because you cannot use it to make a single meaningful prediction. Something that is 1 m away and something that is 2 m away both would be 0m away in your frame. This means that according to your frame, they are the same, and 1=2. This is obviously untrue since those are different objects. (And they must be different, since things like electromagnetic force are proportional to 1/r^2)
My work aims to specify a simpler, more productive perspective on the findings of special relativity, which is available to anyone who is not afraid to consider action at a distance without artificial constructs for the transport of energy necessitated only by the uniquely limited point perspective that all us humans share.Honestly, This sentence just sounds like condescending insults to me. If I was afraid to consider other perspectives, I wouldn't be here, but you seem afraid to admit that you are wrong. The condescension comes from when you act like your simple concept is not one that has been independently come up with countless times in the last century, followed by the people who know what they are doing rapidly realizing that everything collapses, so you can't make useful predictions.
Please consider with an open mind because nothing less will resolve emdrive thrust if it does prove to be a reality.I did consider it with an open mind. It does not do anything that would explain a working emDrive.
Thank you for your questions, I may be able to answer them better after some consideration :)That may be the most insincere "thank you" I have ever seen, Since earlier in the very same post you denied that I even presented you with valid problems. (and you seem to have completely ignored the whole fact that complex time plugged into any equation would result in all answers being complex (and meaningless.))
If you have nothing to add other than insults, and refusals to actually consider the problems with your claims, please stop wasting everyone's time including your own.
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/21/2018 05:44 am
meberbs,it is entirely possible that I have failed to make a clear mathematical argument,Well that much is true.never having received comment on the mathematical structure I am attempting to create, beyond 'it all adds to zero' which is unhelpful because time and distance do add to zero at the speed of light.Nope, try reading what I wrote again. 0/0 is an invalid mathematical structure. The technical term for it is "undefined." Your concept is what is unhelpful, because you cannot use it to make a single meaningful prediction. Something that is 1 m away and something that is 2 m away both would be 0m away in your frame. This means that according to your frame, they are the same, and 1=2. This is obviously untrue since those are different objects. (And they must be different, since things like electromagnetic force are proportional to 1/r^2)My work aims to specify a simpler, more productive perspective on the findings of special relativity, which is available to anyone who is not afraid to consider action at a distance without artificial constructs for the transport of energy necessitated only by the uniquely limited point perspective that all us humans share.Honestly, This sentence just sounds like condescending insults to me. If I was afraid to consider other perspectives, I wouldn't be here, but you seem afraid to admit that you are wrong. The condescension comes from when you act like your simple concept is not one that has been independently come up with countless times in the last century, followed by the people who know what they are doing rapidly realizing that everything collapses, so you can't make useful predictions.Please consider with an open mind because nothing less will resolve emdrive thrust if it does prove to be a reality.I did consider it with an open mind. It does not do anything that would explain a working emDrive.Thank you for your questions, I may be able to answer them better after some consideration :)That may be the most insincere "thank you" I have ever seen, Since earlier in the very same post you denied that I even presented you with valid problems. (and you seem to have completely ignored the whole fact that complex time plugged into any equation would result in all answers being complex (and meaningless.))
If you have nothing to add other than insults, and refusals to actually consider the problems with your claims, please stop wasting everyone's time including your own.
you ask what I bring to this discussion. All discussion of a mechanism of action for the emdrive must satisfy both relativity and quantum mechanics if it is to provide clarity but these subjects do not, despite your protestations, satisfy each other. The only way forward is to join the fray with a seamless alternative, and I believe I have one, though it may yet need to be explained more clearly.
By the equivalence principle it is established that gravity is the consequence of a dilation of time but we do not extend that mechanism to the electromagnetic forces. To do so would require us to approach the entire subject from the covariant perspective, which is horribly difficult and maybe impossible if we are to marry it with quantum mechanics. But, if we assume for the sake of argument that electromagnetic forces do act by dilation and divergence of time, then the covariant perspective requires to us recognize both the complex nature of time and the lack of orthoganality in the spatial dimensions.
Please forgive me for not specifying the fresh dynamical equations this suggests while unqualified and unassisted. It is more relevant to begin with why this is possible, which requires the reader to approach these concepts without prejudice. If time is complex then all charges act on each other directly, in the case of gravity and inertia their influence upon each other is proportional to the inverse square of their distance in their own individual proper time, and in the case of the exchange of a quantum their influence is the consequence of a hierarchy of proximity for resonance between charges without diminution of energy over distance in their own proper time. Not an easy set of concepts but seamless, I insist.
There is no place in this plan for photons. The impossibility of photons is established and they can be appreciated as illusion created by the reduction of dynamics to that apparent from a single perspective whose regular development through its own proper time gives it an infinity of universes to interact with depending upon its velocity vector. There is not even any need to continue to pursue such illusions except in order to define and so to understand the human, the animal, perspective. Time can then, as we have already begun, be appreciated as a dimension of location, its complex nature defining all interaction with the consequence that Schrodinger's cat is either alive or dead but never both at once.
Complex time describes a universe of charges all in constant interaction and all progressing through their own proper time at the same rate that I do, sitting here listening to my clock tick and tock. Forward because change is inevitable, interconnected by the very nature of existence. Forgive me if I see multiple universes and linear time as demented obsolete dreams. To comprehend complex time you must begin by understanding that the real component of time is only equal and opposite to its complex conjugate, at the speed of light.
To understand how this provides a mechanism of action for emdrive thrust it may help to distinguish between quanta which cannot escape the Faraday cage of its frustum, and the inertial interactions which act by dilation and divergence relative between the constant proper time of all individual charges without the charges which cause those imbalanced interactions leaving the confines of that frustum. Charges travelling within the conductor reflecting quanta of radiation, contain the energy of those quanta before it is re-emitted and while they do their momentum is a property of that conductor, so, conductors of different sizes have that momentum for differing durations. Is that not all we need to explain the extent of emdrive thrust.
Would it not help us improve the design of the emdrive if we knew its mechanism. Complex time is to my mind a simple explanation of physical reality if only because it raises no paradox, unless you see the immediate connection of all interaction as being a paradox which I do not. Everyone wants mathematical proof but the study of complex time must begin with a fresh conceptual resolution.
Referencing previously attached paper: 'Coincidence in Complex Time'
Post by: meberbs on 08/21/2018 06:28 am
you ask what I bring to this discussion. All discussion of a mechanism of action for the emdrive must satisfy both relativity and quantum mechanics if it is to provide clarity but these subjects do not, despite your protestations, satisfy each other.Go look up quantum electrodynamics on wikipedia. Special relativity, electrodynamics, and quantum mechanics are unified in a single consistent theory. You are claiming it is inconsistent, yet you haven't pointed to a single inconsistency.
Most of the rest of your post is simply gibberish. You put a bunch of words together, in sentences that are grammatically correct, but do not have any meaning whatsoever. For example:
But, if we assume for the sake of argument that electromagnetic forces do act by dilation and divergence of time, then the covariant perspective requires to us recognize both the complex nature of time and the lack of orthoganality in the spatial dimensions.None of that means anything.
Please forgive me for not specifying the fresh dynamical equations this suggests while unqualified and unassisted.See my last few posts where I point out various ways that your posts are insulting? Go apologize for that before asking for forgiveness.
After that you will need to provide a meaningful definition of "complex time" before you can expect anyone to assist you with it.You might as well be asking people to help you prove that invisible unicorns are pink. Even if unicorns existed, an invisible object does not have a color by definition. It is simply nonsensical to try to measure the color of an invisible object, let alone one that doesn't exist to begin with.
There is no place in this plan for photons.That makes this simple:
-photoelectric effect
-single photon experiments
-particle motions in particle colliders
-photon-photon scattering
Photons exist and their existence is measured in all sorts of ways. If your claims do not allow for photons, then they do not describe reality.
Post by: OnlyMe on 08/21/2018 05:40 pm
.... All discussion of a mechanism of action for the emdrive must satisfy both relativity and quantum mechanics if it is to provide clarity ....
By the equivalence principle it is established that gravity is the consequence of a dilation of time ...
spupeng7,
The above quotes from your first two paragraphs encapsulate, the essence of two issues I have, with your introductory comments.
When you begin the second paragraph with a reference to the “equivalence principle”, it suggests that in the first paragraph, when you referenced “relativity” it must include not just special relativity, as address by meberbs, but also general relativity. The difficulty here is that, as yet we have no generally accepted theory that unifies general relativity and quantum mechanics. Which leads to a conclusion that the intent/objective of the first quote, “All discussion of a mechanism of action for the emdrive must satisfy both..”, cannot be achieved. The two theories cannot as yet be fully reconciled.
Second, please provide some credible reference that supports your contention, “By the equivalence principle it is established that gravity is the consequence of a dilation of time...”.
While time dilation may be a consequence of gravitation, even uniform acceleration, the equivalence principle asserts only that one cannot distinguish the difference between uniform acceleration (in a flat spacetime) and being inertially at rest relative to a gravitational field.
Change is a matter of fact and fundamentally addressed in both general relativity and quantum mechanics. While “we” may describe change within both of those theoretical contexts by the introduction of “time”, time itself is a concept born out of our awareness of change. A concept we use to describe and communicate our observations and experience of change. How we describe change does not affect change. That does not mean that the concept of time is not useful even necessary, to the exchange of ideas, experience and even theory. It only means that just because it is an important concept for communication, does not mean it has any causative affect on the underlying reality. Again time — our awareness of change — does not itself cause change.
Post by: Ricvil on 08/22/2018 06:10 pm
TT,There is no assumption that the forces sum to zero, it is a simple fact. It has been proven multiple ways.I never said the pressure was constant everywhere. In fact due to mode shape, it is variable over any surface you pick in the cavity. What hasn't changed is that the net axial force on the sidewalls plus the force on the small end together exactly cancel the force on the large end.
Yes the rad pressure varies as the mode varies and yes it is not constant over the surface. However you are incorrect in assuming all the rad pressure on the interior surfaces of an EmDrive sum to zero.
Have a look at this graphic of how a typical resonant photon impacts and emits itself off of the side walls and the end plates. Yes I know it is not what Roger has shared as the impact angle on the small end plate is larger than on the big end plate, so more rad pressure on the small end plate than the big end plate and the side wall rad pressure is basically very small.
Your diagram is not representative of a "typical" photon, because a "typical" photon acts like a wave not a particle in this situation. You can do a particle model if you want, and it will still conserve momentum if you actually do it right. Your first clue that something is wrong with your picture should be your obviously unphysical result of more pressure on the small plate than the large one. The issue is that you did not sketch a path consistent with incident and reflected angles equal to each other. Do that and things will start making more sense. Then you can do the math and add up the momentum from each transfer. With 6 reflections off the side wall per loop, and all of those reflections having the axial component of their momentum pointed in the same direction, you are not going to find the sidewall force contribution to be "small"
The emission angle alters as the diameter alters. That is why the guide wavelength at the small end is longer than at the big end. As the diameter drops, the emission angle increases. At cutoff diameter, the emission angle causes the emitted photon to hit the opposite wall at such an angle that the photon reverses it's big to small propogation. Image attached is of a resonant cavity that has no small end plate. Instead the proton propogation is reversed via the just described cutoff action. BTW this action is what caused the eddy current ring at the small end to become much greater than on the small end plate. 2nd image is cutoff and the 3rd image is boarderline cutoff. Ideally the small end side wall eddy current ring is much weaker than the small end plate eddy current ring at in the 4th image
If you search in a good microwave engineering book, you will find the equation that describes the relationship between mode, freq, waveguide diameter and emission angle.
Yes you are correct, the rad pressure is greater on the small end plate than on the big end plate. This is why the EmDrive accelerates small end forward. The action/reaction occurs from the photons doing their impact and emit N3 events at each end plate with an overall N3 effect generation a net effect small end forward. There is some side wall force but it is small end directed and not big end directed. So the small side wall force actually adds to the overall small end forward action.
I did a few simulations on TE013 to compare the bandwidth of a truncated conical cavity and a equivalent cylindrical one at nearly the same frequency...
However, I notice that the result shows an interesting current pattern at the end plate as compared to the strength at the sidewall. The cut off frequency is well below the resonant frequency for the cylindrical cavity. Mesh size is chosen equal also in this simulations.
Ignore the tapered cavity for a moment please.
Can you explain why the current at the sidewall is much stronger as compared to the end plates while the diameters of the end plate(s) is much larger than the cut off diameter for TE01p in the case of the cylindrical resonator? :o
It should be stronger at the end plate when applying your theory due to the smaller current ring area at the end plate(s).
Thanks.
Consequence of my theory.
PS: R1 and R2 are mesured from apex.
Post by: X_RaY on 08/22/2018 07:37 pm
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05706-3
Regarding this work it seems the MEGA-Drive as the EM-Drive are two manifestations of the same underlying effect. There is a difference in the speed of vibration of the very ends of the frustum (especially the end plates) introduced by the EM field at the inner walls of such asymmetric cavity resonator.
What if one of the end plates is mechanically resonant at the speed of sound, introduced by the much faster varying EM field and therefore directly connected to the EM field component? This would imply a
mechanical<-->electromagnetic coupling
at only a single end plate while the other is out of mechanical resonance(or at a lower frequency also resonant)...
All whats needed would be a kick at the right time regarding the mechanical resonance/response introduced by the EM field.
Is there anyone having helpful thoughts about this kind of dynamical coupled situation, maybe related or based on the Mach/Woodward effect thruster?
Post by: cvbn on 08/23/2018 02:12 am
BTW anyone has the Taylor paper?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323278529_Propulsive_forces_using_high-Q_asymmetric_high_energy_laser_resonators
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/23/2018 05:22 am
(...)meberbs,
Most of the rest of your post is simply gibberish. You put a bunch of words together, in sentences that are grammatically correct, but do not have any meaning whatsoever.
(...)
See my last few posts where I point out various ways that your posts are insulting? Go apologize for that before asking for forgiveness.
(...)
After that you will need to provide a meaningful definition of "complex time" before you can expect anyone to assist you with it.
(...)
You might as well be asking people to help you prove that invisible unicorns are pink.
(...)
Photons exist and their existence is measured in all sorts of ways. If your claims do not allow for photons, then they do not describe reality.
nothing is less well defined than the equations of quantum mechanics and the last century of debate has not clarified them. We must widen the range of solutions considered in our attempts to explain the results of both the two slit experiments and emdrive experiments, because we are stalking deeper understanding. Understanding which will hopefully lead to technical development, a continuous process non?
It is unkind of you to question my sincerity or how I choose to spend my free time. The purpose of this forum is discovery, by whatever means are effective. Not everyone accepts QED, all the experimental evidence is misinterpreted if we have misunderstood time. If my failure to accept the existence of photons offends you then you are offended by one of the processes by which discovery is often pursued, the questioning of all base assumptions.
Besides, I love your questions because they inspire me to improve my ideas and their explanation. What I would like you to do is understand them better so that you can find deeper criticism of them. That would be far more amusing and might even help us both. The forward dimension of space does collapse at the speed of light, what I am attempting to offer is a conceptual frame in which that makes sense, which faces the fact of it.
Yes, I am wrong, of course I am, we are all found to be wrong in the fullness of time. Meantime let's crack this nut as best we can. It may only be a long century since we mastered powered flight but we should not delay the next steps in development for the sake of clinging onto the tormented knot of math which is little more than the detritus of that centuries desperate determination to comprehend time.
Post by: meberbs on 08/23/2018 08:57 am
nothing is less well defined than the equations of quantum mechanics and the last century of debate has not clarified them. We must widen the range of solutions considered in our attempts to explain the results of both the two slit experiments and emdrive experiments,False on all counts.
-The equations of quantum mechanics are perfectly well defined.
-The most important question in quantum mechanics was settled by experiment, "local hidden variable" theories are wrong
-Any other differences in quantum mechanics are pure philosophy that has no effect on what actually happens
-Two slit experiments are explained perfectly by quantum mechanics
-The emDrive experiments to date are explained perfectly as well, since the original large thrusts claimed have been long since invalidated, and increasingly better experiments have still found no evidence of anything.
It is unkind of you to question my sincerity or how I choose to spend my free time.You are spending your free time by insulting physicists. THAT is what is unkind. Questioning you doing that is not something that even needs to be defended.
If someone gives you a gift and you thank them for it while smashing them in the face with it you are not being sincere, no matter what you might think.
Not everyone accepts QED, all the experimental evidence is misinterpreted if we have misunderstood time.I have never seen it questioned by anyone who actually knows what they are talking about.
If my failure to accept the existence of photons offends you then you are offended by one of the processes by which discovery is often pursued, the questioning of all base assumptions.You are simply ignoring the experimental evidence that contradicts you, therefore insisting that your assumption is correct. That is the exact opposite of "questioning of all base assumptions." It is also the exact opposite of the most basic principle underlying the scientific method: test your ideas against experiment. I have already questioned the assumption of "do photons exist" and found an array of evidence supporting that assumption, with nothing to contradict it (I already pointed out fundamental flaws in your claims).
Besides, I love your questions because they inspire me to improve my ideas and their explanation.Strange since you seem to have made no progress on doing that in more than half a year.
What I would like you to do is understand them better so that you can find deeper criticism of them.I already understand the consequences of the "special relativity from the perspective of a photon" better than you. I would try to help you understand it better, but I cannot do so as long as you continue to refuse to respond to what I have said about it.
Your "complex time" concept has never been described by you in any way that is not gibberish (i.e. could be actually used to predict the result of even the simplest of experiments.)
Post by: Ricvil on 08/23/2018 12:18 pm
FYI
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05706-3
Regarding this work it seems the MEGA-Drive as the EM-Drive are two manifestations of the same underlying effect. There is a difference in the speed of vibration of the very ends of the frustum (especially the end plates) introduced by the EM field at the inner walls of such asymmetric cavity resonator.
What if one of the end plates is mechanically resonant at the speed of sound, introduced by the much faster varying EM field and therefore directly connected to the EM field component? This would imply a
mechanical<-->electromagnetic coupling
at only a single end plate while the other is out of mechanical resonance(or at a lower frequency also resonant)...
All whats needed would be a kick at the right time regarding the mechanical resonance/response introduced by the EM field.
Is there anyone having helpful thoughts about this kind of dynamical coupled situation, maybe related or based on the Mach/Woodward effect thruster?
Some thing like the "event horizon" of a "electromagnetic black hole" , converting TE/TM modes in Phonon waves?
Converting surface normal pressure into parallel shear?
A kind of "Phonon Hall effect?
Post by: flux_capacitor on 08/23/2018 02:42 pm
BTW anyone has the Taylor paper?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323278529_Propulsive_forces_using_high-Q_asymmetric_high_energy_laser_resonators
I don't think you have read it: the link provides only the abstract…
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/23/2018 05:39 pm
BTW anyone has the Taylor paper?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323278529_Propulsive_forces_using_high-Q_asymmetric_high_energy_laser_resonators
I don't think you have read it: the link provides only the abstract…
Taylor's paper is attached.
Post by: Bob Woods on 08/24/2018 05:19 am
That's a big statement. Any data?
Post by: cvbn on 08/24/2018 09:50 am
From Taylor: "... then our system can produce on the order of 30 N thrust per kW of electrical power."
That's a big statement. Any data?
As previously stated (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1807514#msg1807514) and here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1840257#msg1840257), this and another idea will be tested beginning on 1st Oct 2018 and finishing 4 years later (the funds of $1.3 mln are for 4 years). The first results are expected at the end of 2019.
Post by: Ricvil on 08/24/2018 11:34 am
Post by: RotoSequence on 08/24/2018 11:36 am
The Emdrive is a kind of Warpdrive!!
Either that or it's an overcomplicated space heater. :-\
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/24/2018 02:05 pm
Can also confirm a shorter TE011 cavity has more thrust than a longer TE013 cavity, assuming the same Q. This is opposite to what Qi thrust equation predicts and has been pointed out to Dr Mike.
Can also confirm a DF 0.95 cavity has lower thrust than a 0.65 DF cavity, assuming the same Q, due to slower averaged group velocity and thus lower end plate to end plate transits and end plate impacts as the DF (end plate diameter ratio) increases.
Optimal cavity thrust is about tradeoffs between highest Q, highest DF, shortest end plate to end plate propagation time. Ie all about max end plate impacts per cavity ring down time.
Work of the rotary KISS thruster demo is progressing well.
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/24/2018 02:08 pm
The Emdrive is a kind of Warpdrive!!
EmDrive is just a machine that converts input Rf joules into KE joules of the accelerated mass. Newton 3, CofM and CofE are all obeyed.
it is no more a warp drive than is an electrical motor.
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/24/2018 02:14 pm
The Emdrive is a kind of Warpdrive!!
Either that or it's an overcomplicated space heater. :-\
It is neither.
EmDrive input Rf energy that is not converted into accelerated mass KE, is converted into IR energy. Think about a stalled electrical motor and now hot it will get as no input energy is converted into angular KE but all is converted into heat.
Post by: meberbs on 08/24/2018 02:23 pm
Can confirm higher freq = higher thrust due to reduced proton propagation time from end plate to end plate. Ie assuming constant Q, there will be more transits and more end plate photon impacts during the same cavity ring down time (same Q) with a 10x shorter 24GHz cavity than with a 2.4GHz cavity, at the same mode.Q is defined as frequency * max energy stored /power loss. The "ring down time" as you call it is therefore inversely proportional to frequency, so the number of reflections involved for a given Q is fixed regardless of frequency. Please stop pretending that you know what you are talking about. The rest of your statements are based on incorrect theory that doesn't even get the direction of force correct.
EmDrive is just a machine that converts input Rf joules into KE joules of the accelerated mass. Newton 3, CofM and CofE are all obeyed.For the millionth time, the math does not work out. Battery energy is not dependent on reference frame, heat energy is not dependent on reference frame, kinetic energy is dependent on reference frame. The frame the drive starts in is not special, so conservation of energy does not care what frame you start from.
If the drive can accelerate for a while, turn off, then accelerate again by the same change in velocity, using the same energy from the battery, it breaks conservation of energy. (You have to do all calculations in a single frame, turning it off does not let you change frames, because conservation of energy is defined in a single frame.)
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/24/2018 03:10 pm
....
Cavity ring down time in seconds = (5 * Qu) / ( 2 * Pi * Freq).
So yes the cavity ring down time is fixed per Qu and freq. However the number of end plate to end plate transits and the number of end plate reflection during the ring down time is not, as you incorrectly stated, fixed by Qu nor freq.
It is much more complex than that and involves the end plate separation distance, the averaged group velocity (which increases as DF increases) and the excited mode.
That you do not understand this is not your fault, being an armchair critic, that has never built nor tested an EmDrive but relies on old school traditional physics.
Your input is interesting but misguided as there is information you so far reject as it does not fit into your world view. Hopefully one day you will understand and accept the EmDrive is just another machine, capable of converting Rf input Joules of energy into accelerated mass KE Joules. The increased photon wavelength and thus less momentum is how CofM occurs. Same for lower photon energy, ie longer wavelength balancing accelerated mass gained KE.
BTW when acceleration mass there is only one correct value for the work done. The accelerated mass has no frame other than that which existed just before acceleration started. That work value should be frame invariant. I have showed you how that can be achieved, yet you insist in the frame variant, ie some distant observer determines the work work by a force over time to accelerate a mass. Sorry but that is just a silly position to take. There is clearly only one value of Work done to accelerate a kg mass, using a force over a number of seconds.
That you refuse to accept there can only be ONE real value of work done to accelerate a mass, shows even more your armchair locked in stone position and unwillingness to think outside what you believe is correct.
You are wrong. But not my job to alter your opinion.
Post by: meberbs on 08/24/2018 04:07 pm
For a fixed mode, the size of the cavity is inversely proportional to frequency. The factor by which the travel time between the plates is increased (due to not travelling in a straight line between the plates) is fixed by the mode.....
Cavity ring down time in seconds = (5 * Qu) / ( 2 * Pi * Freq).
So yes the cavity ring down time is fixed per Qu and freq. However the number of end plate to end plate transits and the number of end plate reflection during the ring down time is not, as you incorrectly stated, fixed by Qu nor freq.
It is much more complex than that and involves the end plate separation distance, the averaged group velocity (which increases as DF increases) and the excited mode.
Number of reflections = decay time/ travel time = decay time / (cavity length*c*average velocity factor)
Decay time is inversely proportional to frequency. Cavity length is inversely proportional to frequency. The velocity factor is fixed by the mode. Overall, the number of reflections is independent of frequency.
That you do not understand this is not your fault, being an armchair critic, that has never built nor tested an EmDrive but relies on old school traditional physics.Ability to do basic algebra is not affected by whether I have wasted my time building some arbitrary shaped RF resonator.
Current evidence is that you have not yet built and tested an emDrive yourself anyway, and you continue to claim the contradictory points of "emDrive works" and "classical physics works."
Your input is interesting but misguided as there is information you so far reject as it does not fit into your world view. Hopefully one day you will understand and accept the EmDrive is just another machine, capable of converting Rf input Joules of energy into accelerated mass KE Joules.It can't be, because a normal machine has something to push off of. Maybe one day you will be willing to actually learn something.
The increased photon wavelength and thus less momentum is how CofM occurs.Since the total momentum that can be stored in photons is proportional to their energy, the most momentum you could ever get out of such a claim is that of a photon rocket, and then only if you ignore that when the photons were emitted they had given the cavity exactly opposite momentum.
It is trivial that the emDrive breaks conservation of momentum. Start with an emDrive that is off and has no photons in it. For simplicity lets say that it starts with 0 momentum. Now turn it on wait a while and turn it off, specifying that while it is on, nothing leaves the device, and nothing external pushes on the device. Now turn it off so that there is no more photons in the cavity. If the emDrive works at all, that means the drive has non-zero momentum once it is off, despite starting with 0 momentum, and interacting with nothing else. This momentum has come out of nowhere, and is the definition of breaking conservation of momentum.
Same for lower photon energy, ie longer wavelength balancing accelerated mass gained KE.Again, the equations simply do not work out as has been demonstrated for you countless times.
BTW when acceleration mass there is only one correct value for the work done.Utterly false again. By definition work is dependent on distance travelled, which is dependent on reference frame.
I have showed you how that can be achieved, yet you insist in the frame variant, ie some distant observer determines the work work by a force over time to accelerate a mass.And your math was demonstrated to be completely inconsistent.
Sorry but that is just a silly position to take.Claiming that a device whose sole purpose is to break conservation of momentum does not do so is what is silly.
That you refuse to accept there can only be ONE real value of work done to accelerate a mass, shows even more your armchair locked in stone position and unwillingness to think outside what you believe is correct.No, it shows that I actually have bothered to study the definition of basic physics concepts.
Your continued refusal to even acknowledge the definition of momentum conservation or work shows that you have no desire to learn anything.
Also, since all of this has been told to you before and you have no response except to repeat your same false and self-contradictory claims, you are breaking the rules set forth in the first post of this thread.
You are wrong. But not my job to alter your opinion.The definitions of energy and momentum are not an opinion, and you do not get to make up their definitions.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 08/24/2018 04:08 pm
the rad pressure is greater on the small end plate than on the big end plate. This is why the EmDrive accelerates small end forward.
There is some side wall force, it is small end directed
the small side wall force actually adds to the overall small end forward action
a shorter TE011 cavity has more thrust than a longer TE013 cavity
a DF 0.95 cavity has lower thrust than a 0.65 DF cavity, assuming the same Q
Anyone who has followed your claims over 3.5 years on NSF could point out that you now make such conclusions following "Roger's breadcrumbs" but in the REVERSE direction…
Can you please expose these findings to Shawyer and report here what he says about them?
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/24/2018 05:36 pm
the rad pressure is greater on the small end plate than on the big end plate. This is why the EmDrive accelerates small end forward.There is some side wall force, it is small end directedthe small side wall force actually adds to the overall small end forward actiona shorter TE011 cavity has more thrust than a longer TE013 cavitya DF 0.95 cavity has lower thrust than a 0.65 DF cavity, assuming the same Q
Anyone who has followed your claims over 3.5 years on NSF could point out that you now make such conclusions following "Roger's breadcrumbs" but in the REVERSE direction…
Can you please expose these findings to Shawyer and report here what he says about them?
FC,
There is so much more to EmDrive theory that has not been released. It is not my place to upstage Roger. What Roger has released is, in context, correct. It is not however the full theory.
Consider traditional photon E & H field in phase oscillations as attached.
The individual photon, being a point source of Em energy, oscillates over the 360 deg oscillation from a max to min value. Ie the photon energy and thus momentum and energy is not constant over a cycle but varies from zero energy and momentum and energy to a max value. Consider what that means to the rad pressure delivered as the photon energy varies. ie no rad pressure when E & H fields are zero to max rad pressure when E & H fields are max.
Then ask yourself what is the phase of the oscillation of the E and H fields when hitting the side walls vs hitting the end plates? Assuming the photon momentum is the same during the entire cyclic E & H field oscillations can lead to the wrong assumptions.
You need to click on the GIF to see the action.
Post by: Ricvil on 08/24/2018 06:22 pm
The Emdrive is a kind of Warpdrive!!
Either that or it's an overcomplicated space heater. :-\
The small endplate is more cold than big endplate in operation, even copper being a very good thermal conductor?
Post by: flux_capacitor on 08/24/2018 06:37 pm
The Emdrive is a kind of Warpdrive!!
Either that or it's an overcomplicated space heater. :-\
The small endplate is more cold than big endplate in operation, even copper being a very good thermal conductor?
Are you sure? Is it a measurement you have directly made, or an hypothesis? Look at the various sims made by X-RaY, Monomorphic, Rodal, etc. which all show a much higher energy density near small end, as well as greater eddy currents in the copper. How could temperature be lower in this high EM density and high induced electric currents region? Moreover the larger surface of the wide end acts more efficiently as a heatsink and heat dissipator.
Post by: meberbs on 08/24/2018 06:48 pm
The individual photon, being a point source of Em energy, oscillates over the 360 deg oscillation from a max to min value. Ie the photon energy and thus momentum and energy is not constant over a cycle but varies from zero energy and momentum and energy to a max value.
No, if you are talking about individual photons, then you are talking about a quantum mechanical object. In quantum mechanics, a point object is not located at a definite point. It exists spread across an amount of space related to its wavelength (and yes, objects like electrons have a defined wavelength too.) It gets complicated when you have many overlapping of the same (indistinguishable) particle, but the actual total momentum of the photon would not be changing with time or space the way you present it.
Post by: Ricvil on 08/24/2018 07:15 pm
The Emdrive is a kind of Warpdrive!!
Either that or it's an overcomplicated space heater. :-\
The small endplate is more cold than big endplate in operation, even copper being a very good thermal conductor?
Are you sure? Is it a measurement you have directly made, or an hypothesis? Look at the various sims made by X-RaY, Monomorphic, Rodal, etc. which all show a much higher energy density near small end, as well as greater eddy currents in the copper. How could temperature be lower in this high EM density and high induced electric currents region? Moreover the larger surface of the wide end acts more efficiently as a heatsink and heat dissipator.
Sorry.
I'm talking about this very particular scenario, and I really don't know if a real test was made in this configuration of excitation, with no internal dielectric , and with thermal images.
Need not be this exact shape, but with the "Dark Zone" of surface current at the small endplate , viewed on the simulations.
PS: Sorry about my poor english again , because It was not a affirmation, but a question. :)
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/24/2018 07:44 pm
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/24/2018 09:34 pm
The solid copper cavity is definitely better than the 3D printed one Q factor-wise. Just roughly tuning now, and using the open-ended half loop antenna, Q was measured at ~13,000 (using -3dB method). The 3D printed cavity was about ~7,000.
Post by: Ricvil on 08/24/2018 11:22 pm
After a quick calibration and some rough tuning, TE013 was found almost exactly where the simulation predicted, 2.415.2Ghz (measured) vs 2.416.3Ghz (simulated). This difference is probably because the gaskets ended up a little thicker after applying the copper foil. I haven't performed any detailed measurements since installing the gaskets, but may do so to improve the accuracy of the simulation.
The solid copper cavity is definitely better than the 3D printed one Q factor-wise. Just roughly tuning now, and using the open-ended half loop antenna, Q was measured at ~13,000 (using -3dB method). The 3D printed cavity was about ~7,000.
No signal of a asymmetrical Fano resonance, and it is very important.
The question is ... why?
Post by: Ricvil on 08/25/2018 02:11 am
Like this tiny asymmetrical 17 KHz resonance.
The frequency need to be at the high slope phase inversion region.
It is possible?
:)
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/25/2018 02:49 am
What difference does it make what perspective we have on a covariant system, all perspectives should be the same. Well, it makes a great deal of difference if our perspective causes us to misunderstand physical reality. If orthogonal space dimensions and linear time exist for us as a consequence of our tiny velocity with respect to the speed of light, then we could have misinterpreted visible separation as distance when it would be better described as separation in the linear component of complex time. But solid evidence would be required to justify this strange consideration.
Such evidence may be available already, awaiting our interpretation. I have a notion that the humble crystal radio set may be an example. Surely the only energy available to make the signal audible at the earphone of this device, which has no amplifier, would have to be that which is transmitted from the signals transmitter and received in the crystal sets antenna and circuitry.
That must be limited to the energy of the received transmission which would, in a universe of purely linear time, be that part of the transmission which the antenna intercepts, being, the inverse of the transmission distance squared, multiplied by the transmission power and then by the cross-section of the antenna normal to the signals origin. So far as I know.
If that energy is not enough then other explanations would require that absorption of the quanta communicating the signal be concentrated where they find resonance, an explanation that requires time to be complex. So, are the few nano Watts received at the antenna enough to excite audible tones in the earphone. Not being confident that I can get a reliable result from this calculation, am hoping that someone on this forum can run it and let me know their conclusion.
NB: I continue to ask these questions in the spirit of freedom of enquiry, with respect for and in appreciation of not being banned from this forum and out of a perfectly peaceful desire to find truth as best as I am capable of understanding it. I have the same deep respect for the giants whose shoulders we stand upon, that I am sure everyone here has but physics should be permanently on the cusp of a revolution in understanding. That can only happen if we have the courage to ask stupid sounding questions, in my opinion.
Post by: meberbs on 08/25/2018 05:31 am
Crystal Set QuestionAnd this is how far I got into your post before you started speaking a foreign language.
What difference does it make what perspective we have on a covariant system,
I am curious what you think the phrase "covariant system" means, because it sounds like you just made it up. (Google reveals the term comes up in some obscure pure math work, but that clearly isn't what you mean)
Covariant is a defined concept in physics that is related to how basis vectors or their components change under a change in basis for non-orthonormal coordinate systems. A system as a whole is not "convariant" or "contravariant," you need both at the same time to describe something, so your statement literally has no meaning under standard definitions of the words you are using.
then we could have misinterpreted visible separation as distance when it would be better described as separation in the linear component of complex time.There are defined concepts in relativity for "spacelike" "timelike" and "lightlike" separations between events. Different reference frames can for example make 2 spacelike separated events happen at the same time, or in either order. What is invariant is the magnitude of the 4 vector sqrt(r^2-(ct)^2)
Also "linear component of a complex number" doesn't make sense. A complex number has a real part and an imaginary part, linear is not a valid descriptive word in this context.
If that energy is not enoughYou could at least attempt a bit of research on your own rather than expecting others to do it for you. (The least time consuming part of writing this post was finding the information below)
from wikipedia:
Quote
In modern crystal sets, signals as weak as 50 picowatts at the antenna can be heard.[43] Crystal radios can receive such weak signals without using amplification only due to the great sensitivity of human hearing,[3][44] which can detect sounds with an intensity of only 10^−16 W/cm2Those radios are significantly distance limited and work because of the sensitivity of human hearing with the sound dropped off directly in the ear. It might do you some good to consider that if the signal powers did not add up, someone would have noticed sometime in the last century.
NB: I continue to ask these questions in the spirit of freedom of enquiry, with respect for and in appreciation of not being banned from this forum and out of a perfectly peaceful desire to find truth as best as I am capable of understanding it. I have the same deep respect for the giants whose shoulders we stand upon, that I am sure everyone here has but physics should be permanently on the cusp of a revolution in understanding. That can only happen if we have the courage to ask stupid sounding questions, in my opinion.That is great, but you keep bringing up your completely undefined concept of "complex time" making claims about it and asserting that it solves nonexistent problems. You have not responded to requests for clarification when you use words that literally have no meaning in context (2 examples I pointed out in this post). When you came up with the concept of looking at relativity from the perspective of a photon, I pointed out that it has been considered many times before, but is useless and I explained why. Instead of accepting the explanation, or asking for clarification, you insisted that your idea was somehow novel and useful. You can talk all you want about how you appreciate standing on the shoulders of giants, but when offered a ladder to get on their shoulders, you kicked it over instead of climbing it. So-called "stupid" questions aren't a bad thing. Ignoring the answers when you don't like them is.
If you want to demonstrate with your actions that your goals are as pure as you claim, one place you can start is by responding to the parts of this post where I point out that you are using terminology that has literally no meaning in any relevant context.
Post by: X_RaY on 08/25/2018 10:17 am
Your picture illustrates a plane EM wave traveling in a uniform dielectric medium, where the medium boundaries are far away.the rad pressure is greater on the small end plate than on the big end plate. This is why the EmDrive accelerates small end forward.There is some side wall force, it is small end directedthe small side wall force actually adds to the overall small end forward actiona shorter TE011 cavity has more thrust than a longer TE013 cavitya DF 0.95 cavity has lower thrust than a 0.65 DF cavity, assuming the same Q
Anyone who has followed your claims over 3.5 years on NSF could point out that you now make such conclusions following "Roger's breadcrumbs" but in the REVERSE direction…
Can you please expose these findings to Shawyer and report here what he says about them?
FC,
There is so much more to EmDrive theory that has not been released. It is not my place to upstage Roger. What Roger has released is, in context, correct. It is not however the full theory.
Consider traditional photon E & H field in phase oscillations as attached.
The individual photon, being a point source of Em energy, oscillates over the 360 deg oscillation from a max to min value. Ie the photon energy and thus momentum and energy is not constant over a cycle but varies from zero energy and momentum and energy to a max value. Consider what that means to the rad pressure delivered as the photon energy varies. ie no rad pressure when E & H fields are zero to max rad pressure when E & H fields are max.
Then ask yourself what is the phase of the oscillation of the E and H fields when hitting the side walls vs hitting the end plates? Assuming the photon momentum is the same during the entire cyclic E & H field oscillations can lead to the wrong assumptions.
You need to click on the GIF to see the action.
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/assets/45824.0/1507028.jpg)
You ignoring the boundary conditions within the conductive resonator with spacial dimensions clearly in the order of the used EM/photon wavelength (again ???). The conductor leads to a phase shift of the field components relative to each other.
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/assets/39214.0/1114672.jpg)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1529920#msg1529920
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/25/2018 12:02 pm
https://youtu.be/8RCG_4JG6Hg
Post by: flux_capacitor on 08/25/2018 02:07 pm
Watch the end:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RCG_4JG6Hg
Presentation of Taylor's laser EmDrive experiment is at 35:35
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/25/2018 02:33 pm
This resonance with almost 180 degree phase inversion is what is necessary.
Like this tiny asymmetrical 17 KHz resonance.
The frequency need to be at the high slope phase inversion region.
It is possible?
Yes, with a little tuning, I can get pretty much any combination of phase inversion and return loss. The one below is -153 degrees RP and -32dB RL. I had one earlier that was 175 degrees RP and -24dB RL.
Post by: rq3 on 08/26/2018 12:15 am
Can confirm higher freq = higher thrust due to reduced proton propagation time from end plate to end plate. Ie assuming constant Q, there will be more transits and more end plate photon impacts during the same cavity ring down time (same Q) with a 10x shorter 24GHz cavity than with a 2.4GHz cavity, at the same mode.
Can also confirm a shorter TE011 cavity has more thrust than a longer TE013 cavity, assuming the same Q. This is opposite to what Qi thrust equation predicts and has been pointed out to Dr Mike.
Can also confirm a DF 0.95 cavity has lower thrust than a 0.65 DF cavity, assuming the same Q, due to slower averaged group velocity and thus lower end plate to end plate transits and end plate impacts as the DF (end plate diameter ratio) increases.
Optimal cavity thrust is about tradeoffs between highest Q, highest DF, shortest end plate to end plate propagation time. Ie all about max end plate impacts per cavity ring down time.
Work of the rotary KISS thruster demo is progressing well.
Confirm? How? What theory, data, or confirmation can you provide, other than the utter rubbish you continually post here?
Pictures, or it didn't happen. You've been bloviating about this for going on 4 years now, and can't even show a photograph of a plank hanging from fishing line. As I recall, that was what the KISS demo thruster basically consisted of. Even a photo of a microwave oven on one end of a see-saw (teeter-totter), with you on the other would at least provide comic relief, as Feynman and Einstein both appreciated.
I'd like to suggest that the moderators remove The Traveler from further posts, for the following reasons:
1) In my opinion, he adds no verifiable, or even reasonable, data to the discussion. Breadcrumbs from unverifiable sources don't count.
2) In my opinion, he repetitively declines to address direct requests for firm data. See his previous posts.
3) In my opinion, he has exhibited egregious violations of ethics by posting data, and/or links to data, that he had no right to access or publish on a public forum. See his previous fiasco.
4) In my opinion, The Traveler's function is to provide himself self-aggrandizement, at the expense of true scientific discourse; i.e., he is the classic troll (in the modern, internet sense of the word). See his previous posts.
5) In my opinion, The Traveller has provided no data, or even suggestions, that have advanced the state of the art under discussion. What he HAS done is shift his statements (repetitively) to make it APPEAR that he has made valuable inputs so as to advance the state of the art. See his previous posts.
While it is with heavy heart (cough, cough) that I make the request that a enormous source of amusement be removed from this forum, I feel that it is necessary now that real progress is being made to disprove the claims made for the EmDrive.
Having said that, I'd like to remind members that my contributions include, among many other things:
1) The use of electroforming for the fabrication of precision microwave frustrums (standard waveguide fab technique, not yet implemented by the EmDrive crowd).
2) The idea of a "force locked loop" (currently gaining slow popularity by anyone actually building hardware).
Since I'm still waiting for the EmDrive flying car that The Traveller claimed I could see this year (2018), I'll remain amused by any and all trolls that remain, and in awe of the serious experimenters like Monomorphic.
>Edited to correct metamorphic to monomorphic, and then monomorphic to Monomorphic, due to input from a careful member and my own proofreading and research.
Post by: Mark7777777 on 08/26/2018 05:06 am
Watch the end:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RCG_4JG6Hg
Presentation of Taylor's laser EmDrive experiment is at 35:35
Time stamp 36:05 - "could be a million times more effective [than a microwave emdrive]"
Post by: Ricvil on 08/26/2018 07:01 am
This resonance with almost 180 degree phase inversion is what is necessary.
Like this tiny asymmetrical 17 KHz resonance.
The frequency need to be at the high slope phase inversion region.
It is possible?
Yes, with a little tuning, I can get pretty much any combination of phase inversion and return loss. The one below is -153 degrees RP and -32dB RL. I had one earlier that was 175 degrees RP and -24dB RL.
Visually, I could not see an asymmetrical RL response to confirm the Fano resonance.
Can you please expose, using the vna, some degree of asymmetry of RL?
Can you please show the response of the other early resonance together at same graphic?
At a Fano resonance, a fast transition between the peaks of phase, can be associated with a transition between positive group velocity modes to negative group velocity modes( negative pressure) , in a non adiabatic mode coupling theory representation of electromagnetic fields inside cavity.
So, a narrow bandwidth between the peaks of phase is good, and essential.
But a very narrow bandwidth can dificult the Fano resonance precise excitation.
Post by: Ricvil on 08/27/2018 03:59 am
Copper is a good thermal and electrical conductor, isn't?
If my theory is correct, if someone to try pass a dc current between the small endplate and big endplate, during fano excitation, will have, at least, a big surprise with resistance measure.
Low amps please.
:)
PS: The small endplate is really cooling or been thermically isolated, isn't?
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/27/2018 05:08 am
(...)meberbs,
So-called "stupid" questions aren't a bad thing. Ignoring the answers when you don't like them is.
(...)
you are arguing from authority. What if I don't like your answer?
Post by: meberbs on 08/27/2018 07:48 am
No, I have given you arguments based on math and logic. I am very confident in the logic because many people smarter than me have reviewed it. That is not "argument from authority." If you want to have a meaningful discussion, you have to actually respond what was said, rather than ignoring it.(...)meberbs,
So-called "stupid" questions aren't a bad thing. Ignoring the answers when you don't like them is.
(...)
you are arguing from authority. What if I don't like your answer?
Post by: Ricvil on 08/27/2018 11:00 am
meberbs,it is entirely possible that I have failed to make a clear mathematical argument,Well that much is true.never having received comment on the mathematical structure I am attempting to create, beyond 'it all adds to zero' which is unhelpful because time and distance do add to zero at the speed of light.Nope, try reading what I wrote again. 0/0 is an invalid mathematical structure. The technical term for it is "undefined." Your concept is what is unhelpful, because you cannot use it to make a single meaningful prediction. Something that is 1 m away and something that is 2 m away both would be 0m away in your frame. This means that according to your frame, they are the same, and 1=2. This is obviously untrue since those are different objects. (And they must be different, since things like electromagnetic force are proportional to 1/r^2)My work aims to specify a simpler, more productive perspective on the findings of special relativity, which is available to anyone who is not afraid to consider action at a distance without artificial constructs for the transport of energy necessitated only by the uniquely limited point perspective that all us humans share.Honestly, This sentence just sounds like condescending insults to me. If I was afraid to consider other perspectives, I wouldn't be here, but you seem afraid to admit that you are wrong. The condescension comes from when you act like your simple concept is not one that has been independently come up with countless times in the last century, followed by the people who know what they are doing rapidly realizing that everything collapses, so you can't make useful predictions.Please consider with an open mind because nothing less will resolve emdrive thrust if it does prove to be a reality.I did consider it with an open mind. It does not do anything that would explain a working emDrive.Thank you for your questions, I may be able to answer them better after some consideration :)That may be the most insincere "thank you" I have ever seen, Since earlier in the very same post you denied that I even presented you with valid problems. (and you seem to have completely ignored the whole fact that complex time plugged into any equation would result in all answers being complex (and meaningless.))
If you have nothing to add other than insults, and refusals to actually consider the problems with your claims, please stop wasting everyone's time including your own.
you ask what I bring to this discussion. All discussion of a mechanism of action for the emdrive must satisfy both relativity and quantum mechanics if it is to provide clarity but these subjects do not, despite your protestations, satisfy each other. The only way forward is to join the fray with a seamless alternative, and I believe I have one, though it may yet need to be explained more clearly.
By the equivalence principle it is established that gravity is the consequence of a dilation of time but we do not extend that mechanism to the electromagnetic forces. To do so would require us to approach the entire subject from the covariant perspective, which is horribly difficult and maybe impossible if we are to marry it with quantum mechanics. But, if we assume for the sake of argument that electromagnetic forces do act by dilation and divergence of time, then the covariant perspective requires to us recognize both the complex nature of time and the lack of orthoganality in the spatial dimensions.
Please forgive me for not specifying the fresh dynamical equations this suggests while unqualified and unassisted. It is more relevant to begin with why this is possible, which requires the reader to approach these concepts without prejudice. If time is complex then all charges act on each other directly, in the case of gravity and inertia their influence upon each other is proportional to the inverse square of their distance in their own individual proper time, and in the case of the exchange of a quantum their influence is the consequence of a hierarchy of proximity for resonance between charges without diminution of energy over distance in their own proper time. Not an easy set of concepts but seamless, I insist.
There is no place in this plan for photons. The impossibility of photons is established and they can be appreciated as illusion created by the reduction of dynamics to that apparent from a single perspective whose regular development through its own proper time gives it an infinity of universes to interact with depending upon its velocity vector. There is not even any need to continue to pursue such illusions except in order to define and so to understand the human, the animal, perspective. Time can then, as we have already begun, be appreciated as a dimension of location, its complex nature defining all interaction with the consequence that Schrodinger's cat is either alive or dead but never both at once.
Complex time describes a universe of charges all in constant interaction and all progressing through their own proper time at the same rate that I do, sitting here listening to my clock tick and tock. Forward because change is inevitable, interconnected by the very nature of existence. Forgive me if I see multiple universes and linear time as demented obsolete dreams. To comprehend complex time you must begin by understanding that the real component of time is only equal and opposite to its complex conjugate, at the speed of light.
To understand how this provides a mechanism of action for emdrive thrust it may help to distinguish between quanta which cannot escape the Faraday cage of its frustum, and the inertial interactions which act by dilation and divergence relative between the constant proper time of all individual charges without the charges which cause those imbalanced interactions leaving the confines of that frustum. Charges travelling within the conductor reflecting quanta of radiation, contain the energy of those quanta before it is re-emitted and while they do their momentum is a property of that conductor, so, conductors of different sizes have that momentum for differing durations. Is that not all we need to explain the extent of emdrive thrust.
Would it not help us improve the design of the emdrive if we knew its mechanism. Complex time is to my mind a simple explanation of physical reality if only because it raises no paradox, unless you see the immediate connection of all interaction as being a paradox which I do not. Everyone wants mathematical proof but the study of complex time must begin with a fresh conceptual resolution.
Referencing previously attached paper: 'Coincidence in Complex Time'
Your idea is very very deep.
It's about the possibility of what we could be at most deep level.
A kind of "quantum simulation"?
Are the massless interacting particles ours interpretations of the "quantum bits transitions"?
Would be Your complex time a measure of these quantum bits entropy ?
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/27/2018 06:31 pm
For those wondering, the solid copper frustum weighs 801 grams more than the 3D printed version.
Post by: Slyver on 08/27/2018 06:56 pm
I have the new solid copper frustum from Oyzw mounted to the torsional pendulum, balanced, and working. The second port, which is used for S21 parameters acts a convenient second fine tuner I have found. In all likelihood, I will end up covering the outside of the frustum with insulation during powered tests, as the large surface area of highly conductive copper will no doubt cause significant natural convection noise.Will you be doing a test to characterize the impulse response of the completely assembled system (insulation and all) prior to powered tests? I vaguely recall you doing that at some point in the past, though I don't remember exactly how you did it (magnetic impulse?).
For those wondering, the solid copper frustum weighs 801 grams more than the 3D printed version.
I don't know your testing regime. I apologize for the impertinence if this was already the plan. I just thought it might be a good idea.
Edit: though if that requires too much extra setup, ignore the idea! At some point all projects require a feature freeze for the sake of sanity and the project.
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/27/2018 09:38 pm
Will you be doing a test to characterize the impulse response of the completely assembled system (insulation and all) prior to powered tests? I vaguely recall you doing that at some point in the past, though I don't remember exactly how you did it (magnetic impulse?).
I do have a calibration coil in the setup. You can see what those pulses look like below. I will probably use the calibration coil again, but it's really only necessary to confirm the spring constant of the torsion bearing.
Post by: oyzw on 08/28/2018 01:18 am
Can you test the noise value of a pure load first? As a comparison parameterWill you be doing a test to characterize the impulse response of the completely assembled system (insulation and all) prior to powered tests? I vaguely recall you doing that at some point in the past, though I don't remember exactly how you did it (magnetic impulse?).
I do have a calibration coil in the setup. You can see what those pulses look like below. I will probably use the calibration coil again, but it's really only necessary to confirm the spring constant of the torsion bearing.
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/28/2018 02:10 am
meberbs,No, I have given you arguments based on math and logic. I am very confident in the logic because many people smarter than me have reviewed it. That is not "argument from authority." If you want to have a meaningful discussion, you have to actually respond what was said, rather than ignoring it.(...)meberbs,
So-called "stupid" questions aren't a bad thing. Ignoring the answers when you don't like them is.
(...)
you are arguing from authority. What if I don't like your answer?
math and logic which is far from seamless. I love your confidence but I ignore arguments which to my mind are flawed. Your questions are, however, valid and I will do my best to answer them more often and more clearly.
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/28/2018 02:36 am
(...)Thanks Ricvil,(...)
Referencing previously attached paper: 'Coincidence in Complex Time'
Your idea is very very deep.
It's about the possibility of what we could be at most deep level.
A kind of "quantum simulation"?
Are the massless interacting particles ours interpretations of the "quantum bits transitions"?
Would be Your complex time a measure of these quantum bits entropy ?
it does resemble some of the ideas in both holomorphic theory and spinors but is simpler because it ascribes the complex domain to time, specifying its defining role in all location. This undermines the validity of all linear measurement apart from the scalar component of complex time, so presenting a very difficult set of concepts for anyone to grasp.
Exchange particles are massless in complex time because they have no duration. The quantum is reduced to a momentary frequency of resonance for those energy exchanges. Entropy, I must confess, is a concept which eludes me. It may be easier to approach these ideas with conservation of energy in mind.
Please let me know how you go.
Post by: meberbs on 08/28/2018 02:43 am
No, what I have provided is seamless as far as I can tell. If you think there is a flaw, please share it.No, I have given you arguments based on math and logic. I am very confident in the logic because many people smarter than me have reviewed it. That is not "argument from authority." If you want to have a meaningful discussion, you have to actually respond what was said, rather than ignoring it.meberbs,
math and logic which is far from seamless. I love your confidence but I ignore arguments which to my mind are flawed. Your questions are, however, valid and I will do my best to answer them more often and more clearly.
When you say "I ignore arguments which to my mind are flawed." What I hear is "I ignore arguments that prove me wrong." Again, if there was any actual flaws in the arguments, the appropriate response is to point them out. When you say something is flawed "to your mind" it pretty much just means anything that conflicts with your preconceived notions.
You have repeatedly said you will try to answer my questions, but you have yet to actually attempt to do so. Rather than repeating those empty statements you could actually answer some simple questions, or just generally respond to the content of this post. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1850285#msg1850285) There are some easy ones there like "Can you provide definitions for terms that you appear to have just made up?"
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/28/2018 02:59 am
meberbs,No, what I have provided is seamless as far as I can tell. If you think there is a flaw, please share it.No, I have given you arguments based on math and logic. I am very confident in the logic because many people smarter than me have reviewed it. That is not "argument from authority." If you want to have a meaningful discussion, you have to actually respond what was said, rather than ignoring it.meberbs,
math and logic which is far from seamless. I love your confidence but I ignore arguments which to my mind are flawed. Your questions are, however, valid and I will do my best to answer them more often and more clearly.
When you say "I ignore arguments which to my mind are flawed." What I hear is "I ignore arguments that prove me wrong." Again, if there was any actual flaws in the arguments, the appropriate response is to point them out. When you say something is flawed "to your mind" it pretty much just means anything that conflicts with your preconceived notions.
You have repeatedly said you will try to answer my questions, but you have yet to actually attempt to do so. Rather than repeating those empty statements you could actually answer some simple questions, or just generally respond to the content of this post. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1850285#msg1850285) There are some easy ones there like "Can you provide definitions for terms that you appear to have just made up?"
my recall is hazy, in a discussion of Bohmian mechanics on the wonderful BBC radio 4 program 'In Our Time' Roger Penrose describes pilot wave theories as "un-physical". I will go home and dig the quote out for you and specify its source and argument. The last twenty years of 'In Our Time' are available as a free downloads from the BBC website. Amongst the boring discussion of religion there are some fabulous interviews of many Oxbridge dons on aspects of physics and its history with a focus on complex numbers and quantum mechanics. I recommend it highly.
Reply #342 does deserve better answers and I will work on them if you give me a little time. Definitions are also required I agree. Thankyou for pointing this out.
Edited to correct reply number.
Post by: meberbs on 08/28/2018 05:10 am
meberbs,I am not sure what the relevance of the pilot wave theory is. I should probably clarify some things to make sure we are on the same page. As far as I have ever seen (and I look it up occasionally in case it changes) various interpretations of quantum mechanics are all equivalent to each other in the sense that they make the exact same predictions (Except local hidden variable theories, which are effectively disproven by Bell's inequality tests). There is no known experiment that can tell them apart, including hypothetical experiments we don't have the practical capability to actually run. Of these, pilot wave (de Broglie–Bohm) theory is one of the main ones. I personally do not like it possibly for similar reasons as stated in the quote that you had heard that called it "un-physical." It contains backwards in time propagating waves that could be called "unphysical" although since it makes the correct predictions, I don't think that is the right word to use. Personally, I find it easier to describe things in terms of the Copenhagen interpretation, which like all interpretations that are consistent with the unintuitive experimental results, it has its own unintuitive points.
my recall is hazy, in a discussion of Bohmian mechanics on the wonderful BBC radio 4 program 'In Our Time' Roger Penrose describes pilot wave theories as "un-physical". I will go home and dig the quote out for you and specify its source and argument. The last twenty years of 'In Our Time' are available as a free downloads from the BBC website. Amongst the boring discussion of religion there are some fabulous interviews of many Oxbridge dons on aspects of physics and its history with a focus on complex numbers and quantum mechanics. I recommend it highly.
Reply #342 does deserve better answers and I will work on them if you give me a little time. Definitions are also required I agree. Thankyou for pointing this out.
Edited to correct reply number.
The point of all of that is that which interpretation of quantum mechanics you choose is irrelevant since they are all consistent with experiment. Unless someone comes up with a way to tell them apart, I don't really want to spend much time discussing the different options. There isn't much point to this because none of the interpretations are testable. That pushes them out of the realm of science into pure philosophy, and there is no practical difference between them. (Researching to try and find an equivalent to Bell's inequality for them is still scientific.)
I look forward to your reply to my questions from post 342.
Post by: Bob Woods on 08/29/2018 02:41 am
Edit: though if that requires too much extra setup, ignore the idea! At some point all projects require a feature freeze for the sake of sanity and the project.I was given a sign I kept over my work desk:"In the life of every project comes a time when you shoot the Engineers and start production."
;D
Post by: sghill on 08/29/2018 01:21 pm
Edit: though if that requires too much extra setup, ignore the idea! At some point all projects require a feature freeze for the sake of sanity and the project.I was given a sign I kept over my work desk:"In the life of every project comes a time when you shoot the Engineers and start production."
;D
I'm fighting that battle at my business right now. :)
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/30/2018 02:15 am
In answer to your good questions:Crystal Set QuestionAnd this is how far I got into your post before you started speaking a foreign language.
What difference does it make what perspective we have on a covariant system,
I am curious what you think the phrase "covariant system" means, because it sounds like you just made it up. (Google reveals the term comes up in some obscure pure math work, but that clearly isn't what you mean)
Covariant is a defined concept in physics that is related to how basis vectors or their components change under a change in basis for non-orthonormal coordinate systems. A system as a whole is not "convariant" or "contravariant," you need both at the same time to describe something, so your statement literally has no meaning under standard definitions of the words you are using.then we could have misinterpreted visible separation as distance when it would be better described as separation in the linear component of complex time.There are defined concepts in relativity for "spacelike" "timelike" and "lightlike" separations between events. Different reference frames can for example make 2 spacelike separated events happen at the same time, or in either order. What is invariant is the magnitude of the 4 vector sqrt(r^2-(ct)^2)
Also "linear component of a complex number" doesn't make sense. A complex number has a real part and an imaginary part, linear is not a valid descriptive word in this context.If that energy is not enoughYou could at least attempt a bit of research on your own rather than expecting others to do it for you. (The least time consuming part of writing this post was finding the information below)
from wikipedia:QuoteIn modern crystal sets, signals as weak as 50 picowatts at the antenna can be heard.[43] Crystal radios can receive such weak signals without using amplification only due to the great sensitivity of human hearing,[3][44] which can detect sounds with an intensity of only 10^−16 W/cm2Those radios are significantly distance limited and work because of the sensitivity of human hearing with the sound dropped off directly in the ear. It might do you some good to consider that if the signal powers did not add up, someone would have noticed sometime in the last century.NB: I continue to ask these questions in the spirit of freedom of enquiry, with respect for and in appreciation of not being banned from this forum and out of a perfectly peaceful desire to find truth as best as I am capable of understanding it. I have the same deep respect for the giants whose shoulders we stand upon, that I am sure everyone here has but physics should be permanently on the cusp of a revolution in understanding. That can only happen if we have the courage to ask stupid sounding questions, in my opinion.That is great, but you keep bringing up your completely undefined concept of "complex time" making claims about it and asserting that it solves nonexistent problems. You have not responded to requests for clarification when you use words that literally have no meaning in context (2 examples I pointed out in this post). When you came up with the concept of looking at relativity from the perspective of a photon, I pointed out that it has been considered many times before, but is useless and I explained why. Instead of accepting the explanation, or asking for clarification, you insisted that your idea was somehow novel and useful. You can talk all you want about how you appreciate standing on the shoulders of giants, but when offered a ladder to get on their shoulders, you kicked it over instead of climbing it. So-called "stupid" questions aren't a bad thing. Ignoring the answers when you don't like them is.
If you want to demonstrate with your actions that your goals are as pure as you claim, one place you can start is by responding to the parts of this post where I point out that you are using terminology that has literally no meaning in any relevant context.
Quotes from BBC Radio4 program 'In Our Time' with Melvyn Bragg: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qykl/episodes/a-z/a (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qykl/episodes/a-z/a)
In 2002 'The Physics of Reality' explores the incompatibility of quantum mechanics with gravity theory.
34 minutes in, on 29th of May 2008 'Probability', describes the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics.
18th of December 2008 'The Physics of Time', discusses the need to resolve the nature of time itself.
30 minutes in, on May 3rd 2009 'The Measurement Problem in Physics', Roger Penrose speaks about Bohm's theory, describing it as '...not revolutionary enough', 'the cat must either be alive or dead.'
40 minutes in, on September 23rd 2010 'Imaginary Numbers', Prof Marcus de Sautoy and friends beautifully describe the necessity of complex numbers.
40 minutes in, on Feb 12th 2015 'The Photon', Prof Susan Cartwright ascribes Niels Bohr with the casual quote '...anybody who thought that they understood quantum mechanics had demonstrated that they did not understand quantum mechanics'. I do appreciate that this is hearsay and I will keep a eye out for a direct quote. So you are correct that it was not Feynman anyhoo.
Definition of terms (which may require further clarification).
The term 'complex time' is not mine but I use it because it is less obfuscating of its purpose than the term " imaginary time" coined by Stephen J Hawking in 'A Brief History of Time' Bantam 1989, P141.
The term 'covariant system' refers to the universe and everything in it being directly mathematically inter-related. I am making the assumption that physical reality must be essentially the same thing from all perspectives both inertial and accelerated. Roger Penrose develops the time slice argument whereby the sequence of events alters with perspective, which is what led me to consider the possibility that time is an inherently complex dimension. Penrose makes the assumption that nature is something which exists in the same form irrespective of perspective, despite any difference in timing of the sequence (if not the order) of its development as observed from differing perspectives. As is required by the conservation of energy and charge as well as conservation of the momentum which relates them. Standard definitions of the term 'covariant' may have been narrowed by the process of mathematical development but their meaning continues to refer to things which are the same from all perspectives, as used by Einstein in his 1921 lectures, see: Einstein A. ‘The Meaning of Relativity’ Princeton lectures 1921, translated by Prof. E.P. Adams, Princeton University Press 1922). I quote from page 11,
"We can thus get the meaning of the concept of a vector without referring to a geometrical representation. This behaviour of the equations of a straight line can be expressed by saying that the equation of a straight line is co-variant with respect to linear orthogonal transformations."
'Orthogonality' is a real word. What I am attempting to express is the idea that the three perpendicular spatial dimensions do not have or retain that relationship when time is dilated, which it always is to some extent. Further, that the divergence from orthogonality is not absolute but varies with your perspective because that divergence is not covariant, its basis being artificial.
By 'the linear component of complex time' I am referring to the real component not its complex conjugate. The term 'scalar' might be better, either way I am attempting again to avoid the use of the terms 'real' and ' imaginary' because they call the validity of the argument into question before it is even made. There is nothing any less than 'real' about the complex conjugate of a complex number, ask any engineer, we use them all the time because there is no substitute for their expression of that aspect of reality which diverges from a scalar measure of the dimensions you are using.
To use the terms 'space-like' and 'time-like' would be to make the arguments impenetrable to anyone not already deeply invested in the math as developed in the first chapter of ‘The Classical Theory of Fields’ Landau L. & Lifshitz E. USSR Academy of Science 1967, English Translation by Moreton Hamermesh, Pergamon Press, Sydney 1971, or similar.
I use the term 'complex time' and the equation exposing the gradual collapse of distance with increasing relative velocity, to describe how it is possible that our observation of the the sequence of the traverse of a single quantum can change with our perspective. It is just a different take on relativity which may help to simplify our understanding, hopefully bringing it within the grasp of our imagination and thus becoming useful in the design of devices such as the emdrive.
meberbs,
you insist that there is no paradox within quantum mechanics. This is hard for me to understand when the behaviours of exchange particles are inherently non-local and cannot be described in the same way that we describe the macroscopic world. Hidden variables violate causality. Many worlds, string theory and other complicated 'work arounds' are attempts to resolve that paradox. What we need is a theory which explains both the macroscopic and the particle worlds, which explains both the experimental results supporting relativity and those supporting quantum mechanics, within a single credible explanation.
Complex time is satisfying to me because it places us firmly in the present moment, it allows us to specify the energy difference between our presence and another’s. We have a specific location whose energy is directly proportional to our velocity multiplied by our mass in charges, relative to other locations. Scalar time does not give us that because other locations have no specific energy in scalar time and location is then unspecified except by markers which vary relative to the observers perspective. Clock time only remains regular and true from one perspective, our confusion about it stems from that perspective being almost common to the entire surface of the earth, until you use highly sophisticated navigation.
I try not to bring frivolous questions to this forum, this forum whose diversity does not in any way diminish its depth. I ask about the unamplified crystal set radio because determining its functionality within the precepts of QED is well beyond my pay grade, experience or frankly, my capability. It remains, however, a valid question and I am not the first person to ask it.
Attempts to define the concept of complex time have been around at least since 1988 and I have quoted my own incomplete attempts directly. Your refusal to recognise such reflects rejection of the ideas, not the lack of an attempt to define them. All I can do is recommend them as hitherto unexplored solution to both quantum paradox and emdrive thrust.
Not sure if any of this will satisfy your desire for a direct response to your questions. Questions which I respect because asking the question is the quickest way to initiate the development of an answer. In hope that you will continue to ask them,
John Newell..
Post by: meberbs on 08/30/2018 05:39 am
Quotes from BBC Radio4 program 'In Our Time' with Melvyn Bragg: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qykl/episodes/a-z/a (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qykl/episodes/a-z/a)Is that supposed to be a reference to support the supposed incompatibility of quantum mechanics with relativity? You were talking about relativity with a specific context of electrodynamic phenomena like photons. That is special relativity, not general relativity (which has to do with gravity.) My responses to you all specifically were about special relativity and quantum mechanics.
In 2002 'The Physics of Reality' explores the incompatibility of quantum mechanics with gravity theory.
34 minutes in, on 29th of May 2008 'Probability', describes the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics.None of these statements are in any way relevant to our conversation that I can see. Especially that last one.
18th of December 2008 'The Physics of Time', discusses the need to resolve the nature of time itself.
30 minutes in, on May 3rd 2009 'The Measurement Problem in Physics', Roger Penrose speaks about Bohm's theory, describing it as '...not revolutionary enough', 'the cat must either be alive or dead.'
40 minutes in, on September 23rd 2010 'Imaginary Numbers', Prof Marcus de Sautoy and friends beautifully describe the necessity of complex numbers.
40 minutes in, on Feb 12th 2015 'The Photon', Prof Susan Cartwright ascribes Niels Bohr with the casual quote '...anybody who thought that they understood quantum mechanics had demonstrated that they did not understand quantum mechanics'. I do appreciate that this is hearsay and I will keep a eye out for a direct quote. So you are correct that it was not Feynman anyhoo.The first page of the textbook I learned quantum mechanics has the quote from Bohr and a similar one from Feynman. The fact that quantum mechanics is confusing and unintuitive is beyond dispute. Your claim that there is no consistent relativistic quantum mechanics is simply wrong. Quantum gravity is a different unknown, and we do have theories for it, the problem is the lack of practical tests to distinguish them.
Definition of terms (which may require further clarification)."Imaginary time" refers treating time as a pure imaginary number. "Complex time" implies both real and imaginary parts. You are contradicting yourself here about whether it is your term or not. I don't have that book, but Hawking certainly meant only imaginary time, so what you are saying is different.
The term 'complex time' is not mine but I use it because it is less obfuscating of its purpose than the term " imaginary time" coined by Stephen J Hawking in 'A Brief History of Time' Bantam 1989, P141.
None of what you said comes close to being a definition.
The term 'covariant system' refers to the universe and everything in it being directly mathematically inter-related. I am making the assumption that physical reality must be essentially the same thing from all perspectives both inertial and accelerated.A formal statement of the assumption you give is simply the "principle of relativity." (with caveat that it is experimentally obvious that inertial and accelerating frames can be distinguished due to "fictitious" forces.)
Roger Penrose develops the time slice argument whereby the sequence of events alters with perspective, which is what led me to consider the possibility that time is an inherently complex dimension. Penrose makes the assumption that nature is something which exists in the same form irrespective of perspective, despite any difference in timing of the sequence (if not the order) of its development as observed from differing perspectives. As is required by the conservation of energy and charge as well as conservation of the momentum which relates them.I don't see the relevance of any of this to your "complex time" concept. These statements basically mean that the universe is what it is regardless of what frame you choose to write the numbers down in. Just like the contents of writing on a piece of paper don't change no matter how you rotate it, just how easy it is for you to read based on how you are looking at it.
Standard definitions of the term 'covariant' may have been narrowed by the process of mathematical development but their meaning continues to refer to things which are the same from all perspectives, as used by Einstein in his 1921 lectures, see: Einstein A. ‘The Meaning of Relativity’ Princeton lectures 1921, translated by Prof. E.P. Adams, Princeton University Press 1922). I quote from page 11,That use of the word covariant is rigorously correct, unlike yours which has no relation to the definition of that word. The use of that word has not narrowed over time. You will note how it is directly talking about vector transformations, which is the context in which that word has meaning in physics.
"We can thus get the meaning of the concept of a vector without referring to a geometrical representation. This behaviour of the equations of a straight line can be expressed by saying that the equation of a straight line is co-variant with respect to linear orthogonal transformations."
'Orthogonality' is a real word. What I am attempting to express is the idea that the three perpendicular spatial dimensions do not have or retain that relationship when time is dilated, which it always is to some extent. Further, that the divergence from orthogonality is not absolute but varies with your perspective because that divergence is not covariant, its basis being artificial.The basis vectors in an arbitrary frame in special relativity are non-orthonormal (Orthonormal is like orthogonality, but also refers to being of unit length.) You expressing that as if it is a novel consequence of your ideas only makes it seem like you haven't studied basic relativity in any depth.
By 'the linear component of complex time' I am referring to the real component not its complex conjugate."complex conjugate" is where you take a complex number and change the sign of the imaginary part. It is not in opposition to the "real component." Please look up a basic introdiction to complex numbers, and learn the terms "real part" "imaginary part" "complex conjugate" "magnitude" "phase." Your sentence here does not tell me anything other than that you don't know what the words you are using mean.
The term 'scalar' might be better, either way I am attempting again to avoid the use of the terms 'real' and ' imaginary' because they call the validity of the argument into question before it is even made. There is nothing any less than 'real' about the complex conjugate of a complex number, ask any engineer, we use them all the time because there is no substitute for their expression of that aspect of reality which diverges from a scalar measure of the dimensions you are using.No, scalar, means "not a vector" which is a different concept. Use the words real and imaginary, like everyone else. Pretty much everyone wishes those terms were different but if you want to communicate with other people, you are stuck with them. You use the word "we" as if "engineers" is a group that you are part of but I am not. I have a degree in engineering, and work daily as an engineer. If you actually are a qualified engineer, then why do I keep having to explain to you concepts from entry level courses?
Also, for reference, it does depend on the context, often, such as in electromagnetic waves, only the real part is meaningful, and the imaginary part is actually just there as a mathematical shortcut that saves you a bunch of trig identities, but has no effect as long as you only do linear operations, but it is completely context dependent.
To use the terms 'space-like' and 'time-like' would be to make the arguments impenetrable to anyone not already deeply invested in the math as developed in the first chapter of ‘The Classical Theory of Fields’ Landau L. & Lifshitz E. USSR Academy of Science 1967, English Translation by Moreton Hamermesh, Pergamon Press, Sydney 1971, or similar.No, they are basic concepts, that can be taught easily without diving into any of the mathematical details of relativity with simple space-time diagrams. Refusing to use common terms because they are "too complicated" is insulting.
I use the term 'complex time' and the equation exposing the gradual collapse of distance with increasing relative velocity, to describe how it is possible that our observation of the the sequence of the traverse of a single quantum can change with our perspective. It is just a different take on relativity which may help to simplify our understanding, hopefully bringing it within the grasp of our imagination and thus becoming useful in the design of devices such as the emdrive.But as I have said it is mathematically useless, and has no physical consequences whatsoever.
meberbs,Nothing you listed is a paradox. A paradox is something contradictory, such as killing your own grandfather before your parents were born. What you listed is horribly confusing and unintuitive, but completely mathematically consistent. Quantum mechanics already links up just fine with the macroscopic world. Just like any credible new physics theory, it is consistent with previous theory in the appropriate limit. In this case the limit is the limit of large numbers. QED is perfectly consistent with special relativity, and as I said in my previous post, the various interpretations of quantum mechanics produce equivalent results, so which actually happens is purely philosophical.
you insist that there is no paradox within quantum mechanics. This is hard for me to understand when the behaviours of exchange particles are inherently non-local and cannot be described in the same way that we describe the macroscopic world. Hidden variables violate causality. Many worlds, string theory and other complicated 'work arounds' are attempts to resolve that paradox. What we need is a theory which explains both the macroscopic and the particle worlds, which explains both the experimental results supporting relativity and those supporting quantum mechanics, within a single credible explanation.
Complex time is satisfying to me because it places us firmly in the present moment, it allows us to specify the energy difference between our presence and another’s.Except as far as I can tell, it doesn't do that. You have not given a single example of how you could use complex time to describe the simplest of physical systems such as a ball rolling down a hill.
We have a specific location whose energy is directly proportional to our velocity multiplied by our mass in charges, relative to other locations.How can a location have energy? An object has energy a location is just a point in space (or space-time). You can have a "potential" at a location (see gravitational potential, electric potential, etc.) You still sound like you are throwing words together in grammatical sentences without regard for their meaning. Although after this post, I am getting the impression that you should know better than to do that.
Attempts to define the concept of complex time have been around at least since 1988 and I have quoted my own incomplete attempts directly.As stated before "complex time" with both real and imaginary parts is not something that anyone else has talked about ever to my knowledge. Your attempts have essentially no definition, and lots of unsupported assertion.
Your refusal to recognise such reflects rejection of the ideas, not the lack of an attempt to define them.You have refused to recognize just about everything I have said. Your statements can be boiled down into 2 categories, ones that are statements of fact that contribute nothing, and are already well known (despite you presenting them as novel ideas), and ones that are complete gibberish, as you continue talking about "complex time" and asserting that is solves all sorts of problems, yet you might as well be saying "agsfhusv solves ajsfijdbsf" The problems you state don't exist, and you have not provided a definition for complex time that can describe even a basic situation.
All I can do is recommend them as hitherto unexplored solution to both quantum paradox and emdrive thrust.Neither of which have been shown to exist, even if you actually were providing something useful.
Post by: RERT on 08/30/2018 09:28 am
It is *not* a bad idea to fundamentally review the basis of physics, though the word hubris does spring to mind. But unless such thinking is accompanied by a real prediction of some phenomenon which turns out to be correct, and it is consistent with the corpus of existing observations, it is just speculation. It can't be validated by opinions of the great and good.
I have some modest ideas (which I think are well cool) inspired by conversations around the EMdrive. But I'm not going to burden the world with them until I can show some calculations which are solid and interesting. (ETA mid-next decade, if I ever get round to starting again.)
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/31/2018 01:27 am
Guys - it is becoming hard to see how this conversation is ever going to end.RERT,
It is *not* a bad idea to fundamentally review the basis of physics, though the word hubris does spring to mind. But unless such thinking is accompanied by a real prediction of some phenomenon which turns out to be correct, and it is consistent with the corpus of existing observations, it is just speculation. It can't be validated by opinions of the great and good.
I have some modest ideas (which I think are well cool) inspired by conversations around the EMdrive. But I'm not going to burden the world with them until I can show some calculations which are solid and interesting. (ETA mid-next decade, if I ever get round to starting again.)
this conversation will end when there is no longer any hope of provoking questions. My prediction is that the emdrive, or something similar employing an inertial interaction with the wider universe, will one day be used for propulsion in space. Maybe you should share your ideas with us, what's to lose so long as you make them provisional. This forum is an evolution of the private letter exchanges that assisted the inception of so many technical developments since the quill, it being public is what gives it power.
It most definitely does not need to be consistent with the corps of existing presumptions. Unless you intended to single me out for that unusual punishment. Nay saying is easy, maybe it would be strengthened by allowing alternative ideas without entirely negative criticism. In more enlightened times an open mind was considered an asset. Speculation, yes, this amateur is proud to indulge in speculation.
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/31/2018 01:40 am
(...)meberbs,All I can do is recommend them as hitherto unexplored solution to both quantum paradox and emdrive thrust.Neither of which have been shown to exist, even if you actually were providing something useful.
anyone can see that I do recognize your questions and their validity but I think your conclusions are inadequate and your criticism is forced by indignation rather than constructive purpose. Maybe we should give this a rest for the sake of the good humor of the thread. Meantime I thank you for provoking me into better explanations. Nobody knows, you must see, what will be considered true in twenty, let alone a hundred, years.
Post by: ThinkerX on 08/31/2018 02:01 am
The 'new' Woodward-Mach drive does show modest promise, though I see significant issues with both the devices operation (testing - the 'Dean Drive' impression is hard to shake) and the theory work, which might (?) make some questionable assumptions.
Post by: meberbs on 08/31/2018 04:44 am
Since you are yet again ignoring my questions even as you state this, this is self-evidently false.(...)meberbs,All I can do is recommend them as hitherto unexplored solution to both quantum paradox and emdrive thrust.Neither of which have been shown to exist, even if you actually were providing something useful.
anyone can see that I do recognize your questions and their validity
but I think your conclusions are inadequate and your criticism is forced by indignation rather than constructive purpose.This is an ad hominem attack. You are ignoring the specific criticisms I have provided by attacking my motivations for providing them. Even if your statement was true (it isn't) this would be inappropriate.
Maybe we should give this a rest for the sake of the good humor of the thread. Meantime I thank you for provoking me into better explanations.If you insult me, and ignore my questions, and then thank me for providing them, the only way I can possibly read the "thank you" is as dripping with bitter sarcasm.
Also by the way: (emphasis added)
There is a big difference between observation and presumption. Your twisting of this phrase (which is behavior consistent with your other actions) indicates to me that you are arguing in bad faith and will distort what others say to suit your own purposes.and it is consistent with the corpus of existing observations,It most definitely does not need to be consistent with the corps of existing presumptions.
Post by: Ricvil on 08/31/2018 09:55 am
I think Spupeng7 is only searching a good answer for the question about what exactly is the Unruh effect.
How a diffeomorphism can produce two realitys for different observers?
Just this.
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/31/2018 05:30 pm
The 'new' Woodward-Mach drive does show modest promise, though I see significant issues with both the devices operation (testing - the 'Dean Drive' impression is hard to shake) and the theory work, which might (?) make some questionable assumptions.
The Woodward-Mach drive is more akin to a "Harry Bull Reaction Motor," but my impression is that they are both "Dean Drive" variants. Since the Dean Drive is the most popular name I think it gets the distinction of headlining the category even though the Dean Drive (~1960) is 25 years younger than the Harry Bull Reaction Motor (1935).
I recently built a Woodward-Mach/Harry Bull/Dean Drive-type apparatus for testing on the torsional pendulum that was built out of a voice coil actuator, a spring, rubber, and some 3D printed parts. It was interesting because the apparatus would move along the ground in one direction when in operation, like a classic Dean Drive, but when I changed the frequency by sending it a "chirped" signal, it would actually change directions and move the other way! ???
It's not real thrust obviously, but it shows that it is fairly easy to build oscillators that can repeatedly displace to one side of equilibrium through complex means. This is the so-called "slip-stick" effect and it is a special type of vibration. When mounted to a torsional pendulum, where there is nothing to "stick" to, you can still clearly see the "slip" vibration. It is easy to confuse this slip effect for thrust as they look very similar.
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/31/2018 06:49 pm
I recently built a Woodward-Mach/Harry Bull type apparatus for testing on the torsional pendulum that was built out of a voice coil actuator, a spring, rubber, and some 3D printed parts. It was interesting because the apparatus would move along the ground in one direction when in operation, like a classic Dean Drive, but when I changed the frequency by sending it a "chirped" signal, it would actually change directions and move the other way! ??? It's not real thrust obviously, but it shows that it is fairly easy to build oscillators that can repeatedly displace to one side of equilibrium through complex means. This is the so-called slip-stick effect and it is a special type of vibration. When mounted to a torsional pendulum, where there is nothing to "stick" to, you can still clearly see the "slip" vibration. It is easy to confuse this slip effect for thrust as they look very similar.
I made a quick video to show the apparatus in operation. This was a fun project to design and build. I also have detailed simulations I will be publishing in a week or so that show the woodward-mach effect "thrust" can be reproduced using only mechanical vibrations. ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zTjoYyFwWw
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/01/2018 04:09 pm
First — Do you have a link to the source, of Woodward’s comments?
No link available as Jim Woodward sent this criticism by email, to his private mailing list. However you can ask to register to be a member of this mailing-list and receive Woodward's updates (as well as being able to give your own wise points of view), sending a message to Jim to his publicly-known email address jwoodward [at] fullerton.edu
Woodward has sent out the following critique of quantized inertia. I'm trying to see if Mr. McCulloch cares to address these criticisms.
{…}
Here are McCulloch's first answers on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1035867749032095744
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1035878502451621899
which summarize today's posts on his blog: http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2018/06/does-qi-predict-woodward-effect.html
Quote from: Mike McCulloch
Thank you for telling me about Woodward's secret email. His criticism was based on his apparent belief that QI is electromagnetic. Well, it isn't. #QI makes motion from just quantum jitter (Unruh radiation) made non-uniform by relativity (horizons). All you need are the quantum uncertainty principle and special relativity. No EM at all! Maybe you can ask him to read my papers, especially this one: https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.06787 which explains the concept.
Quote from: Mike McCulloch
I would also point out that QI also does a far better job of predicting the Woodward effect than the GR-based theory of Woodward, which is orders of magnitudes out. I am writing a paper on that for EPL. I should also point out that GR that he bases his theory on is a failed theory - it has failed to predict the rotation of every galaxy ever seen. A 0% record. Nevertheless, I admire Woodward still, for his experiments.
Post by: Povel on 09/01/2018 05:09 pm
Anyway
No link available as Jim Woodward sent this criticism by email, to his private mailing list. However you can ask to register to be a member of this mailing-list and receive Woodward's updates (as well as being able to give your own wise points of view), sending a message to Jim to his publicly-known email address jwoodward [at] fullerton.edu
Thank you for this info, I sent you a pm some months ago asking if you could submit a question of mine to Woodward, guess I'll ask him directly.
I'm rather skeptical of McCulloch, his theory has been criticized numerous times already by multiple physicists.
The whole business of a "cosmological Casimir effect" makes no sense, since horizons in relativity do not act at all like metal plates.
@Monomorphic
I also have detailed simulations I will be publishing in a week or so that show the woodward-mach effect "thrust" can be reproduced using only mechanical vibrations. ;)
I'd be rather curious to see these simulations.
Keep in mind that Woodward & co. have spent quite alot of time addressing the "Dean drive" criticism at the best of their possibilities, including measuring the accelerations at the center column of the thrust balance, as it is detailed in the book flux_capacitor linked to in the other thread.
Moreover, using only the "slip" of the "slip & stick" effect it is not possible to simulate genuine-looking steady thrust signals, that is signal with averages different from zero.
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/01/2018 06:11 pm
Keep in mind that Woodward & co. have spent quite alot of time addressing the "Dean drive" criticism at the best of their possibilities, including measuring the accelerations at the center column of the thrust balance, as it is detailed in the book flux_capacitor linked to in the other thread.Yes, I have read all about their attempts at addressing Dean Drive criticisms. They seem to be under the false impression that vibrations need to reach the central flexure bearing in order for there to be a problem. That is not the case. The vibrations only have to cause an asymmetric translational shift in the faraday cage contents.
Moreover, using only the "slip" of the "slip & stick" effect it is not possible to simulate genuine-looking steady thrust signals, that is signal with averages different from zero.
Actually, it is possible to simulate the genuine-looking steady thrust signal using only vibrations. I have the feeling that once everyone sees how it is done, they will all be surprised how simple it really is. However, I couldn't have figured it out without running the simulations myself.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/01/2018 06:25 pm
Keep in mind that Woodward & co. have spent quite alot of time addressing the "Dean drive" criticism at the best of their possibilities, including measuring the accelerations at the center column of the thrust balance, as it is detailed in the book flux_capacitor linked to in the other thread.Yes, I have read all about their attempts at addressing Dean Drive criticisms. They seem to be under the false impression that vibrations need to reach the central flexure bearing in order for there to be a problem. That is not the case. The vibrations only have to cause an asymmetric translational shift in the faraday cage contents.
Moreover, using only the "slip" of the "slip & stick" effect it is not possible to simulate genuine-looking steady thrust signals, that is signal with averages different from zero.
Actually, it is possible to simulate the genuine-looking steady thrust signal using only vibrations. I have the feeling that once everyone sees how it is done, they will all be surprised how simple it really is. However, I couldn't have figured it out without running the simulations myself.
Would such "spurious thrust signature" (Dean drive effect) increase using an array of multiple thrusters (instead of just one) like a genuine thrust would?
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/01/2018 06:38 pm
Would such "spurious thrust signature" (Dean drive effect) increase using an array of multiple thrusters (instead of just one) like a genuine thrust would?
You know, this is something I really wanted to test, but adding another device in the simulation will be a big hassle. I doubt I can get to it before the presentation on Sept 11.
The biggest testable experimental prediction I can make is that, all things being equal, identical Mach effect devices mounted at a greater distance from the center pivot will produce less apparent "thrust" than those mounted closer. But that already seems to be the case when MET's have been tested on larger torsional pendulums than the one woodward uses. Woodward will claim something about the experiment wasn't performed correctly, but my position is that this is a fundamental property of dean drives mounted to torsional pendulums.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbSiILBIQLw
Post by: Povel on 09/01/2018 11:02 pm
Yes, I have read all about their attempts at addressing Dean Drive criticisms. They seem to be under the false impression that vibrations need to reach the central flexure bearing in order for there to be a problem. That is not the case. The vibrations only have to cause an asymmetric translational shift in the faraday cage contents.
An asymmetric shift inside the faraday cage is produced everytime the device is turned on.
However, lacking any type of significant slip & stick effect on the central flexure bearing, it can only result in an asymmetric vibration at the same frequency of the the oscillations of the device.
Assuming that the device is firmly attached to the faraday cage mounted on the arm, the only way it could display a spurious steady signal is by having the balance itself react in some non-linear way.
The biggest testable experimental prediction I can make is that, all things being equal, identical Mach effect devices mounted at a greater distance from the center pivot will produce less apparent "thrust" than those mounted closer. But that already seems to be the case when MET's have been tested on larger torsional pendulums than the one woodward uses. Woodward will claim something about the experiment wasn't performed correctly, but my position is that this is a fundamental property of dean drives mounted to torsional pendulums.
I don't understand the logic behind your prediction.
If the balance arm that you modeled as a rod is rotated around its center point (which presumably is also its center of mass) it will necessary require a stronger force to rotate a greater angle in the same time.
Since the distance between the central pivot / axis of rotation and the point of application of the force gets smaller, to obtain a greater angle of rotation a greater force is required compared to the case in which the point of application of the force is at greater distance from the pivot.
If instead of applying a force all you are doing is changing the shape of the device mounted on top so that the arm moves while the overall center of mass stays put you will still obtain a smaller angle of rotation if you mount it closer to the axis:
the central bearing acts like a torsional damped spring, producing a restoring couple, so the system is not really isolated.
The situation is similar to standing on a scale while doing curls with a pair of dumbbells:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/384676/measuring-weight-with-weighing-scale-doing-dumbbells (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/384676/measuring-weight-with-weighing-scale-doing-dumbbells)
Actually, it is possible to simulate the genuine-looking steady thrust signal using only vibrations. I have the feeling that once everyone sees how it is done, they will all be surprised how simple it really is. However, I couldn't have figured it out without running the simulations myself.
Not sure if this what you are thinking, but surely anharmonic oscillations are a wortwhile thing to investigate.
Still, one would need to show that the conditions in Woodward device are just right for this non-linear effects to manifest.
Rubber pads and similar are renowned for their non-linear behaviour and according to him, during his test for Dean drive effect, a number of rubber pads for vibrations isolation were removed, including a "Sorbothane applied to the interior of the Faraday cage", which was not restored after the test was concluded.
Beside altering the level of vibration detected this didn't alter the thrust signal significantly.
On a side note, I saw your more detailed model simulation you posted un 4th of July. It's really well done, but the "thrust signal", that is, the periodic displacement of the thrust balance arm, is in the opposite direction of what Woodward obtains.
I'm looking forward to see your presentation later in September.
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/02/2018 12:50 am
An asymmetric shift inside the faraday cage is produced everytime the device is turned on.
However, lacking any type of significant slip & stick effect on the central flexure bearing, it can only result in an asymmetric vibration at the same frequency of the the oscillations of the device.
Assuming that the device is firmly attached to the faraday cage mounted on the arm, the only way it could display a spurious steady signal is by having the balance itself react in some non-linear way.
You're thinking in too few degrees of freedom. Yes, one oscillating object could only displace to one side at the same period as the oscillations. But what if there are two or more masses in the system? ;)
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/02/2018 01:32 am
meberbs,consistent with the corpus of existing observations,It most definitely does not need to be consistent with the corps of existing presumptions.
OK you got me there :) of course theoretical speculation must be 'consistent with the corpus of existing observations', RERT was making a very good point there, one that I am in full agreement with.
Thank you to everyone for your patience with this discussion, negative criticism always leaves a bitter taste but this was a rare chance for me to defend ideas which are usually ignored. I will be the first to admit that they are under-developed but in their defense, they deviate less from common sense than multiple universes or observer effect, in my opinion. Does anyone else have pertinent questions?
Post by: RERT on 09/02/2018 05:36 pm
Post by: aero on 09/02/2018 07:24 pm
I recently built a Woodward-Mach/Harry Bull type apparatus for testing on the torsional pendulum that was built out of a voice coil actuator, a spring, rubber, and some 3D printed parts. It was interesting because the apparatus would move along the ground in one direction when in operation, like a classic Dean Drive, but when I changed the frequency by sending it a "chirped" signal, it would actually change directions and move the other way! ??? It's not real thrust obviously, but it shows that it is fairly easy to build oscillators that can repeatedly displace to one side of equilibrium through complex means. This is the so-called slip-stick effect and it is a special type of vibration. When mounted to a torsional pendulum, where there is nothing to "stick" to, you can still clearly see the "slip" vibration. It is easy to confuse this slip effect for thrust as they look very similar.
I made a quick video to show the apparatus in operation. This was a fun project to design and build. I also have detailed simulations I will be publishing in a week or so that show the woodward-mach effect "thrust" can be reproduced using only mechanical vibrations. ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zTjoYyFwWw
I saw your video with this thing skipping across a tabletop. You attribute its movement to friction. Have you tried it on the same tabletop with friction defeated? Maybe put on a freewheeling toy plastic car. Properly assembled and lubricated, there should not be a preferential direction to the friction of the wheels/axles of the toy car.
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/02/2018 08:52 pm
I saw your video with this thing skipping across a tabletop. You attribute its movement to friction. Have you tried it on the same tabletop with friction defeated? Maybe put on a freewheeling toy plastic car. Properly assembled and lubricated, there should not be a preferential direction to the friction of the wheels/axles of the toy car.
Yes, I built a little toy car out of some legos. It's not exactly friction free so occasionally it will move to one side or the other, but overall it stays in the same place. I also recorded the device in slow motion attached to some springs. If you watch the bottom right corner of the oscillator, you can see how it displaces to the right more than the left of equilibrium. This anharmonic displacement is at the same frequency as the oscillation, but it is only a 2 DOF oscillator. I think at least three masses are required for Mach/Henry Bull-like displacements, plus some other anelastic effects.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbVOku_8iXg&
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/02/2018 09:12 pm
After carefully measuring again, which is not as easy when the cavity is sealed, and running more simulations, I now think I should be looking around 2.4118Ghz. But it is nice to now know that my infrared camera can detect the heat from the ~25W amplifier through the solid copper and paint.
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/02/2018 10:11 pm
I will perform another IR test on this mode later. If it's not TE013, then I'm not sure what to do next...
Post by: oyzw on 09/03/2018 12:42 am
I switched to the shorted loop antenna and only one mode was found in the vicinity at 2.4134Ghz. But it's a doozy with Q calculated at 32,366. That is the highest number I have achieved to date. ;DThe ideal Q value of this copper cavity eigenmode is TE013--84000. Whether we can expand the sweep range, let's see how many resonance points there are at 500mhz bandwidth. In addition, the results of infrared observations are inconsistent with the TE013 mode, and have similarities with TE011, which may be the result of cavity stretching.
I will perform another IR test on this mode later. If it's not TE013, then I'm not sure what to do next...
Post by: oyzw on 09/03/2018 01:04 am
Today I also performed the first high power infrared test on the solid copper frustum Oyzw sent me. It appears the mode I thought was TE013 at 2.4157Ghz is something else. The heating is concentrated in the large end of the cavity not the small like it should. :-[Whether the large end face is attached with an insulating plate？I speculate that due to the addition of the annular washer, the high field strength is far from the end face.
After carefully measuring again, which is not as easy when the cavity is sealed, and running more simulations, I now think I should be looking around 2.4118Ghz. But it is nice to now know that my infrared camera can detect the heat from the ~25W amplifier through the solid copper and paint.
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/03/2018 06:56 am
I switched to the shorted loop antenna and only one mode was found in the vicinity at 2.4134Ghz. But it's a doozy with Q calculated at 32,366. That is the highest number I have achieved to date. ;DMonomorph,
I will perform another IR test on this mode later. If it's not TE013, then I'm not sure what to do next...
record the data...
apologies if I sound like a broken record :)
data data data, we must have some data
(to the tune of "Move it move it move it" from 'Mozambique')
NB: please take care with your RF exposure.
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/03/2018 06:58 am
My most hated theory is inflation. I'm led to believe it's needed to preserve causality in describing the isotropy of the universe. Personally, I think junking causality would be much more fun. However, since Physics is really the story of what causes what, that us to say the least problematic.RERT,
the other way to get rid of inflation is to junk the Big Bang...
Post by: meberbs on 09/03/2018 07:58 am
You aren't actually describing something different here. Inflation and the big bang are two sides of the same coin. Removing one removes the other by definition, and does not remove the consequence RERT pointed out of no causal way to explain some data we have without inflation. (Note that I am not sure if RERT is right about this, but it sounds similar to motivations for inflation that I have heard.)My most hated theory is inflation. I'm led to believe it's needed to preserve causality in describing the isotropy of the universe. Personally, I think junking causality would be much more fun. However, since Physics is really the story of what causes what, that us to say the least problematic.RERT,
the other way to get rid of inflation is to junk the Big Bang...
I actually like the concept of throwing out causality, but as RERT says, physics is all about cause and effect, so it kind of throws a wrench in things. Relatedly, special relativity does not prohibit FTL, just says that if FTL exists, then so would time travel. (It also prohibits getting to FTL speeds by simply accelerating, but can be consistent with FTL hypotheses as long as you accept time travel.)
Post by: Ricvil on 09/03/2018 08:27 am
You aren't actually describing something different here. Inflation and the big bang are two sides of the same coin. Removing one removes the other by definition, and does not remove the consequence RERT pointed out of no causal way to explain some data we have without inflation. (Note that I am not sure if RERT is right about this, but it sounds similar to motivations for inflation that I have heard.)My most hated theory is inflation. I'm led to believe it's needed to preserve causality in describing the isotropy of the universe. Personally, I think junking causality would be much more fun. However, since Physics is really the story of what causes what, that us to say the least problematic.RERT,
the other way to get rid of inflation is to junk the Big Bang...
I actually like the concept of throwing out causality, but as RERT says, physics is all about cause and effect, so it kind of throws a wrench in things. Relatedly, special relativity does not prohibit FTL, just says that if FTL exists, then so would time travel. (It also prohibits getting to FTL speeds by simply accelerating, but can be consistent with FTL hypotheses as long as you accept time travel.)
Just for fun.
It's all related to Poincare radius inversion conformal symmetry.
It's related with wormholes.
It's related with causality.
It's related with inertial mass.
It's related with dark matter.
It's related with a possible dual "dark" brother universe.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/03/2018 03:50 pm
It's all related to Poincare radius inversion conformal symmetry.
It's related with inertial mass.
It's related with dark matter.
Is the following related, does it represent somewhat the geometrical framework shift you are enigmatically suggesting?
1) In Einstein's classical general relativity and mainstream physics (of what is thought is going to happen to something never seen yet, though), "negative mass" means it has both a negative gravitational mass (it would induce an unusual negative curvature in spacetime) but also a negative inertial mass, according to the accepted axiom of the equivalence principle. In such a world view, spacetime is a manifold with "one side" described by a metric with one family of geodesics.
Positive mass (in blue below) induces a gravitational potential well in spacetime (white line), whereas negative mass induces a gravitational potential hump (or hill). From a side view in 2D, for an easier representation:
(http://januscosmologicalmodel.com/static/images/interaction_laws_gr.png)
which gives the following interaction laws (found by Newtonian approximation of the Einstein Field Equations):
Positive masses mutually attract, while negative masses mutually repel.
BTW you see in the middle figure the preposterous Runaway motion where a positive mass would run away, repelled by the gravitational potential hill created by the negative mass which, in turn, falling into the positive gravitational well of the positive mass, would chase it. The couple would accelerate, which is the basic mechanism of the "diametric drive" concept popularized by Friedwardt Winterberg and Robert Forward in the 1990s, yet is "preposterous" as explained by William B. Bonnor, as it would reveal a physical absurdity since such a couple would indefinitely accelerate while its total kinetic energy would be conserved:
½m1v1² + ½m2v2² = CST
This unobserved preposterous effect is what prevented the scientific community to seriously consider the possible reality of the presence of negative mass in the universe.
2) Extending general relativity to a second "dark sector" however, and "negative gravitational mass" (as well as "positive gravitational mass") to a pure relative geometric property of spacetime, things are quite different. Whatever the type of mass considered, it has always a positive effect (gravitational potential well) in its own sector. But the "observation" of such mass from the other sector makes it appear from there as if it was a negative mass (negative gravitational hump detected). Spacetime is then described like "two sides of the same coin" as a manifold with two metrics, each having its own family of geodesics. Newtonian approximation:
(http://januscosmologicalmodel.com/static/images/interaction_laws_janus.png)
The difference: Like masses attract, and unlike masses repel. No runaway effect.
BTW, you can see that a mass in its own sector induces a positive gravitational potential well, but it also induces a conjugate negative curvature in the adjacent sector, acting on matter there, as some "invisible dark matter made of negative mass"…
In such an extended relativistic view, a negative mass only appears to be negative, the "negativity" of this mass is not an intrinsic property of such exotic matter, it is only an illusion, a perception from a different point of view produced by the geometry.
Negative mass is there, invisible, in its "dark sector". It exerts some (anti)gravitational effect on matter in the universe. But it doesn't really "exist" on its own. It is only a real illusion.
It's related with causality.
It's related with a possible dual "dark" brother universe.
This encourage me to think this is related, as what I have exposed above about curvatures of spacetime can be considered as being applied to one single universe having two separate sets of geodesics, but these two metrics can alternatively be considered as being two parallel universes, and more specifically two "dark" universes since they would interact through gravitation with a (negative) dark matter effect.
And they would also be two dark "brother" universes as you say, following the "twin universe" theory of Andrei Sakharov (1967) who link them from the same "initial singular hypersurface of infinite density at t = 0, the two sectors having antiparallel arrows of time from there:
"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."
— Andrei Sakharov, in Collected Scientific Works (1982).
It's related with wormholes.
According to Sakharov, these two dark sectors could join together through some kind of "hyperspace bridge". Local matter would accumulate and reach density and pressure levels high enough to connect the two sheets through a bridge without spacetime between them, but with a continuity of geodesics beyond the Schwarzschild radius with no central singularity, allowing an exchange of matter between the two conjugate sheets, based on an idea of Igor Dmitriyevich Novikov, who called such singularities a "collapse" and an "anticollapse" which are alternative words to the couple "black hole" + "white fountain" in the classical wormhole model, as we now would call it.
In conclusion, a little poem inspired about this (forgive my English):
Universe is a parchment
With a front and a back face
This very side is my own space
Everything is adjacent
The time that is moving on
Illusions we feel also
Do not have the same reason
On recto and on verso
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/03/2018 05:16 pm
Post by: Ricvil on 09/03/2018 06:27 pm
It's all related to Poincare radius inversion conformal symmetry.
It's related with inertial mass.
It's related with dark matter.
Is the following related, does it represent somewhat the geometrical framework shift you are enigmatically suggesting?
1) In Einstein's classical general relativity and mainstream physics (of what is thought is going to happen to something never seen yet, though), "negative mass" means it has both a negative gravitational mass (it would induce an unusual negative curvature in spacetime) but also a negative inertial mass, according to the accepted axiom of the equivalence principle. In such a world view, spacetime is a manifold with "one side" described by a metric with one family of geodesics.
Positive mass (in blue below) induces a gravitational potential well in spacetime (white line), whereas negative mass induces a gravitational potential hump (or hill). From a side view in 2D, for an easier representation:
(http://januscosmologicalmodel.com/static/images/interaction_laws_gr.png)
which gives the following interaction laws (found by Newtonian approximation of the Einstein Field Equations):
Positive masses mutually attract, while negative masses mutually repel.
BTW you see in the middle figure the preposterous Runaway motion where a positive mass would run away, repelled by the gravitational potential hill created by the negative mass which, in turn, falling into the positive gravitational well of the positive mass, would chase it. The couple would accelerate, which is the basic mechanism of the "diametric drive" concept popularized by Friedwardt Winterberg and Robert Forward in the 1990s, yet is "preposterous" as explained by William B. Bonnor, as it would reveal a physical absurdity since such a couple would indefinitely accelerate while its total kinetic energy would be conserved:
½m1v1² + ½m2v2² = CST
This unobserved preposterous effect is what prevented the scientific community to seriously consider the possible reality of the presence of negative mass in the universe.
2) Extending general relativity to a second "dark sector" however, and "negative gravitational mass" (as well as "positive gravitational mass") to a pure relative geometric property of spacetime, things are quite different. Whatever the type of mass considered, it has always a positive effect (gravitational potential well) in its own sector. But the "observation" of such mass from the other sector makes it appear from there as if it was a negative mass (negative gravitational hump detected). Spacetime is then described like "two sides of the same coin" as a manifold with two metrics, each having its own family of geodesics. Newtonian approximation:
(http://januscosmologicalmodel.com/static/images/interaction_laws_janus.png)
The difference: Like masses attract, and unlike masses repel. No runaway effect.
BTW, you can see that a mass in its own sector induces a positive gravitational potential well, but it also induces a conjugate negative curvature in the adjacent sector, acting on matter there, as some "invisible dark matter made of negative mass"…
In such an extended relativistic view, a negative mass only appears to be negative, the "negativity" of this mass is not an intrinsic property of such exotic matter, it is only an illusion, a perception from a different point of view produced by the geometry.
Negative mass is there, invisible, in its "dark sector". It exerts some (anti)gravitational effect on matter in the universe. But it doesn't really "exist" on its own. It is only a real illusion.It's related with causality.
It's related with a possible dual "dark" brother universe.
This encourage me to think this is related, as what I have exposed above about curvatures of spacetime can be considered as being applied to one single universe having two separate sets of geodesics, but these two metrics can alternatively be considered as being two parallel universes, and more specifically two "dark" universes since they would interact through gravitation with a (negative) dark matter effect.
And they would also be two dark "brother" universes as you say, following the "twin universe" theory of Andrei Sakharov (1967) who link them from the same "initial singular hypersurface of infinite density at t = 0, the two sectors having antiparallel arrows of time from there:
"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."
— Andrei Sakharov, in Collected Scientific Works (1982).It's related with wormholes.
According to Sakharov, these two dark sectors could join together through some kind of "hyperspace bridge". Local matter would accumulate and reach density and pressure levels high enough to connect the two sheets through a bridge without spacetime between them, but with a continuity of geodesics beyond the Schwarzschild radius with no central singularity, allowing an exchange of matter between the two conjugate sheets, based on an idea of Igor Dmitriyevich Novikov, who called such singularities a "collapse" and an "anticollapse" which are alternative words to the couple "black hole" + "white fountain" in the classical wormhole model, as we now would call it.
In conclusion, a little poem inspired about this (forgive my English):
Universe is a parchment
With a front and a back face
This very side is my own space
Everything is adjacent
The time that is moving on
Illusions we feel also
Do not have the same reason
On recto and on verso
Dear flux_capacitor.
You are almost there.
Now think, what happened with magnetic monopoles of our Universe?
Why we are seeing just one arrow of time?
Where are the tachions?
Think about how the superconductors breaks U(1) Symmetry producing the Meissner effect.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/03/2018 07:22 pm
Dear flux_capacitor.
You are almost there.
Now think, what happened with magnetic monopoles of our Universe?
I am not very familiar with magnetic monopoles, sorry. I tend to think they are a theoretical concept with no true physical existence. Please enlighten. [EDIT: are you talking of monopoles to talk about inflation, which solves the problem of the actual nonobservation of monopoles, proposing they were greatly "diluted" by the inflation mechanism down to unobservable levels?)]
Why we are seeing just one arrow of time?
According to Julian Barbour (as well as Sean Carroll and Alan Guth), the arrow of time is defined in the sense of the direction of increasing entropy. Barbour talks of the Big Bang at t = 0 as the Janus Point:
https://qz.com/596514/its-possible-that-there-is-a-mirror-universe-where-time-moves-backwards-say-scientists/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2-futures-can-explain-time-s-mysterious-past/
In the twin universe scheme I talked about, the arrow of time in the sector located at t < 0 ("before" the Big Bang) points in the opposite direction to ours, since its own entropy is increasing going further away in time from the singularity.
Where are the tachions?
In the same model, I would match these tachyons with the "dark photons" of negative energy (therefore which we could not see with our optical instruments as they follow the null geodesics of the dark "brother" sector, the other metric). Since the space scale factors of the two sectors are not necessarily equal, one sector could have a higher value of its speed of light; and some distance, between two distant conjugate points A and B there, could also represent a shorter path than the equivalent path "here". Such dark photons, and any massless or massive dark particle travelling at a relativistic speed "there" would appear from our point of view as an FTL particle, or "tachyon" (although its velocity would remain inferior to the speed of light of its local sector, according to special relativity).
Think about how the superconductors breaks U(1) Symmetry producing the Meissner effect.
Are you talking of a symmetry breaking occurring when a symmetric but unstable high-energy state falls into a more stable state of lower energy? If so, do you suggest a collective excitation of particles in a high energy state (Bose-Enstein condensate? metastable atoms? embedded with magnetic fields and NMR?) to experiment or understand the process for some hyperspace transfer with FTL implications? Or do you imply to look into topology and group theory?
This is interesting, but how is all this related to the EmDrive?
Post by: oyzw on 09/04/2018 12:26 am
It looks like I may have finally gotten TE013! The new antenna seems to have done the trick. In mode TE013 most of the RF is concentrated in the small end as we see here now. I just wish I could distinguish the circular pattern on the small end, but the copper seems to dissipate the heat too quickly. We do see the topmost circular pattern on the sidewalls and less heat on the large end. Will be very interesting to get this cavity covered with insulation and remounted for real thrust tests... ;DExhilarating！I want to see the S11 parameters in this test state.
Post by: Ricvil on 09/04/2018 03:44 am
This is interesting, but how is all this related to the EmDrive?
The EmDrive cavity, at the right frequency of resonance, is reproducing a " black hole event horizon".
At one side, one has a slowing down (with positive group velocity) "bright mode" , at the other side a negative group velocity "dual dark mode, and at "event horizon" a singular (exceptional point with zero group velocity) TEM mode.
A increasing radiation pressure is expected to be acumulated near the event horizon ( if not reflected by imperfections, or thermically dissipated ) , and a effective net force directed to small endplate will be produced.
Post by: bad_astra on 09/04/2018 03:11 pm
Keep in mind that Woodward & co. have spent quite alot of time addressing the "Dean drive" criticism at the best of their possibilities, including measuring the accelerations at the center column of the thrust balance, as it is detailed in the book flux_capacitor linked to in the other thread.Yes, I have read all about their attempts at addressing Dean Drive criticisms. They seem to be under the false impression that vibrations need to reach the central flexure bearing in order for there to be a problem. That is not the case. The vibrations only have to cause an asymmetric translational shift in the faraday cage contents.
Moreover, using only the "slip" of the "slip & stick" effect it is not possible to simulate genuine-looking steady thrust signals, that is signal with averages different from zero.
Actually, it is possible to simulate the genuine-looking steady thrust signal using only vibrations. I have the feeling that once everyone sees how it is done, they will all be surprised how simple it really is. However, I couldn't have figured it out without running the simulations myself.
That got me thinking. About pop pop boats. The Henry Bull motor (I don't know anything about how the Dean drive was supposed to work) is indeed an odd little thing, assimetric vibrations pulling it along, but obviously requires physical resistance to do so. In a vacuum or possibly even a fluid it would just sit there.
One extremely low tech thruster with no moving parts would be the Pop Pop Boat and there have been hundreds of thousands of them. Same problem. Thrust is generated by the burst of steam (working fluid) but should be cancelled out by the intake stage for more working fluid, water, which is then heated in the phase state change to provide thrust, but that intake phase itself causes forward momentum by the fluid moving forward, enough to nullify any reversing force and keep thrust forward during the "pop pop" phase. So it does not violate Newton's 3rd Law. With a very good solar collector might we have toy pop-pop boats moving propellant-less through daytime waters using only the Sun as our fusion engine, and the sea as a working fluid. No one builds anything practical with pop pop boats because there are far better ways to get a boat from point a to b, including sails. But it's interesting.
Taking EmDrive as a photon rocket, and MEGAdrive as a highly efficient Henry Bull Reaction motor, both attempting to work without physical friction to work against, could the difference in unruh effect during the acceleration phase be enough to work as the "intake" stage of these particular pop pop boats? We're talking very low thrust levels anyway.. I need to read McCullough's work, I think.
Post by: Notsosureofit on 09/04/2018 04:05 pm
PHOTONICS NEWS & PRODUCTS
Light-driven elastic waves help scientists understand the effects of light's momentum
The momentum of light is now being measured Light has momentum, which can be transferred to matter (as in sunlight pushing a comet's tail away from the sun), but the exact nature of how light interacts with matter has remained a mystery. New research from the University of British Columbia's Okanagan campus (Kelowna, BC, Canada), has helped in understanding how light transfers its momentum to matter. UBC Okanagan Engineering Professor Kenneth Chau and his international research team from Slovenia and Brazil are shedding light on this mystery.
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/05/2018 05:49 pm
FYI:
PHOTONICS NEWS & PRODUCTS
Light-driven elastic waves help scientists understand the effects of light's momentum
The momentum of light is now being measured Light has momentum, which can be transferred to matter (as in sunlight pushing a comet's tail away from the sun), but the exact nature of how light interacts with matter has remained a mystery. New research from the University of British Columbia's Okanagan campus (Kelowna, BC, Canada), has helped in understanding how light transfers its momentum to matter. UBC Okanagan Engineering Professor Kenneth Chau and his international research team from Slovenia and Brazil are shedding light on this mystery.
Notsosureofit,
Do you have a link to the/(an) original paper?
I have found several articles addressing the subject, some more detailed than others, but so far I have been unable to locate a peer reviewed or even pre-publication paper.
Post by: Notsosureofit on 09/05/2018 06:18 pm
Still looking myself https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05706-3
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/06/2018 12:16 am
Post by: RotoSequence on 09/06/2018 12:33 am
Oyzw's cavity covered with insulation before powered tests were conducted. The insulation worked great in preventing any natural convection from the copper. I will be presenting the preliminary results next Tuesday. That presentation will not be published right away, so I hope to have another narrated version posted when I get home from the trip.
Are you trying to build hype or buffer the hopefuls for disappointment? ;)
Post by: S.Paulissen on 09/06/2018 01:41 am
Post by: Bob Woods on 09/06/2018 02:54 am
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/06/2018 07:01 pm
https://www.laserfocusworld.com/articles/2018/08/light-driven-elastic-waves-help-scientists-understand-the-effects-of-light-s-momentum.html
Still looking myself https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05706-3
Thanks for the link to the Nature article.
It raises a couple of questions, in my mind... In several places it is mentioned that the lazer pulse was “in air”, and yet at least on a first read (I did not see the opportunity to download the article until after struggling through the on line format), I am unsure that the possibility that the lazer pulse may have generated an accompanying kinetic “air pulse”... Were they detecting a kinetic transfer to the mirror surface from an air displacement or the laser pulse itself? ... it would have been good had the experiment been conducted in vacuum or an attempt to characterize the effect of an air pulse alone on the mirror.
If the results could be repeated in vacuum, it would seem to confirm their conclusions. If the results could be the result of kinetic characteristics of the air the laser interacted with, it may suggest a need to further evaluated the lazer/air interaction.
However, even assuming the results were even partially from a kinetic interaction between the mirror surface and air, where an EmDrive is concerned and air filled.., it might suggest that an asymmetric EM field inside the frustum, could result in a more energetic and also asymmetric kinetic interaction between charged components of the internal atmosphere and the frustum walls. Essentially, one could look at the interaction between atoms/air molecules kinetically affected by a GHz EM field, as asymmetric boundary conditions, more energized where the field intensity is greatest. If this were the case and resulted in any useable thrust, it would require that any EmDrive designed for use in space be designed to operate with a contained internal atmosphere.
It might also suggest a greater need for cooling mechanisms to maintain effective air/frustum boundary conditions over time....
Post by: racevedo88 on 09/06/2018 10:22 pm
V/R
Rafael Acevedo
Post by: Johnny_Tsunami on 09/06/2018 10:42 pm
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/10/2018 09:38 pm
I haven't seen anyone else yet. I think most people will begin trickling in at 6:pm mountain time. The first presentation is tonight on Mars. My presentation is tomorrow afternoon.
CORRECTION.. I just saw Marc Millis and Martin Tajmar and his group.
Post by: Mark7777777 on 09/10/2018 10:25 pm
I just arrived at the Advanced Propulsion Workshop 2018 in Estes Park. First thing I am wondering is why they feel the need to have this at 8,000 ft :o I'm sensitive to altitude sickness so I have to take it very easy. I'm light headed, my heart is racing, and I can't drink enough water.
I haven't seen anyone else yet. I think most people will begin trickling in at 6:pm mountain time. The first presentation is tonight on Mars. My presentation is tomorrow afternoon.
CORRECTION.. I just saw Marc Millis and Martin Tajmar and his group.
Does anyone know if the conference will be live-streamed?
Post by: Bob Woods on 09/10/2018 10:42 pm
I don't believe so. Last time they video'd but it took a week or two to get it available and it came in batches. Nothing I saw on their website.I just arrived at the Advanced Propulsion Workshop 2018 in Estes Park. First thing I am wondering is why they feel the need to have this at 8,000 ft :o I'm sensitive to altitude sickness so I have to take it very easy. I'm light headed, my heart is racing, and I can't drink enough water.
I haven't seen anyone else yet. I think most people will begin trickling in at 6:pm mountain time. The first presentation is tonight on Mars. My presentation is tomorrow afternoon.
CORRECTION.. I just saw Marc Millis and Martin Tajmar and his group.
Does anyone know if the conference will be live-streamed?
Post by: Mark7777777 on 09/11/2018 10:30 am
I don't believe so. Last time they video'd but it took a week or two to get it available and it came in batches. Nothing I saw on their website.I just arrived at the Advanced Propulsion Workshop 2018 in Estes Park. First thing I am wondering is why they feel the need to have this at 8,000 ft :o I'm sensitive to altitude sickness so I have to take it very easy. I'm light headed, my heart is racing, and I can't drink enough water.
I haven't seen anyone else yet. I think most people will begin trickling in at 6:pm mountain time. The first presentation is tonight on Mars. My presentation is tomorrow afternoon.
CORRECTION.. I just saw Marc Millis and Martin Tajmar and his group.
Does anyone know if the conference will be live-streamed?
I Googled and found a schedule from https://physics.fullerton.edu/~heidi/estes.html :
SCHEDULE: Estes Park Advanced Propulsion Workshop 2018
Day 0: Arrival day : Monday Sept 10th 2018
Meeting room should be available from 3pm today. Look for signs in the lobby of Longs Lodge around 6pm... Heidi will be around with badges! And Tuesday morning after breakfast.
DINNER 5:00-6:30pm
7:00-8:00pm Evening talk by Brandenburg Mars topics
Day 1: Tuesday 11th Sept. 2018
BREAKFAST 7:30-8:55am
9:00am Meeting Introduction /video/audio/sign papers .... 15mins
Heidi 9:15am – 10:40am Jim W; Mach effect recent experiments at Fullerton 10:45-11:50am Pitfalls of the Maxwellian approx in GR. Lance Williams
LUNCH 12:00-1:25pm
1:30-2:30pm Jose’ Rodal, “Theoretical analysis of Mach-effect space-propulsion”
COFFEE BREAK 2:30-2:45pm
2:45pm Next encounter with interstellar object... Marshal Eubanks 3:45pm Simulating and testing propulsion devices on a low-thrust torsion pendulum... James Ciomperlik 4:15pm A more efficient driver for piezoelectric actuators. .... David Jenkins
DINNER 5:00-6:30pm
Evening Session 7-8pm Paul Murad, “Gravity, Anti-gravity and exposing light on dark matter”.
Day 2: Wednesday 12th Sept. 2018
BREAKFAST 7:30-8:45am
8:50am Meeting Announcements .... 5mins HF group photo afternoon coffee break.. tonight cars after dinner 6:50pm to Windcliffe.
9:00-10:00am Martin Tajmar “Space Drive projects overview” 10:00-10:45am Maxime Monette, “Space Drive: In depth analysis of Mach effects experiments and alternative designs”. 10:45 -11:30am Marcel Weikert, “Space Drives: Progress on EMDrive testing”. 11:30- 12:15pm Matthias Kossling, “Space Drives: Thrust drive development and preliminary Mach-Effect thruster test results.”
LUNCH 12:00-1:25pm
1:30-2:30pm Mike Lorrey .... funding sources (or GEM theory by J. Brandenberg)
COFFEE BREAK 2:30-2:45pm group photo!!
2:45pm Negatve Casimir energy densities in the Woodward and Alcubierre drives. ..Ray Chiao 3:45pm Johnathon Thompson, 2 short talks. (Jay Sharping could not make it)
DINNER 5:00-6:30pm
Evening Session 6:50-9pm Windcliffe Soiree wine and cheese.
Day 3: Thursday 13th Sept.
2018 BREAKFAST 7:00-7:50am
8:00am Meeting Announcements .... 5mins HF Jan Harzan tonight UFO’s
LUNCH 12:00-1:25pm
Greg Meholic “The tri-space model of the universe” Wormholes as starships.... John Cramer
8:05-9:05 am 9:10-10:10am 10:10-11:10am 11:10- 12:10am Recent experiment results.... George Hathaway (or Heidi standin)
Asteroid mining and space settlement, Anthony Longman
AFTER LUNCH
1:30-2:30pm Mike McDonald “Thrust measurement and errors of a microwave cavity”
COFFEE BREAK 2:30-2:45pm
2:45-3:40pm ........... David Hyland, “Lamina Switching Process for the Dynamic Casimir Epitaxial Device”
3:45- 4:45pm ........... Eric Jansson (David Mathes cannot make it)
DINNER 5:00-6:30pm
Evening Session 7-8pm Jan Harzan UFO’s
Day 4: Friday 14th Sept
2018 BREAKFAST 7:30-8:50am
8:55am Meeting Announcements .... 5mins End of meeting, sign email sheet, and audio/video rights
9:00-10:00am 10:00-11:00am 11:00- 12:00am
Post by: Mark7777777 on 09/11/2018 10:41 am
I don't believe so. Last time they video'd but it took a week or two to get it available and it came in batches. Nothing I saw on their website.I just arrived at the Advanced Propulsion Workshop 2018 in Estes Park. First thing I am wondering is why they feel the need to have this at 8,000 ft :o I'm sensitive to altitude sickness so I have to take it very easy. I'm light headed, my heart is racing, and I can't drink enough water.
I haven't seen anyone else yet. I think most people will begin trickling in at 6:pm mountain time. The first presentation is tonight on Mars. My presentation is tomorrow afternoon.
CORRECTION.. I just saw Marc Millis and Martin Tajmar and his group.
Does anyone know if the conference will be live-streamed?
And there is a 26-page Abstracts PDF: https://physics.fullerton.edu/~heidi/abstracts.pdf
Post by: X_RaY on 09/11/2018 07:46 pm
Thanks :)
We people, following this topic, but not able to visit the conference are quite interested in it. :P ::)
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/12/2018 03:28 am
Is there anyone at the Estes Park conference who is willing to give us a short summery of the results up to now?
Thanks :)
We people, following this topic, but not able to visit the conference are quite interested in it. :P ::)
General consensus is that the Emdrive does not work. I reported negative results for my tests today. Martin Tajmar and his group will report similar findings tomorrow.
Of particular interest to this forum is the story Martin Tajmar and his students told me of Roger Shawyer's visit to their lab. They asked Roger for an older device to test and Roger told them he would only loan them a device if they report some positive results BEFORE they get the device. They refused of course.
As for the mach effect thruster, it is also not doing well. Several high level physics heavy presentations, including one by Dr. Rodal, that make the claim that the mach effect thruster cannot work as Woodward describes and is likely a self-interaction effect. Tajmar's group thinks it doesn't work and will report tomorrow. Then in my presentation I showed how Woodward's thrust signature can be generated in a simulation of the device using first principles and simple mechanics - and how everything equals out to zero at the end. I was also able to build a crude 3 DOF device that produced the same "thrust" signature.
Post by: RotoSequence on 09/12/2018 03:54 am
Is there anyone at the Estes Park conference who is willing to give us a short summery of the results up to now?
Thanks :)
We people, following this topic, but not able to visit the conference are quite interested in it. :P ::)
General consensus is that the Emdrive does not work. I reported negative results for my tests today. Martin Tajmar and his group will report similar findings tomorrow.
Of particular interest to this forum is the story Martin Tajmar and his students told me of Roger Shawyer's visit to their lab. They asked Roger for an older device to test and Roger told them he would only loan them a device if they report some positive results BEFORE they get the device. They refused of course.
As for the mach effect thruster, it is also not doing well. Several high level physics heavy presentations, including one by Dr. Rodal, that make the claim that the mach effect thruster cannot work as Woodward describes and is likely a self-interaction effect. Tajmar's group thinks it doesn't work and will report tomorrow. Then in my presentation I showed how Woodward's thrust signature can be generated in a simulation of the device using first principles and simple mechanics - and how everything equals out to zero at the end. I was also able to build a crude 3 DOF device that produced the same "thrust" signature.
Well darn. I guess that's a wrap, eh? :-\
Post by: Bob Woods on 09/12/2018 05:03 am
Post by: oyzw on 09/12/2018 09:34 am
This test chart should be under the condition of increased torsional pendulum damping?Is there anyone at the Estes Park conference who is willing to give us a short summery of the results up to now?
Thanks :)
We people, following this topic, but not able to visit the conference are quite interested in it. :P ::)
General consensus is that the Emdrive does not work. I reported negative results for my tests today. Martin Tajmar and his group will report similar findings tomorrow.
Of particular interest to this forum is the story Martin Tajmar and his students told me of Roger Shawyer's visit to their lab. They asked Roger for an older device to test and Roger told them he would only loan them a device if they report some positive results BEFORE they get the device. They refused of course.
As for the mach effect thruster, it is also not doing well. Several high level physics heavy presentations, including one by Dr. Rodal, that make the claim that the mach effect thruster cannot work as Woodward describes and is likely a self-interaction effect. Tajmar's group thinks it doesn't work and will report tomorrow. Then in my presentation I showed how Woodward's thrust signature can be generated in a simulation of the device using first principles and simple mechanics - and how everything equals out to zero at the end. I was also able to build a crude 3 DOF device that produced the same "thrust" signature.
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 09/12/2018 10:15 am
...
Of particular interest to this forum is the story Martin Tajmar and his students told me of Roger Shawyer's visit to their lab. They asked Roger for an older device to test and Roger told them he would only loan them a device if they report some positive results BEFORE they get the device. They refused of course.
...
Sounds rather typical. Funny though, how he managed to fool us (well, at least some of us) for almost 20 years.
Post by: MineCanary on 09/12/2018 12:57 pm
Looks like its 'generation ships' to the stars.. or I wonder how cryogenics are going..
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/12/2018 01:48 pm
...
Of particular interest to this forum is the story Martin Tajmar and his students told me of Roger Shawyer's visit to their lab. They asked Roger for an older device to test and Roger told them he would only loan them a device if they report some positive results BEFORE they get the device. They refused of course.
...
Did Mr. Shawyer mean that he would only loan his device to Dr. Tajmar if they reported some positive results WITH THEIR OWN DEVICES before hand? I now think this is what he meant. If so, "BEFORE" should not be emphasized. It led me to interpret the story in an uncomfortable way yesterday.
Post by: Jim Davis on 09/12/2018 01:58 pm
Funny though, how he managed to fool us (well, at least some of us) for almost 20 years.
You can't put this all on Shawyer. A lot of us were thinking with our hearts instead of our heads. We were all to eager to buy what he was selling.
Post by: meberbs on 09/12/2018 02:24 pm
There is no comfortable interpretation of that. If they had an emDrive that produced positive results, there wouldn't be much need to borrow an old drive from Shawyer. This restriction guarantees that under the assumption that the emDrive doesn't work, no one would be allowed to test Shawyer's device if their setup is capable of disproving it. If the emDrive did work, then this restriction is just a pointless obstacle, slowing down efforts to validate Shawyer's claims. Even if it wasn't meant as a request to fabricate data, it is a completely unscientific approach, and difficult to see why anyone would ask for that restriction unless they knew their device did not work and were trying to hide that....
Of particular interest to this forum is the story Martin Tajmar and his students told me of Roger Shawyer's visit to their lab. They asked Roger for an older device to test and Roger told them he would only loan them a device if they report some positive results BEFORE they get the device. They refused of course.
...
Did Mr. Shawyer mean that he would only loan his device to Dr. Tajmar if they reported some positive results WITH THEIR OWN DEVICES before hand? I now think this is what he meant. If so, "BEFORE" should not be emphasized. It led me to interpret the story in an uncomfortable way yesterday.
Bottom line, the word "before" is important, and deserves to be emphasized. (Note that "after" would actually have been worse, since it would directly be a request to fake results if they came back negative.)
In contrast, we have examples such as the data being presented at the conference in Estes of people actually following good scientific process, and coming to unbiased results.
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/12/2018 02:42 pm
...
Of particular interest to this forum is the story Martin Tajmar and his students told me of Roger Shawyer's visit to their lab. They asked Roger for an older device to test and Roger told them he would only loan them a device if they report some positive results BEFORE they get the device. They refused of course.
...
Did Mr. Shawyer mean that he would only loan his device to Dr. Tajmar if they reported some positive results WITH THEIR OWN DEVICES before hand? I now think this is what he meant. If so, "BEFORE" should not be emphasized. It led me to interpret the story in an uncomfortable way yesterday.
In email corro with Roger about this. Was told what Jamie reported was accurate.
However.......
It is my understanding that Tajmar's group needed to show they had followed Roger advise, built an EmDrive and thrust measurement system as per what he shared. Once they had achieved that goal and measured thrust, he would then loan them an EmDrive to test.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/12/2018 03:02 pm
However meberbs makes a point in that it is a faulty logic. He states that Shawyer only wants to loan devices that can be "proven to work" on badly designed test stands. According to meberbs, a badly designed test stand is an apparatus that would detect spurious forces where there are no genuine thrust. If so, Shawyer would obtain guarantees in advance that his own cavity, would show some "thrust" on Tajmar's test rig, whereas it is not true.
But TheTraveller has another point of view, where he assumes that Shawyer doesn't want to loan devices that could not be properly tested on badly designed test stands. According to TT, a badly designed test stand is an apparatus that would not detect any genuine thrust yet present, for lack of sensitivity or any technical "prerequisite" mandatory according to SPR theory.
These two points of view cannot converge.
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/12/2018 03:36 pm
Thank you PotomacNeuron. Yesterday I was disgusted too about Shawyer's behavior after I read that sentence like you at first glance, i.e. that the condition to loan that older thruster was that Tajmar had to report positive results of this old device BEFORE he could actually hold it in his hands. It was so nonsensical and unethical I was baffled. You restored the correct meaning, its more logic now.
However ...
Years ago I tried to sell an imported product in the US. I asked somebody famous to review it. He promised not to say bad words about it, to my (a little bit) surprise. So I guess maybe it is a norm in business, though it might not be acceptable in science.
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 09/12/2018 04:24 pm
Funny though, how he managed to fool us (well, at least some of us) for almost 20 years.
You can't put this all on Shawyer. A lot of us were thinking with our hearts instead of our heads. We were all to eager to buy what he was selling.
And even now, with only some vague descriptions of results of a few limited tests, our approach does not seem very solid.
Post by: moreno7798 on 09/12/2018 05:02 pm
Post by: DamianM on 09/12/2018 05:10 pm
I saw your video with this thing skipping across a tabletop. You attribute its movement to friction. Have you tried it on the same tabletop with friction defeated? Maybe put on a freewheeling toy plastic car. Properly assembled and lubricated, there should not be a preferential direction to the friction of the wheels/axles of the toy car.
Yes, I built a little toy car out of some legos. It's not exactly friction free so occasionally it will move to one side or the other, but overall it stays in the same place. I also recorded the device in slow motion attached to some springs. If you watch the bottom right corner of the oscillator, you can see how it displaces to the right more than the left of equilibrium. This anharmonic displacement is at the same frequency as the oscillation, but it is only a 2 DOF oscillator. I think at least three masses are required for Mach/Henry Bull-like displacements, plus some other anelastic effects.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbVOku_8iXg&
It is worth considering the inerter...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjueqHsOh18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ6_bjnxeco
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t9-GCJTh34
http://imik.wip.pw.edu.pl/zmitu/images/Publikacje/Seminaria/mechanika_energetyczna_zastosowanie.pdf
http://www.kms.polsl.pl/mi/pelne_18/01_18_49.pdf
Device for efficient self-contained inertial vehicular propulsion
https://patents.google.com/patent/US9995284B1/en?inventor=Gottfried+Gutsche
Post by: tchernik on 09/12/2018 05:29 pm
Funny though, how he managed to fool us (well, at least some of us) for almost 20 years.
You can't put this all on Shawyer. A lot of us were thinking with our hearts instead of our heads. We were all to eager to buy what he was selling.
And even now, with only some vague descriptions of results of a few limited tests, our approach does not seem very solid.
Given the lack of other clear results, if Tajmar or other professional team disprove it, my take will be that the phenomenon doesn't exist (any thrust is just noise) or it's too weak to be taken clearly and unmistakably out of the noise background.
Which for all purposes, will make it non existing for mainstream physics and stay on the fringe as long as such situation doesn't change.
Well, a pity. But this really wasn't an unexpected outcome.
Post by: cvbn on 09/12/2018 08:20 pm
Post by: Donosauro on 09/12/2018 10:00 pm
But even if Emdrive does not work as intended, couldn't these 'artifacts', which were so difficult to get rid of, and which caused the apparent thrust, be used to propel LEO satellites (assuming that these artifacts are the result of interaction with Earth's magnetic field)?
The magnetic artifacts caused by interactions with the Earth's magnetic field were torques. Some satellites have used those for attitude control from the early days of artificial Earth satellites. Magnetic thrust forces would, sadly, be many orders-of-magnitude smaller.
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/13/2018 12:11 am
Post by: oyzw on 09/13/2018 01:23 am
I have just learned from Mike McDonald from the US Navy Emdrive group that he is also reporting negative results.The US Navy Emdrive also looks like the TE012 or TE013 module. The magnetic field is shielded by a magnetic conductive steel. Your cavity test has a force of 7uN, and my cavity has a force of only 0.7uN. The other conditions are the same, indicating that the source of force is not external interference, but the cavity itself. Professor Yang Wei told me that her whole thruster design is in accordance with Mr. Shawyer's suggestion that the direction of the cavity thrust is fluctuating. She provided the whole system to me free of charge, but I don't have a laboratory. I am considering further improving her thruster program.
Post by: oyzw on 09/13/2018 01:44 am
Post by: RotoSequence on 09/13/2018 01:51 am
Post by: meberbs on 09/13/2018 02:49 am
...According to meberbs, a badly designed test stand is an apparatus that would detect spurious forces where there are no genuine thrust. ...As far as them being effectively opposite definitions, then that is correct that these points of view can't converge.
... According to TT, a badly designed test stand is an apparatus that would not detect any genuine thrust yet present, for lack of sensitivity or any technical "prerequisite" mandatory according to SPR theory.
These two points of view cannot converge.
Really both validly describe a different type of "bad" test stand. TT's version of a bad test stand can be eliminated without first putting an emDrive on the stand though. The sensitivity of the measurement device to small forces is something that is measured by any good experiment to calibrate the instrument. (And Shawyer has claimed forces with even his early drives orders of magnitude above the sensitivities of recent tests.) Any "prerequisites" can be explicitly stated and accounted for. (e.g. if it needs an initial acceleration, a controlled "tap" can be generated, even if you decide to ignore accelerations from gravity and Earth's rotation for some reason.)
Post by: Star One on 09/13/2018 05:08 pm
Yet on Sept. 25 Dr Woodward is scheduled for the Phase II Project paper/grant NASA has awarded at the Boston NIAC Symposium. Stay tuned folks. When was the last time everyone at a science conference agreed?
You should know by now that’s the way this thread goes every so often that someone declares matters resolved. Then someone else says oh no there not.
Post by: meberbs on 09/13/2018 05:30 pm
I don't think anyone has declared matters resolved just yet for the Mach effect thruster, Monomorphic's statement was "it is also not doing well."Yet on Sept. 25 Dr Woodward is scheduled for the Phase II Project paper/grant NASA has awarded at the Boston NIAC Symposium. Stay tuned folks. When was the last time everyone at a science conference agreed?
You should know by now that’s the way this thread goes every so often that someone declares matters resolved. Then someone else says oh no there not.
Monomorphic was a bit stronger in statements about emDrive, and based on these results multiple people seem to agree it is now time to call it, and there hasn't been much dissent on that.
For various reasons, my personal criteria on when to call it aren't relevant, and I won't share them right now, but I will say that these multiple new data sets seem a reasonable point to draw the line, but it might be wise to see all of the details, not just the top level summaries first.
Post by: Ricvil on 09/13/2018 06:56 pm
PS: a,b and c are,
For circular waveguide - internal
For torus- external
For Emdrive-internal
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/13/2018 07:38 pm
When I first began to follow the mostly DIY efforts shared here, there seemed at least some effort to try and replicate frustum/power systems, as close as possible, given a lack of any detailed information from either Shawyer or Yang, to those earlier designs which claimed some observed thrust. As time passed the design side has relied more on conventional/established design mechanisms, even while it has been clear from early on that if any useable thrust were observed, it would require either some “new physics” or in the least some new understanding/application of existing physical models.
The frustums and power systems now being pursued do not seem even close to the frustum and magnetron builds that initially fueled legitimate efforts to explore and confirm or refute the claims that accompanied those designs.
It has been obvious since the start that improvements in the test beds have been important. It seems equally important that drive systems as close to the early designs be tested on the improved test beds. Just one big difference aside from obvious variations in the physical dimensions and materials, is that in the case of both Shawyer and Lang they began with magnetrons and EM fields potentially an order of magnitude greater than the most recent build(s).., perhaps approaching two orders of magnitude...
Without a credible theory of operation, which does not at present exist, building and testing an EmDrive remains an engineering problem, which once agin leads back to the original design/build and power levels those early attempts operated at. Without that credible theory of operation, playing with the design, physical dimensions and power systems, is not science. Unless all you are trying to do is prove that existing interpretation of physics cannot produce the results claimed., while acknowledging that.., again.., that positive results would require at the very least a reinterpretation or application of what we know, or think(thought) we know.
Post by: tchernik on 09/13/2018 07:56 pm
Without a credible theory of operation, which does not at present exist, building and testing an EmDrive remains an engineering problem, which once agin leads back to the original design/build and power levels those early attempts operated at. Without that credible theory of operation, playing with the design, physical dimensions and power systems, is not science. Unless all you are trying to do is prove that existing interpretation of physics cannot produce the results claimed., while acknowledging that.., again.., that positive results would require at the very least a reinterpretation or application of what we know, or think(thought) we know.
I think this is becoming a problem of phenomenology and testing the limits of the method. Until we can't prove it somewhat works, we won't have better, more expensive replications . Those ought to be made in space.
Given the lack of clarity concerning the experiments and a working theory for suggesting ways of improvement, the better tests simply won't come.
Of course, that's the textbook scientific method, not a problem per se.
The problem comes if there actually are some basis for anomalous observations in the ideal environment (vacuum and free fall of space), that won't be visible or get lost in the noisy, imperfect one we can make on Earth.
Space is an environment we simply aren't used to deal routinely with, not even in science, due to the high cost and difficulty to get something there. In that context, only the most certain to work experiments with known potential results will get ever financed and done.
This is a contextual limitation, given we simply aren't in continuous contact with that ideal environment (ideal for these experiments) as we are with the one on Earth's surface.
My hunch is that once more people can go to space and try things out with more freedom and less expense, some possibly hidden new things will be found, lurking behind the noise level (albeit, not necessarily related to this presumed phenomenon).
Post by: Donosauro on 09/13/2018 08:37 pm
Something that has bothered me for some time now, as it relates to attempts to confirm or refute any potential anomalous force associated with an EmDrive, is that while the test beds have been improving significantly, the drive builds being tested have varied enough in one way or another, that any expectation that they are equivalent is lost.
Which, it seems reasonable to assume, is why Martin Tajmar asked to borrow one of Roger Shawyer's old, presumably nominally working, devices.
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/14/2018 04:31 am
(...)Thanks OnlyMe,
Without a credible theory of operation, which does not at present exist, building and testing an EmDrive remains an engineering problem, which once agin leads back to the original design/build and power levels those early attempts operated at. Without that credible theory of operation, playing with the design, physical dimensions and power systems, is not science. Unless all you are trying to do is prove that existing interpretation of physics cannot produce the results claimed., while acknowledging that.., again.., that positive results would require at the very least a reinterpretation or application of what we know, or think(thought) we know.
a voice of reason in the darkness. Without a complete and seamless unification of all aspects of physics, how can we possibly say what is or is not possible :)
Typo corrected.
Post by: meberbs on 09/14/2018 06:09 am
This sounds simply like a statement of a "perfect solution fallacy"(...)Thanks OnlyMe,
Without a credible theory of operation, which does not at present exist, building and testing an EmDrive remains an engineering problem, which once agin leads back to the original design/build and power levels those early attempts operated at. Without that credible theory of operation, playing with the design, physical dimensions and power systems, is not science. Unless all you are trying to do is prove that existing interpretation of physics cannot produce the results claimed., while acknowledging that.., again.., that positive results would require at the very least a reinterpretation or application of what we know, or think(thought) we know.
a voice of reason in the darkness. Without a complete and seamless unification of all aspects of physics, how can we possibly say what is or is not possible :)
Typo corrected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
There are many things that we know to be true, that are simply not affected by the holes in physics. Just because we do not know exactly how gravity operates on sub atomic scales, it does not change the fact that we know that if you walk off a diving board, you are going to end up falling into the pool.
Post by: Star One on 09/14/2018 07:03 am
This sounds simply like a statement of a "perfect solution fallacy"(...)Thanks OnlyMe,
Without a credible theory of operation, which does not at present exist, building and testing an EmDrive remains an engineering problem, which once agin leads back to the original design/build and power levels those early attempts operated at. Without that credible theory of operation, playing with the design, physical dimensions and power systems, is not science. Unless all you are trying to do is prove that existing interpretation of physics cannot produce the results claimed., while acknowledging that.., again.., that positive results would require at the very least a reinterpretation or application of what we know, or think(thought) we know.
a voice of reason in the darkness. Without a complete and seamless unification of all aspects of physics, how can we possibly say what is or is not possible :)
Typo corrected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
There are many things that we know to be true, that are simply not affected by the holes in physics. Just because we do not know exactly how gravity operates on sub atomic scales, it does not change the fact that we know that if you walk off a diving board, you are going to end up falling into the pool.
And that sounds a lot like you trying to brush off the question without actually answering the point made by the poster.
Post by: Ricvil on 09/14/2018 08:27 am
There is a necessity to look the interesting results produced until now.This sounds simply like a statement of a "perfect solution fallacy"(...)Thanks OnlyMe,
Without a credible theory of operation, which does not at present exist, building and testing an EmDrive remains an engineering problem, which once agin leads back to the original design/build and power levels those early attempts operated at. Without that credible theory of operation, playing with the design, physical dimensions and power systems, is not science. Unless all you are trying to do is prove that existing interpretation of physics cannot produce the results claimed., while acknowledging that.., again.., that positive results would require at the very least a reinterpretation or application of what we know, or think(thought) we know.
a voice of reason in the darkness. Without a complete and seamless unification of all aspects of physics, how can we possibly say what is or is not possible :)
Typo corrected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
There are many things that we know to be true, that are simply not affected by the holes in physics. Just because we do not know exactly how gravity operates on sub atomic scales, it does not change the fact that we know that if you walk off a diving board, you are going to end up falling into the pool.
And that sounds a lot like you trying to brush off the question without actually answering the point made by the poster.
What is causing the 'Dark Zone' of current viewed by thermal images, and confirmed by many simulations?
What is causing the "thermal insulation" , producing a hotside domain and a 'coldside' domain during power tests?
No one has noted, but the EmDrive experimenters and EM simulators may acidentally discovered the dual of a superconducting state, a "supermagneticresistive state", induced by a Fano resonance of electromagnetic waves in a copper cavity with boundary conditions wich cannot be matched by frontwaves with a "harmonic coordinate system" representation because it is equivalent, for electromagnetic frontwaves, to a Torus of Genus 1 by a conformal symmetry.
Post by: meberbs on 09/14/2018 01:07 pm
Stating that the post is a pure fallacy is all the answer that can be made. I even gave a counterexample, demonstrating why that post is simply a complete denial of science.Thanks OnlyMe,This sounds simply like a statement of a "perfect solution fallacy"
a voice of reason in the darkness. Without a complete and seamless unification of all aspects of physics, how can we possibly say what is or is not possible :)
Typo corrected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
There are many things that we know to be true, that are simply not affected by the holes in physics. Just because we do not know exactly how gravity operates on sub atomic scales, it does not change the fact that we know that if you walk off a diving board, you are going to end up falling into the pool.
And that sounds a lot like you trying to brush off the question without actually answering the point made by the poster.
On the other hand you are trying to dismiss my post without addressing the content of it.
Post by: Star One on 09/14/2018 02:40 pm
Stating that the post is a pure fallacy is all the answer that can be made. I even gave a counterexample, demonstrating why that post is simply a complete denial of science.Thanks OnlyMe,This sounds simply like a statement of a "perfect solution fallacy"
a voice of reason in the darkness. Without a complete and seamless unification of all aspects of physics, how can we possibly say what is or is not possible :)
Typo corrected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
There are many things that we know to be true, that are simply not affected by the holes in physics. Just because we do not know exactly how gravity operates on sub atomic scales, it does not change the fact that we know that if you walk off a diving board, you are going to end up falling into the pool.
And that sounds a lot like you trying to brush off the question without actually answering the point made by the poster.
On the other hand you are trying to dismiss my post without addressing the content of it.
Maybe because as I said above did you actually answer anything or was it just a slight of hand.
Post by: meberbs on 09/14/2018 02:57 pm
Maybe because as I said above did you actually answer anything or was it just a slight of hand.Try actually reading my post.
I answered with a simple counterexample that shows that spupeng7's post was a fallacy.
I literally said that exact same thing in my previous response to you. You are trying to accuse me of "slight of hand" while you are ignoring what I said. Repeatedly. This is both rude and hypocritical.
Post by: SteveD on 09/14/2018 03:05 pm
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/14/2018 06:13 pm
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1YsxHFo-G5iARPtx_FeGQ641-3ygy6umj
Post by: Ricvil on 09/14/2018 06:51 pm
It is a taboo to many people.
The cavity shape may be introducing a Berry phase on the velocity group of TE TM states ( related to frontwave of these modes).
Why this is so important?
Because frontwaves are intrinsically related to some very important things:
1-The foliation of spacetime(related to Lorentz transformations and diffeomorphism symmetry)
2-Quantum commutation relations between space/momentum time/energy(related to position/momentum representations of quantum function waves)
3-Spatio-temporal represention of electromagnetic field fotons (plane waves or spherical waves for example).
All three points becomes "ill defined" if harmonic coordinate system cannot be used, and problems emerge, "solved" (or not) by ad-hoc prescriptions
For example:
-Path Integral representations of Feynman propagators in non harmonic coordinate systems in presence (or not) of gravity.
- Energy/moment definition of a gravitational fields and waves.
- Foliation or Fiber description of gravitational metric evolution.
- Moment definition of electromagnetic waves in spherical coordinate system (there is no quantum moment or angular moment associated to "theta" coordinate).
If confirmed the hipotesis of a dual supermagneticresistive state in the resonance, then the topological Berry phase of group velocity frontwave ( related to electric current surface) may violate Lorentz transformations.
Much more intriguing would to force a Fano resonance between a superconducting phase and a supermagneticresistive dual phase of a Emdrive cavity.
PS: The cavity may be acting as a giant supermagneticresistive dual "Josephson junction" and interacting with ambient fields including Earth magnetic field.
Post by: sghill on 09/14/2018 09:02 pm
Is there anyone at the Estes Park conference who is willing to give us a short summery of the results up to now?
Thanks :)
We people, following this topic, but not able to visit the conference are quite interested in it. :P ::)
General consensus is that the Emdrive does not work. I reported negative results for my tests today. Martin Tajmar and his group will report similar findings tomorrow.
Monomorphic,
Would you be willing to write up an article at the end of the conference, perhaps with Dr. Jose's input, for publication on NSF.com? (I'm also happy to help edit)
Past articles generated by NSF users with Chris B's blessings have garnered worldwide attention, to say the least. There is extremely little published in reputable press outlets by actual researchers and practitioners on the EMDrive, so your contributions are platinum!
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/14/2018 10:25 pm
Would you be willing to write up an article at the end of the conference, perhaps with Dr. Jose's input, for publication on NSF.com? (I'm also happy to help edit)
Past articles generated by NSF users with Chris B's blessings have garnered worldwide attention, to say the least. There is extremely little published in reputable press outlets by actual researchers and practitioners on the EMDrive, so your contributions are platinum!
Sure, I would be happy to write something up with Dr. Rodal. I only attended the first two days, but I know Rodal was there at least three. He's dealing with getting home to North Carolina during a hurricane, so I'll get with him and see what we can do and when.
Post by: sghill on 09/15/2018 01:15 am
Would you be willing to write up an article at the end of the conference, perhaps with Dr. Jose's input, for publication on NSF.com? (I'm also happy to help edit)
Past articles generated by NSF users with Chris B's blessings have garnered worldwide attention, to say the least. There is extremely little published in reputable press outlets by actual researchers and practitioners on the EMDrive, so your contributions are platinum!
Sure, I would be happy to write something up with Dr. Rodal. I only attended the first two days, but I know Rodal was there at least three. He's dealing with getting home to North Carolina during a hurricane, so I'll get with him and see what we can do and when.
Yay!
Please feel free to call upon me. I'm certain others on this forum who were there will be pleased to contribute to your write up.
Jose' lives in NC?!? :)
Post by: RotoSequence on 09/15/2018 01:36 am
Post by: SeeShells on 09/15/2018 05:05 pm
I'm hoping to see some input from Stardrive and Seashells soon on the state of things with the latest null results by mono and the US Naval Research Lab. If this episode is heading for closure, it would seem appropriate for proper bookends, or maybe leaving things open for continuation.I read about the current reports from Monomorphic and NRL, neither were a surprise with null reports. Monomorphic's work is on a bar that few DYIers have approached and the NRL teams whom I've worked with years ago IMHO set a gold standard with their research. The work by EagleWorks is also very high standard although the last spherical air bearing tests were marred by the issues with the air bearing quality. They reported as such.
In my own work and research on the plain Jane EMDrive reveled errors that could be directly attributed to motions induced by thermal and EM effects. Although a lucky chance in my testing I saw a effect and possible thrust that was above the error bars. Not to say that this anomaly is real but it provided hope to turn my research to another direction. A direction using a highly modified resonate chamber, not just a resonating asymmetrical can of microwaves.
My work continues and a tip of the hat to Jamie and NRL for great work and unbiased reporting.
My Very Best
Shell
Post by: Mark7777777 on 09/15/2018 08:27 pm
...
Of particular interest to this forum is the story Martin Tajmar and his students told me of Roger Shawyer's visit to their lab. They asked Roger for an older device to test and Roger told them he would only loan them a device if they report some positive results BEFORE they get the device. They refused of course.
...
Did Mr. Shawyer mean that he would only loan his device to Dr. Tajmar if they reported some positive results WITH THEIR OWN DEVICES before hand? I now think this is what he meant. If so, "BEFORE" should not be emphasized. It led me to interpret the story in an uncomfortable way yesterday.
In email corro with Roger about this. Was told what Jamie reported was accurate.
However.......
It is my understanding that Tajmar's group needed to show they had followed Roger advise, built an EmDrive and thrust measurement system as per what he shared. Once they had achieved that goal and measured thrust, he would then loan them an EmDrive to test.
Hi TheTraveller
Do you think there was something fundamentally flawed with Jamie and the Navy's testing or do you agree that it was OK and there may not be a real (non-interference) Emdrive thrust effect available after all?
Regards
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/16/2018 08:47 am
Hi TheTraveller
Do you think there was something fundamentally flawed with Jamie and the Navy's testing or do you agree that it was OK and there may not be a real (non-interference) Emdrive thrust effect available after all?
Regards
EmDrive works well. However there are requirements that may seem counterintuitive. i have discussed a few with Jamie. Main one being I have never used continuous RF. Only every used pulsed RF. Which is what a magnetron produces when driven by a 1/2 wave rectified voltage doubler power supply.
Should also note the rotary test rig Roger demonstrated back in 2006 had a rotary resistance load applied to the test rig. So free to rotate but the drive accelerated against a constant load. I believe Roger did suggest this to Jamie. Also note Oyzw mentioned a load should be used.
Can't understand why Tajmar apparently refused to follow Roger's advise in building the drive, RF system and test rig, then show him positive results before he sent then one of his drives to test?
My rotary test rig is still work in progress. Plan was to do a demo in the UK Nov/Dec 2018 but due to schedule issues, will probably happen early 2019.
BTW my design is changing to that of one in the public knowledge, ie the EW cavity built by Paul March. However resonance needs to be at a higher freq to avoid cutoff issues. Which means that once I publish the details, others who have built EW cavities will be able to do a few changes and verify my data.
So those who have built EW cavities, like EW, Tajmar, the US Navy, etc, hang in there. You will be shown how to make them generate thrust levels way out of the noise.
Maybe EW will loan Jamie their cavity, so he can apply my alterations and start to see significant thrust?
Post by: Star One on 09/16/2018 09:01 am
Maybe because as I said above did you actually answer anything or was it just a slight of hand.Try actually reading my post.
I answered with a simple counterexample that shows that spupeng7's post was a fallacy.
I literally said that exact same thing in my previous response to you. You are trying to accuse me of "slight of hand" while you are ignoring what I said. Repeatedly. This is both rude and hypocritical.
You might find it that but I’d say I found your OP in response to what seemed to me a genuine enquiry, if maybe mistaken, to be both rude and dismissive. Hence my response.
I don’t generally post in here these days as the matter seems a lot settled now and that’s partly through your sterling work, and I wouldn’t have posted now if not genuinely taken aback by OP.
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/16/2018 11:28 am
EmDrive works well. However there are requirements that may seem counterintuitive. i have discussed a few with Jamie. Main one being I have never used continuous RF. Only every used pulsed RF. Which is what a magnetron produces when driven by a 1/2 wave rectified voltage doubler power supply.
Should also note the rotary test rig Roger demonstrated back in 2006 had a rotary resistance load applied to the test rig. So free to rotate but the drive accelerated against a constant load. I believe Roger did suggest this to Jamie. Also note Oyzw mentioned a load should be used.
My rotary test rig is still work in progress. Plan was to do a demo in the UK Nov/Dec 2018 but due to schedule issues, will probably happen early 2019.
Maybe EW will loan Jamie their cavity, so he can apply my alterations and start to see significant thrust?
I'll be giving pulsed RF a try in a couple of weeks as my signal generator is capable of that. I will also be trying some of the other suggestions by Oyzw. I'm not exactly sure what is meant by a constant load. It would help if this can be described in more detail.
My understanding is that Dr. White is going to loan the Navy group a cavity for testing.
Post by: oyzw on 09/16/2018 12:14 pm
Professor Yang and I have endorsed the theoretical explanations of Dr. Chen Yue and Cannae's patents that emdirve uses an asymmetric structure to induce the electromagnetic field distribution to form a gradient difference, which produces a radiation pressure difference. In order to achieve this goal, the cone cavity is not the best choice. It uses a more special induction structure to asymmetrically pull the electromagnetic field, such as a very asymmetrical shape, filling with a polymer, adding a metal diaphragm, and etching trenches. They are all common goals. My cavity is just a visual copy, and there is no strict theoretical calculation, so even in the TE013 mode, there is probably no obvious electromagnetic gradient distribution. I will next copy the cavity of Dr. Chen Yue and use the high K substance to further change the trapezoidal cavity.Hi TheTraveller
Do you think there was something fundamentally flawed with Jamie and the Navy's testing or do you agree that it was OK and there may not be a real (non-interference) Emdrive thrust effect available after all?
Regards
EmDrive works well. However there are requirements that may seem counterintuitive. i have discussed a few with Jamie. Main one being I have never used continuous RF. Only every used pulsed RF. Which is what a magnetron produces when driven by a 1/2 wave rectified voltage doubler power supply.
Should also note the rotary test rig Roger demonstrated back in 2006 had a rotary resistance load applied to the test rig. So free to rotate but the drive accelerated against a constant load. I believe Roger did suggest this to Jamie. Also note Oyzw mentioned a load should be used.
Can't understand why Tajmar apparently refused to follow Roger's advise in building the drive, RF system and test rig, then show him positive results before he sent then one of his drives to test?
My rotary test rig is still work in progress. Plan was to do a demo in the UK Nov/Dec 2018 but due to schedule issues, will probably happen early 2019.
BTW my design is changing to that of one in the public knowledge, ie the EW cavity built by Paul March. However resonance needs to be at a higher freq to avoid cutoff issues. Which means that once I publish the details, others who have built EW cavities will be able to do a few changes and verify my data.
So those who have built EW cavities, like EW, Tajmar, the US Navy, etc, hang in there. You will be shown how to make them generate thrust levels way out of the noise.
Maybe EW will loan Jamie their cavity, so he can apply my alterations and start to see significant thrust?
Post by: otlski on 09/16/2018 01:10 pm
Should also note the rotary test rig Roger demonstrated back in 2006 had a rotary resistance load applied to the test rig. So free to rotate but the drive accelerated against a constant load. I believe Roger did suggest this to Jamie. Also note Oyzw mentioned a load should be used.
Are you referring to the air bearing video demo? Would you clarify this statement? It is rather obvious that there were two unintended forms of rotary resistance, neither is a constant. The first are the cables draped from the moving side of the rig to the floor. Their effective torsional spring rate is non-linear and temperature sensitive. They certainly kill any sense of advantage from using an air bearing. The second is air drag which is decidedly not linear. What other if any form of purposeful angular resistance did he implement? Please quantify.
Post by: meberbs on 09/16/2018 03:16 pm
I pointed out that a logical fallacy was being employed and demonstrated why it was a fallacy.For any given statement "X", a question of the form"why not X" is best answered by explaining "X is a fallacy, and here is why." There is nothing inherently rude about doing that, and it is only dismissive in the sense that there is a solid and easy to state reason why what I was responding to should be dismissed.Maybe because as I said above did you actually answer anything or was it just a slight of hand.Try actually reading my post.
I answered with a simple counterexample that shows that spupeng7's post was a fallacy.
I literally said that exact same thing in my previous response to you. You are trying to accuse me of "slight of hand" while you are ignoring what I said. Repeatedly. This is both rude and hypocritical.
You might find it that but I’d say I found your OP in response to what seemed to me a genuine enquiry, if maybe mistaken, to be both rude and dismissive. Hence my response.
I don’t generally post in here these days as the matter seems a lot settled now and that’s partly through your sterling work, and I wouldn’t have posted now if not genuinely taken aback by OP.
If you think the original statement was anything less than a complete fallacy, you are going to have to say something that actually acknowledges the content of the original post.
Post by: meberbs on 09/16/2018 03:48 pm
EmDrive works well. However there are requirements that may seem counterintuitive. i have discussed a few with Jamie. Main one being I have never used continuous RF. Only every used pulsed RF. Which is what a magnetron produces when driven by a 1/2 wave rectified voltage doubler power supply.Things wrong with these statements:
-I don't recall ever seeing something from Shawyer with these "pulsing" requirements.
-Your statement that you have "never used continuous RF" is meaningless, because you have provided no evidence you have actually completed a single emDrive.
-Anyone who knows what they are doing when building a rectifier includes a capacitor to smooth the output, and there would be at least some capacitance no matter what.
-Magnetrons take finite time to get going and to stop, as does the resonance in the cavity. The setup you describe would at best just be varying the output amplitude, with it never reaching "zero."
Should also note the rotary test rig Roger demonstrated back in 2006 had a rotary resistance load applied to the test rig. So free to rotate but the drive accelerated against a constant load. I believe Roger did suggest this to Jamie. Also note Oyzw mentioned a load should be used.A torsional pendulum also provides a load for the drive to accelerate against, that is how it works. As others stated the loads in Shawyer's rig aren't "constant" so I am just ignoring that word and assuming you didn't mean to use it, at least not according to a common definition.
This need for a load is directly contradictory to the "free to rotate" requirement, but to the extent that these can be taken together, a torsional pendulum provides both.
Can't understand why Tajmar apparently refused to follow Roger's advise in building the drive, RF system and test rig, then show him positive results before he sent then one of his drives to test?What advise did he not follow? The "show positive results" is a nonsensical requirement, at best it negates the main reason they would borrow it, at worst it is a sign of outright fraud. Tajmar's setup could be independently shown to meet any requirements from Shawyer on things like sensitivity without first putting an emDrive on the stand. No requirements that Tajmar's stand does not meet have been provided.
Post by: WhatAFeynDay on 09/16/2018 03:57 pm
Should also note the rotary test rig Roger demonstrated back in 2006 had a rotary resistance load applied to the test rig.
Of course it did...always some little wrinkle for you to claim Roger's secret recipe has not yet been correctly duplicated.
Your emdrives are vaporware. They've never been seen, they do not exist.
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/16/2018 05:16 pm
...
Can't understand why Tajmar apparently refused to follow Roger's advise in building the drive, RF system and test rig, then show him positive results before he sent then one of his drives to test?
...
This whole line of discussion seems suspect to me. If Shawyer had provided anyone who has/had the resources to replicate any of his early “successful” designs, there would be no need to retest a build provided by him! They would have just built a copy and tested it.
If he had a/any build that successfully produced(s) thrust/acceleration, the only reasonable qualification on providing the drive for testing, by another lab, would be whether their test bed is/was capable of handling the drive (dimensions, weight and mechanisms...) and whether it (the test bed) had/has been demonstrated to be capable of measuring forces/thrust in the range Shawyer claims for his build.
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/17/2018 05:53 am
Ya, and then there is the whole frustrating issue of 'commercial in confidence agreements' which may yet mean that public verification of emdrive will not happen until the first product 'launch'. If you will forgive the pun....
Can't understand why Tajmar apparently refused to follow Roger's advise in building the drive, RF system and test rig, then show him positive results before he sent then one of his drives to test?
...
This whole line of discussion seems suspect to me. If Shawyer had provided anyone who has/had the resources to replicate any of his early “successful” designs, there would be no need to retest a build provided by him! They would have just built a copy and tested it.
If he had a/any build that successfully produced(s) thrust/acceleration, the only reasonable qualification on providing the drive for testing, by another lab, would be whether their test bed is/was capable of handling the drive (dimensions, weight and mechanisms...) and whether it (the test bed) had/has been demonstrated to be capable of measuring forces/thrust in the range Shawyer claims for his build.
Meantime we are all in the dark about the experimental methodology except for amateur attempts such as Monomorphs', which will likely not be detailed to the point of reliable repeatability until they produce positive results.
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/17/2018 05:58 am
meberbs,This sounds simply like a statement of a "perfect solution fallacy"(...)Thanks OnlyMe,
Without a credible theory of operation, which does not at present exist, building and testing an EmDrive remains an engineering problem, which once agin leads back to the original design/build and power levels those early attempts operated at. Without that credible theory of operation, playing with the design, physical dimensions and power systems, is not science. Unless all you are trying to do is prove that existing interpretation of physics cannot produce the results claimed., while acknowledging that.., again.., that positive results would require at the very least a reinterpretation or application of what we know, or think(thought) we know.
a voice of reason in the darkness. Without a complete and seamless unification of all aspects of physics, how can we possibly say what is or is not possible :)
Typo corrected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
There are many things that we know to be true, that are simply not affected by the holes in physics. Just because we do not know exactly how gravity operates on sub atomic scales, it does not change the fact that we know that if you walk off a diving board, you are going to end up falling into the pool.
not much interested in perfection, just what meets the essential criteria of conservation of momentum, charge and energy. As already stated.
Post by: meberbs on 09/17/2018 08:21 am
Conservation of momentum, charge and energy are all handled perfectly fine by both classical and quantum electrodynamics.meberbs,This sounds simply like a statement of a "perfect solution fallacy"(...)Thanks OnlyMe,
Without a credible theory of operation, which does not at present exist, building and testing an EmDrive remains an engineering problem, which once agin leads back to the original design/build and power levels those early attempts operated at. Without that credible theory of operation, playing with the design, physical dimensions and power systems, is not science. Unless all you are trying to do is prove that existing interpretation of physics cannot produce the results claimed., while acknowledging that.., again.., that positive results would require at the very least a reinterpretation or application of what we know, or think(thought) we know.
a voice of reason in the darkness. Without a complete and seamless unification of all aspects of physics, how can we possibly say what is or is not possible :)
Typo corrected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
There are many things that we know to be true, that are simply not affected by the holes in physics. Just because we do not know exactly how gravity operates on sub atomic scales, it does not change the fact that we know that if you walk off a diving board, you are going to end up falling into the pool.
not much interested in perfection, just what meets the essential criteria of conservation of momentum, charge and energy. As already stated.
I fail to see how "complete and seamless unification of all aspects of physics" is asking for anything less than a perfect grand unified theory. Physicists are working on it, but the fact that they haven't gotten there yet doesn't mean they can't make a lot of valid statements about what can or can not be done (based on consistency with previous experiments.)
Post by: Ricvil on 09/17/2018 10:32 am
Let's start with a huge simplification.( forget spin, forget periodic cell structure of copper)Conservation of momentum, charge and energy are all handled perfectly fine by both classical and quantum electrodynamics.meberbs,This sounds simply like a statement of a "perfect solution fallacy"(...)Thanks OnlyMe,
Without a credible theory of operation, which does not at present exist, building and testing an EmDrive remains an engineering problem, which once agin leads back to the original design/build and power levels those early attempts operated at. Without that credible theory of operation, playing with the design, physical dimensions and power systems, is not science. Unless all you are trying to do is prove that existing interpretation of physics cannot produce the results claimed., while acknowledging that.., again.., that positive results would require at the very least a reinterpretation or application of what we know, or think(thought) we know.
a voice of reason in the darkness. Without a complete and seamless unification of all aspects of physics, how can we possibly say what is or is not possible :)
Typo corrected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
There are many things that we know to be true, that are simply not affected by the holes in physics. Just because we do not know exactly how gravity operates on sub atomic scales, it does not change the fact that we know that if you walk off a diving board, you are going to end up falling into the pool.
not much interested in perfection, just what meets the essential criteria of conservation of momentum, charge and energy. As already stated.
I fail to see how "complete and seamless unification of all aspects of physics" is asking for anything less than a perfect grand unified theory. Physicists are working on it, but the fact that they haven't gotten there yet doesn't mean they can't make a lot of valid statements about what can or can not be done (based on consistency with previous experiments.)
Just begins writing full covariant Klein-Gordon equation for the electrons living in cavity's skin-depth under influence of electromagnetic potential, then try to find the correpondent path integral representation, and you will begin to undertand what is the problem.( remember: full covariant)
Post by: cvbn on 09/17/2018 01:22 pm
https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/news/scientists-receive-13-million-to-study-new-propulsion-idea-for-spacecraft
Post by: sghill on 09/17/2018 01:38 pm
Maybe EW will loan Jamie their cavity, so he can apply my alterations and start to see significant thrust?
Quote
Professor Yang and I have endorsed the theoretical explanations of Dr. Chen Yue and Cannae's patents that emdirve uses an asymmetric structure to induce the electromagnetic field distribution to form a gradient difference, which produces a radiation pressure difference. In order to achieve this goal, the cone cavity is not the best choice. It uses a more special induction structure to asymmetrically pull the electromagnetic field, such as a very asymmetrical shape, filling with a polymer, adding a metal diaphragm, and etching trenches. They are all common goals. My cavity is just a visual copy, and there is no strict theoretical calculation, so even in the TE013 mode, there is probably no obvious electromagnetic gradient distribution. I will next copy the cavity of Dr. Chen Yue and use the high K substance to further change the trapezoidal cavity.
Since we are on the subject of efficient cavity shapes (and I don't want to read yet another fight between TheTraveller and others). May I take us back to this dicussion:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1735418#msg1735418
and
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1736210#msg1736210
A trapezoidal cavity is a terrible resonant device. IMHO, Webster's Horn Equation is the direction to look for improved resonant cavity design, even if the analogies between EM and acoustic propagation don't completely overlap.
Post by: meberbs on 09/17/2018 02:18 pm
Let's start with a huge simplification.( forget spin, forget periodic cell structure of copper)Like just about every quantum mechanics problem that describes a halfway realistic scenario, (especially multi-particle situations) there is most likely no closed form solution. That doesn't mean that the equations are wrong, or change the fact that QED is a consistent theory that obeys conservation laws. The difficulty of writing down the solution to the equation is irrelevant, especially given that there would be something like 10^23 parameters for all of the individual electrons, which is why the non-quantum limit is both accurate and easier to use.
Just begins writing full covariant Klein-Gordon equation for the electrons living in cavity's skin-depth under influence of electromagnetic potential, then try to find the correpondent path integral representation, and you will begin to undertand what is the problem.( remember: full covariant)
This all just provides more evidence for why requiring a grand unified theory before allowing statements describing how things work doesn't make sense. The inherent properties like conservation laws are shown to work at a general level. To get answers that apply in the real world and don't take forever to calculate, you have to pick a set of sensible approximations. In this case the sensible approximation is the limit of large numbers, in which case you just end up with classical electrodynamics. This will be accurate to within the validity of the approximation, and 10^23 is a very, very large number, so it is unlikely for any experiment to be able to detect any difference. And even then, general results like momentum conservation still hold.
Post by: Ricvil on 09/17/2018 02:20 pm
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1680488#msg1680488
"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."
Dear flux_capacitor,
Where I can find a reference about this "composite electron of two magnetic charges"?
Post by: Ricvil on 09/17/2018 02:50 pm
Dear Meberbs.Let's start with a huge simplification.( forget spin, forget periodic cell structure of copper)Like just about every quantum mechanics problem that describes a halfway realistic scenario, (especially multi-particle situations) there is most likely no closed form solution. That doesn't mean that the equations are wrong, or change the fact that QED is a consistent theory that obeys conservation laws. The difficulty of writing down the solution to the equation is irrelevant, especially given that there would be something like 10^23 parameters for all of the individual electrons, which is why the non-quantum limit is both accurate and easier to use.
Just begins writing full covariant Klein-Gordon equation for the electrons living in cavity's skin-depth under influence of electromagnetic potential, then try to find the correpondent path integral representation, and you will begin to undertand what is the problem.( remember: full covariant)
This all just provides more evidence for why requiring a grand unified theory before allowing statements describing how things work doesn't make sense. The inherent properties like conservation laws are shown to work at a general level. To get answers that apply in the real world and don't take forever to calculate, you have to pick a set of sensible approximations. In this case the sensible approximation is the limit of large numbers, in which case you just end up with classical electrodynamics. This will be accurate to within the validity of the approximation, and 10^23 is a very, very large number, so it is unlikely for any experiment to be able to detect any difference. And even then, general results like momentum conservation still hold.
The difficult to find the solution is not the point.
One can find a path integral representation of the problem.
The problem are the ad-hoc choices made in the process to mantain the unitarity of final form of the path integral representation of the simplified problem.
A lot of prescriptions to disapear with "unwanted" terms.
The "problem" emerge when these ad-hoc prescriptions cannot be applied successfully because of topological restrictions.
Post by: Star One on 09/17/2018 03:34 pm
I pointed out that a logical fallacy was being employed and demonstrated why it was a fallacy.For any given statement "X", a question of the form"why not X" is best answered by explaining "X is a fallacy, and here is why." There is nothing inherently rude about doing that, and it is only dismissive in the sense that there is a solid and easy to state reason why what I was responding to should be dismissed.Maybe because as I said above did you actually answer anything or was it just a slight of hand.Try actually reading my post.
I answered with a simple counterexample that shows that spupeng7's post was a fallacy.
I literally said that exact same thing in my previous response to you. You are trying to accuse me of "slight of hand" while you are ignoring what I said. Repeatedly. This is both rude and hypocritical.
You might find it that but I’d say I found your OP in response to what seemed to me a genuine enquiry, if maybe mistaken, to be both rude and dismissive. Hence my response.
I don’t generally post in here these days as the matter seems a lot settled now and that’s partly through your sterling work, and I wouldn’t have posted now if not genuinely taken aback by OP.
If you think the original statement was anything less than a complete fallacy, you are going to have to say something that actually acknowledges the content of the original post.
But it appears to be you just assuming this person has fallen into this fallacy without actually knowing if they had or not. I don’t see what was so wrong with what they said or more importantly that there was enough evidence in their post for you to be justified in making that assumption of their thinking that you gave it the response you did.
To sum up in my opinion you made an unjustified assumption of what they meant without the evidence in what they said to back it up.
Post by: meberbs on 09/17/2018 03:53 pm
But it appears to be you just assuming this person has fallen into this fallacy without actually knowing if they had or not. I don’t see what was so wrong with what they said or more importantly that there was enough evidence in their post for you to be justified in making that assumption of their thinking that you gave it the response you did.I made no assumptions other than that they were speaking standard English, and not some code where words don't represent their dictionary definitions. Their statement was the embodiment of the fallacy I referenced. I have explained repeatedly why that is the case, but you seem to continue ignoring the words I am saying.
To sum up in my opinion you made an unjustified assumption of what they meant without the evidence in what they said to back it up.
In his most recent post spupeng7 changed what he said to something completely different, which avoids the fallacy, but which would make the make the original question pointless, because the relevant theories already meet the looser criteria he stated.
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 09/17/2018 04:10 pm
"A Multiscale Unconditionally Stable Time-Domain (MUST) Solver Unifying Electrodynamics and Micromagnetics"
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8354926/?part=1
Post by: meberbs on 09/17/2018 04:23 pm
Dear Meberbs.As I said, the only simplification that makes the problem tractable is using the limit of large numbers so you don't need to track 10^23 electrons. After taking that limit, you are no longer in the quantum regime and nothing you are talking about is relevant.
The difficult to find the solution is not the point.
One can find a path integral representation of the problem.
The problem are the ad-hoc choices made in the process to mantain the unitarity of final form of the path integral representation of the simplified problem.
A lot of prescriptions to disapear with "unwanted" terms.
The "problem" emerge when the ad-hoc prescriptions cannot be applied because of topological restrictions.
If you had unlimited resources and hypothetically were going to solve that problem, to have the results at least have useful insight, you would want to account for the fact that electrons are fermions, and get rid of the 0-spin assumption. Not to mention that ignoring the arrangement of copper atoms makes it impossible to see any resistance related effects.
I'd suggest you reformulate the problem to one with a small enough number of particles to at least write down the first equation so we could actually talk about specifics, but that would miss the point, since that would just be a distraction unrelated to my original post. Something actually relevant to my original post would be if you could link to a paper showing that QED doesn't actually obey conservation laws. (But I sincerely doubt that there is one, at least not from someone who knows what they are talking about.)
Post by: Star One on 09/17/2018 04:32 pm
But it appears to be you just assuming this person has fallen into this fallacy without actually knowing if they had or not. I don’t see what was so wrong with what they said or more importantly that there was enough evidence in their post for you to be justified in making that assumption of their thinking that you gave it the response you did.I made no assumptions other than that they were speaking standard English, and not some code where words don't represent their dictionary definitions. Their statement was the embodiment of the fallacy I referenced. I have explained repeatedly why that is the case, but you seem to continue ignoring the words I am saying.
To sum up in my opinion you made an unjustified assumption of what they meant without the evidence in what they said to back it up.
In his most recent post spupeng7 changed what he said to something completely different, which avoids the fallacy, but which would make the make the original question pointless, because the relevant theories already meet the looser criteria he stated.
This is getting really confusing because how can you claim you made no assumption when your OP was couched in terms of an assumption, and yes I have read what you posted several times?
Post by: meberbs on 09/17/2018 04:46 pm
It really sounds like you are responding to something unrelated to my posts. Again, there is no assumption in my original post. I did use the word "sounds like" to soften the statement, mostly so that spupeng7 could rephrase, which he did, and in a way that negates any relevant meaning in the original question.I made no assumptions other than that they were speaking standard English, and not some code where words don't represent their dictionary definitions. Their statement was the embodiment of the fallacy I referenced. I have explained repeatedly why that is the case, but you seem to continue ignoring the words I am saying.
In his most recent post spupeng7 changed what he said to something completely different, which avoids the fallacy, but which would make the make the original question pointless, because the relevant theories already meet the looser criteria he stated.
This is getting really confusing because how can you claim you made no assumption when your OP was couched in terms of an assumption, and yes I have read what you posted several times?
Rather than stating that you have read my posts, you could instead demonstrate some comprehension of them by making a post that actually addresses the content.
(For example, you could state an assumption I made rather than blindly accusing me of making assumptions, or you could actually make a comment related to the specific fallacy I mentioned.)
Post by: Ricvil on 09/17/2018 04:51 pm
Maybe EW will loan Jamie their cavity, so he can apply my alterations and start to see significant thrust?Professor Yang and I have endorsed the theoretical explanations of Dr. Chen Yue and Cannae's patents that emdirve uses an asymmetric structure to induce the electromagnetic field distribution to form a gradient difference, which produces a radiation pressure difference. In order to achieve this goal, the cone cavity is not the best choice. It uses a more special induction structure to asymmetrically pull the electromagnetic field, such as a very asymmetrical shape, filling with a polymer, adding a metal diaphragm, and etching trenches. They are all common goals. My cavity is just a visual copy, and there is no strict theoretical calculation, so even in the TE013 mode, there is probably no obvious electromagnetic gradient distribution. I will next copy the cavity of Dr. Chen Yue and use the high K substance to further change the trapezoidal cavity.
Since we are on the subject of efficient cavity shapes (and I don't want to read yet another fight between TheTraveller and others). May I take us back to this dicussion:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1735418#msg1735418
and
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1736210#msg1736210
A trapezoidal cavity is a terrible resonant device. IMHO, Webster's Horn Equation is the direction to look for improved resonant cavity design, even if the analogies between EM and acoustic propagation don't completely overlap.
[/quote]
Find a geometry with high Q is not the principal problem.
The principal problem is know wich geometry will produce a stable and desirable behaviour under thermal and enviroment effects.
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/17/2018 04:59 pm
Post by: X_RaY on 09/17/2018 08:19 pm
After some discussion with Roger, on the subject of altering my KISS Thruster dimensions to match that of the EW cavity, Roger sent me the attached, with permission to share, which I now intent to follow. It does mean I need to order a higher freq 100W Rf amp and maybe run the thruster and Rf system inside faraday cages, as the freq is outside the 2.45GHz ISM band.Is there any time in future you will present real experimental data? It is boring to hear the same or similar excuses again and again instead. If you are really so sure that it works as discussed show it to the public finally, show reliable results! Otherwise hold back the promise. This game is going on too long now, really. >:(
EDIT
Monomorphic (and others, including official institutions*) are doing there best to test the device, but nothing changes**.
So let me ask: If the unconventional force as claimed for the EM-Drive exists, why no one else is able to reproduce it in respect / beside to the dominant effects like thermal or magnetic reasons/forces? ???
* The EW result is still under discussion
** While Shawyer claims he was able to satisfy it... "easily since decades"
Post by: Ricvil on 09/17/2018 09:17 pm
Dear Meberbs.As I said, the only simplification that makes the problem tractable is using the limit of large numbers so you don't need to track 10^23 electrons. After taking that limit, you are no longer in the quantum regime and nothing you are talking about is relevant.
The difficult to find the solution is not the point.
One can find a path integral representation of the problem.
The problem are the ad-hoc choices made in the process to mantain the unitarity of final form of the path integral representation of the simplified problem.
A lot of prescriptions to disapear with "unwanted" terms.
The "problem" emerge when the ad-hoc prescriptions cannot be applied because of topological restrictions.
If you had unlimited resources and hypothetically were going to solve that problem, to have the results at least have useful insight, you would want to account for the fact that electrons are fermions, and get rid of the 0-spin assumption. Not to mention that ignoring the arrangement of copper atoms makes it impossible to see any resistance related effects.
I'd suggest you reformulate the problem to one with a small enough number of particles to at least write down the first equation so we could actually talk about specifics, but that would miss the point, since that would just be a distraction unrelated to my original post. Something actually relevant to my original post would be if you could link to a paper showing that QED doesn't actually obey conservation laws. (But I sincerely doubt that there is one, at least not from someone who knows what they are talking about.)
Dear Meberbs.
Your original post is citing the following definition:
"Nirvana fallacy
"The nirvana fallacy is the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives"
Then you make clear your point of view:
"Something actually relevant to my original post would be if you could link to a paper showing that QED doesn't actually obey conservation laws."
First point: There is no affirmation at any point of my posts about violation of conservation laws.
Second point: To me, your statement above only makes clear you can not find any path to satisfy the conservation laws and have an accelerating closed electromagnetic cavity, because this condition is not in your accepted knowledgment base, be on classical, or quantum physics.
So, I totally agree with you about actual statement of mandatory conservation laws.
And, that is all.
Best regards.
Post by: oyzw on 09/18/2018 01:21 am
Post by: meberbs on 09/18/2018 02:48 pm
First point: There is no affirmation at any point of my posts about violation of conservation laws.The first post of mine that you responded had me stating QED obeys conservation laws. If your posts weren't indirectly referencing (and contradicting) that statement, I am not sure what you were trying to say or respond to.
It sounds like we are in agreement on the basic principles, but we are talking past each other. Normally, I like to clearly resolve such things and completely fix the miscommunication. In this case I think that would take a lot of work, and would not be particularly useful or relevant.
Post by: Ricvil on 09/18/2018 03:01 pm
After some discussion with Roger, on the subject of altering my KISS Thruster dimensions to match that of the EW cavity, Roger sent me the attached, with permission to share, which I now intent to follow. It does mean I need to order a higher freq 100W Rf amp and maybe run the thruster and Rf system inside faraday cages, as the freq is outside the 2.45GHz ISM band.
What is the frequency of magnetron on/off switching?
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/19/2018 04:04 pm
After some discussion with Roger, on the subject of altering my KISS Thruster dimensions to match that of the EW cavity, Roger sent me the attached, with permission to share, which I now intent to follow. It does mean I need to order a higher freq 100W Rf amp and maybe run the thruster and Rf system inside faraday cages, as the freq is outside the 2.45GHz ISM band.
What is the frequency of magnetron on/off switching?
It equals to the frequency of the mains electricity power. In Australia or UK it is 50Hz. It is 60Hz in the US. To replicate Shawyer's switching frequency at magnetron power level of 1000W, a sinusoidal power converter that output 50Hz power is needed.
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/20/2018 02:18 pm
If any post I have made has upset anybody, I apologise.
Post by: Ricvil on 09/20/2018 03:35 pm
It is working as a dual TWT (Traveling Wave Tube).
In a TWT, an electron beam transfer it's kinetic energy to a slow electromagnetic wave carring a signal, amplifying it.
This interaction occurs at condition of electron beam velocity beeing equals the group velocity of electromagnetic signal slow wave.
I think I had discover "similar" equations for Emdrive, and theorically, one can construct a Emdrive with two "dark zones" of surface currents, one at each side of cavity, then any pressure will occurs only at conical section of the cavity.
The TE011 mode appears do it because it has no surface currents at endplates.
Then, the Emdrive, as a dual of a TWT, under specific resonant condition, converts a modulated microwave signal, into kinect energy directed to small endplate, through it's surface currents.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/20/2018 03:47 pm
I think I had discover the secret of Emdrive.
It is working as a dual TWT (Traveling Wave Tube).
In a TWT, an electron beam transfer it's kinetic energy to a slow electromagnetic wave carring a signal, amplifying it.
This interaction occurs at condition of electron beam velocity beeing equals the group velocity of electromagnetic signal slow wave.
I think I had discover "similar" equations for Emdrive, and theorically, one can construct a Emdrive with two "dark zones" of surface currents, one at each side of cavity, then any pressure will occurs only at conical section of the cavity.
The TE011 mode appears do it because it has no surface currents at endplates.
Then, the Emdrive, as a dual of a TWT, under specific resonant condition, converts a modulated microwave signal, into kinect energy directed to small endplate, through it's surface currents.
About your "dark zones" at both ends: wouldn't it be better to have one single "dark zone" near big end? Can you write a sound paper with equations?
Post by: Ricvil on 09/20/2018 04:09 pm
In fact, there is already a "second" "dark zone" exactly at the middle of the endplate, and it is unreacheable for any frontwave, but in this situation occurs a pressure balance between the endplate and the conical section, vanishing almost all net force.I think I had discover the secret of Emdrive.
It is working as a dual TWT (Traveling Wave Tube).
In a TWT, an electron beam transfer it's kinetic energy to a slow electromagnetic wave carring a signal, amplifying it.
This interaction occurs at condition of electron beam velocity beeing equals the group velocity of electromagnetic signal slow wave.
I think I had discover "similar" equations for Emdrive, and theorically, one can construct a Emdrive with two "dark zones" of surface currents, one at each side of cavity, then any pressure will occurs only at conical section of the cavity.
The TE011 mode appears do it because it has no surface currents at endplates.
Then, the Emdrive, as a dual of a TWT, under specific resonant condition, converts a modulated microwave signal, into kinect energy directed to small endplate, through it's surface currents.
About your "dark zones" at both ends: wouldn't it be better to have one single "dark zone" near big end? Can you write a sound paper with equations?
The idea is to move this "dark zone" to a better position.
Post by: chongma on 09/20/2018 05:11 pm
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6179935/Can-scientists-crack-secret-Nasas-impossible-fuel-free-thruster.html
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/09/darpa-funds-developing-quantized-inertia-into-breakthrough-space-propulsion.html
Post by: Star One on 09/20/2018 05:40 pm
It really sounds like you are responding to something unrelated to my posts. Again, there is no assumption in my original post. I did use the word "sounds like" to soften the statement, mostly so that spupeng7 could rephrase, which he did, and in a way that negates any relevant meaning in the original question.I made no assumptions other than that they were speaking standard English, and not some code where words don't represent their dictionary definitions. Their statement was the embodiment of the fallacy I referenced. I have explained repeatedly why that is the case, but you seem to continue ignoring the words I am saying.
In his most recent post spupeng7 changed what he said to something completely different, which avoids the fallacy, but which would make the make the original question pointless, because the relevant theories already meet the looser criteria he stated.
This is getting really confusing because how can you claim you made no assumption when your OP was couched in terms of an assumption, and yes I have read what you posted several times?
Rather than stating that you have read my posts, you could instead demonstrate some comprehension of them by making a post that actually addresses the content.
(For example, you could state an assumption I made rather than blindly accusing me of making assumptions, or you could actually make a comment related to the specific fallacy I mentioned.)
I have repeatedly made comments as to what you said but for some reason you don’t seem able to grasp this and just keep accusing me of not addressing your content. Maybe if I said I am not so much interested in what you said but the way you said it would be clearer. It’s the tone of your post I have an issue with really, surely that must be clear by now?
This whole issue has taken up far too much time on this thread because we keep seeming to be talking past each other.
Post by: meberbs on 09/20/2018 11:47 pm
You are contradicting yourself here. You have not made comments about the content of what I said (example: you accused me of making assumptions, and did not state what the supposed assumption was.). As you say "not so much interested in what you said but the way you said it." You are making it clear with that statement that your do not care about and have not addressed the content. Your statement that you have addressed content of my posts is wrong, which is obvious from reading the full chain. (Otherwise, please quote which post of yours discussed the Nirvana fallacy)It really sounds like you are responding to something unrelated to my posts. Again, there is no assumption in my original post. I did use the word "sounds like" to soften the statement, mostly so that spupeng7 could rephrase, which he did, and in a way that negates any relevant meaning in the original question.
Rather than stating that you have read my posts, you could instead demonstrate some comprehension of them by making a post that actually addresses the content.
(For example, you could state an assumption I made rather than blindly accusing me of making assumptions, or you could actually make a comment related to the specific fallacy I mentioned.)
I have repeatedly made comments as to what you said but for some reason you don’t seem able to grasp this and just keep accusing me of not addressing your content. Maybe if I said I am not so much interested in what you said but the way you said it would be clearer. It’s the tone of your post I have an issue with really, surely that must be clear by now?
This whole issue has taken up far too much time on this thread because we keep seeming to be talking past each other.
Of course you haven't pointed anything wrong with the way I said things in my original post either. When someone presents a fallacy the appropriate response is to point out what the fallacy is and why it is wrong. That is what I did. You have provided no alternative way to say what I wrote, and I have already pointed out that I used some words to soften the statement as well. You claim there was a problem with my tone. It appears to me that you just superimposed a distasteful tone on my words in your head, because you did not like what I was saying.
Here is an (actual) example of how you could address content of my posts if your problem is with how I said something:
Quote
You are the one who has been rude in this situation and I will explain why:
Your first post accused me of not answering the question, I responded by saying "Stating that the post is a pure fallacy is all the answer that can be made."
Your response to that was to simply repeat the accusation "Maybe because as I said above did you actually answer anything or was it just a slight of hand." with no explanation of what is wrong with my answer, you did not address or even acknowledge the fact that I had given an answer and then further explained why what I provided was the only answer possible. Repeating an accusation without even acknowledging the response is rude. If you are going to disagree with something at least provide a specific response that goes further than "you're wrong."
You then went through the same sequence of accusing me of something (making an assumption) me explaining that I did no such thing and why, and then you repeating the accusation as if I had not provided any counterargument. On further prompting you have failed to state what the assumption is, since I already explained why what you originally said was an assumption was not one.
Note that even though my problem is with how you said things (you were ignoring what you were responding to) I was still able to respond in a specific way that directly addressed the content of what you said.
Post by: rq3 on 09/21/2018 01:23 am
You are contradicting yourself here. You have not made comments about the content of what I said (example: you accused me of making assumptions, and did not state what the supposed assumption was.). As you say "not so much interested in what you said but the way you said it." You are making it clear with that statement that your do not care about and have not addressed the content. Your statement that you have addressed content of my posts is wrong, which is obvious from reading the full chain. (Otherwise, please quote which post of yours discussed the Nirvana fallacy)It really sounds like you are responding to something unrelated to my posts. Again, there is no assumption in my original post. I did use the word "sounds like" to soften the statement, mostly so that spupeng7 could rephrase, which he did, and in a way that negates any relevant meaning in the original question.
Rather than stating that you have read my posts, you could instead demonstrate some comprehension of them by making a post that actually addresses the content.
(For example, you could state an assumption I made rather than blindly accusing me of making assumptions, or you could actually make a comment related to the specific fallacy I mentioned.)
I have repeatedly made comments as to what you said but for some reason you don’t seem able to grasp this and just keep accusing me of not addressing your content. Maybe if I said I am not so much interested in what you said but the way you said it would be clearer. It’s the tone of your post I have an issue with really, surely that must be clear by now?
This whole issue has taken up far too much time on this thread because we keep seeming to be talking past each other.
Of course you haven't pointed anything wrong with the way I said things in my original post either. When someone presents a fallacy the appropriate response is to point out what the fallacy is and why it is wrong. That is what I did. You have provided no alternative way to say what I wrote, and I have already pointed out that I used some words to soften the statement as well. You claim there was a problem with my tone. It appears to me that you just superimposed a distasteful tone on my words in your head, because you did not like what I was saying.
Here is an (actual) example of how you could address content of my posts if your problem is with how I said something:QuoteYou are the one who has been rude in this situation and I will explain why:
Your first post accused me of not answering the question, I responded by saying "Stating that the post is a pure fallacy is all the answer that can be made."
Your response to that was to simply repeat the accusation "Maybe because as I said above did you actually answer anything or was it just a slight of hand." with no explanation of what is wrong with my answer, you did not address or even acknowledge the fact that I had given an answer and then further explained why what I provided was the only answer possible. Repeating an accusation without even acknowledging the response is rude. If you are going to disagree with something at least provide a specific response that goes further than "you're wrong."
You then went through the same sequence of accusing me of something (making an assumption) me explaining that I did no such thing and why, and then you repeating the accusation as if I had not provided any counterargument. On further prompting you have failed to state what the assumption is, since I already explained why what you originally said was an assumption was not one.
Note that even though my problem is with how you said things (you were ignoring what you were responding to) I was still able to respond in a specific way that directly addressed the content of what you said.
For the love of God, science, physics, what have you, I beg the moderators to forbid this kind of post.
The point here is whether Roger Shawyer's microwave excited frustrum can provide thrust. Period.
The posts should consist of experimental design, and THEN the results of those designs, and THEN discussions of why those designs may or may not be valid.
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/21/2018 02:11 am
flux_capacitor wrote (Thread 9)Ricvil,
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1680488#msg1680488
"(...)
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."
(...)
flux_capacitor is making an important argument here. IMHO the only real things in the universe are positive and negative charges, everything else is the consequence of exchange particles and direct interaction. Exchange particles have no extension in time because they travel at the speed of light. I can find no difficulty with an explanation for all magnetic phenomena in these terms. Do Dirac's magnetic monopoles really add anything constructive to the debate?
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/21/2018 02:26 am
(...)rq3,It really sounds like you are responding to something unrelated to my posts. Again, there is no assumption in my original post. I did use the word "sounds like" to soften the statement, mostly so that spupeng7 could rephrase, which he did, and in a way that negates any relevant meaning in the original question.
(...)
For the love of God, science, physics, what have you, I beg the moderators to forbid this kind of post.
The point here is whether Roger Shawyer's microwave excited frustrum can provide thrust. Period.
The posts should consist of experimental design, and THEN the results of those designs, and THEN discussions of why those designs may or may not be valid.
I agree but at the same time I must admit that meberbs's persistently acusitory style has helped me focus on some of the inadequacies in my own explanations. Which has been useful for me, even if it makes for some truly dry reading...
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/21/2018 02:41 am
Scientists receive $1.3 million to study new propulsion idea for spacecraft:We should all congratulate Mike McCulloch, this is a monumental achievement and a big step for the emdrive generally. There are several contributors to this forum who deserve to be funded, lets hope that Mike is in the first few of many.
https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/news/scientists-receive-13-million-to-study-new-propulsion-idea-for-spacecraft
Good on you Mike, keep up the good work trying to make sense of this.
Post by: Ricvil on 09/21/2018 04:10 am
It is a very intricate question about inertia and causality.flux_capacitor wrote (Thread 9)Ricvil,
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1680488#msg1680488
"(...)
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."
(...)
flux_capacitor is making an important argument here. IMHO the only real things in the universe are positive and negative charges, everything else is the consequence of exchange particles and direct interaction. Exchange particles have no extension in time because they travel at the speed of light. I can find no difficulty with an explanation for all magnetic phenomena in these terms. Do Dirac's magnetic monopoles really add anything constructive to the debate?
I think I can put this way: Your necessity of a complex time, is equivalent to a necessity to add an anti-self-dual component to the electromagnetic field.
Now I have a question.
How do you define causality without using "unreal" electromagnetic frontwaves?
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 09/21/2018 11:21 am
Scientists receive $1.3 million to study new propulsion idea for spacecraft:We should all congratulate Mike McCulloch, this is a monumental achievement and a big step for the emdrive generally. There are several contributors to this forum who deserve to be funded, lets hope that Mike is in the first few of many.
https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/news/scientists-receive-13-million-to-study-new-propulsion-idea-for-spacecraft
Good on you Mike, keep up the good work trying to make sense of this.
Ehhumm... :o It looks now that the EmDrive doesn't work. So that would mean McCulloch's theory predicts an effect which doesn't exist.
His model gives a formula which reasonably predicts the rotational velocities of galaxies. I think that's all of his success up to now. And there are a dozen or so other theories which also reasonably predict these curves. So that doesn't prove a lot.
What McCulloch does very well, is yelling that his theory is superior to General Relativity and there are quite some laymen who tend to believe him.
He has some basic ideas which are interesting, and probably worth further investigating. But until some basic features are (theoretically) explored, like solar system dynamics (perihelium shift of Mercury and so on), it is grotesque to claim that his theory is superior.
At least a year ago I told him I didn't trust his model because it predicts ALL anomalous effects. Pioneer Anomaly, EmDrive, Woodward thruster, Flyby Anomaly, etc. And I was sure that at least some of them would turn out not to exist at all.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/21/2018 12:04 pm
Scientists receive $1.3 million to study new propulsion idea for spacecraft:We should all congratulate Mike McCulloch, this is a monumental achievement and a big step for the emdrive generally. There are several contributors to this forum who deserve to be funded, lets hope that Mike is in the first few of many.
https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/news/scientists-receive-13-million-to-study-new-propulsion-idea-for-spacecraft
Good on you Mike, keep up the good work trying to make sense of this.
Ehhumm... :o It looks now that the EmDrive doesn't work. So that would mean McCulloch's theory predicts an effect which doesn't exist.
His model gives a formula which reasonably predicts the rotational velocities of galaxies. I think that's all of his success up to now. And there are a dozen or so other theories which also reasonably predict these curves. So that doesn't prove a lot.
What McCulloch does very well, is yelling that his theory is superior to General Relativity and there are quite some laymen who tend to believe him.
He has some basic ideas which are interesting, and probably worth further investigating. But until some basic features are (theoretically) explored, like solar system dynamics (perihelium shift of Mercury and so on), it is grotesque to claim that his theory is superior.
At least a year ago I told him I didn't trust his model because it predicts ALL anomalous effects. Pioneer Anomaly, EmDrive, Woodward thruster, Flyby Anomaly, etc. And I was sure that at least some of them would turn out not to exist at all.
I concur. There are thousand of gravity theories out there besides the mainstream concordance model, but only a very few of them are in agreement with observational data. Worse, for some unknown reason, the media seem to favor only some of them (thus to the detriment of others) whereas they have already been falsified.
For example, Milgrom's MoND (Modified Newtonian dynamics) keeps being presented in every astrophysics and cosmology popularized journals. The best achievement of MoND is that it explains the flat rotation curves of galaxies without dark matter, but it has to knock Newton's law up for that, which is said to be correct locally in 1/r² but changes in 1/r "at some distance" (not justified, except to agree with galactic observations, in some ad hoc arrangement). But never it is told in these journals that the theory (which is not even relativistic) has a modified law that does not work anymore at even greater distances, to account for the high residual speed in globular clusters. Therefore MoND doesn't work, period. But it continues to be advertised everywhere.
The opposite with Verlinde's emergent (or "entropic") gravity: unlike MoND it can explain the anomaly of such big clusters… but do do not work for small ones (yet those which exhibit the greatest anomaly…) and does not agree with the observed galaxy rotation curves! (cf. Lelli 2017 in MNRAS (https://academic.oup.com/mnrasl/article-abstract/468/1/L68/2998721?redirectedFrom=fulltext)). It cannot explain the accelerating cosmic expansion neither. Yet it has been recently popularized everywhere in the news!
Why the scientific world (scientists and specialized journalists) keeps advertising theories that do not agree with solid observations is beyond me.
Quantized inertia seems to work well with any observations, especially anomalies. But McCulloch will have to prove his peculiar predictions with dedicated experiments, because the Unruh effect (which is something related to Hawking radiation in quantum mechanics) is not something that has been proven to really exist, and even if it is real, it is not clear that such tiny radiation can push on matter and be the origin of inertia the way McCulloch pretends it is.
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/21/2018 12:27 pm
Ehhumm... :o It looks now that the EmDrive doesn't work. So that would mean McCulloch's theory predicts an effect which doesn't exist.
His model gives a formula which reasonably predicts the rotational velocities of galaxies. I think that's all of his success up to now. And there are a dozen or so other theories which also reasonably predict these curves. So that doesn't prove a lot.
What McCulloch does very well, is yelling that his theory is superior to General Relativity and there are quite some laymen who tend to believe him.
He has some basic ideas which are interesting, and probably worth further investigating. But until some basic features are (theoretically) explored, like solar system dynamics (perihelium shift of Mercury and so on), it is grotesque to claim that his theory is superior.
At least a year ago I told him I didn't trust his model because it predicts ALL anomalous effects. Pioneer Anomaly, EmDrive, Woodward thruster, Flyby Anomaly, etc. And I was sure that at least some of them would turn out not to exist at all.
I had a conversation with Mike Fiddy, who is the DARPA program manager in charge of McCulloch's project, during lunch at the advanced propulsion workshop. Let's just say it is highly unlikely that they will receive the entire grant due to expected milestones.
Dr. Rodal and I had the same conversation, where we said that McCulloch was going to have to find other experiments to predict with his theory since the Emdrive and Mach effect were coming up short. It's not good if your theory predicts something that isn't real. ???
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 09/21/2018 12:38 pm
Ehhumm... :o It looks now that the EmDrive doesn't work. ...
This doesn't mean I will stop with my experiments. ;D
I will need the torsion balance for another experiment anyway. And I want to further test the method of contactless coupling of microwave power which I developed [https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1706/1706.04999.pdf (https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1706/1706.04999.pdf)]. 8)
I had hoped to finish my experiments before the EmDrive was 'officially declared not to work', but got seriously delayed in the past year. :P
Microwave stuff is too interesting to give up this excuse to use it. ;)
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/21/2018 12:54 pm
1. Neither Tajmar's group nor the US Navy confirmed mode shape with IR camera.
2. Tajmar's group was still testing that mode where they claimed a Q of ~250,000+. They had not tested any of the other modes but said that was coming.
3. Tajmar did show a Smith Chart, but the circle was on the opposite side. It was on the short circuit side of the chart instead of the open circuit side. I'm not sure what effect this has (perhaps X-Ray can chime in) but it should be noted.
As for me, I would still like to test other modes. I would also like to remove the copper gaskets and test with and without PTFE. To do so, I will require a wide-band amplifier. So I will begin looking for an affordable new amplifier. It should be a simple matter for me to place some chicken wire over the draft enclosure and do some testing outside the ISM band.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/21/2018 01:37 pm
Dr. Rodal and I had the same conversation, where we said that McCulloch was going to have to find other experiments to predict with his theory since the Emdrive and Mach effect were coming up short. It's not good if your theory predicts something that isn't real. ???
I am aware of three different ongoing experiments to test quantized inertia in the lab, different than asymmetric microwave cavities (aka EmDrive) or vibrating piezoelectric discs (aka MEGA drive):
- Travis Shane Taylor's EmDrive based on lasers, will be tested by Martin Tajmar at TU Dresden, Germany
- "LEMdrive" based on a light-loop in a fiber optic whose working principle is explained at http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/lemdrive.html by José Luis Pérez-Díaz at the University of Alcalá, Spain
- Franck McBecker's imFaB-thruster in Germany, a wide-area capacitor tuned to discharge (independent effort that may be artefacts or be related to QI)
Mike McCulloch calls "horizon drives" all thrusters that would use quantized inertia for propellantless propulsion:
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2018/09/horizon-drives-quantum-rockets.html
Post by: meberbs on 09/21/2018 02:05 pm
At least a year ago I told him I didn't trust his model because it predicts ALL anomalous effects. Pioneer Anomaly, EmDrive, Woodward thruster, Flyby Anomaly, etc. And I was sure that at least some of them would turn out not to exist at all.For the curious, here (http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2016/04/predictions-of-mihsc.html) is a link to some of the predictions he has made.
An important thing to point out is that there is no "pioneer anomaly" anymore. It has been accepted as fully solved to be due to asymmetric thermal radiation since 2012. For some reason, certain circles of people interested in alternative gravity theories are seemingly unaware of this important news years later. (That link is from 2016, and both references the pioneer anomaly and predicts variations in it that don't exist anyway.)
Also, it looks like non-existence of the emDrive effect would possibly not disprove the quantized inertia theory, since the statement on that page has the caveat of "if photons have inertia mass." If inertial mass is meant to be "rest mass," it is most likely that photons do not in fact have any rest mass. Taken literally, it would mean mass as in mass-energy equivalence, which photons do have, as photons are affected by gravitational wells, and GR is built on the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass. My uncertainty here is because an alternative theory is being discussed, which possibly changes one of these statements or definitions (though I don't see why it should need to change them).
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/21/2018 02:19 pm
the statement on that page has the caveat of "if photons have inertia mass." If inertial mass is meant to be "rest mass," it is most likely that photons do not in fact have any rest mass. Taken literally, it would mean mass as in mass-energy equivalence, which photons do have, as photons are affected by gravitational wells, and GR is built on the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass. My uncertainty here is because an alternative theory is being discussed, which possibly changes one of these statements or definitions (though I don't see why it should need to change them).
As quantized inertia is a theory that would explain the origin of inertia, McCulloch indeed tries to associate the term "inertial mass" to photons (whereas they do not have one) because inertia arises according to him due to an asymmetric Unruh radiation pressure on accelerating matter. Indeed he'd rather talk of momentum or the energy-mass equivalence principle for photons, instead of this hazardous association.
Post by: sanman on 09/22/2018 10:07 am
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1043070574766030848
Quote
For normal accelerations O(9.8m/s^2) the Unruh waves r light years long. Need to hugely accelerate a system, then check for ground state changes? eg:
https://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0510743
Could it be possible to use the Large Hadron Collider to detect such an altered ground state?
Apparently, it can now accelerate full atoms including their electrons:
https://www.livescience.com/63211-lhc-atoms-with-electrons-light-speed.html
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/22/2018 05:34 pm
McCulloch has said that a consequence of Quantized Inertia could be an acceleration-frame-dependent aether. He's said this might be detectable as an altered ground state, under a sufficiently high acceleration.
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1043070574766030848QuoteFor normal accelerations O(9.8m/s^2) the Unruh waves r light years long. Need to hugely accelerate a system, then check for ground state changes? eg:
https://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0510743
Could it be possible to use the Large Hadron Collider to detect such an altered ground state?
Apparently, it can now accelerate full atoms including their electrons:
https://www.livescience.com/63211-lhc-atoms-with-electrons-light-speed.html
I'm trying to make this a little more clear, what you're trying to say. It sounds like there is a frame of the vacuum where at zero acceleration, I'll be at rest. At different levels of acceleration it may appear to be in another frame. Am I correct?
I ask because I've been thinking of something very similar.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1821294#msg1821294
Post by: sanman on 09/23/2018 05:50 am
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/equivalence_principle.html
So that's what I meant about acceleration reference frame. McCulloch is saying that sufficiently large differences in acceleration frame (or gravity field) might affect the measurable ground state of an atom. So the difference in how atomic constituents interact with each other (by way of the Vacuum), as correlated with acceleration frame, can be construed as an aether.
It doesn't sound like this means there's a "preferred frame" of the universe, just as there'd be no "preferred ground state".
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/23/2018 04:15 pm
Well, for example, we are currently sitting in the Earth's gravity well, and experiencing an accelerative gradient or force from it. If you were sitting inside an accelerating spacecraft, you'd be experiencing an accelerative gradient or force from that. Einstein told us that being inside an elevator (or spacecraft) that's accelerating shouldn't feel different from being inside one in a gravitational field.
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/equivalence_principle.html
So that's what I meant about acceleration reference frame. McCulloch is saying that sufficiently large differences in acceleration frame (or gravity field) might affect the measurable ground state of an atom. So the difference in how atomic constituents interact with each other (by way of the Vacuum), as correlated with acceleration frame, can be construed as an aether.
It doesn't sound like this means there's a "preferred frame" of the universe, just as there'd be no "preferred ground state".
Two thoughts to consider:
First, an insignificant qualification.., in the case of the equivalence principle there is only a superficial equivalence between a fixed location in a gravitational field and a uniformly accelerating “elevator”. In the elevator acceleration is the same at the floor and ceiling, while at any fixed location in a gravitational field, gravitational acceleration varies with the distance from the gravitational center of mass.
Second, when postulating any variation in the “vacuum’s” ground state associated with acceleration, the reasoning above could be applied to variations in the boundary conditions affecting atomic clocks.., and introduce a whole new debate about time dilation due to both acceleration and location within a gravitational field.
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/23/2018 10:19 pm
Well, for example, we are currently sitting in the Earth's gravity well, and experiencing an accelerative gradient or force from it. If you were sitting inside an accelerating spacecraft, you'd be experiencing an accelerative gradient or force from that. Einstein told us that being inside an elevator (or spacecraft) that's accelerating shouldn't feel different from being inside one in a gravitational field.
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/equivalence_principle.html
So that's what I meant about acceleration reference frame. McCulloch is saying that sufficiently large differences in acceleration frame (or gravity field) might affect the measurable ground state of an atom. So the difference in how atomic constituents interact with each other (by way of the Vacuum), as correlated with acceleration frame, can be construed as an aether.
It doesn't sound like this means there's a "preferred frame" of the universe, just as there'd be no "preferred ground state".
Let us say you exist at near the speed of light. Would you not see the universe which resides mainly at non-relativistic speeds as Lorentz contracted? Is not the vacuum which exist a product of the universe? So your matter appears tilted in angle with respect to the universe via your velocity, causing your perception of the universe to appear Lorentz contracted. We do see a red-blue shift of the CMB of the universe currently and can measure our speed relative to it. This gives a sort of preferred frame far away from gravitational fields.
Let us shift our perspective to existing in a gravitational field. Now you exist near the event horizon of a black hole, far enough away to survive, but our perspective of the universe effected by our Lorentz contraction. To us we are not Lorentz contracted the universe is, because we are time traveling via our "effective" velocity w.r.t space time. Time passes by faster in the rest of the universe. The difference is that now space is tilted at an angle with respect to our matters tilt, changing the frame - changing our equivalent relative velocity or (space/time) w.r.t. the universe in a sense.
You may also notice that with the alcubierre warp drive tilted space is usually drawn in the vicinity of the ship. If the space tilts to match the matters tilt it may eliminate the gamma Factor that slows time keeping the object at the speed of light. In essence it's like creating a bubble of moving space that moves with the ship. In essence the ship would have no relative velocity with respect to the local space.
Lens-thirring or frame dragging around rotating objects also drags SpaceTime around them so that the speed of light around one way is faster than the other.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1806976#msg1806976
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/assets/42978.0/1485594.jpg)
Post by: Ricvil on 09/24/2018 03:11 am
McCulloch has said that a consequence of Quantized Inertia could be an acceleration-frame-dependent aether. He's said this might be detectable as an altered ground state, under a sufficiently high acceleration.
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1043070574766030848QuoteFor normal accelerations O(9.8m/s^2) the Unruh waves r light years long. Need to hugely accelerate a system, then check for ground state changes? eg:
https://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0510743
Could it be possible to use the Large Hadron Collider to detect such an altered ground state?
Apparently, it can now accelerate full atoms including their electrons:
https://www.livescience.com/63211-lhc-atoms-with-electrons-light-speed.html
I've found a similar shape by Poincare conformal symmetry, but the pseudosphere has a constant negative curvature(and it needs to stop at some point), and what I've found is conformal to a torus , wich has both positive and negative curvature.
These shapes can, in principle, to produce very high Q resonances, located at position of RF source.
Anyway, there is a dual description with Emdrive.
The Unruh radiation would be a signal modulating the cavity resonant frequency.
The "SPP" would be the resulting Fano resonance between TE and TM modes, at condition of phase inversion.
And modulated SPP pression over surface curvature would produce a net force as "reciprocal" of incident laser pulse on the nanotip, remembering the frontwaves are under influence of a topological Berry phase originated by the shape of Boundary Conditions, or beeing more clear, under a cycle of modulating signal, a non zero net force/pressure is expected.
Of course, there is an outside/inside inversion.
PS: Someone has noted a Roger's "innocent trick" of "manifold soldering" at the junctions of flat endplates and the conical section?
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/25/2018 03:28 am
Well, for example, we are currently sitting in the Earth's gravity well, and experiencing an accelerative gradient or force from it. If you were sitting inside an accelerating spacecraft, you'd be experiencing an accelerative gradient or force from that. Einstein told us that being inside an elevator (or spacecraft) that's accelerating shouldn't feel different from being inside one in a gravitational field.sanman, your interesting looking link would not work from here today. Aside: interaction across complex time does not require space to have any properties at all.
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/equivalence_principle.html
So that's what I meant about acceleration reference frame. McCulloch is saying that sufficiently large differences in acceleration frame (or gravity field) might affect the measurable ground state of an atom. So the difference in how atomic constituents interact with each other (by way of the Vacuum), as correlated with acceleration frame, can be construed as an aether.
It doesn't sound like this means there's a "preferred frame" of the universe, just as there'd be no "preferred ground state".
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/25/2018 03:45 am
Ricvil,It is a very intricate question about inertia and causality.flux_capacitor wrote (Thread 9)Ricvil,
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1680488#msg1680488
"(...)
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."
(...)
flux_capacitor is making an important argument here. IMHO the only real things in the universe are positive and negative charges, everything else is the consequence of exchange particles and direct interaction. Exchange particles have no extension in time because they travel at the speed of light. I can find no difficulty with an explanation for all magnetic phenomena in these terms. Do Dirac's magnetic monopoles really add anything constructive to the debate?
I think I can put this way: Your necessity of a complex time, is equivalent to a necessity to add an anti-self-dual component to the electromagnetic field.
Now I have a question.
How do you define causality without using "unreal" electromagnetic frontwaves?
not sure what you mean by "an anti-self-dual component to the electromagnetic field", but am attempting to define causality as independent of spatial geometry. Complex time is where interactions appearing act forward across the proper time of the observer, in actuality act directly across the complex time required by a covariant perspective.
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/25/2018 04:16 am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time
imaginary means no less real. If the physics describes reality, then its real. When using an exponential e^i*(theta) the imaginary dimension is perpendicular to the real. Or such that velocity might be represented in more than one dimension such that it effects space and time.
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/25/2018 12:31 pm
Woodward will be presenting at 2:30 Eastern Time this afternoon.
Post by: meberbs on 09/25/2018 02:32 pm
Ricvil,You cannot define causality independent of spatial geometry. It is inherent to relativity that causality and the distance between objects are linked. Space and time are not separate things, but are parts of the same thing: spacetime. You can rearrange the numbers in various ways, but there are 4 degrees of freedom, which require at least 4 independent real numbers to describe. A complex number is worth at most 2 real numbers.
not sure what you mean by "an anti-self-dual component to the electromagnetic field", but am attempting to define causality as independent of spatial geometry. Complex time is where interactions appearing act forward across the proper time of the observer, in actuality act directly across the complex time required by a covariant perspective.
You are still using "covariant" in contexts that don't make sense. Covariant describes how things transform under specific transformations. This is how it has always been used as the quote you provided from Einstein showed. I can think of no reason you would continue using your personal, incorrect, definition unless your goal is simply to confuse people rather than to convey information.
Maybe reading the link below would help you understand both the correct use of the term covariant, and the concept of 4-vectors.
http://eagle.phys.utk.edu/guidry/astro421/lectures/lecture421_ch4.pdf
Post by: Ricvil on 09/25/2018 07:22 pm
Dear Spupeng7,Ricvil,It is a very intricate question about inertia and causality.flux_capacitor wrote (Thread 9)Ricvil,
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1680488#msg1680488
"(...)
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."
(...)
flux_capacitor is making an important argument here. IMHO the only real things in the universe are positive and negative charges, everything else is the consequence of exchange particles and direct interaction. Exchange particles have no extension in time because they travel at the speed of light. I can find no difficulty with an explanation for all magnetic phenomena in these terms. Do Dirac's magnetic monopoles really add anything constructive to the debate?
I think I can put this way: Your necessity of a complex time, is equivalent to a necessity to add an anti-self-dual component to the electromagnetic field.
Now I have a question.
How do you define causality without using "unreal" electromagnetic frontwaves?
not sure what you mean by "an anti-self-dual component to the electromagnetic field", but am attempting to define causality as independent of spatial geometry. Complex time is where interactions appearing act forward across the proper time of the observer, in actuality act directly across the complex time required by a covariant perspective.
If I undertand, your covariant definition tries enlarge usual diffeomorphism degree of freedom.
Usually this enlarge is made in flat spacetimes by wich is called wick rotation, and can be interpreted as an analytic continuation of time coordinate.
I understand you are trying to overcome the mixed problem
of interactions descriptions under causality restrictions using a kind of complex proper time, probaly using a kind of complex metric.
I've found an interesting article in this way, but there are always a kind of ad-hoc time/space orientation linked back by Fourier transforms related to space/time energy/momentum commutation relations (try to find Feynman path integral represention of propagator)
PS: Adding some very technical material.
Post by: Mark7777777 on 09/26/2018 04:56 am
NIAC 2018 should start streaming soon: https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2018
Woodward will be presenting at 2:30 Eastern Time this afternoon.
Direct link to James Woodward archived video:
https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2018/videos/180771871
Post by: RERT on 09/26/2018 09:17 am
Direct link to James Woodward archived video:
https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2018/videos/180771871
Tajmar's null test of Woodward's thrusters attached. Very glad to see Woodward still looking so confident! R.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/26/2018 09:22 am
Direct link to James Woodward archived video:
https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2018/videos/180771871
Tajmar's null test of Woodward's thrusters attached. Very glad to see Woodward still looking so confident! R.
If you didn't read the content of that document, just look at the date and pictures of the device tested: it was an MLT (Mach-Lorentz Thruster) with no bulk acceleration. Woodward has moved years ago to METs (Mach Effect Thrusters) aka MEGA drives, which are based on vibrating piezoelectric discs. Not the same thing at all.
By the way, this belongs to the Woodward thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.0). Can we stop posting about Woodward, Mach effects, MEGA drives and vibrating Dean drives in the EM drive thread?
Post by: RERT on 09/26/2018 06:12 pm
Post by: DamianM on 09/26/2018 08:25 pm
NIAC 2018 should start streaming soon: https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2018
Woodward will be presenting at 2:30 Eastern Time this afternoon.
EM Resonator Wave Propulsion Electromagnetic
https://patents.google.com/patent/DE102016013909A1/de?inventor=Hans-Walter+Hahn
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/27/2018 01:45 am
meberbs and Ricvil,Ricvil,You cannot define causality independent of spatial geometry. It is inherent to relativity that causality and the distance between objects are linked. Space and time are not separate things, but are parts of the same thing: spacetime. You can rearrange the numbers in various ways, but there are 4 degrees of freedom, which require at least 4 independent real numbers to describe. A complex number is worth at most 2 real numbers.
not sure what you mean by "an anti-self-dual component to the electromagnetic field", but am attempting to define causality as independent of spatial geometry. Complex time is where interactions appearing act forward across the proper time of the observer, in actuality act directly across the complex time required by a covariant perspective.
You are still using "covariant" in contexts that don't make sense. Covariant describes how things transform under specific transformations. This is how it has always been used as the quote you provided from Einstein showed. I can think of no reason you would continue using your personal, incorrect, definition unless your goal is simply to confuse people rather than to convey information.
Maybe reading the link below would help you understand both the correct use of the term covariant, and the concept of 4-vectors.
http://eagle.phys.utk.edu/guidry/astro421/lectures/lecture421_ch4.pdf
thankyou for your excellent questions. I will consider my replies while I let you focus on the NIAC live stream, which does not seem to be available here in Australia :(
Meantime, causality should be independent of spatial geometry for two reasons, firstly because it is the consequence of interactions between mass and secondly because space itself has no substance with which to retain any specific geometry. It is not my intention to confuse but to try to resolve some of these very confused issues which are, to my mind, hindering the progress of physics.
Post by: Ricvil on 09/27/2018 02:37 am
NIAC 2018 should start streaming soon: https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2018
Woodward will be presenting at 2:30 Eastern Time this afternoon.
EM Resonator Wave Propulsion Electromagnetic
https://patents.google.com/patent/DE102016013909A1/de?inventor=Hans-Walter+Hahn
"In the dielectric waveguide ( 5 ) Occur no surface currents, so no forces are exerted on this entire structure." -FALSE
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep20515
Post by: meberbs on 09/27/2018 07:18 am
Meantime, causality should be independent of spatial geometry for two reasons, firstly because it is the consequence of interactions between mass and secondly because space itself has no substance with which to retain any specific geometry.Causality is linked to the speed of light. Experiments show that this really is the speed limit. As a result you have to take into account distance between object when determining causality. You probably can rearrange things to hide this, but no matter what, something in your equations will be equivalent to a distance term, that or your theory would simply be inconsistent with experiment. Space can have geometry even if it doesn't have substance, for example, it could be shaped into a loop, so things that travel in a straight line end up back where they started. In special relativity the spacetime is a shape called "Minkowski" which basically means that space is flat, but interacts in a special way with time.
It is not my intention to confuse but to try to resolve some of these very confused issues which are, to my mind, hindering the progress of physics.You keep insisting that physics doesn't make sense, while demonstrating that you don't know what physics actually says. The "issues" you are bringing up are not "confused" for people who actually study them.
Post by: Ricvil on 09/28/2018 04:42 pm
So let's curiosity do it work.
To all people in this forum with EM simulators.
Please run simulations for conformal self similar case, and post results here.
:)
PS: At a visual crossing point verfication, a good agreement with Roger's specification of cutoff position.
PS2: is "Scale", and not "Scalate"
PS3: If not clear, the yellow line represents the conical part of cavity after scaling.
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/28/2018 09:46 pm
This forum is too quiet.
So let's curiosity do it work.
To all people in this forum with EM simulators.
Please run simulations for conformal self similar case, and post results here.
:)
PS: At a visual crossing point verfication, a good agreement with Roger's specification.
We did this way back in the day, including many other geometries. Another user named Kenjee also did some more recently. You can check his history for those.
Post by: Ricvil on 09/28/2018 11:42 pm
This forum is too quiet.
So let's curiosity do it work.
To all people in this forum with EM simulators.
Please run simulations for conformal self similar case, and post results here.
:)
PS: At a visual crossing point verfication, a good agreement with Roger's specification.
We did this way back in the day, including many other geometries. Another user named Kenjee also did some more recently. You can check his history for those.
Thank's Monomorphic,
I've found Kenjee simulation with Lorentizian shape and flat endplates.
Their curve and mine matches.
The remain question is if that resonance was a Fano resonance with phase inversion.
:)
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/29/2018 01:38 am
Ricvil,Meantime, causality should be independent of spatial geometry for two reasons, firstly because it is the consequence of interactions between mass and secondly because space itself has no substance with which to retain any specific geometry.Causality is linked to the speed of light. Experiments show that this really is the speed limit. As a result you have to take into account distance between object when determining causality. You probably can rearrange things to hide this, but no matter what, something in your equations will be equivalent to a distance term, that or your theory would simply be inconsistent with experiment. Space can have geometry even if it doesn't have substance, for example, it could be shaped into a loop, so things that travel in a straight line end up back where they started. In special relativity the spacetime is a shape called "Minkowski" which basically means that space is flat, but interacts in a special way with time.It is not my intention to confuse but to try to resolve some of these very confused issues which are, to my mind, hindering the progress of physics.You keep insisting that physics doesn't make sense, while demonstrating that you don't know what physics actually says. The "issues" you are bringing up are not "confused" for people who actually study them.
thankyou for the reference to arXiv papers which are forever beyond my ken. I cannot fathom their logic one bit. At risk of sounding rude, it matters not how many tripple spin mathematical backflips we do, none of it gives us a mechanism by which matter interacts with the space that it is in. Where is the mechanism of interaction between matter and empty space which could possibly satisfy conservation of momentum? That would be an ether. In my opinion separation between objects is not something we can specify without using a complex conjugate for our measure of time which is moderated by the relative velocity of those objects.
Maybe causality can be better defined without spatial geometry. Causality is a term referring to the interaction of things as a cause of the development of circumstance, without a real sequence for events which depends upon the inevitable speed of light across which interaction must occur, there is separation of effect from cause. The strict set of relations described by orthogonal spatial dimensions cannot be true except within the space local to a single clock. If you abandon that absurdity and accept that time has a complex conjugate then causality no longer requires "unreal electromagnetic frontwaves". You can find direct causality in the influence that the acceleration of any charge has on the location of all other charges, proportional to a separation which remains covariant.
The point I am trying to make about time is that our arguments are based on insufficient reason until we understand that there is no common scalar time at disparate points in space, except from a limited and unique set of perspectives. And so, all else fails, along with our ability to understand how purchase for acceleration can be gained against the distant universe.
meberbs,
my use of the word covariant is valid, as I have soundly demonstrated. I do not think it should be constantly questioned because it is a fundamental descriptor used in relativity for a century and more.
See: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1851431#msg1851431
It should be clear that I attempt to clarify a dangerously mysterious subject, as best I can. Relativity deserves disciplined creative thought, properly argued, how could we devote ourselves to it by lesser means. Personal attacks such as accusations of poor intent should be taken to the moderator.
dustinthewind,
the complex time I propose has no perpendicular, it is a separation between objects or charges which varies with their relative velocity. I propose this because distance, in 3D space and scalar time alone, is not covariant. If we are to discuss separation, which is what physical interaction is regulated by, then we need to raise our game and define it succinctly. Complex time allows us to define separation as divergence of location in the proper time of the observer, which is covariant and specifies ct, which converts readily into meters in the perspective of that observer.
Thank you all for your good questions.
Post by: ThinkerX on 09/29/2018 06:17 am
Quote
This forum is too quiet.
The EM Drive threads are quiet because the EM Drive, both theoretically and experimentally, is in severe trouble - and that is an optimistic assessment.
The Mach Drive is also in severe trouble, though with that a 'somewhat plausible' theoretical 'out' remains.
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/29/2018 08:56 pm
QuoteThis forum is too quiet.
The EM Drive threads are quiet because the EM Drive, both theoretically and experimentally, is in severe trouble - and that is an optimistic assessment.
The Mach Drive is also in severe trouble, though with that a 'somewhat plausible' theoretical 'out' remains.
While there has been a great deal of effort and time put into improving test beds and test data quality, there has been too much variation in the design of frustum and associated drive components, to make any scientific conclusion as to whether an EmDrive can or cannot, generate any useable force/thrust.
From the start, lacking a credible theoretical model, attempts to prove or disprove the viability of an EmDrive as a practical source of even small useable thrusts, was a engineering puzzle which should have been focused on an attempt to reproduce one of the early builds where claims of thrust were made. A task made even more difficult since neither Shawyer or Yang were willing to provide sufficient detail to accurately reproduce their even early designs.
Without having reproduced even one of those early designs and either proven or disproven the claims of a useable thrust, modifying and adapting design based on theoretical simulation has led to a situation where it seems each new attempt tests a new design/build sufficiently evolved and different, that they cannot even be assessed as comparable one with another, let alone be a credible test of the original build. SeeShells May have come close in her 2015 build, but time, life and criticism seem to have stalled further pursuit...
The point is set aside theory, it is fun and at times instructional, but without a functional device premature. And then before anyone passes judgement as “scientific” the process needs to step back to the basic designs that the early claims of anomalous thrust began with. There is nothing I have seen publicly shared that suggests that the claimed effect scales with frequency or power. It cannot even be said that the essentially “dirty” signal from a magnetron is not a critical component of success.
Current designs may have been overly influenced by simulations inherently based on biased models. After all, the underlying physics says the thing won’t work, so if it does it must require either “new physics” or at the least an new application and understanding of existing physics.
Post by: oyzw on 09/30/2018 12:52 am
The simulation diagram of the above cavity shows that the high field strength region is not particularly close to the small end face, and the small end face generally has little difference between the radiation intensity and the large end face, and only relies on the radiation pressure of the side wall to form a weak radiation pressure on the small end face. difference. However, there is also a general radiation pressure of the large end face higher than the radiation pressure of the small end face, and the force is directed to the large end face. To maximize the radiant pressure differential, it is necessary to load a polymer or metal diaphragm to induce further migration of the high field strength region in one direction.This forum is too quiet.
So let's curiosity do it work.
To all people in this forum with EM simulators.
Please run simulations for conformal self similar case, and post results here.
:)
PS: At a visual crossing point verfication, a good agreement with Roger's specification.
We did this way back in the day, including many other geometries. Another user named Kenjee also did some more recently. You can check his history for those.
Post by: meberbs on 09/30/2018 01:19 am
Without having reproduced even one of those early designs and either proven or disproven the claims of a useable thrust, modifying and adapting design based on theoretical simulation has led to a situation where it seems each new attempt tests a new design/build sufficiently evolved and different, that they cannot even be assessed as comparable one with another, let alone be a credible test of the original build. SeeShells May have come close in her 2015 build, but time, life and criticism seem to have stalled further pursuit...You keep claiming this about people not using the same drives, but I really don't know what you are expecting. You mentioned Shawyer's and Yang's drives. Yang's initial drive was a design that basically everyone seemed to agree was bad. Yang later retracted the original claims, so that thread is closed. Shawyer as you have said has not been helpful with facilitating replications. The drives people have been testing with have followed his advice to the extent his advice is self-consistent. It is nonsensical to ask for more unless Shawyer starts behaving more like a scientist and less like a snake oil salesman.
The baseline drive for testing has been Eaglework's design, in particular since their tests are what kicked off popular interest, as they had way more credibility than Shawyer. Most tests seem to have used their design or something closely similar. Monomorphic has gone as far as actually testing with drives built by other people.
Current designs may have been overly influenced by simulations inherently based on biased models.That statement is simply wrong. The models used have all been validated by measured resonance spectrum, and since the models for these tests are just used to predict resonance and have been shown to do so correctly, there is nothing biased about them.
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/30/2018 06:20 pm
Without having reproduced even one of those early designs and either proven or disproven the claims of a useable thrust, modifying and adapting design based on theoretical simulation has led to a situation where it seems each new attempt tests a new design/build sufficiently evolved and different, that they cannot even be assessed as comparable one with another, let alone be a credible test of the original build. SeeShells May have come close in her 2015 build, but time, life and criticism seem to have stalled further pursuit...You keep claiming this about people not using the same drives, but I really don't know what you are expecting. You mentioned Shawyer's and Yang's drives. Yang's initial drive was a design that basically everyone seemed to agree was bad. Yang later retracted the original claims, so that thread is closed. Shawyer as you have said has not been helpful with facilitating replications. The drives people have been testing with have followed his advice to the extent his advice is self-consistent. It is nonsensical to ask for more unless Shawyer starts behaving more like a scientist and less like a snake oil salesman.
The baseline drive for testing has been Eaglework's design, in particular since their tests are what kicked off popular interest, as they had way more credibility than Shawyer. Most tests seem to have used their design or something closely similar. Monomorphic has gone as far as actually testing with drives built by other people.Current designs may have been overly influenced by simulations inherently based on biased models.That statement is simply wrong. The models used have all been validated by measured resonance spectrum, and since the models for these tests are just used to predict resonance and have been shown to do so correctly, there is nothing biased about them.
meberbs,
When I said biased models, my intent was that our current understanding and interpretation, that the simulation models are based on, begin “saying” an EmDrive cannot work.., and since we have no credible theoretical model to start with, we cannot know that the resonance predicted by any model, even demonstrated within the context of experiment, has or could have anything to do with the production of any anomalous force. Mode shape and resonance have been assumed to be contributing components. An assumption that has lead to system designs that vary significantly from those early examples. Even the Eagleworks build was influenced to some extent by the same or similar assumptions.
I am not referencing experiment design. Monomorphic’s work refining his test bed and data collection, has been exceptional. I am referring only to the evolution of the design(s) of the EmDrive systems...
It was my understanding that the Eagleworks test campaign was initiated in response to Yang’s initial claim to have confirmed Shawyer’s early design and claims, but the Eagleworks drive was not a duplicate of either.
Yes Yang’s initial build and experiment was flawed and the results suspect, but her later re-evaluation based on the results of a second and substantially different build and experimental design, was also flawed. The two experiments were not tests of equivalent devices. The published information seemed no more convincing than Shawyer’s refusal to provide sufficiently detailed engineering data to reproduce any of his early work, without a significant dose of guesswork. It should have been possible to retest Yang’s first build, to confirm, her after the fact re-evaluation. The conclusions in her re-evaluation could have been experimentally confirmed. But that never happened, at least if it did, it was not publicly shared.
Post by: meberbs on 09/30/2018 07:45 pm
When I said biased models, my intent was that our current understanding and interpretation, that the simulation models are based on, begin “saying” an EmDrive cannot work.., and since we have no credible theoretical model to start with, we cannot know that the resonance predicted by any model, even demonstrated within the context of experiment, has or could have anything to do with the production of any anomalous force.Again, none of this is a valid complaint about the models. It does not matter how a resonance is found, models or not. What is relevant is that models correctly predict resonance, so they are useful.
Mode shape and resonance have been assumed to be contributing components. An assumption that has lead to system designs that vary significantly from those early examples. Even the Eagleworks build was influenced to some extent by the same or similar assumptions.Literally no one has ever built an emDrive with an intent to drive it at anything but resonance, it is part of the definition of what an emDrive is. Since essentially no energy ends up in the cavity outside resonance (this is an experimental fact) it makes even less sense to think that that situation would be at all useful to test than the original concept of a self-accelerating resonant cavity. If you throw out resonance, you might as well be claiming that if you jump off a ledge (preferably a low one) and move your arms just right you will fly.
It was my understanding that the Eagleworks test campaign was initiated in response to Yang’s initial claim to have confirmed Shawyer’s early design and claims, but the Eagleworks drive was not a duplicate of either.The Eagleworks device was more similar to Shawyer's device than Yang's, and if Shawyer was actually helpful, it probably would have duplicated a Shawyer design.
Yes Yang’s initial build and experiment was flawed and the results suspect, but her later re-evaluation based on the results of a second and substantially different build and experimental design, was also flawed.This still leaves us at the point of there being absolutely no reason to think that any of Yang's designs are even remotely worthwhile to investigate.
For everything you just said, you never answered my original question: What are you expecting? Experimenters have done just about everything they reasonably can be expected to given the available constraints. There are an infinite number of things that can be tested (what about a dumbbell shaped cavity, what if the dumbbell's ends are different sizes, maybe the "ends" can be spherical, or cylindrical, or hexagonal, what about the shape and length of the connecting piece, etc.), and a finite amount of time and resources available to experimenters. If you think something else should be done to close this matter, you should be specific as to what that is, and provide a reason why it is worthwhile. (Note that the following is not a good reason: "An experimenter once got a positive result in an experiment that everyone including them agrees was a poorly designed experiment, and they themselves believe that the result was due to an error source they originally didn't account for.")
Post by: Ricvil on 10/01/2018 03:03 pm
Thank you Oyzw!The simulation diagram of the above cavity shows that the high field strength region is not particularly close to the small end face, and the small end face generally has little difference between the radiation intensity and the large end face, and only relies on the radiation pressure of the side wall to form a weak radiation pressure on the small end face. difference. However, there is also a general radiation pressure of the large end face higher than the radiation pressure of the small end face, and the force is directed to the large end face. To maximize the radiant pressure differential, it is necessary to load a polymer or metal diaphragm to induce further migration of the high field strength region in one direction.This forum is too quiet.
So let's curiosity do it work.
To all people in this forum with EM simulators.
Please run simulations for conformal self similar case, and post results here.
:)
PS: At a visual crossing point verfication, a good agreement with Roger's specification.
We did this way back in the day, including many other geometries. Another user named Kenjee also did some more recently. You can check his history for those.
I have some questions to this forum.
Are we seeing the Lorentzian shaped cavity divided in two domains?
Does the first domain contains a slow bright bessel mode near the small end?
Does the second domain contains a fast dark bessel "X" mode near the large end?
IMHO the possible domain segregation explanation can be founded in the attached "anderson.pdf" , and I put a screenshot of the specific point in question.
The almost monocromatic "X" wave has beeing modeled in the other attachment, and perhaps can be possible to link the cavity Fano resonance, with phase inversion, response acting as a kind of "kdp" cristal response described in the article.
PS: Adding an article connecting Zak/Berry phases, Wannier functions and Wyckoff position to help the understanding the idea of radius inversion symmetry induced "segregated zones" by reflection positivity.
Post by: X_RaY on 10/01/2018 08:14 pm
I do not think that is caused by the effects you mentioned. It might be possible to modify the described mathematics to describe the problem based on different propagation angles and phase matching. However, the boundary conditions of the conductive walls must be satisfied. The most common way to describe the field pattern, even within a trombone shape line, is to use stationary waves at individual frequencies, which leads to this pattern exactly. The image you show should be based on a self-resonance calculation or an FEA analysis that produces resonance at a certain frequency, i.e. an Eigen-mode. The analysis solves Maxwell's equations to calculate the resonant frequency and the pattern itself. There is nothing new at this point. But if you think you found a way to explain a possible net force, based on the inner EM field acting on the cavity structure that could move the entire structure in a preferred direction in free space, you should explain your ideas in more detail, at best with mathematical formulas.Thank you Oyzw!The simulation diagram of the above cavity shows that the high field strength region is not particularly close to the small end face, and the small end face generally has little difference between the radiation intensity and the large end face, and only relies on the radiation pressure of the side wall to form a weak radiation pressure on the small end face. difference. However, there is also a general radiation pressure of the large end face higher than the radiation pressure of the small end face, and the force is directed to the large end face. To maximize the radiant pressure differential, it is necessary to load a polymer or metal diaphragm to induce further migration of the high field strength region in one direction.This forum is too quiet.
So let's curiosity do it work.
To all people in this forum with EM simulators.
Please run simulations for conformal self similar case, and post results here.
:)
PS: At a visual crossing point verfication, a good agreement with Roger's specification.
We did this way back in the day, including many other geometries. Another user named Kenjee also did some more recently. You can check his history for those.
I have some questions to this forum.
Are we seeing the Lorentzian shaped cavity divided in two domains?
Does the first domain contains a slow bright bessel mode near the small end?
Does the second domain contains a fast dark bessel "X" mode near the large end?
IMHO the possible domain segregation explanation can be founded in the attached "anderson.pdf" , and I put a screenshot of the specific point in question.
The almost monocromatic "X" wave has beeing modeled in the other attachment, and perhaps can be possible to link the cavity Fano resonance, with phase inversion, response acting as a kind of "kdp" cristal response described in the article.
Post by: cvbn on 10/01/2018 09:31 pm
http://vixra.org/pdf/1809.0579v1.pdf
Post by: rq3 on 10/01/2018 10:38 pm
Electrostatic accelerated electrons within information horizons exert bidirectional propellant-less thrust:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1809.0579v1.pdf
A really inefficient ion engine.
Post by: Ricvil on 10/01/2018 10:53 pm
Dear X_Ray,I do not think that is caused by the effects you mentioned. It might be possible to modify the described mathematics to describe the problem based on different propagation angles and phase matching. However, the boundary conditions of the conductive walls must be satisfied. The most common way to describe the field pattern, even within a trombone shape line, is to use stationary waves at individual frequencies, which leads to this pattern exactly. The image you show should be based on a self-resonance calculation or an FEA analysis that produces resonance at a certain frequency, i.e. an Eigen-mode. The analysis solves Maxwell's equations to calculate the resonant frequency and the pattern itself. There is nothing new at this point. But if you think you found a way to explain a possible net force, based on the inner EM field acting on the cavity structure that could move the entire structure in a preferred direction in free space, you should explain your ideas in more detail, at best with mathematical formulas.Thank you Oyzw!The simulation diagram of the above cavity shows that the high field strength region is not particularly close to the small end face, and the small end face generally has little difference between the radiation intensity and the large end face, and only relies on the radiation pressure of the side wall to form a weak radiation pressure on the small end face. difference. However, there is also a general radiation pressure of the large end face higher than the radiation pressure of the small end face, and the force is directed to the large end face. To maximize the radiant pressure differential, it is necessary to load a polymer or metal diaphragm to induce further migration of the high field strength region in one direction.This forum is too quiet.
So let's curiosity do it work.
To all people in this forum with EM simulators.
Please run simulations for conformal self similar case, and post results here.
:)
PS: At a visual crossing point verfication, a good agreement with Roger's specification.
We did this way back in the day, including many other geometries. Another user named Kenjee also did some more recently. You can check his history for those.
I have some questions to this forum.
Are we seeing the Lorentzian shaped cavity divided in two domains?
Does the first domain contains a slow bright bessel mode near the small end?
Does the second domain contains a fast dark bessel "X" mode near the large end?
IMHO the possible domain segregation explanation can be founded in the attached "anderson.pdf" , and I put a screenshot of the specific point in question.
The almost monocromatic "X" wave has beeing modeled in the other attachment, and perhaps can be possible to link the cavity Fano resonance, with phase inversion, response acting as a kind of "kdp" cristal response described in the article.
I'm trying to explain my point of view.
I had constantly pointing to the role of a space time conformal symmetry called "radius inversion".
I had indirectly pointed (by some ugly drawings :) )the surface of conical cavity (with conical or flat endplates) are symmetric by this conformal symmetry, like a parity symmetry.
No one has made a direct question about this symmetry.
I'm trying to show how these boundary conditions (almost PEC boundary conditions) can introduce a Berry phase on the system, and all consequences of that (look the attachment about Zak/Berry phases introduced in the PS of my last post for example).
I had put a explicity Lorentizian function in a recent post, obtained from the conformal symmetry, and I had described it's relation with the observed "cutoff points".
My intention was to receive a feedback, be a confirmation or a negative answer, but I had no answer about that.
You do need at least two people for a conversation.
Post by: spupeng7 on 10/02/2018 01:14 am
rq3,Electrostatic accelerated electrons within information horizons exert bidirectional propellant-less thrust:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1809.0579v1.pdf
A really inefficient ion engine.
it cannot be an ion engine inside a faraday cage.
Post by: spupeng7 on 10/02/2018 01:22 am
Ricvil,Meantime, causality should be independent of spatial geometry for two reasons, firstly because it is the consequence of interactions between mass and secondly because space itself has no substance with which to retain any specific geometry.Causality is linked to the speed of light. Experiments show that this really is the speed limit. As a result you have to take into account distance between object when determining causality. You probably can rearrange things to hide this, but no matter what, something in your equations will be equivalent to a distance term, that or your theory would simply be inconsistent with experiment. Space can have geometry even if it doesn't have substance, for example, it could be shaped into a loop, so things that travel in a straight line end up back where they started. In special relativity the spacetime is a shape called "Minkowski" which basically means that space is flat, but interacts in a special way with time.It is not my intention to confuse but to try to resolve some of these very confused issues which are, to my mind, hindering the progress of physics.You keep insisting that physics doesn't make sense, while demonstrating that you don't know what physics actually says. The "issues" you are bringing up are not "confused" for people who actually study them.
thankyou for the reference to arXiv papers which are forever beyond my ken. I cannot fathom their logic one bit. At risk of sounding rude, it matters not how many tripple spin mathematical backflips we do, none of it gives us a mechanism by which matter interacts with the space that it is in. Where is the mechanism of interaction between matter and empty space which could possibly satisfy conservation of momentum? That would be an ether. In my opinion separation between objects is not something we can specify without using a complex conjugate for our measure of time which is moderated by the relative velocity of those objects.
Maybe causality can be better defined without spatial geometry. Causality is a term referring to the interaction of things as a cause of the development of circumstance, without a real sequence for events which depends upon the inevitable speed of light across which interaction must occur, there is separation of effect from cause. The strict set of relations described by orthogonal spatial dimensions cannot be true except within the space local to a single clock. If you abandon that absurdity and accept that time has a complex conjugate then causality no longer requires "unreal electromagnetic frontwaves". You can find direct causality in the influence that the acceleration of any charge has on the location of all other charges, proportional to a separation which remains covariant.
The point I am trying to make about time is that our arguments are based on insufficient reason until we understand that there is no common scalar time at disparate points in space, except from a limited and unique set of perspectives. And so, all else fails, along with our ability to understand how purchase for acceleration can be gained against the distant universe.
meberbs,
my use of the word covariant is valid, as I have soundly demonstrated. I do not think it should be constantly questioned because it is a fundamental descriptor used in relativity for a century and more.
See: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1851431#msg1851431
It should be clear that I attempt to clarify a dangerously mysterious subject, as best I can. Relativity deserves disciplined creative thought, properly argued, how could we devote ourselves to it by lesser means. Personal attacks such as accusations of poor intent should be taken to the moderator.
dustinthewind,
the complex time I propose has no perpendicular, it is a separation between objects or charges which varies with their relative velocity. I propose this because distance, in 3D space and scalar time alone, is not covariant. If we are to discuss separation, which is what physical interaction is regulated by, then we need to raise our game and define it succinctly. Complex time allows us to define separation as divergence of location in the proper time of the observer, which is covariant and specifies ct, which converts readily into meters in the perspective of that observer.
Thank you all for your good questions.
Can I take your silence as agreement?
Post by: demofsky on 10/02/2018 03:24 am
You are missing the point. If it is propellantless there is considerable mass savings which have to be taken into account in overall system efficiency. Especially for long or heavy flights (i.e. cargo to Mars) where you would need a lot of propellant.Electrostatic accelerated electrons within information horizons exert bidirectional propellant-less thrust:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1809.0579v1.pdf (http://vixra.org/pdf/1809.0579v1.pdf)
A really inefficient ion engine.
Also, can we say very early days on this? To me tweaking dielectrics is a walk in the park compared to, say, trying to build a positron drive.
It goes without saying we need independent verification of this effect - which seems to be no small thing in this field! - but this is a straightforward apparatus and could be an excellent undergraduate project.
Post by: Mark7777777 on 10/02/2018 03:47 am
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2018/09/28/small-provocative-workshop-on-propellantless-propulsion/
Post by: meberbs on 10/02/2018 06:32 am
Can I take your silence as agreement?No, you cannot. It has only been a couple days, and I missed that the post that starts out addressed to Ricvil was also responding to me.
my use of the word covariant is valid, as I have soundly demonstrated. I do not think it should be constantly questioned because it is a fundamental descriptor used in relativity for a century and more.It has been used for over a century with a different meaning than you have assigned to it. The previous post you linked a quote showing Einstein using it correctly, and in contrast to your usage.
See: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1851431#msg1851431
It should be clear that I attempt to clarify a dangerously mysterious subject, as best I can.Except all of those adjectives you just used are subjective and irrelevant. (Also, relativity is only mysterious to people who haven't studied it)
Relativity deserves disciplined creative thought, properly argued, how could we devote ourselves to it by lesser means.Yet you are turning this into a meta-discussion, and ignoring the previous questions that you said you would respond to.
Personal attacks such as accusations of poor intent should be taken to the moderator.This sentence is a perfect example of itself, and on its own is grounds for deletion of the whole post. (I would report to moderator, but don't like making the mods read this thread)
Also,
I cannot fathom their logic one bit. At risk of sounding rude, it matters not how many tripple spin mathematical backflips we do,Saying that you don't understand something and then therefore concluding that it doesn't answer your questions is more than a bit inappropriate. You can ask for clarification, but outright dismissal for your own lack of understanding is inappropriate.
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/02/2018 10:39 am
Electrostatic accelerated electrons within information horizons exert bidirectional propellant-less thrust:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1809.0579v1.pdf
After having read through most of the paper, the first thing that sticks out for me is they used twisted supply wires and no liquid metal contacts. How many times have we seen this arrangement produce false positives?
"The supply wires had been twisted [1] to reduce electromagnetic effects (Lorentz force etc.) This was done carefully as to not influence the system and provide torque. Nevertheless, the theoretical contribution, with respect to the actual supplied current, would not contribute to an observable effect. Furthermore, to obtain a correct measurement, it had to be assured that the supply conductors were routed a sufficient distance as not to affect the load cell of the digital scale (by electromagnetic field disturbances.)"
Post by: demofsky on 10/02/2018 11:07 am
Electrostatic accelerated electrons within information horizons exert bidirectional propellant-less thrust:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1809.0579v1.pdf (http://vixra.org/pdf/1809.0579v1.pdf)
After having read through most of the paper, the first thing that sticks out for me is they used twisted supply wires and no liquid metal contacts. How many times have we seen this arrangement produce false positives?
Could you remind us why this might be an issue? The wires stiffening due to high voltages? Thanks!
Post by: emdrive1 on 10/02/2018 11:37 am
Electrostatic accelerated electrons within information horizons exert bidirectional propellant-less thrust:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1809.0579v1.pdf
After having read through most of the paper, the first thing that sticks out for me is they used twisted supply wires and no liquid metal contacts. How many times have we seen this arrangement produce false positives?
"The supply wires had been twisted [1] to reduce electromagnetic effects (Lorentz force etc.) This was done carefully as to not influence the system and provide torque. Nevertheless, the theoretical contribution, with respect to the actual supplied current, would not contribute to an observable effect. Furthermore, to obtain a correct measurement, it had to be assured that the supply conductors were routed a sufficient distance as not to affect the load cell of the digital scale (by electromagnetic field disturbances.)"
They couldn't reverse direction of thrust based on McCulloch's theory if it was a false positives signal.
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/02/2018 12:38 pm
They couldn't reverse direction of thrust based on McCulloch's theory if it was a false positives signal.
I'm not so sure about that, but I admit, i'm still trying to wrap my mind around the experiment. We know false positive signals can reverse, but the way the reversal is obtained in this case "by attenuating the associated horizon boundary (Unruh) radiations within the Rindler zone" is not very clear to me. They seem to have placed a conductive material into the "information boundary zone," and "when a conductive material that was electrically insulated from the cathode had been inserted into the area at any
position, a full force reversal was observed." The "at any position" may be a clue here.
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/02/2018 12:42 pm
Could you remind us why this might be an issue? The wires stiffening due to high voltages? Thanks!
Professor Yang, Dave Distler, and my early experiments showed that milli-Newtons of force can be generated by the flexing of the cables when they are supplied with kV power sources - enough that it would swamp everything else.
Post by: Notsosureofit on 10/02/2018 03:45 pm
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/PT.3.4037?utm_source=Physics%20Today&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=9893039_Q%20-%20October%202018&dm_i=1Y69,5W1IN,E1MTSN,N1DFQ,1
"Free-falling nanoparticle helps to detect tiny forces"
Post by: Ricvil on 10/02/2018 05:54 pm
A fast dark bessel "X" mode is "ugly", right? :)
Then lets change of concepts.
What we are seeing at Lorentizian shaped cavity?
At small end, seeing from the center, we have a mode with two lobes.
At big end, seeing from the center, we have a mode with four lobes.
So, there is a change of order mode along the symmetry axis of cavity.
If there is a change of the order mode, so there is a change of propagation constant, and optical momentum, along the cavity axis of symmetry.
So, if we have all photons with same energy, and we have a asymmetrical density of modes with different orders, then we have a asymmetrical distribuition of moment along the axis of symmetry of cavity, and we have a net force along this axis when all the photons are reflected on the cavity surface.
Higher order modes have smaller moment along axis, so if have the high order modes at big end, then the net force will be directed to the small end.
This is equivalent to a "spin-orbit coupling".
Post by: meberbs on 10/02/2018 07:11 pm
So, if we have all photons with same energy, and we have a asymmetrical density of modes with different orders, then we have a asymmetrical distribuition of moment along the axis of symmetry of cavity, and we have a net force along this axis when all the photons are reflected on the cavity surface.This is just the original logic that Shawyer used, and is wrong for the same reason. Any changes in the patterns along the axis of the cavity are due to the changing size/shape of the sidewalls. The interactions with the sidewalls therefore account for any differences between the forces on the ends, and the total result adds up to zero.
Conservation of momentum is inherent in (relativistic) classical electromagnetism, so any potential explanation needs to start with something different than classical electromagnetism. (With the catch-22 that it still needs to somehow be able to explain all of the existing features of electromagnetism.)
Post by: Ricvil on 10/02/2018 07:23 pm
I don't wrote "forces at the ends", I've wrote a net force considering all cavity surface.So, if we have all photons with same energy, and we have a asymmetrical density of modes with different orders, then we have a asymmetrical distribuition of moment along the axis of symmetry of cavity, and we have a net force along this axis when all the photons are reflected on the cavity surface.This is just the original logic that Shawyer used, and is wrong for the same reason. Any changes in the patterns along the axis of the cavity are due to the changing size/shape of the sidewalls. The interactions with the sidewalls therefore account for any differences between the forces on the ends, and the total result adds up to zero.
Conservation of momentum is inherent in (relativistic) classical electromagnetism, so any potential explanation needs to start with something different than classical electromagnetism. (With the catch-22 that it still needs to somehow be able to explain all of the existing features of electromagnetism.)
The asymmetry will ocurrs along the cavity's axis of symmetry, so any reflection must be considered, at any point off all surface.
In Shawyer case there is no change of mode order along the axis of symmetry.
Post by: X_RaY on 10/02/2018 07:34 pm
There is only one mode shape within the cavity! It doesn't matter at all if the shape is conical or trombone like.I don't wrote "forces at the ends", I've wrote a net force considering all cavity surface.So, if we have all photons with same energy, and we have a asymmetrical density of modes with different orders, then we have a asymmetrical distribuition of moment along the axis of symmetry of cavity, and we have a net force along this axis when all the photons are reflected on the cavity surface.This is just the original logic that Shawyer used, and is wrong for the same reason. Any changes in the patterns along the axis of the cavity are due to the changing size/shape of the sidewalls. The interactions with the sidewalls therefore account for any differences between the forces on the ends, and the total result adds up to zero.
Conservation of momentum is inherent in (relativistic) classical electromagnetism, so any potential explanation needs to start with something different than classical electromagnetism. (With the catch-22 that it still needs to somehow be able to explain all of the existing features of electromagnetism.)
The asymmetry will ocurrs along the cavity's axis of symmetry, so any reflection must be considered, at any point off all surface.
In Shawyer case there is no change of mode order along the axis of symmetry.
Regarding the forces due to pure electromagnetism please check:
http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
Post by: Ricvil on 10/02/2018 07:37 pm
Where is the change of mode order along the axis of symmetry in this reference?http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.htmlI don't wrote "forces at the ends", I've wrote a net force considering all cavity surface.So, if we have all photons with same energy, and we have a asymmetrical density of modes with different orders, then we have a asymmetrical distribuition of moment along the axis of symmetry of cavity, and we have a net force along this axis when all the photons are reflected on the cavity surface.This is just the original logic that Shawyer used, and is wrong for the same reason. Any changes in the patterns along the axis of the cavity are due to the changing size/shape of the sidewalls. The interactions with the sidewalls therefore account for any differences between the forces on the ends, and the total result adds up to zero.
Conservation of momentum is inherent in (relativistic) classical electromagnetism, so any potential explanation needs to start with something different than classical electromagnetism. (With the catch-22 that it still needs to somehow be able to explain all of the existing features of electromagnetism.)
The asymmetry will ocurrs along the cavity's axis of symmetry, so any reflection must be considered, at any point off all surface.
In Shawyer case there is no change of mode order along the axis of symmetry.
Post by: Ricvil on 10/02/2018 07:51 pm
There is only one mode shape within the cavity! It doesn't matter at all if the shape is conical or trombone like.I don't wrote "forces at the ends", I've wrote a net force considering all cavity surface.So, if we have all photons with same energy, and we have a asymmetrical density of modes with different orders, then we have a asymmetrical distribuition of moment along the axis of symmetry of cavity, and we have a net force along this axis when all the photons are reflected on the cavity surface.This is just the original logic that Shawyer used, and is wrong for the same reason. Any changes in the patterns along the axis of the cavity are due to the changing size/shape of the sidewalls. The interactions with the sidewalls therefore account for any differences between the forces on the ends, and the total result adds up to zero.
Conservation of momentum is inherent in (relativistic) classical electromagnetism, so any potential explanation needs to start with something different than classical electromagnetism. (With the catch-22 that it still needs to somehow be able to explain all of the existing features of electromagnetism.)
The asymmetry will ocurrs along the cavity's axis of symmetry, so any reflection must be considered, at any point off all surface.
In Shawyer case there is no change of mode order along the axis of symmetry.
Regarding the forces due to electromagnetism please check:
http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
This affirmation:
"There is only one mode shape within the cavity!"
To Shawyer's and Greg's cavity- True
To Lorentizian shaped cavity - False
Just see the nodes of field, under spherical or cylindrical coordinates.
There is a clear change of mode order along the axis of symmetry in Lorentizian shaped cavity.
Post by: meberbs on 10/02/2018 08:13 pm
I don't wrote "forces at the ends", I've wrote a net force considering all cavity surface.Specifically you wrote "change of propagation constant, and optical momentum, along the cavity axis of symmetry." This implies that the change in momentum is not being balanced by the forces on the walls, but since it is balanced according to the very theory that predicts the mode shapes.
In Shawyer case there is no change of mode order along the axis of symmetry.This is getting into what I wrote in my last response to OnlyMe. There are an infinite number of variations you can propose, but you need to provide a good reason that your proposal is new and worth investigating. Experimental data is now very weak as a reason for any emDrive related concept. Your current theoretical proposal is little more than a handwaving "but this mode shape looks a little qualitatively different." This does nothing to change the fact that conservation of momentum is inherent.
And no, really, there is just one shape in the cavity as long as it is driven with a single frequency at resonance. There have been some modes found that due to cavity shapes appear as a cross between what is called TE or TM in constant area applications. These are still single modes, despite the variations in shape across space.
Post by: Ricvil on 10/02/2018 09:10 pm
The momentum needs be conserved, and I'm just count with it.I don't wrote "forces at the ends", I've wrote a net force considering all cavity surface.Specifically you wrote "change of propagation constant, and optical momentum, along the cavity axis of symmetry." This implies that the change in momentum is not being balanced by the forces on the walls, but since it is balanced according to the very theory that predicts the mode shapes.In Shawyer case there is no change of mode order along the axis of symmetry.This is getting into what I wrote in my last response to OnlyMe. There are an infinite number of variations you can propose, but you need to provide a good reason that your proposal is new and worth investigating. Experimental data is now very weak as a reason for any emDrive related concept. Your current theoretical proposal is little more than a handwaving "but this mode shape looks a little qualitatively different." This does nothing to change the fact that conservation of momentum is inherent.
And no, really, there is just one shape in the cavity as long as it is driven with a single frequency at resonance. There have been some modes found that due to cavity shapes appear as a cross between what is called TE or TM in constant area applications. These are still single modes, despite the variations in shape across space.
In the mode coupling theory, which rules modes transformations (mode mixing), in general it is applied in adiabatic conditions with non degenerated modes.
The case is, all reported resonances with thrust just occured at fano resonance conditions, when adiabatic conditions are not satisfied.
That is a very important point.
When we have modes almost degenerated, we need use a non-adiabatic mode couple theory, where the structure of berry phases comes on.
IMHO we are seeing the effect of berry phases generated by the topological ( surface boundary conditions) mediated interaction between TE bright modes and it's dual degenerated TM dark mode at neighborhood of an exceptional point where the the group velocity of modes becomes zero, but not it's second derivative.
It is not trivial.
I'm just trying describe all this complex interaction using macro concepts and avoid a cumbersome of multidimensional differential matrix equations of berry phase description.
PS: Fano resonances requires TWO resonances under interaction, or in other words, at least TWO modes in interaction.
Post by: meberbs on 10/02/2018 11:28 pm
The momentum needs be conserved, and I'm just count with it.If the momentum is conserved, either the device doesn't work, or something is carrying the momentum away. None of your posts are describing anything carrying the momentum away so that leaves "doesn't work."
The rest of your post discusses a lot of advanced terms, none of which change the facts involved.
Also, you claim that all "with thrust" tests have involved a specific type of resonance, but there is no way you actually have the data to back that up, given things like the lack of good data from Shawyer. Since most (if not all depending on your perspective) of the tests ever done have since been shown by better test equipment to have thrust due to various thermal, magnetic or other errors, it is unclear which tests you are picking as "with thrust" to make your claims.
Post by: Ricvil on 10/03/2018 12:24 am
Your argument is weak!The momentum needs be conserved, and I'm just count with it.If the momentum is conserved, either the device doesn't work, or something is carrying the momentum away. None of your posts are describing anything carrying the momentum away so that leaves "doesn't work."
The rest of your post discusses a lot of advanced terms, none of which change the facts involved.
Also, you claim that all "with thrust" tests have involved a specific type of resonance, but there is no way you actually have the data to back that up, given things like the lack of good data from Shawyer. Since most (if not all depending on your perspective) of the tests ever done have since been shown by better test equipment to have thrust due to various thermal, magnetic or other errors, it is unclear which tests you are picking as "with thrust" to make your claims.
Any system under action of a net force, or will accelerate (if it is free to do it) , or will deformate (under influence of an obstacle) until reach a equilibrium state, and in both conditions the momentum is conserved.
What is so dramatic when the plane of oscilation of a pendulum is rotating under a influence of a berry phase? Nothing.
It is just a pole in momentum space inducing an "anomalous velocity".
You can stop it? Yes.
A berry phase in the group velocity of electromagnetic modes inside a cavity will probally cause a net move of conduction electrons of cavity, and the cavity will just move to restore the eletrostatic equilibrium. To do it we need not just a pole, but something like a ring in momentum space.
I accept change "with thrust" to "initially reported with thrust",
The existence of almost degenerated modes at some frequencys, and the signatures of Fano resonances in S21 response curve, are clear in Eaglework's reports (attached in my last post), and there are many posts in this forum with similar informations (but not explicited).
Post by: spupeng7 on 10/03/2018 04:35 am
(...)meberbs,Personal attacks such as accusations of poor intent should be taken to the moderator.This sentence is a perfect example of itself, and on its own is grounds for deletion of the whole post. (I would report to moderator, but don't like making the mods read this thread)
Also,I cannot fathom their logic one bit. At risk of sounding rude, it matters not how many tripple spin mathematical backflips we do,Saying that you don't understand something and then therefore concluding that it doesn't answer your questions is more than a bit inappropriate. You can ask for clarification, but outright dismissal for your own lack of understanding is inappropriate.
yes, I agree that we should not subject anyone to discussion in this style. There is, however, a big difference between not understanding an argument and disagreeing with its logic. You have not answered my question as to how matter is supposed to interact with empty space, maybe I have not framed it adequately.
Post by: meberbs on 10/03/2018 06:21 am
Your argument is weak!That statement, especially with the exclamation mark, is something that you shouldn't feel the need to make if you have logic on your side.
Any system under action of a net force, or will accelerate (if it is free to do it) ,This is covered by the "something carrying the momentum away" portion of my statement. By the law of equal and opposite forces, the thing that is applying the force will accelerate in the opposite direction with the same magnitude of change in momentum.
or will deformate (under influence of an obstacle) until reach a equilibrium state, and in both conditions the momentum is conserved.If there is an (effectively immovable) obstacle, that obstacle is providing a force equal and opposite to the other force that is being applied, and therefore the net force on the object is actually zero.
I am skipping the part of your post about "berry phase" because it is irrelevant to my point.
I accept change "with thrust" to "initially reported with thrust",And most (or all) of those initially reported with thrust have been shown to have been false reports due to other errors. I am still not sure which could be left to support your claim. You mention Eagleworks, but others have shown that their experiment was susceptible to errors, and replications that try hard enough to eliminate errors all seemed able to constrain thrust to under the noise floor.
Post by: meberbs on 10/03/2018 06:47 am
yes, I agree that we should not subject anyone to discussion in this style. There is, however, a big difference between not understanding an argument and disagreeing with its logic. You have not answered my question as to how matter is supposed to interact with empty space, maybe I have not framed it adequately.You literally said:
papers which are forever beyond my ken.where ken and understanding are effectively synonyms. You cannot disagree with its logic if you literally don't know what its logic is.
You cannot describe the location of 2 objects in a room relative to each other without 3 numbers, plus a fourth for time if things are moving around. It doesn't matter if there is nothing in between the objects, the fact that there is a distance between them is an obvious fact. If you find this incomprehensible, you are going to need to loosen your thinking to accept that that is how the universe works. I know of no further words that can describe it better than that, since the existence of 3 dimensional space is something people generally find intuitively obvious. (The specific manner that time interacts with spatial dimensions is a bit strange, but you have already been given resources that discuss that.)
Post by: Ricvil on 10/04/2018 03:49 pm
I've found a path to describe a dissipative loss of thust effect.
I will explain.
Any possible thrust from a Emdrive cavity must begin as a result of an interaction between the electromagnetic field and conducting electrons on internal surface of cavity.
At the frequency of operation the conducting electrons envolved are localized at thin layer of skin depth.
So, any mechanism of thrust will act first on conducting electrons in skin depth trying producing a charge polarization on internal surface of cavity.
But this polarization will not survive because the electrons can find a path of discharge out of skin depth layer, producing a ohmic loss.
The walls of cavity are too thick if compared with skin depth.
How to overcome this situation?
Monomorphic and others already reported a "strange high absortion" under some configurations of resonance excitation.
Any anomalous external magnetic field was observed during tests?
Post by: X_RaY on 10/04/2018 05:27 pm
Hi lovers and denyers of emdrives.Not observed but introduced: Eagle Works initially used a magnetic damper based on neodymium magnets near the cavity... They did some magnetic measurements with a probe around the frustum but this was not documented (info by Paul Mach). Kind of non reciprocal effects based on this has been discussed a while back.
I've found a path to describe a dissipative loss of thust effect.
I will explain.
Any possible thrust from a Emdrive cavity must begin as a result of an interaction between the electromagnetic field and conducting electrons on internal surface of cavity.
At the frequency of operation the conducting electrons envolved are localized at thin layer of skin depth.
So, any mechanism of thrust will act first on conducting electrons in skin depth trying producing a charge polarization on internal surface of cavity.
But this polarization will not survive because the electrons can find a path of discharge out of skin depth layer, producing a ohmic loss.
The walls of cavity are too thick if compared with skin depth.
How to overcome this situation?
Monomorphic and others already reported a "strange high absortion" under some configurations of resonance excitation.
Any anomalous external magnetic field was observed during tests?
Post by: Notsosureofit on 10/04/2018 07:01 pm
Quantum formulation of the Einstein equivalence principle
Magdalena Zych & Časlav Brukner
Nature Physicsvolume 14, pages1027–1031 (2018) | Download Citation
Abstract
The validity of just a few physical conditions comprising the Einstein equivalence principle (EEP) suffices to ensure that gravity can be understood as spacetime geometry. The EEP is therefore subject to ongoing experimental verification, with present-day tests reaching the regime in which quantum mechanics becomes relevant. Here we show that the classical expression of the EEP does not apply in such a regime. The EEP requires equivalence between the rest mass-energy of a system, the mass-energy that constitutes its inertia, and the mass-energy that constitutes its weight. In quantum mechanics, the energy contributing to the mass is given by a Hamiltonian operator of the internal degrees of freedom. Therefore, we introduce a quantum expression of the EEP—equivalence between the rest, inertial and gravitational internal energy operators. Validity of the classical EEP does not imply the validity of its quantum formulation, which thus requires independent experimental verification. We propose new tests as well as re-analysing existing experiments, and we discuss to what extent they allow quantum aspects of the EEP to be tested.
Post by: Ricvil on 10/04/2018 07:07 pm
Thank's X_RaY.Hi lovers and denyers of emdrives.Not observed but introduced: Eagle Works initially used a magnetic damper based on neodymium magnets near the cavity... They did some magnetic measurements with a probe around the frustum but this was not documented (info by Paul Mach). Kind of non reciprocal effects based on this has been discussed a while back.
I've found a path to describe a dissipative loss of thust effect.
I will explain.
Any possible thrust from a Emdrive cavity must begin as a result of an interaction between the electromagnetic field and conducting electrons on internal surface of cavity.
At the frequency of operation the conducting electrons envolved are localized at thin layer of skin depth.
So, any mechanism of thrust will act first on conducting electrons in skin depth trying producing a charge polarization on internal surface of cavity.
But this polarization will not survive because the electrons can find a path of discharge out of skin depth layer, producing a ohmic loss.
The walls of cavity are too thick if compared with skin depth.
How to overcome this situation?
Monomorphic and others already reported a "strange high absortion" under some configurations of resonance excitation.
Any anomalous external magnetic field was observed during tests?
I think if Eagle Works was expecting by simulations, or had observed, an external magnetic field.
This simulations in yours last post, appears indicating a try to find an excitation of cavity by inverse path.
They had simulated the response of a cavity with 0.035 thick walls under a dipole excitation of 1 Hertz.
I think they try to test reciprocity theorem with negative results.
PS: Sorry, I've not paid enough attention to the word "introduced" when I'm wrote the original post.
Post by: X_RaY on 10/04/2018 07:17 pm
No, this simulations were done by myself for J.P. Montillet* (with some help from Paul Mach who delivered the approximated position and magnetic field strength). We did not come to a final conclusion up to date.Thank's X_RaY.Hi lovers and denyers of emdrives.Not observed but introduced: Eagle Works initially used a magnetic damper based on neodymium magnets near the cavity... They did some magnetic measurements with a probe around the frustum but this was not documented (info by Paul Mach). Kind of non reciprocal effects based on this has been discussed a while back.
I've found a path to describe a dissipative loss of thust effect.
I will explain.
Any possible thrust from a Emdrive cavity must begin as a result of an interaction between the electromagnetic field and conducting electrons on internal surface of cavity.
At the frequency of operation the conducting electrons envolved are localized at thin layer of skin depth.
So, any mechanism of thrust will act first on conducting electrons in skin depth trying producing a charge polarization on internal surface of cavity.
But this polarization will not survive because the electrons can find a path of discharge out of skin depth layer, producing a ohmic loss.
The walls of cavity are too thick if compared with skin depth.
How to overcome this situation?
Monomorphic and others already reported a "strange high absortion" under some configurations of resonance excitation.
Any anomalous external magnetic field was observed during tests?
I think if Eagle Works was expecting by simulations, or had observed an external magnetic field.
This simulations in yours last post, appears indicating a try to find an excitation of cavity by inverse path.
They had simulated the response of a cavity with 0.035 thick walls under a dipole excitation of 1 Hertz.
I think they try to test reciprocity theorem with negative results.
The 1 Hz simulation was performed to imitate a static field from an permanent magnet (using only a single phase angle from the simulation, not the full cycle of 360 deg at 1 Hz). This static field should be combined with a ~1 GHz TM010 resonance within the cavity. Of course, to search for non reciprocal effects, maybe acting on the cavity.
The point is that there are data calculated on the same grid for ~1 GHz and for the quasi-static 1 Hz situation. But the combination is still pending.
*He has derived another interesting concept of thrust generation called "relativistic capacitor".
Post by: Ricvil on 10/04/2018 08:28 pm
I undertand X_Ray.No, this simulations were done by myself for J.P. Montillet (with some help from Paul Mach who delivered the approximated position and magnetic field strength). We did not come to a final conclusion up to date.Thank's X_RaY.Hi lovers and denyers of emdrives.Not observed but introduced: Eagle Works initially used a magnetic damper based on neodymium magnets near the cavity... They did some magnetic measurements with a probe around the frustum but this was not documented (info by Paul Mach). Kind of non reciprocal effects based on this has been discussed a while back.
I've found a path to describe a dissipative loss of thust effect.
I will explain.
Any possible thrust from a Emdrive cavity must begin as a result of an interaction between the electromagnetic field and conducting electrons on internal surface of cavity.
At the frequency of operation the conducting electrons envolved are localized at thin layer of skin depth.
So, any mechanism of thrust will act first on conducting electrons in skin depth trying producing a charge polarization on internal surface of cavity.
But this polarization will not survive because the electrons can find a path of discharge out of skin depth layer, producing a ohmic loss.
The walls of cavity are too thick if compared with skin depth.
How to overcome this situation?
Monomorphic and others already reported a "strange high absortion" under some configurations of resonance excitation.
Any anomalous external magnetic field was observed during tests?
I think if Eagle Works was expecting by simulations, or had observed an external magnetic field.
This simulations in yours last post, appears indicating a try to find an excitation of cavity by inverse path.
They had simulated the response of a cavity with 0.035 thick walls under a dipole excitation of 1 Hertz.
I think they try to test reciprocity theorem with negative results.
The 1 Hz simulation was performed to imitate a static field from an permanent magnet (using only a single phase angle from the simulation, not the full cycle of 360 deg at 1 Hz). This static field should be combined with a ~1 GHz TM010 resonance within the cavity. Of course, to search for non reciprocal effects, maybe acting on the cavity.
The point is that there are data calculated on the same grid for ~1 GHz and for the quasi-static 1 Hz simulation. But the combination is still pending.
Does your research related with these interesting survivor ExH "90 degrees dephased" poynting vector amplitude averaged under a time cycle? :)
Post by: X_RaY on 10/04/2018 08:45 pm
The simulation you quote is a result of energy flow from the antenna placed within a region with a diameter smaller than the cut-off diameter as calculated for a cylindrical waveguide, into a region bigger than that. This would lead to a "thrust" equal of even smaller than for a photon rocket.I undertand X_Ray.No, this simulations were done by myself for J.P. Montillet (with some help from Paul Mach who delivered the approximated position and magnetic field strength). We did not come to a final conclusion up to date.Thank's X_RaY.Hi lovers and denyers of emdrives.Not observed but introduced: Eagle Works initially used a magnetic damper based on neodymium magnets near the cavity... They did some magnetic measurements with a probe around the frustum but this was not documented (info by Paul Mach). Kind of non reciprocal effects based on this has been discussed a while back.
I've found a path to describe a dissipative loss of thust effect.
I will explain.
Any possible thrust from a Emdrive cavity must begin as a result of an interaction between the electromagnetic field and conducting electrons on internal surface of cavity.
At the frequency of operation the conducting electrons envolved are localized at thin layer of skin depth.
So, any mechanism of thrust will act first on conducting electrons in skin depth trying producing a charge polarization on internal surface of cavity.
But this polarization will not survive because the electrons can find a path of discharge out of skin depth layer, producing a ohmic loss.
The walls of cavity are too thick if compared with skin depth.
How to overcome this situation?
Monomorphic and others already reported a "strange high absortion" under some configurations of resonance excitation.
Any anomalous external magnetic field was observed during tests?
I think if Eagle Works was expecting by simulations, or had observed an external magnetic field.
This simulations in yours last post, appears indicating a try to find an excitation of cavity by inverse path.
They had simulated the response of a cavity with 0.035 thick walls under a dipole excitation of 1 Hertz.
I think they try to test reciprocity theorem with negative results.
The 1 Hz simulation was performed to imitate a static field from an permanent magnet (using only a single phase angle from the simulation, not the full cycle of 360 deg at 1 Hz). This static field should be combined with a ~1 GHz TM010 resonance within the cavity. Of course, to search for non reciprocal effects, maybe acting on the cavity.
The point is that there are data calculated on the same grid for ~1 GHz and for the quasi-static 1 Hz simulation. But the combination is still pending.
Does your research related with these interesting survivor ExH "90 degrees dephased" poynting vector amplitude averaged under a time cycle? :)
Post by: spupeng7 on 10/05/2018 07:34 am
meberbs,yes, I agree that we should not subject anyone to discussion in this style. There is, however, a big difference between not understanding an argument and disagreeing with its logic. You have not answered my question as to how matter is supposed to interact with empty space, maybe I have not framed it adequately.You literally said:papers which are forever beyond my ken.where ken and understanding are effectively synonyms. You cannot disagree with its logic if you literally don't know what its logic is.
You cannot describe the location of 2 objects in a room relative to each other without 3 numbers, plus a fourth for time if things are moving around. It doesn't matter if there is nothing in between the objects, the fact that there is a distance between them is an obvious fact. If you find this incomprehensible, you are going to need to loosen your thinking to accept that that is how the universe works. I know of no further words that can describe it better than that, since the existence of 3 dimensional space is something people generally find intuitively obvious. (The specific manner that time interacts with spatial dimensions is a bit strange, but you have already been given resources that discuss that.)
well not everyone agrees that that is the case. Sin-Itero Tomonaga for example, but that is bye the bye. I have a inalienable right to an opinion, if you don't like it you should find something better than bully tactics to defend your position with.
Quote from: meberbs
(from a personal message)
bad faith arguments
« Sent to: spupeng7 on: 10/03/2018 06:37 AM »
Please give me a reason I shouldn't report you to the moderators for your continued refusal to engage in a productive conversation, upto and including outright lies where you literally say that you don't understand the papers you were given, and then in your next post deny that you lacked understanding of them, and that instead you disagreed with their logic.
Plus there is the whole thing where you keep trying to insist that you are the dictator of what words mean, ignore questions, and all of the other ways I have pointed out that you have been rude in our interactions.
I would welcome this. It would be nice to know what the current moderator thinks of our exchanges and wether or not I have played a proper part in this forum.
Post by: Notsosureofit on 10/05/2018 02:39 pm
Could it be that the devious satellite, which inspired Shawyer to ascribe it's motion to a cavity resonance effect, contained a traveling wave amplifier whose bunched electrons exhibited an anomalous phase shift ? ;D
Pure speculation, I assure you.
FYI: looking for full paper
Quantum formulation of the Einstein equivalence principle
Magdalena Zych & Časlav Brukner
Nature Physicsvolume 14, pages1027–1031 (2018) | Download Citation
Abstract
The validity of just a few physical conditions comprising the Einstein equivalence principle (EEP) suffices to ensure that gravity can be understood as spacetime geometry. The EEP is therefore subject to ongoing experimental verification, with present-day tests reaching the regime in which quantum mechanics becomes relevant. Here we show that the classical expression of the EEP does not apply in such a regime. The EEP requires equivalence between the rest mass-energy of a system, the mass-energy that constitutes its inertia, and the mass-energy that constitutes its weight. In quantum mechanics, the energy contributing to the mass is given by a Hamiltonian operator of the internal degrees of freedom. Therefore, we introduce a quantum expression of the EEP—equivalence between the rest, inertial and gravitational internal energy operators. Validity of the classical EEP does not imply the validity of its quantum formulation, which thus requires independent experimental verification. We propose new tests as well as re-analysing existing experiments, and we discuss to what extent they allow quantum aspects of the EEP to be tested.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/05/2018 02:45 pm
However, I get the frustration when someone has a clearly wrong opinion and isn't willing to listen to advice. Not saying that's happened here lately, but still, forum rules are forum rules as much as I know a lot of you on here never leave this thread. Hilarious post down the thread saying "the forum's quiet" when it was firing like crazy with a SpaceX launch at the time! ;D He meant this thread was quiet.
Post by: meberbs on 10/05/2018 03:16 pm
I am not particularly familiar with the work of Sin-Itero Tomonaga, but he got a Nobel prize for work on QED, in particular with work on renormalization which is incredibly important for the consistency of the theory. Nothing about that says that space-time is less than 4 -dimmensional. In fact, quite the opposite, it is the application of relativistic 4-dimensional space-time to quantum mechanics. This is not the first time you have cited some renowned physicist to support something that you claim despite your claim contradicting their work....well not everyone agrees that that is the case. Sin-Itero Tomonaga for example, but that is bye the bye.
You cannot describe the location of 2 objects in a room relative to each other without 3 numbers, plus a fourth for time if things are moving around. It doesn't matter if there is nothing in between the objects, the fact that there is a distance between them is an obvious fact. If you find this incomprehensible, you are going to need to loosen your thinking to accept that that is how the universe works. I know of no further words that can describe it better than that, since the existence of 3 dimensional space is something people generally find intuitively obvious. (The specific manner that time interacts with spatial dimensions is a bit strange, but you have already been given resources that discuss that.)
Per above, you have a right to an opinion, but calling it an opinion doesn't mean that you can't be demonstrably wrong. I am providing information that you seem to have missed that counters your claims, please don't take it as an attack on you.
Post by: X_RaY on 10/05/2018 06:09 pm
@ allNo, this simulations were done by myself for J.P. Montillet* (with some help from Paul Mach who delivered the approximated position and magnetic field strength). We did not come to a final conclusion up to date.Thank's X_RaY.Hi lovers and denyers of emdrives.Not observed but introduced: Eagle Works initially used a magnetic damper based on neodymium magnets near the cavity... They did some magnetic measurements with a probe around the frustum but this was not documented (info by Paul Mach). Kind of non reciprocal effects based on this has been discussed a while back.
I've found a path to describe a dissipative loss of thust effect.
I will explain.
Any possible thrust from a Emdrive cavity must begin as a result of an interaction between the electromagnetic field and conducting electrons on internal surface of cavity.
At the frequency of operation the conducting electrons envolved are localized at thin layer of skin depth.
So, any mechanism of thrust will act first on conducting electrons in skin depth trying producing a charge polarization on internal surface of cavity.
But this polarization will not survive because the electrons can find a path of discharge out of skin depth layer, producing a ohmic loss.
The walls of cavity are too thick if compared with skin depth.
How to overcome this situation?
Monomorphic and others already reported a "strange high absortion" under some configurations of resonance excitation.
Any anomalous external magnetic field was observed during tests?
I think if Eagle Works was expecting by simulations, or had observed an external magnetic field.
This simulations in yours last post, appears indicating a try to find an excitation of cavity by inverse path.
They had simulated the response of a cavity with 0.035 thick walls under a dipole excitation of 1 Hertz.
I think they try to test reciprocity theorem with negative results.
The 1 Hz simulation was performed to imitate a static field from an permanent magnet (using only a single phase angle from the simulation, not the full cycle of 360 deg at 1 Hz). This static field should be combined with a ~1 GHz TM010 resonance within the cavity. Of course, to search for non reciprocal effects, maybe acting on the cavity.
The point is that there are data calculated on the same grid for ~1 GHz and for the quasi-static 1 Hz situation. But the combination is still pending.
*He has derived another interesting concept of thrust generation called "relativistic capacitor".
I am still in contact with J.P. Montillet, he currently has no time to evaluate the data as explained in my post above.
If someone has the time and the desire to take over the post calculation on the simulation data, for example with matlab or so, he would offer consulting support. I could also contribute to the explanation of the simulations.
For email contact to me and/or him in this regard send me a PM.
Post by: Mark7777777 on 10/05/2018 09:34 pm
Yes, everyone has a right to an opinion. All members should respect each other's opinions, aim to correct, but not expect their comments to be taken as gospel.
However, I get the frustration when someone has a clearly wrong opinion and isn't willing to listen to advice. Not saying that's happened here lately, but still, forum rules are forum rules as much as I know a lot of you on here never leave this thread. Hilarious post down the thread saying "the forum's quiet" when it was firing like crazy with a SpaceX launch at the time! ;D He meant this thread was quiet.
Strange as it may sound, I didn't really realise that there were other threads in this forum until Chris reminded people to that fact. Coming here originally from an outside link I guess by brain had subconcious inertia to explore the tree from where this branch came. Maybe an internet information overload thing.
Anyway... since Chris mentioned it I have been looking around other NSF threads, including the Woodward thread which I enjoyed reading.
Post by: meberbs on 10/05/2018 09:58 pm
Strange as it may sound, I didn't really realise that there were other threads in this forum until Chris reminded people to that fact. Coming here originally from an outside link I guess by brain had subconcious inertia to explore the tree from where this branch came. Maybe an internet information overload thing.Off topic for this thread, but it is worth a reminder for those like you who came to this site in a similar fashion.
Anyway... since Chris mentioned it I have been looking around other NSF threads, including the Woodward thread which I enjoyed reading.
While my first posts here were on this thread, I found this site because of its excellent space news coverage, and also finding the excellent quality of the forums, which is why this is the one site I have ever signed up as a member of. The quality is good enough that some posters here are literally executives at major (or minor) aerospace firms. For example, in one thread for suggestions on who could be NASA administrator, someone suggested a candidate. That suggested candidate happens to be a member here and responded explaining why they weren't the right person for the job.
The rules here, and the hard work of the moderators, make this a place really unlike most of the internet in a very good way. If anyone here hasn't done so, they should take a look at some of the other sections of this site (and yes, if you get L2, there is even better info in there.)
Post by: spupeng7 on 10/07/2018 01:45 am
Thanks meberbs,I am not particularly familiar with the work of Sin-Itero Tomonaga, but he got a Nobel prize for work on QED, in particular with work on renormalization which is incredibly important for the consistency of the theory. Nothing about that says that space-time is less than 4 -dimmensional. In fact, quite the opposite, it is the application of relativistic 4-dimensional space-time to quantum mechanics. This is not the first time you have cited some renowned physicist to support something that you claim despite your claim contradicting their work....well not everyone agrees that that is the case. Sin-Itero Tomonaga for example, but that is bye the bye.
You cannot describe the location of 2 objects in a room relative to each other without 3 numbers, plus a fourth for time if things are moving around. It doesn't matter if there is nothing in between the objects, the fact that there is a distance between them is an obvious fact. If you find this incomprehensible, you are going to need to loosen your thinking to accept that that is how the universe works. I know of no further words that can describe it better than that, since the existence of 3 dimensional space is something people generally find intuitively obvious. (The specific manner that time interacts with spatial dimensions is a bit strange, but you have already been given resources that discuss that.)
Per above, you have a right to an opinion, but calling it an opinion doesn't mean that you can't be demonstrably wrong. I am providing information that you seem to have missed that counters your claims, please don't take it as an attack on you.
thanks also to everyone here for their patience. In post https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1846805#msg1846805 I quoted,
" ... the concept of a common time at different space points does not have a relativistically covariant meaning." Sin-Itiro Tomonaga - Nobel Lecture 1966
because it powerfully demonstrates how easy it is to assume that relativity translates into the Euclidian space within which we can visualize dynamics, but it does not. General relativity, so far as I can dimly discern, allows us to translate dynamics into Euclidian space at the cost of narrowing our perspective to a single point. There is a lot, in my opinion, to be gained from maintaining the wider covariant perspective, which retains validity from all perspectives. It gives us a very different idea of the relocation of quanta of energy and it gives us a very different idea of the energy which can be exchanged by purely electrical interactions which may be able to act through the walls of a Faraday cage.
It is, however, not easy to visualize. I insist on proposing complex time to assist us in that visualization because it is the only solution I can find.
I appreciate the patience shown me on this forum and will be happy to limit my contributions to fresh papers and technical comments as Chris indicates is more suitable. Happy to admit that I am wrong, I almost certainly am, but I will never relinquish the fight to find a mechanism of action by which we can continuously thrust a craft through empty space :)
Post by: meberbs on 10/07/2018 05:14 pm
General relativity, so far as I can dimly discern, allows us to translate dynamics into Euclidian space at the cost of narrowing our perspective to a single point.No, GR describes fully curved space with all of its complications. Since this is hard for people to grasp, and often space is relatively flat locally, some problems are solved with "flat" local space which is just special relativity. (Flat here still includes the complication of no universal time that you quoted, since that is just part of special relativity, and the spacetime is therefore non-Euclidean.) The math is general and allows any perspective.
There is a lot, in my opinion, to be gained from maintaining the wider covariant perspective,You still seem to be not understanding the word covariant. If you understood what it meant, you wouldn't be claiming that GR is not covariant, when it was from the beginning inherently covariant; it essentially introduced the concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_covariance
Talk about a "covariant perspective" still makes no sense. Every perspective is inherently different (as the quote you provided states.) The math used though is generally true independent of that, and also provides defined rules for transforming between perspectives. The math is fully independent of choice of coordinate system, which is what it actually means to be covariant.
It is, however, not easy to visualize. I insist on proposing complex time to assist us in that visualization because it is the only solution I can find.You still haven't been able to so much as describe simple motion such as a ball rolling down a hill with your "complex time." Physicists have found multiple helpful ways to display the curvature of space-time, with the problem being that any visual display is inherently limited in choice of perspective, and human senses are all designed to work on only one perspective at a time. This is why physicists typically work in math which is fully general. Complex time would at best rearrange the display problem, not make it go way, or suddenly make humans better at seeing things from multiple perspectives at once.
I appreciate the patience shown me on this forum and will be happy to limit my contributions to fresh papers and technical comments as Chris indicates is more suitable. Happy to admit that I am wrong, I almost certainly am, but I will never relinquish the fight to find a mechanism of action by which we can continuously thrust a craft through empty space :)There are some basic clarifications you could make that could help, and should be simple for you to answer. For example, you referenced "imaginary time" when I asked for a workable definition of "complex time" and after I pointed out (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1851466#msg1851466) the fundamental difference between those terms I never saw you clarify which you actually mean. (If the second, then the request for a definition stands.)
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 10/08/2018 02:29 pm
The SpaceDrive Project-Thrust Balance Development and New Measurements of the Mach-Effect and EMDrive Thrusters (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328134095_The_SpaceDrive_Project-Thrust_Balance_Development_and_New_Measurements_of_the_Mach-Effect_and_EMDrive_Thrusters)
Abstract
Forces claimed by potential propellantless propulsion systems like the Mach-Effect thruster or the EMDrive are in the μN or even sub-μN range. In this paper, an automated thrust balance design capable of measuring forces of 100 nN for thrusters with a maximum mass of 10 kg is described to test these claims. The torsion balance features an electromagnetic calibration method, adjustable magnetic damping and tilt control as well as electromagnetic shielding. All onboard electronics can be controlled wirelessly via an infrared module for serial communication. Power is supplied to the balance using three separate liquid metal feedthroughs: one for voltages up to 500 V and frequencies up to 200 kHz, one for high voltage up to 30 kV DC or AC, and one for high frequency signals up to 3 GHz. The thruster can be rotated by 180° to measure three different thrust directions without breaking the vacuum and changing the setup in order to gain confidence and refute e.g. thermal drifts. The whole balance is controlled via a script language implemented in LabVIEW. We tested Mach-Effect thrusters provided by Woodward and our own built model exploring higher frequencies and mixed-signals that are believed to create significantly higher thrusters. Also a magnetostrictive version was built and tested. For the EMDrive, several different frequencies and setups (with/without dielectric insert, flat/spherical end caps) were tested. So far, only thermal drifts and no real thrust has been observed in all our measurements.
Post by: bunjatec on 10/09/2018 07:26 am
Well done to the Dresden group for some hard work to develop such a sensitive test stand..
I hope they keep it operational to test any other propellantless thrusters (I'm specifically thinking about Mike McCulloch's approach).
I still _really_ hope that a propellantless propulsion system eventually emerges, but till then I think we're stuck chucking mass out the back of a spaceship...
Post by: cvbn on 10/09/2018 08:26 am
I hope they keep it operational to test any other propellantless thrusters (I'm specifically thinking about Mike McCulloch's approach).
Part of the DARPA funding, which McCulloch won, will go to Tajmar, so he surery will use that again on Taylor's drive based on McCulloch's theory.
I still _really_ hope that a propellantless propulsion system eventually emerges, but till then I think we're stuck chucking mass out the back of a spaceship...
UFOs do not fly using rockets, so another method of propulsion seems possible. ;)
Post by: Mark7777777 on 10/09/2018 09:14 am
WRT Tajmar's Paper, I think that's killed the EM dream for me.
Well done to the Dresden group for some hard work to develop such a sensitive test stand..
I hope they keep it operational to test any other propellantless thrusters (I'm specifically thinking about Mike McCulloch's approach).
I still _really_ hope that a propellantless propulsion system eventually emerges, but till then I think we're stuck chucking mass out the back of a spaceship...
Maybe one day in the future enough mass could be made to throw out the back:
https://phys.org/news/2018-03-underway.html
Post by: cvbn on 10/09/2018 12:07 pm
https://hrservices.plymouth.ac.uk/tlive_webrecruitment/wrd/run/ETREC107GF.open?VACANCY_ID=536609C8bp&WVID=1602750fTZ&LANG=USA
Anybody here wants to apply? :)
Post by: meberbs on 10/09/2018 07:16 pm
Maybe one day in the future enough mass could be made to throw out the back:This is the exact opposite of what is needed. At the point that you can do that at scale, you want to take the matter and anti-matter, react them together on board to turn them back into light, and throw that light out the back. Being able to generate the large quantity of anti-matter to store on board is the only reason that link would be relevant.
https://phys.org/news/2018-03-underway.html
Post by: Bob Woods on 10/09/2018 10:12 pm
McCulloch's job advert looking for a post-doc:Wanting to and having the skills are two different things ;)
https://hrservices.plymouth.ac.uk/tlive_webrecruitment/wrd/run/ETREC107GF.open?VACANCY_ID=536609C8bp&WVID=1602750fTZ&LANG=USA (https://hrservices.plymouth.ac.uk/tlive_webrecruitment/wrd/run/ETREC107GF.open?VACANCY_ID=536609C8bp&WVID=1602750fTZ&LANG=USA)
Anybody here wants to apply? :)
Post by: spupeng7 on 10/10/2018 01:47 am
meberbs,General relativity, so far as I can dimly discern, allows us to translate dynamics into Euclidian space at the cost of narrowing our perspective to a single point.No, GR describes fully curved space with all of its complications. Since this is hard for people to grasp, and often space is relatively flat locally, some problems are solved with "flat" local space which is just special relativity. (Flat here still includes the complication of no universal time that you quoted, since that is just part of special relativity, and the spacetime is therefore non-Euclidean.) The math is general and allows any perspective.There is a lot, in my opinion, to be gained from maintaining the wider covariant perspective,You still seem to be not understanding the word covariant. If you understood what it meant, you wouldn't be claiming that GR is not covariant, when it was from the beginning inherently covariant; it essentially introduced the concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_covariance
Talk about a "covariant perspective" still makes no sense. Every perspective is inherently different (as the quote you provided states.) The math used though is generally true independent of that, and also provides defined rules for transforming between perspectives. The math is fully independent of choice of coordinate system, which is what it actually means to be covariant.It is, however, not easy to visualize. I insist on proposing complex time to assist us in that visualization because it is the only solution I can find.You still haven't been able to so much as describe simple motion such as a ball rolling down a hill with your "complex time." Physicists have found multiple helpful ways to display the curvature of space-time, with the problem being that any visual display is inherently limited in choice of perspective, and human senses are all designed to work on only one perspective at a time. This is why physicists typically work in math which is fully general. Complex time would at best rearrange the display problem, not make it go way, or suddenly make humans better at seeing things from multiple perspectives at once.I appreciate the patience shown me on this forum and will be happy to limit my contributions to fresh papers and technical comments as Chris indicates is more suitable. Happy to admit that I am wrong, I almost certainly am, but I will never relinquish the fight to find a mechanism of action by which we can continuously thrust a craft through empty space :)There are some basic clarifications you could make that could help, and should be simple for you to answer. For example, you referenced "imaginary time" when I asked for a workable definition of "complex time" and after I pointed out (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1851466#msg1851466) the fundamental difference between those terms I never saw you clarify which you actually mean. (If the second, then the request for a definition stands.)
we have been asked to discontinue this absurd reciprocation of misunderstandings, I think we should both respect that.
Post by: meberbs on 10/10/2018 06:06 am
we have been asked to discontinue this absurd reciprocation of misunderstandings, I think we should both respect that.A reminder of forum rules was made rather than a direct request to stop related discussion. There don't have to be misunderstandings if you help clarify your statements. I would enjoy continued discussion if you decide to clarify your statements as described in my previous post. If you post more untrue statements about existing physics or renowned physicists, I will probably respond as well, although without the enjoyment. Otherwise this is as good of a stopping point as any.
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/10/2018 11:21 am
OCTOBER 2, 2018
THRUSTER DEVELOPMENT CONTINUES
Cannae Inc. continues thruster testing and development. We are in the process of securing funds for our satellite demonstration. Cannae anticipates launching a cubesat mounted version of the Cannae thruster in 2019. Keep posted.
Source: http://cannae.com/thruster-development-continues/
Post by: Star One on 10/10/2018 12:57 pm
Here is someone we haven't heard from in a while. Too bad Cannae isn't more open with their research.
OCTOBER 2, 2018
THRUSTER DEVELOPMENT CONTINUES
Cannae Inc. continues thruster testing and development. We are in the process of securing funds for our satellite demonstration. Cannae anticipates launching a cubesat mounted version of the Cannae thruster in 2019. Keep posted.
Source: http://cannae.com/thruster-development-continues/
Has anyone found out why they are so secretive, is it just commercial reasons?
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 10/10/2018 03:02 pm
WRT Tajmar's Paper, I think that's killed the EM dream for me.
Well done to the Dresden group for some hard work to develop such a sensitive test stand..
Not so fast. The effect (the EMDrive) was quite improbable from the first time, of course. But the experiments by Tajmar et al and other groups are quite limited up to now. And don't we demand a peer reviewed publication now? The Kössling et al paper (the Dresden group) is probably not peer reviewed, it is a congress paper.
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 10/10/2018 03:11 pm
McCulloch's job advert looking for a post-doc:
https://hrservices.plymouth.ac.uk/tlive_webrecruitment/wrd/run/ETREC107GF.open?VACANCY_ID=536609C8bp&WVID=1602750fTZ&LANG=USA
Anybody here wants to apply? :)
Tricky. What if the researcher finds in the first months already that the theory is bollocks?
Someone versed in QM and relativity can probably make this up in the first month. Then he/she must choose between the job (well, only 14 months) or scientific integrity.
And emphasize on modelling? They probably should concentrate on whether the theory is compatible with "the classic tests" (solar system dynamics, shapiro time delay, gravitational waves).
Post by: moreno7798 on 10/10/2018 08:25 pm
WRT Tajmar's Paper, I think that's killed the EM dream for me.
Well done to the Dresden group for some hard work to develop such a sensitive test stand..
Not so fast. The effect (the EMDrive) was quite improbable from the first time, of course. But the experiments by Tajmar et al and other groups are quite limited up to now. And don't we demand a peer reviewed publication now? The Kössling et al paper (the Dresden group) is probably not peer reviewed, it is a congress paper.
Here's the problem.
How do you reconcile a peer reviewed paper from a NASA scientist (Dr. Sonny White) from Eagleworks Labs, with these independant papers? Why have peer review then if there is no consensus amongst peers?
These new papers must be peer reviewed or their findings are as good as good as Roger Shawyer's.
Post by: cvbn on 10/11/2018 12:27 am
What if the researcher finds in the first months already that the theory is bollocks?
The dark matter hypothesis is probably bollocks (http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2017/10/dark-matter-does-not-exist.html) and it doesn't stop anyone from researching it. ;(
Post by: meberbs on 10/11/2018 01:23 am
McCulloch is obviously biased at this point. Points 6 through 8 on that page are not even valid arguments, and discredit everything else he says. Points 1 through 5 at least would sound valid if they weren't followed by nonsense, but the general counter to all of them is that dark matter does a better job fitting all of the available data than any other theory anyone has come up with (and unlike his claim in point 7, physicists have tried other theories https://xkcd.com/1758/).What if the researcher finds in the first months already that the theory is bollocks?
The dark matter hypothesis is probably bollocks (http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2017/10/dark-matter-does-not-exist.html) and it doesn't stop anyone from researching it. ;(
There is data (http://ttps://www.space.com/40119-ghostly-galaxy-almost-no-dark-matter.html) (more recent than the linked blog post) showing that galaxies exist that have different concentrations of dark matter than typical. This data is nearly impossible to explain without dark matter.
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 10/11/2018 09:50 am
Here's the problem.
How do you reconcile a peer reviewed paper from a NASA scientist (Dr. Sonny White) from Eagleworks Labs, with these independant papers? Why have peer review then if there is no consensus amongst peers?
Peer reviewed only means that it meets up to certain scientific quality standards (which are different from journal to journal) and that it is new. The peers can point at certain weaknesses in the study, which then can be fixed (or not, of course) [1]. It does not mean that was is written necessarily has to be true. It is just one step in the scientific process and it is not meant as a presentation to the general public.
What concerns the difference in standards: the White et al. paper could not have been published in a physics journal, I think (NB, that does not mean I have great respect for their work. There were some simple tests though, which, with just a few days extra work, would have made things a lot clearer).
Added: [1] There doesn't have to be consensus between peers. It doesn't/shouldn't work that way. The referee can have a different opinion, think the new paper will proof to be not correct in the future, but judge that the author(s) use arguments and/or data of sufficient quality that they should be allowed to state otherwise (if the referee is honoust and unbiased enough). For instance in the dark matter/modified gravity debate.
Post by: cvbn on 10/11/2018 11:59 am
McCulloch is obviously biased at this point. Points 6 through 8 on that page are not even valid arguments, and discredit everything else he says. Points 1 through 5 at least would sound valid if they weren't followed by nonsense, but the general counter to all of them is that dark matter does a better job fitting all of the available data than any other theory anyone has come up with (and unlike his claim in point 7, physicists have tried other theories https://xkcd.com/1758/).What if the researcher finds in the first months already that the theory is bollocks?
The dark matter hypothesis is probably bollocks (http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2017/10/dark-matter-does-not-exist.html) and it doesn't stop anyone from researching it. ;(
There is data (http://ttps://www.space.com/40119-ghostly-galaxy-almost-no-dark-matter.html) (more recent than the linked blog post) showing that galaxies exist that have different concentrations of dark matter than typical. This data is nearly impossible to explain without dark matter.
Dark matter hypothesis is an ad-hoc hypothesis and a fudge factor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fudge_factor). They have to fit it for every galaxy to make it fit observations. Hence, it cannot predict anything. What's the use of a hypothesis, which cannot predict? It is a pointless exercise and waste of money, really.
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/11/2018 01:09 pm
And emphasize on modelling? They probably should concentrate on whether the theory is compatible with "the classic tests" (solar system dynamics, shapiro time delay, gravitational waves).
I know that dark matter is required to create simulations of the universe that closest match observations. If McCulloch can show his model can also simulate the large scale structure of the universe, in addition to rotational curves of galaxies, then that would be an accomplishment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qeT4DkEX-w
Post by: dustinthewind on 10/11/2018 01:15 pm
McCulloch is obviously biased at this point. Points 6 through 8 on that page are not even valid arguments, and discredit everything else he says. Points 1 through 5 at least would sound valid if they weren't followed by nonsense, but the general counter to all of them is that dark matter does a better job fitting all of the available data than any other theory anyone has come up with (and unlike his claim in point 7, physicists have tried other theories https://xkcd.com/1758/).What if the researcher finds in the first months already that the theory is bollocks?
The dark matter hypothesis is probably bollocks (http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2017/10/dark-matter-does-not-exist.html) and it doesn't stop anyone from researching it. ;(
There is data (http://ttps://www.space.com/40119-ghostly-galaxy-almost-no-dark-matter.html) (more recent than the linked blog post) showing that galaxies exist that have different concentrations of dark matter than typical. This data is nearly impossible to explain without dark matter.
I wanted to point out that the Janus cosmological model introduces dark matter in another parallel dimension of reverse time. If it comes down to the necessity for dark matter that might pass. that is if gravity penetrates the dimensional barrier. They presume it does and it looks like it should.
There is a separate thread in the new physics forms for the Janus cosmological model.
Mikes Quantized inertia may also be superimposed over it possibly?
Post by: MikeMcCulloch on 10/11/2018 02:00 pm
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 10/11/2018 02:33 pm
Dear monomorphic. Dark matter is an arbitrary hypothesis, so the fact that a computer can use it to produce what we already know to be there is no surprise: they just fiddled with it till it worked. QI is not arbitrary at all, but the idea of me spending two years trying to model cosmic voids and then have dark matter people say "Oh, we can do it too!" does not appeal :) A lab test with an immediate application is the only way to progress.
QI
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/11/2018 02:53 pm
Dear monomorphic. Dark matter is an arbitrary hypothesis, so the fact that a computer can use it to produce what we already know to be there is no surprise: they just fiddled with it till it worked. QI is not arbitrary at all, but the idea of me spending two years trying to model cosmic voids and then have dark matter people say "Oh, we can do it too!" does not appeal :) A lab test with an immediate application is the only way to progress.
Mike:
You might like to read through the attached papers by Paul Stevenson, Sonny White and Eric Davis on what cosmological dark matter and dark energy may actually be and and how the quantum vacuum may play a part in this puzzle when it comes to explaining the origins of inertia, and what dark matter actually may be. Then lets think about what form the cosmological dark energy field AKA GRT spacetime takes in regards to whether it is background independent as required by Einstein's GRT and thus requiring the graviton as its fundamental force carrier, or whether it could be just photonic i.e., E&M in nature. Once we have those answers in place, your quantized inertia conjecture may make a lot more sense to the GRT / cosmological community. And only then comes the engineering stuff that this forum is fond of reviewing...
All the Best, Paul March
Post by: meberbs on 10/11/2018 05:23 pm
Dark matter hypothesis is an ad-hoc hypothesis and a fudge factor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fudge_factor). They have to fit it for every galaxy to make it fit observations. Hence, it cannot predict anything. What's the use of a hypothesis, which cannot predict? It is a pointless exercise and waste of money, really.This is simply an invalid argument. Every hypothesis is designed by definition to fit the available data. A real waste of time and money is to explore a hypothesis that from the beginning does not fit the available data. Dark matter has not been proven correct, but it is the only major theory that actually fits the data. Unless it is actually proven wrong, it would be absurd to abandon a theory that has a reasonable chance of being correct, and even more absurd when there is no viable alternative.
Dear monomorphic. Dark matter is an arbitrary hypothesis, so the fact that a computer can use it to produce what we already know to be there is no surprise: they just fiddled with it till it worked. QI is not arbitrary at all, but the idea of me spending two years trying to model cosmic voids and then have dark matter people say "Oh, we can do it too!" does not appeal :) A lab test with an immediate application is the only way to progress.One of the problems with your theory is that there is no way it can match the data. The data I linked before shows that gravity apparently varies between otherwise comparable galaxies. You fundamentally cannot explain this without having something that we cannot otherwise see affecting gravity, which is basically the definition of dark matter.
It seems your post is nothing more than using an invalid argument (it is a nice to have if a model has less unknowns to fiddle with, but not at the cost of it working) to tear down the best theory we have because you don't like that your theory has trouble competing with in the realm of "can it describe reality." Considering that as I said you essentially lied in the blog post that was linked above, I am not sure how you expect to be taken seriously.
I wanted to point out that the Janus cosmological model introduces dark matter in another parallel dimension of reverse time.Not to go too far into it here, but while that passes the variability test for the data I linked earlier, there are other properties of dark matter such as not significantly colliding with itself that would be harder for such a model to explain. (not impossible, but it adds more complications)
...and we have now been completely sidetracked from the actual topic of this thread, and should probably break this discussion out to somewhere relevant (there probably is an existing dark matter thread on this site.)
Edit: I couldn't find one, so I created one, please put any replies there: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46549.0
Post by: spupeng7 on 10/12/2018 02:12 am
Dear monomorphic. Dark matter is an arbitrary hypothesis, so the fact that a computer can use it to produce what we already know to be there is no surprise: they just fiddled with it till it worked. QI is not arbitrary at all, but the idea of me spending two years trying to model cosmic voids and then have dark matter people say "Oh, we can do it too!" does not appeal :) A lab test with an immediate application is the only way to progress.Mike,
are you developing any experiments? An emdrive repeat or something else which your theory suggests. I ask because we both must find physical evidence and, well, ten heads are better than one.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 10/13/2018 04:51 pm
Dear monomorphic. Dark matter is an arbitrary hypothesis, so the fact that a computer can use it to produce what we already know to be there is no surprise: they just fiddled with it till it worked. QI is not arbitrary at all, but the idea of me spending two years trying to model cosmic voids and then have dark matter people say "Oh, we can do it too!" does not appeal :) A lab test with an immediate application is the only way to progress.Mike,
are you developing any experiments? An emdrive repeat or something else which your theory suggests. I ask because we both must find physical evidence and, well, ten heads are better than one.
This prior post of mine will answer your question:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1859723#msg1859723
Mike will not at first develop an experiment to test quantised inertia on its own, but three groups in Spain and Germany will. Sadly the third group, which worked with Mike for more than a year, recently published a paper on viXra (29 September 2018):
• Electrostatic Accelerated Electrons Within Information Horizons Exert Bidirectional Propellant-Less Thrust (http://vixra.org/abs/1809.0579)
but then removed any mention of quantised inertia apparently to be able to publish (it is only a preprint!) on the arXiv, confirming the weird behavior of the mainstream and essential preprint (or is it "postprint" finally?) platform (10 October 2018):
• Electrostatic accelerated electrons within symmetric capacitors during field emission condition events exert bidirectional propellant-less thrust (https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04368)
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/13/2018 09:04 pm
https://www.quantamagazine.org/famous-experiment-dooms-pilot-wave-alternative-to-quantum-weirdness-20181011/
https://journals.aps.org/pre/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevE.92.013006
In a thought-provoking paper, Couder and Fort [Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 154101 (2006)] describe a version of the famous double-slit experiment performed with droplets bouncing on a vertically vibrated fluid surface. In the experiment, an interference pattern in the single-particle statistics is found even though it is possible to determine unambiguously which slit the walking droplet passes. Here we argue, however, that the single-particle statistics in such an experiment will be fundamentally different from the single-particle statistics of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanical interference takes place between different classical paths with precise amplitude and phase relations. In the double-slit experiment with walking droplets, these relations are lost since one of the paths is singled out by the droplet. To support our conclusions, we have carried out our own double-slit experiment, and our results, in particular the long and variable slit passage times of the droplets, cast strong doubt on the feasibility of the interference claimed by Couder and Fort. To understand theoretically the limitations of wave-driven particle systems as analogs to quantum mechanics, we introduce a Schrödinger equation with a source term originating from a localized particle that generates a wave while being simultaneously guided by it. We show that the ensuing particle-wave dynamics can capture some characteristics of quantum mechanics such as orbital quantization. However, the particle-wave dynamics can not reproduce quantum mechanics in general, and we show that the single-particle statistics for our model in a double-slit experiment with an additional splitter plate differs qualitatively from that of quantum mechanics.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/701/1/012007
We provide support for the claim that momentum is conserved for individual events in the electron double slit experiment. The natural consequence is that a physical mechanism is responsible for this momentum exchange, but that even if the fundamental mechanism is known for electron crystal diffraction and the Kapitza-Dirac effect, it is unknown for electron diffraction from nano-fabricated double slits. Work towards a proposed explanation in terms of particle trajectories affected by a vacuum field is discussed. The contentious use of trajectories is discussed within the context of oil droplet analogues of double slit diffraction.
http://math.mit.edu/~bush/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Pucci-Slits-2017.pdf
Couder & Fort ( Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 97, 2006, 154101) demonstrated that when a droplet walking on the surface of a vibrating bath passes through a single or a double slit, it is deflected due to the distortion of its guiding wave field. Moreover, they suggested the build-up of statistical diffraction and interference patterns similar to those arising for quantum particles. Recently, these results have been revisited (Andersen et al. , Phys. Rev. E, vol. 92 (1), 2015, 013006; Batelaan et al. , J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. , vol. 701 (1), 2016, 012007) and contested (Andersen et al. 2015; Bohr, Andersen & Lautrup, Recent Advances in Fluid Dynamics with Environmental Applications , 2016, Springer, pp. 335–349). We revisit these experiments with a refined experimental set-up that allows us to systematically characterize the dependence of the dynamical and statistical behaviour on the system parameters. The system behaviour is shown to depend strongly on the amplitude of the vibrational forcing: as this forcing increases, a transition from repeatable to unpredictable trajectories arises. In all cases considered, the system behaviour is dominated by a wall effect, specifically the tendency for a drop to walk along a path that makes a fixed angle relative to the plane of the slits. While the three dominant central peaks apparent in the histograms of the deflection angle reported by Couder & Fort (2006) are evident in some of the parameter regimes considered in our study, the Fraunhofer-like dependence of the number of peaks on the slit width is not recovered. In the double-slit geometry, the droplet is influenced by both slits by virtue of the spatial extent of its guiding wave field. The experimental behaviour is well captured by a recently developed theoretical model that allows for a robust treatment of walking droplets interacting with boundaries. Our study underscores the importance of experimental precision in obtaining reproducible data.
Post by: SeeShells on 10/14/2018 02:13 am
Famous Experiment Dooms Alternative to Quantum WeirdnessNot sure if it Dooms it. I'd noticed that in their experiment they used a droplet that is just a particle not a wave and particle
https://www.quantamagazine.org/famous-experiment-dooms-pilot-wave-alternative-to-quantum-weirdness-20181011/
https://journals.aps.org/pre/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevE.92.013006
In a thought-provoking paper, Couder and Fort [Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 154101 (2006)] describe a version of the famous double-slit experiment performed with droplets bouncing on a vertically vibrated fluid surface. In the experiment, an interference pattern in the single-particle statistics is found even though it is possible to determine unambiguously which slit the walking droplet passes. Here we argue, however, that the single-particle statistics in such an experiment will be fundamentally different from the single-particle statistics of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanical interference takes place between different classical paths with precise amplitude and phase relations. In the double-slit experiment with walking droplets, these relations are lost since one of the paths is singled out by the droplet. To support our conclusions, we have carried out our own double-slit experiment, and our results, in particular the long and variable slit passage times of the droplets, cast strong doubt on the feasibility of the interference claimed by Couder and Fort. To understand theoretically the limitations of wave-driven particle systems as analogs to quantum mechanics, we introduce a Schrödinger equation with a source term originating from a localized particle that generates a wave while being simultaneously guided by it. We show that the ensuing particle-wave dynamics can capture some characteristics of quantum mechanics such as orbital quantization. However, the particle-wave dynamics can not reproduce quantum mechanics in general, and we show that the single-particle statistics for our model in a double-slit experiment with an additional splitter plate differs qualitatively from that of quantum mechanics.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/701/1/012007
We provide support for the claim that momentum is conserved for individual events in the electron double slit experiment. The natural consequence is that a physical mechanism is responsible for this momentum exchange, but that even if the fundamental mechanism is known for electron crystal diffraction and the Kapitza-Dirac effect, it is unknown for electron diffraction from nano-fabricated double slits. Work towards a proposed explanation in terms of particle trajectories affected by a vacuum field is discussed. The contentious use of trajectories is discussed within the context of oil droplet analogues of double slit diffraction.
http://math.mit.edu/~bush/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Pucci-Slits-2017.pdf
Couder & Fort ( Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 97, 2006, 154101) demonstrated that when a droplet walking on the surface of a vibrating bath passes through a single or a double slit, it is deflected due to the distortion of its guiding wave field. Moreover, they suggested the build-up of statistical diffraction and interference patterns similar to those arising for quantum particles. Recently, these results have been revisited (Andersen et al. , Phys. Rev. E, vol. 92 (1), 2015, 013006; Batelaan et al. , J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. , vol. 701 (1), 2016, 012007) and contested (Andersen et al. 2015; Bohr, Andersen & Lautrup, Recent Advances in Fluid Dynamics with Environmental Applications , 2016, Springer, pp. 335–349). We revisit these experiments with a refined experimental set-up that allows us to systematically characterize the dependence of the dynamical and statistical behaviour on the system parameters. The system behaviour is shown to depend strongly on the amplitude of the vibrational forcing: as this forcing increases, a transition from repeatable to unpredictable trajectories arises. In all cases considered, the system behaviour is dominated by a wall effect, specifically the tendency for a drop to walk along a path that makes a fixed angle relative to the plane of the slits. While the three dominant central peaks apparent in the histograms of the deflection angle reported by Couder & Fort (2006) are evident in some of the parameter regimes considered in our study, the Fraunhofer-like dependence of the number of peaks on the slit width is not recovered. In the double-slit geometry, the droplet is influenced by both slits by virtue of the spatial extent of its guiding wave field. The experimental behaviour is well captured by a recently developed theoretical model that allows for a robust treatment of walking droplets interacting with boundaries. Our study underscores the importance of experimental precision in obtaining reproducible data.
"Quote"
BM is about particles and these particles are guided by Schrödinger’s wave
function. Thus in BM the situation is “wave and particle” rather than
“wave or particle”." "End Quote"
http://www.mathematik.uni-muenchen.de/~bohmmech/BohmHome/files/Frequently_Asked_Questions_about_Bohmian_Mechanics.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCW93koLNYY
I would recommend taking some time and watching this series of videos on BM.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6qAdz3CNtg
My Very Best,
Shell
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/14/2018 11:11 am
I'd noticed that in their experiment they used a droplet that is just a particle not a wave and particle
There is a wave in the silicone oil bath. The droplet bounces around and is guided by this pilot wave. Couder and Fort's 2006 experiment claimed to produce the same interference patterns as the classic double slit experiment. This was presented as a macroscopic analogue of the particle and guiding wave from Bohmian Mechanics (BM). However, those interference patterns have not been replicated, and analysis of the pilot wave suggests that it cannot interfere with itself as suggested by BM.
Of course, the bouncing droplet is not really quantum mechanical so it is not surprising this is the outcome. It will be interesting to see what was the cause of these previous interference patterns. The paper mentions that it may take certain frequencies or a certain amount of noise. That sounds familiar! ;)
Post by: SeeShells on 10/14/2018 12:48 pm
The bouncing oil droplet is only a analogy used to show how pilot waves might act not a true representation of BM.I'd noticed that in their experiment they used a droplet that is just a particle not a wave and particle
There is a wave in the silicone oil bath. The droplet bounces around and is guided by this pilot wave. Couder and Fort's 2006 experiment claimed to produce the same interference patterns as the classic double slit experiment. This was presented as a macroscopic analogue of the particle and guiding wave from Bohmian Mechanics (BM). However, those interference patterns have not been replicated, and analysis of the pilot wave suggests that it cannot interfere with itself as suggested by BM.
Of course, the bouncing droplet is not really quantum mechanical so it is not surprising this is the outcome. It will be interesting to see what was the cause of these previous interference patterns. The paper mentions that it may take certain frequencies or a certain amount of noise. That sounds familiar! ;)
This is an article in The Physics arXiv Blog where the object are larger than an electron (which isn't hard to do considering the electrons size :D)
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/physicists-smash-record-for-wave-particle-duality-462c39db8e7b
(https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*izVyn5p1uNeHcD0AcTYdxw.png)
Quote
Of course, nobody has seen the quantum superposition of a baseball or anything anywhere near that size. The experiment would be impossibly difficult. But physicists have seen this wave-particle duality for protons, atoms and increasingly large molecules such as buckyballs.
And that raises an interesting question: how big an object can physicists observe behaving like a wave? Today, Sandra Eibenberger at the University of Vienna in Austria and a few pals say they’ve smashed the record for a quantum superposition by observing wavelike behavior in giant molecules containing over 800 atoms.
My Very Best,
Shell
Post by: Mark7777777 on 10/21/2018 07:50 pm
Post by: Notsosureofit on 10/21/2018 08:01 pm
Post by: Josave on 10/21/2018 08:35 pm
Dear monomorphic. Dark matter is an arbitrary hypothesis, so the fact that a computer can use it to produce what we already know to be there is no surprise: they just fiddled with it till it worked. QI is not arbitrary at all, but the idea of me spending two years trying to model cosmic voids and then have dark matter people say "Oh, we can do it too!" does not appeal :) A lab test with an immediate application is the only way to progress.
One of the problems with your theory is that there is no way it can match the data. The data I linked before shows that gravity apparently varies between otherwise comparable galaxies. You fundamentally cannot explain this without having something that we cannot otherwise see affecting gravity, which is basically the definition of dark matter.
It seems your post is nothing more than using an invalid argument (it is a nice to have if a model has less unknowns to fiddle with, but not at the cost of it working) to tear down the best theory we have because you don't like that your theory has trouble competing with in the realm of "can it describe reality." Considering that as I said you essentially lied in the blog post that was linked above, I am not sure how you expect to be taken seriously.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.09128
https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.7719
Reading the above references I tend to think like Dr. McCulloch, considering dark matter as an arbitrary and not falsifiable theory that doesn’t match the dataset of the distribution of the matter in the universe. Reading the references seems to prove that no matter of arbitrary is the dark matter distribution we hypothesize, it is impossible to match the velocity of the Bullet Cluster. Prior attempts to return to dark matter paradigm in cluster simulations https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.7438.pdf are refuted by these references.
BONUS: Is the Buller Cluster a cosmological size EM-Drive? Possibly yes!! The decelerating big mass of stripped gas creates a low inertia area in front: this that we see as dark matter due to the higher lensing effects over the objects seen behind!!! And the stars in this low inertia area are traveling anomaly fast in the direction they were moving because they are inertia-less. Dark matter will never explain the extra velocity but QI does!
Post by: Mulletron on 10/22/2018 06:46 pm
While the work below is about laser beams, I think it's useful for a general understanding of how light effects spacetime.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6382/aadc81
There's a lot in the article, but a key takeaway is that beam divergence makes a difference.
Post by: meberbs on 10/23/2018 02:59 am
https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.09128Discussion of the existence of dark matter is off topic as I said before, but since your post has not been removed I'll respond.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.7719
Reading the above references I tend to think like Dr. McCulloch, considering dark matter as an arbitrary and not falsifiable theory that doesn’t match the dataset of the distribution of the matter in the universe. Reading the references seems to prove that no matter of arbitrary is the dark matter distribution we hypothesize, it is impossible to match the velocity of the Bullet Cluster. Prior attempts to return to dark matter paradigm in cluster simulations https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.7438.pdf are refuted by these references.
Your statements are completely at odds with the papers you are citing. The first says right in its abstract that the bullet cluster is within expectations, and that it would take more systems with comparable parameters to challenge current cosmology models. This statement also discredits your claim of "not falsifiable" for dark matter, although in this case what would potentially be falsified is a specific form of dark matter, not the concept in general.
The second link you provided is basically irrelevant. It has a fairly weak claim (specific cases with multiple assumptions) They would have to at least show that they could explain a wide body of data without changing the parameters they fit. Even then, it would not be enough to claim dark matter is wrong because of a single not-peer reviewed paper.
The third link has been revised more recently than either of the other 2, and has the conclusion that there is not even potentially a problem. Neither paper is peer reviewed, and it is potentially an open question which paper actually uses statistics correctly, but the available range of conclusions is: "potentially a problem for ΛCDM, if sufficiently more data of certain properties appears" through "no chance of remotely being a problem, completely different data would be needed for there to be a problem"
If you actually read the papers, you would see that your first link references an early version of the third, and it does so with a context of agreement, not disagreement, as both papers counter earlier works that used incorrect statistics to conclude that ΛCDM has almost no chance of producing such a collision. (Note: it sounds like they are dealing with tails of probability distributions which are notoriously difficult to get right, and it is unsurprising if earlier works made bad assumptions.)
In summary, you did not get the dates right on which paper is the most recent, and misinterpreted the claims of both papers.
BONUS: Is the Buller Cluster a cosmological size EM-Drive? Possibly yes!! The decelerating big mass of stripped gas creates a low inertia area in front: this that we see as dark matter due to the higher lensing effects over the objects seen behind!!! And the stars in this low inertia area are traveling anomaly fast in the direction they were moving because they are inertia-less. Dark matter will never explain the extra velocity but QI does!Statements of the form "Maybe <thing unrelated to microwaves or resonant cavities> is an emDrive, because it has <property that it doesn't have>" do not actually make your post relevant. Even worse when followed up by false statements such as claiming that standard physics doesn't explain things that it does (read the papers you linked to start with), and asserting that some other theory does explain those things, but without proof.
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/23/2018 02:18 pm
https://youtu.be/Mdcer1QQLrA
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/23/2018 07:28 pm
Chinese EmDrive PR release:
This is from Sept. 2017.
Post by: Mulletron on 10/24/2018 05:11 pm
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/1964224_Induction_and_Amplification_of_Non-Newtonian_Gravitational_Fields
Quote
Hence, both Saxl and Woodward experimentally reasoned a relationship between
charge, mass and acceleration. A combination of all these factors to reduce/increase the
weight of a body is described in a patent by Yamashita and Toyama 14. A cylinder was rotated
and charged using a Van der Graff generator. During operation the weight of the rotating
cylinder was monitored on a scale. The setup is shown in Figure 5. If the cylinder was
charged positively, a positive change of weight up to 4 grams at top speed was indicated. The
same charge negative produced a reduction of weight of about 11 grams (out of 1300 grams
total weight). This is an asymmetry similar to the one mentioned by Saxl 11. Also the
relationship between charge, rotation and mass is similar to Saxl and Woodward. The
experimentors note that the weight changed according to the speed of the cylinder ruling out
electrostatic forces, and that it did not depend on the orientation of rotation ruling out
magnetic forces. The reported change of weight (below 1 %) is significant and indicates a
very high order of magnitude effect.
(PDF) Induction and Amplification of Non-Newtonian Gravitational Fields. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/1964224_Induction_and_Amplification_of_Non-Newtonian_Gravitational_Fields [accessed Oct 24 2018].
The above quote is on page 10 and references the previous 3 pages of the paper. The concern I have is that this kind of thing sounds a little too good to be true, or speculative, and it certainly hasn't been discussed much as far as I can see across the internet. It seems like it would be very big news if true. Does anyone have opinions about the validity of such claims?
Post by: Notsosureofit on 10/24/2018 05:54 pm
Pretty good summary of Lorentz violation in SME here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0287.pdf
Post by: spupeng7 on 10/25/2018 01:11 am
Chinese EmDrive PR release:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdcer1QQLrA
Thanks TT,
good translation included as text, nice. I can only hope that this work continues, being wrong but trying anyway leaves open the possibility of being right. Assuming that you already know the answer leaves open the possibility that you will miss the best opportunity ever presented to you. I like the way he is unconcerned about the lack of theoretical support for this work, there is a name for that, it's called courage.
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 10/25/2018 11:31 am
So I took the time to read this in greater detail, instead just skimming over it as before (because I'm also interested in "amplification mechanisms"), and I'm concerned about the quote below:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/1964224_Induction_and_Amplification_of_Non-Newtonian_Gravitational_FieldsQuoteHence, both Saxl and Woodward experimentally reasoned a relationship between
charge, mass and acceleration. A combination of all these factors to reduce/increase the
weight of a body is described in a patent by Yamashita and Toyama 14. A cylinder was rotated
and charged using a Van der Graff generator. During operation the weight of the rotating
cylinder was monitored on a scale. The setup is shown in Figure 5. If the cylinder was
charged positively, a positive change of weight up to 4 grams at top speed was indicated. The
same charge negative produced a reduction of weight of about 11 grams (out of 1300 grams
total weight). This is an asymmetry similar to the one mentioned by Saxl 11. Also the
relationship between charge, rotation and mass is similar to Saxl and Woodward. The
experimentors note that the weight changed according to the speed of the cylinder ruling out
electrostatic forces, and that it did not depend on the orientation of rotation ruling out
magnetic forces. The reported change of weight (below 1 %) is significant and indicates a
very high order of magnitude effect.
(PDF) Induction and Amplification of Non-Newtonian Gravitational Fields. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/1964224_Induction_and_Amplification_of_Non-Newtonian_Gravitational_Fields [accessed Oct 24 2018].
The above quote is on page 10 and references the previous 3 pages of the paper. The concern I have is that this kind of thing sounds a little too good to be true, or speculative, and it certainly hasn't been discussed much as far as I can see across the internet. It seems like it would be very big news if true. Does anyone have opinions about the validity of such claims?
This research by Saxl (An Electrically Charged Torque Pendulum, Nature, Vol 203, 1964), is almost certainly due to experimental error. Probably there was a voltage difference between the (conductive) pendulum mass and the shielding around it.
I am a bit familiar with Saxl's research. I visited Dr Mildred Allen in 1986, corresponded with the late Prof. Jay Burns (Florida Inst. of Techn., who inherited Saxl's torsion pendulum). I am in the possession of Saxl's lab notebooks (45).
[No, at the moment I don't have a lot of time to discuss details. I plan to do some more analysis of his data of other pendulum experiments during one of my future sabaticals, digitize them, etc. Eventually, if a university library or so in the USA is willing to have them, they should go there. Some analysis and an unpublished paper by Saxl, Allen & Burns is included in the book by Héctor A. Múnera (https://www.amazon.com/Should-Laws-Gravitation-Reconsidered-Scientific/dp/0986492655) ]
Btw: it is "van de Graaff generator"
Post by: X_RaY on 10/29/2018 08:11 pm
Chinese EmDrive PR release:This particular shape of a cavity resonator (as far as we know of) was analyzed (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1721229#msg1721229) previously. There is nothing special, only a greater loss localized at one of the end-plates. Regarding the forces introduced by HF signal respecting the Maxwell equations there is no way to generate a net force this way. Please show us the rabbit hole that makes it possible anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdcer1QQLrA
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/assets/42978.0/1446976.jpg)
Post by: dustinthewind on 10/30/2018 06:16 pm
Chinese EmDrive PR release:This particular shape of a cavity resonator (as far as we know of) was analyzed (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1721229#msg1721229) previously. There is nothing special, only a greater loss localized at one of the end-plates. Regarding the forces introduced by HF signal respecting the Maxwell equations there is no way to generate a net force this way. Please show us the rabbit hole that makes it possible anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdcer1QQLrA
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/assets/42978.0/1446976.jpg)
I was thinking about this sometime in the past and in a previous post. The idea was to introduce two simultaneous frequencies in the cavity. The objective was to emulate The Mach effect with the electrons in the cavity at GHz frequencies. The fins would increase the number of electrons interacting.
Is the cavity simulation transverse magnetic or transverse Electric?
Looking at the cavity, I want to say to use transverse magnetic. This will accelerate the electrons along the fins. The first frequency you to use would be on the order of the length of the fins. Mix this with another frequency of half the wavelength of the fins.
It might tie into changing the effective mass of the electrons. There might be some relation to a second-order Doppler effect of reflected photons being absorbed by an object of one mass and emanated by an object of another Mass. Push when the electrons are heavy, pull when they are light.
There might be something to transverse electric as well but I'm not positive. Possibly a hard push by radiation then the signal dying out slowly but I have my doubts.
Pardon the errors. I'm using my phone.
Post by: X_RaY on 10/30/2018 07:09 pm
The simulation shows a TE mode driven by a point like magnetic dipole source. Modulated signals (two frequencies at the same time) are not possible with the used solver and program, sorry.Chinese EmDrive PR release:This particular shape of a cavity resonator (as far as we know of) was analyzed (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1721229#msg1721229) previously. There is nothing special, only a greater loss localized at one of the end-plates. Regarding the forces introduced by HF signal respecting the Maxwell equations there is no way to generate a net force this way. Please show us the rabbit hole that makes it possible anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdcer1QQLrA
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/assets/42978.0/1446976.jpg)
I was thinking about this sometime in the past and in a previous post. The idea was to introduce two simultaneous frequencies in the cavity. The objective was to emulate The Mach effect with the electrons in the cavity at GHz frequencies. The fins would increase the number of electrons interacting.
Is the cavity simulation transverse magnetic or transverse Electric?
Looking at the cavity, I want to say to use transverse magnetic. This will accelerate the electrons along the fins. The first frequency you to use would be on the order of the length of the fins. Mix this with another frequency of half the wavelength of the fins.
It might tie into changing the effective mass of the electrons. There might be some relation to a second-order Doppler effect of reflected photons being absorbed by an object of one mass and emanated by an object of another Mass. Push when the electrons are heavy, pull when they are light.
There might be something to transverse electric as well but I'm not positive. Possibly a hard push by radiation then the signal dying out slowly but I have my doubts.
Pardon the errors. I'm using my phone.
The idea to excite two modes within the cavity was discussed in the past. Either by tuning the geometry in a way that two different modes are preferred at the same time for the given shape by using a single drive frequency(this single frequency scenario is feasible with the solver) as by using modulated signals for example two separate frequencies to excite different modes of different shapes in the resonator. The problem with this is that the resulting field pattern would form a so called degenerated state, a vector field that try to follow both single vectors(of the different modes) to form an average vector at each position. The time average of the net force should be again a null result.
I can not see a process that is
...changing the effective mass of the electrons...in this way. Please explain it in more detail.
Post by: RotoSequence on 10/30/2018 08:55 pm
Post by: dustinthewind on 10/31/2018 12:01 am
I am not saying this is what they are doing. Just what I would like to experiment with and that their device makes me think of it.The simulation shows a TE mode driven by a point like magnetic dipole source. Modulated signals (two frequencies at the same time) are not possible with the used solver and program, sorry.Chinese EmDrive PR release:This particular shape of a cavity resonator (as far as we know of) was analyzed (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1721229#msg1721229) previously. There is nothing special, only a greater loss localized at one of the end-plates. Regarding the forces introduced by HF signal respecting the Maxwell equations there is no way to generate a net force this way. Please show us the rabbit hole that makes it possible anyway.
...
...
I was thinking about this sometime in the past and in a previous post. The idea was to introduce two simultaneous frequencies in the cavity. The objective was to emulate The Mach effect with the electrons in the cavity at GHz frequencies. The fins would increase the number of electrons interacting.
Is the cavity simulation transverse magnetic or transverse Electric?
Looking at the cavity, I want to say to use transverse magnetic. This will accelerate the electrons along the fins. The first frequency you to use would be on the order of the length of the fins. Mix this with another frequency of half the wavelength of the fins.
It might tie into changing the effective mass of the electrons. There might be some relation to a second-order Doppler effect of reflected photons being absorbed by an object of one mass and emanated by an object of another Mass. Push when the electrons are heavy, pull when they are light.
There might be something to transverse electric as well but I'm not positive. Possibly a hard push by radiation then the signal dying out slowly but I have my doubts.
...
The idea to excite two modes within the cavity was discussed in the past. Either by tuning the geometry in a way that two different modes are preferred at the same time for the given shape by using a single drive frequency(this single frequency scenario is feasible with the solver) as by using modulated signals for example two separate frequencies to excite different modes of different shapes in the resonator. The problem with this is that the resulting field pattern would form a so called degenerated state, a vector field that try to follow both single vectors(of the different modes) to form an average vector at each position. The time average of the net force should be again a null result.
I can not see a process that is...changing the effective mass of the electrons...in this way. Please explain it in more detail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect
Transient mass fluctuation
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/e62b998a10ec8b78115845895fb3f412789ad871)
The equation is of the mass fluctuation. They suggest a capacitor is better for storing energy but I am thinking of the ratio of change in mass. The electron when accelerated is an energy storage device. It can also undergo plenty of acceleration and at much higher frequencies (GHz in the cavity). If the electrons change in a ratio with respect to their previous effective mass, the ratio might lead to a larger percent of change in absorption of energy from light. Can a single electron still be thought of as a dielectric with volume and density?
If it's true the bare mass of the electron is negative they can be made on equal effective mass with a photon and should absorb 100% energy from a photon collision in one direction then by change in acceleration re-acquire mass and transfer that momentum more effectively to the object with larger mass. The decoupling from the vacuum and reduction in effective mass of the electron would possibly be the ejection of the vacuum in that direction. The re-coupling would then conserve momentum and the ship would experience the rocket effect in the opposite direction I am guessing.
Now I can understand with the increased metal there is more resistance and so more heat on one side of the cavity. Energy absorbed at one end of the cavity would make for a small traveling wave toward the hot end but not as large as the standing wave. This isn't the energy dissipation I am talking about. The energy dissipation from the light I am talking about would come from pulling on the electron when it is heavy and pushing when it is light which is different. Possibly generation of ultra small gravity waves similar to the energy dissipation in black holes when orbiting and they lose energy and merge. I would suspect some frequency shift in the light as energy is absorbed from it after many reflections. Similar to how in a combustion engine, the more reflections of the atoms off the cylinder wall and with distance increase energy transfer. Similarly the electrons would be the pistons and the photons the atoms. I don't really expect this to come out in the electromagnetic simulations as it involves the mach effect.
Here is a link to my previous post about a simple cavity excited with dual frequencies.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1812364#msg1812364
More frequencies can be used as in here to enhance the mach effect - a sort of Fourier sum:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1806976#msg1806976
If I wanted to be eccentric I could expand on the idea a bit:
One idea to maximize the number of electrons involved is to use a meta-material metal with cavities inside, pumped with near optical frequencies. Fiber optics could carry the light to the ship skin. Cavities could be capped with a semi-reflective material that reflects the resonant frequency and lets in external light. In effect using prisms one could use the external surface of the craft as an eye ball letting in external light and at the same time as exciting the cavities with the resonant light to emulate the mach effect. That is supposing the mach effect works.
Control of the thrust effect is similar to a phased array. Changing the relative phase relation of the injected frequencies flips the acceleration.
Post by: spupeng7 on 10/31/2018 01:25 am
X_RaY,Chinese EmDrive PR release:This particular shape of a cavity resonator (as far as we know of) was analyzed (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1721229#msg1721229) previously. There is nothing special, only a greater loss localized at one of the end-plates. Regarding the forces introduced by HF signal respecting the Maxwell equations there is no way to generate a net force this way. Please show us the rabbit hole that makes it possible anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdcer1QQLrA
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/assets/42978.0/1446976.jpg)
if reflection is emission following absorption, then the end with the ring structures will delay the reflection and retain the momentum of the resonant energy for longer than the end without them (because the conductive path is longer). In a Machian universe of charge interactions this is a direct mechanism for acceleration of the whole mass of the device, non?
Post by: X_RaY on 10/31/2018 05:56 pm
... if reflection is emission following absorption...I guess you're confused about the photoelectric effect that doesn't occur at "low" frequencies (2.4 GHz), as discussed for the EM drive, or by Fluorescence (Fluorescence is simply defined as the absorption of electromagnetic radiation at one wavelength and its reemission at another, lower energy wavelength.)
Photons re emitted from atoms will have discrete frequencies governed by the change of the energy state of the corresponding electron. This is why we can get exact "fingerprints" for each chemical element.
(https://physik.wissenstexte.de/fluoreszenz.png)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/Photoeffekt-feyn.svg/330px-Photoeffekt-feyn.svg.png)
Quote from: wikipedia
Feynman diagram on the photoelectric effect: An electron electrically bound to an atom {Z} interacts with a photon and changes its energy.
In contrast the reflection of microwaves at conductive boundaries is well described in the link below and elsewhere.
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-007-electromagnetic-energy-from-motors-to-lasers-spring-2011/lecture-notes/MIT6_007S11_lec29.pdf
... then the end with the ring structures will delay the reflection and retain the momentum of the resonant energy for longer than the end without them (because the conductive path is longer). ...More metal at one end leads to bigger dissipative loss at this location because of its finite resistance.
There is no delay involved but a different impedance and scattering conditions due to the structures as compared to the flat end.
... In a Machian universe of charge interactions this is a direct mechanism for acceleration of the whole mass of the device, non?How does that follow from the rest of your post?
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/31/2018 11:43 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztFovwCaOik
Post by: spupeng7 on 11/01/2018 01:44 am
Thankyou X_RaY,... if reflection is emission following absorption...I guess you're confused about the photoelectric effect that doesn't occur at "low" frequencies (2.4 GHz), as discussed for the EM drive, or by Fluorescence (Fluorescence is simply defined as the absorption of electromagnetic radiation at one wavelength and its reemission at another, lower energy wavelength.)
Photons re emitted from atoms will have discrete frequencies governed by the change of the energy state of the corresponding electron. This is why we can get exact "fingerprints" for each chemical element.
(https://physik.wissenstexte.de/fluoreszenz.png)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/Photoeffekt-feyn.svg/330px-Photoeffekt-feyn.svg.png)Quote from: wikipediaFeynman diagram on the photoelectric effect: An electron electrically bound to an atom {Z} interacts with a photon and changes its energy.
In contrast the reflection of microwaves at conductive boundaries is well described in the link below and elsewhere.
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-007-electromagnetic-energy-from-motors-to-lasers-spring-2011/lecture-notes/MIT6_007S11_lec29.pdf... then the end with the ring structures will delay the reflection and retain the momentum of the resonant energy for longer than the end without them (because the conductive path is longer). ...More metal at one end leads to bigger dissipative loss at this location because of its finite resistance.
There is no delay involved but a different impedance and scattering conditions due to the structures as compared to the flat end.... In a Machian universe of charge interactions this is a direct mechanism for acceleration of the whole mass of the device, non?How does that follow from the rest of your post?
food for thought here, I will consider what you have said.
Regarding your last question, charge interactions are the strongest interactions over distance, if all charges constantly interact then the sum of those interactions, in a universe of approximately constant density, is multiple of the square of its radius and an inverse of the square of its radius. To assume that inertia is a local interaction with empty spatial geometry which has no mechanism of interaction, defies logic. It follows from, the retention of electromagnetic inertia during the process of reflection, that inertia is brought out of balance inside emdrive frustums. For more detail on this please see previous reference 'Another Origin for Inertia' at the end of post https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1846805#msg1846805
Post by: meberbs on 11/01/2018 05:41 am
Regarding your last question, charge interactions are the strongest interactions over distance,This is only true if charges don't locally cancel. Since in almost all cases charges are balanced on the local scale, the long range effects are generally weaker than 1/r^2, leaving gravity as the dominating effect at distances.
if all charges constantly interactIn quantum since wavefunctions don't cutoff completely, technically all indistinguishable particles of a given species overlap with all other ones in the universe, but when you add in relativistic effects, there are constraints on what this means, and the effect is essentially negligible at long range anyway. This is interesting, but I don't think there is much reason to think your "if" condition is valid, at least not in the way needed for your logic.
then the sum of those interactions, in a universe of approximately constant density, is multiple of the square of its radius and an inverse of the square of its radius. To assume that inertia is a local interaction with empty spatial geometry which has no mechanism of interaction, defies logic.The math you have is wrong since you started from invalid assumptions, Your statement about inertia is simply wrong. You can't say that something "defies logic" just because you are confused by it. Especially since from past conversations, it really seems like you refuse to actually try to understand. (Although the full answer is more complicated that what you described anyway)
It follows from, the retention of electromagnetic inertia during the process of reflection, that inertia is brought out of balance inside emdrive frustums.What I see when I read that sentence is: "It follows from <something that doesn't happen> that <something that wouldn't happen even if the first thing did>"
(X_RaY explained why the first part doesn't happen in the previous post.)
For more detail on this please see previous reference 'Another Origin for Inertia' at the end of+ post https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1846805#msg1846805Except what you just said is wrong, and I have already covered how your previous claims in this area either involve you changing the definition of words as you use them, involve you making up terms with no definition or otherwise are based on false statements about existing physics. The post you cite has an equation that is obviously meaningless, as it only has the solutions t = 0 and v = i*c, neither of which mean anything, as has been pointed out before. I am not sure why you are going back to that post as if no problems with what you wrote back then have been pointed out to you since then.
Are you planning to define your terms and have a productive conversation this time? Or is it going to be a repeat of the same conversation again?
Post by: Notsosureofit on 11/01/2018 04:54 pm
Axion Mass Bound in Very Special Relativity
"First, we have considered the inverse Primakoff process, the production of axions
due to a photons source. In this case, we have fully established the axion field solution in the
presence of an external magnetic field."
Post by: spupeng7 on 11/02/2018 02:14 am
X_Ray,... if reflection is emission following absorption...I guess you're confused about the photoelectric effect that doesn't occur at "low" frequencies (2.4 GHz), as discussed for the EM drive, or by Fluorescence (Fluorescence is simply defined as the absorption of electromagnetic radiation at one wavelength and its reemission at another, lower energy wavelength.)
Photons re emitted from atoms will have discrete frequencies governed by the change of the energy state of the corresponding electron. This is why we can get exact "fingerprints" for each chemical element.
(https://physik.wissenstexte.de/fluoreszenz.png)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/Photoeffekt-feyn.svg/330px-Photoeffekt-feyn.svg.png)Quote from: wikipediaFeynman diagram on the photoelectric effect: An electron electrically bound to an atom {Z} interacts with a photon and changes its energy.
In contrast the reflection of microwaves at conductive boundaries is well described in the link below and elsewhere.
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-007-electromagnetic-energy-from-motors-to-lasers-spring-2011/lecture-notes/MIT6_007S11_lec29.pdf... then the end with the ring structures will delay the reflection and retain the momentum of the resonant energy for longer than the end without them (because the conductive path is longer). ...More metal at one end leads to bigger dissipative loss at this location because of its finite resistance.
There is no delay involved but a different impedance and scattering conditions due to the structures as compared to the flat end.... In a Machian universe of charge interactions this is a direct mechanism for acceleration of the whole mass of the device, non?How does that follow from the rest of your post?
the photo electric effect describes the process where an atom releases an electron as it absorbs a quantum of sufficient energy to cause that to happen, an entirely different mechanism to reflection. Nothing in the reference you gave suggests a mechanism for reflection but only describes the mathematical knowns of those interactions in language strictly limited to a perspective which denies the common mechanism of electrical and magnetic phenomena.
All reflection must involve absorption and emission of the incident radiation, otherwise it would not involve the reflective surface at all, which it must.
To quote myself,
'There are some things we can say about reflection with confidence, most of which were described by Newton himself. The angle of reflection from a polished flat is equal to the angle from which the light comes and it stays in a plane at right angles to the surface. The colours reflected are the colours incident minus any which are absorbed or transmitted through the material, reflection does not change the wavelength of light. All materials become transparent if they are made thin enough, even gold which transmits blue light. And, reflection from a flat increases with the angle of incidence so that reflection becomes complete as the incident ray approaches a path parallel to the surface. “In this Proposition I content myself to have put it past dispute, that Bodies have such Properties…” Newton ‘Opticks’ 1675.
But, there are questions raised by Newton which remain a mystery. Not least of which is the comparison between reflection from a polished metal surface and the reflection from a transparent layer. The polished metal surface is reflective irrespective of what is behind it but a layer of transparent material will reflect light only when its thickness is some multiple of the wavelength of the light in that material. These appear to be two completely different mechanisms for reflection, the first a reflection involving absorption and emission, the second just a constructive interference. As with all particle interactions, macroscopic analogies are poorly matched to the infinitesimal world. There are important lessons for us here. Our human perspective leads us to certainty where logic seems complete but faith in physical interpretations is often premature.'
From my article 'Reflections on Reflection' Published in the ASSA Bulletin August 2012, also in Sagittarius (newsletter of the Astronomy Section of La Société Guernesiaise) April 2012
The reflected energy of light is contained, if temporarily, within the surface reflecting it, without any electrons necessarily being dislodged from their atoms. How else would reflection work?
Post by: meberbs on 11/02/2018 05:58 pm
the photo electric effect describes the process where an atom releases an electron as it absorbs a quantum of sufficient energy to cause that to happen, an entirely different mechanism to reflection.That seems to have been the point, reflection and absorption are fundamentally different, but you were interchanging them.
Nothing in the reference you gave suggests a mechanism for reflection but only describes the mathematical knowns of those interactions in language strictly limited to a perspective which denies the common mechanism of electrical and magnetic phenomena.No, his reference uses standard electromagnetism. There are other sources out there that go into more detail, but the reference does describe the basics of how it works.
All reflection must involve absorption and emission of the incident radiation, otherwise it would not involve the reflective surface at all, which it must.False, there are other mechanisms of interaction than "absorption and emission."
The colours reflected are the colours incident minus any which are absorbed or transmitted through the material, reflection does not change the wavelength of light.False, this is frame dependent. Your statement only holds in a frame where the kinetic energy of the reflecting surface is unchanged.
All materials become transparent if they are made thin enough, even gold which transmits blue light.What are you talking about? Gold doesn't just transmit blue light, a thin gold coating transmits broad spectrum optical light. It is much more reflective at IR than visible, which is why it is a good choice for coating astronaut visors.
But, there are questions raised by Newton which remain a mystery. Not least of which is the comparison between reflection from a polished metal surface and the reflection from a transparent layer. The polished metal surface is reflective irrespective of what is behind it but a layer of transparent material will reflect light only when its thickness is some multiple of the wavelength of the light in that material. These appear to be two completely different mechanisms for reflection, the first a reflection involving absorption and emission, the second just a constructive interference.They are different mechanisms, but there is no mystery, and neither is "absorption and emission." Take a look at some of the other slides in the lecture series X_RaY linked. (https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-007-electromagnetic-energy-from-motors-to-lasers-spring-2011/lecture-notes/) Sections 30, 32, and 33 are relevant at least. (You can also look elsewhere, since that series seems intended to have a professor talking to the slides and filling in some of the not explicitly stated information.)
The reflected energy of light is contained, if temporarily, within the surface reflecting it, without any electrons necessarily being dislodged from their atoms. How else would reflection work?It would work according to the description that you can find in any descent text book. The incident fields induce currents on the surface. These currents immediately reflect the energy back in the other direction. There is no absorption and emission in the way you are describing it, and even if there was (say we were talking about a fluorescent surface) that would still not produce any sort of imbalance in inertia.
Post by: X_RaY on 11/03/2018 10:11 pm
Thank you Meberbs, your mind is very sharp and I can't say anything more useful than what you are saying in this regard!the photo electric effect describes the process where an atom releases an electron as it absorbs a quantum of sufficient energy to cause that to happen, an entirely different mechanism to reflection.That seems to have been the point, reflection and absorption are fundamentally different, but you were interchanging them.Nothing in the reference you gave suggests a mechanism for reflection but only describes the mathematical knowns of those interactions in language strictly limited to a perspective which denies the common mechanism of electrical and magnetic phenomena.No, his reference uses standard electromagnetism. There are other sources out there that go into more detail, but the reference does describe the basics of how it works.All reflection must involve absorption and emission of the incident radiation, otherwise it would not involve the reflective surface at all, which it must.False, there are other mechanisms of interaction than "absorption and emission."The colours reflected are the colours incident minus any which are absorbed or transmitted through the material, reflection does not change the wavelength of light.False, this is frame dependent. Your statement only holds in a frame where the kinetic energy of the reflecting surface is unchanged.All materials become transparent if they are made thin enough, even gold which transmits blue light.What are you talking about? Gold doesn't just transmit blue light, a thin gold coating transmits broad spectrum optical light. It is much more reflective at IR than visible, which is why it is a good choice for coating astronaut visors.But, there are questions raised by Newton which remain a mystery. Not least of which is the comparison between reflection from a polished metal surface and the reflection from a transparent layer. The polished metal surface is reflective irrespective of what is behind it but a layer of transparent material will reflect light only when its thickness is some multiple of the wavelength of the light in that material. These appear to be two completely different mechanisms for reflection, the first a reflection involving absorption and emission, the second just a constructive interference.They are different mechanisms, but there is no mystery, and neither is "absorption and emission." Take a look at some of the other slides in the lecture series X_RaY linked. (https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-007-electromagnetic-energy-from-motors-to-lasers-spring-2011/lecture-notes/) Sections 30, 32, and 33 are relevant at least. (You can also look elsewhere, since that series seems intended to have a professor talking to the slides and filling in some of the not explicitly stated information.)The reflected energy of light is contained, if temporarily, within the surface reflecting it, without any electrons necessarily being dislodged from their atoms. How else would reflection work?It would work according to the description that you can find in any descent text book. The incident fields induce currents on the surface. These currents immediately reflect the energy back in the other direction. There is no absorption and emission in the way you are describing it, and even if there was (say we were talking about a fluorescent surface) that would still not produce any sort of imbalance in inertia.
However, I thought about whether I should post the following or not. This is not a course in basic physics, but it sometimes seems necessary to use simple words when talking to the public.
I will try to do so using words to explain what happens when an EM-wave is reflected at a conductive material.
First of all it should be clear that the crystals based on metal atoms consist mainly of empty space, its not a surface in the classical sense if we take a look at the atomic scale. However, the space between the atomic bodies is filled by the electromagnetic fields of the protons and electrons, where the electrons are the important part if we want to explain the reflection, therefore lets focus on the electron shells of the atoms only. Also important is the knowledge of Valence and conduction bands (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valence_and_conduction_bands) that exists in conductive materials.
OK, let's move on to the verbal explanation:
The electromagnetic field of the incident EM wave interacts with the field of the electrons in the conducting volume(to the first order), especially with the free moving valence electrons in the conduction band. The external variation field (here especially the magnetic component) induces a current in the conductor, it moves the electrons. These mobile charges are now themselves a source of a magnetic field since moving electrically charged particles generate a magnetic field. This field acts exactly against the incoming wave, its vectors are directed against the incoming field. The fields repel each other. This causes the wave to be reflected.
Of course the wave loses some energy during the reflection by the ohmic loss in the conductor, which affects the moving electrons.
Perhaps it is helpful for some interested spirits to use such an explanation to recognize what is happening instead of using the corresponding equations?
Post by: Mulletron on 11/03/2018 10:49 pm
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/amp24219132/darpa-emdrive/
There's a lot to unpack in the article such as this:
Quote
Fiddy confirms that DARPA has previously funded work related to the EmDrive
I wonder what that was about.
Quote
DARPA's $1.3 million contract includes developing theories to reconcile the EmDrive with known physics
I find it interesting that they're interested in developing a theory. That alone isn't interesting except that it implies that there's a good enough reason to develop a theory in the first place, such as convincing experimental results. There's plenty of known non Newtonian physics.
Quote
“If DARPA does not gather this evidence and publish the results, positive or negative, then who in the U.S. government will?”
What about the NRL?
Quote
“The idea not only violates Newton’s third law of motion, it violates special relativity, general relativity, and Noether’s theorem. Since these are each well-tested theories that form the basis of countless other theories, their violation would completely overturn all of modern physics.”
Yes it would appear to do so, if you think like this:
Quote
Here's how the EmDrive works. Imagine you have a truncated cone—a tube wider at one end than the other—made of copper. Seal it, then fill it with microwaves. Like other electromagnetic radiation, microwaves exert a tiny amount of pressure. But because of the shape of this device, they would exert slightly more force on one end than the other. So, even though it’s a closed system, the cone would experience a net thrust and, if you had enough microwaves, it would gradually accelerate.
Post by: 1 on 11/04/2018 05:40 am
I will try to do so using words to explain what happens when an EM-wave is reflected at a conductive material.
X_RaY, meberbs:
Although your posts on the subject are quite good, I don't believe the root issue of spupeng7's question stems from a misunderstanding of what reflection is. Rather, it's another variation of the old mistake of calculating the movement of cavity structure alone rather than the movement the entire system.
Spupeng7, although I do suggest looking through slides X_RaY linked to, you're asking a question that we've seen many variations of over the years. If, instead of photons, you use balls with a small mass, then it becomes straightforward to see that by "retaining" them at one end for some finite time, you've concentrated a finite amount of mass in a location that was empty before you turned on your system. A forward shift in the cavity wall is countered by a rearward shift of the small but massive balls towards the retaining end. Your center of mass, your system as a whole, does not move.
The difference between massive balls and photons is merely one of habit and convenience. We can usually ignore energy density in classical mechanics because photonic momentum kicks are so small. However in this situation (assuming no new physics), E&M is all we have. So a proper treatment needs to track the energy before conversion to, and after conversion from, propagating E&M forms. The normally-useful approximation that photons simply came into being during antenna transmission, and ceased to be once absorbed is no longer valid. A forward shift in the cavity, in your example, is countered by a rearward shift in energy density.
To better visualize this, forget the ring structure or any notion of delayed reflection altogether and just assume the rear wall of the cavity is perfectly absorbing. Paint it Spinal-Tap black. What happens? Well, as energy concentrates in the rear wall, it will get hotter. Though it no longer emits pure RF, it will emit blackbody radiation; complete with all of the rearward momentum kicks from those newly emitted photons. The amount of time it takes to heat up can be arbitrarily short or arbitrarily long (high retention and low retention, respectively); the end result is the same. Eventually, energy density shifts back forward. The cavity itself shifts backwards, and the system as a whole stays right where it started.
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/04/2018 09:52 pm
I find it interesting that they're interested in developing a theory. That alone isn't interesting except that it implies that there's a good enough reason to develop a theory in the first place, such as convincing experimental results. There's plenty of known non Newtonian physics.
Mike Fiddy made it clear during his presentation at Estes Park that DARPA would like to see more modeling of the different theories. This includes the mach effect and quantized inertia. I understood this to be computational models that make specific predictions that can be compared with observation. For example, if Mike McCulloch could show that his theory, when modeled, can also simulate the large scale structure of the universe, then that would be very convincing as current dark matter models require some arbitrary finessing to get the same results.
Post by: Amit on 11/05/2018 05:07 am
http://leonov-leonovstheories.blogspot.com/
Results of measurement of the specific thrust force of the quantum engine
If anyone has looked at this? Is this similar to EM Drive? Is this pseudoscience? Profile says Dr. V. Leonov was awarded a Russian government prize in the area of science and technology and in 2007 was included in 100 leaders of science and technology of CIS countries.
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/05/2018 01:39 pm
Seems DARPA have decided to re engage with Roger Shawyer and deal direct instead of using Boeing as an intermitetary. See attachment.
https://www.darpa.mil/program/nascent-light-matter-interactions
"Examples of these novel phenomena include interactions involving active media, symmetry, non-reciprocity, and linear/nonlinear resonant coupling effects.
Insights regarding the origins of these interactions have the potential to transform our understanding of how to control electromagnetic waves and design for new light-matter interactions. "
https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2017-11-15
"Because of these intricate internal and surface structures, new properties have emerged, some exhibiting behavior that has resulted in rewriting long-understood “laws” for how light and other electromagnetic (EM) waves interact with materials."
Post by: Star One on 11/05/2018 08:12 pm
Mystery particle spotted? Discovery would require physics so weird that nobody has even thought of it (https://theconversation.com/mystery-particle-spotted-discovery-would-require-physics-so-weird-that-nobody-has-even-thought-of-it-106260)
Quote
The new result – consisting of a mysterious bump in the data at 28 GeV (a unit of energy) – has been published as a preprint on ArXiv. It is not yet in a peer-reviewed journal – but that’s not a big issue. The LHC collaborations have very tight internal review procedures, and we can be confident that the authors have done the sums correctly when they report a “4.2 standard deviation significance”. That means that the probability of getting a peak this big by chance – created by random noise in the data rather than a real particle – is only 0.0013%. That’s tiny – 13 in a million. So it seems like it must a real event rather than random noise – but nobody’s opening the champagne yet.
Quote
So it is all looking rather intriguing, but, history has taught us caution. Effects this significant have appeared in the past, only to vanish when more data is taken. The Digamma(750) anomaly is a recent example from a long succession of false alarms – spurious “discoveries” due to equipment glitches, over-enthusiastic analysis or just bad luck.
This is partly due to something called the “look elsewhere effect”: although the probability of random noise producing a peak if you look specifically at a value of 28 GeV may be 13 in a million, such noise could give a peak somewhere else in the plot, maybe at 29GeV or 16GeV. The probabilities of these being due to chance are also tiny when considered respectively, but the sum of these tiny probabilities is not so tiny (though still pretty small). That means it is not impossible for a peak to be created by random noise.
Quote
If this particle really exists, then it is not just outside the standard model but outside it in a way that nobody anticipated. Just as Newtonian gravity gave way to Einstein’s general relativity, the standard model will be superseded. But the replacement will not be any of the favoured candidates that has already been proposed to extend standard model: including supersymmetry, extra dimensions and grand unification theories. These all propose new particles, but none with properties like the one we might have just seen. It will have to be something so weird that nobody has suggested it yet.
Quote
Luckily the other big LHC experiment, ATLAS, has similar data from their experiments The team is still analysing it, and will report in due course. Cynical experience says that they will report a null signal, and this result will join the gallery of statistical fluctuations. But maybe – just maybe – they will see something. And then life for experimentalists and theorists will suddenly get very busy and very interesting.
Post by: spupeng7 on 11/05/2018 11:39 pm
Thanks meberbs,the photo electric effect describes the process where an atom releases an electron as it absorbs a quantum of sufficient energy to cause that to happen, an entirely different mechanism to reflection.That seems to have been the point, reflection and absorption are fundamentally different, but you were interchanging them.Nothing in the reference you gave suggests a mechanism for reflection but only describes the mathematical knowns of those interactions in language strictly limited to a perspective which denies the common mechanism of electrical and magnetic phenomena.No, his reference uses standard electromagnetism. There are other sources out there that go into more detail, but the reference does describe the basics of how it works.All reflection must involve absorption and emission of the incident radiation, otherwise it would not involve the reflective surface at all, which it must.False, there are other mechanisms of interaction than "absorption and emission."The colours reflected are the colours incident minus any which are absorbed or transmitted through the material, reflection does not change the wavelength of light.False, this is frame dependent. Your statement only holds in a frame where the kinetic energy of the reflecting surface is unchanged.All materials become transparent if they are made thin enough, even gold which transmits blue light.What are you talking about? Gold doesn't just transmit blue light, a thin gold coating transmits broad spectrum optical light. It is much more reflective at IR than visible, which is why it is a good choice for coating astronaut visors.But, there are questions raised by Newton which remain a mystery. Not least of which is the comparison between reflection from a polished metal surface and the reflection from a transparent layer. The polished metal surface is reflective irrespective of what is behind it but a layer of transparent material will reflect light only when its thickness is some multiple of the wavelength of the light in that material. These appear to be two completely different mechanisms for reflection, the first a reflection involving absorption and emission, the second just a constructive interference.They are different mechanisms, but there is no mystery, and neither is "absorption and emission." Take a look at some of the other slides in the lecture series X_RaY linked. (https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-007-electromagnetic-energy-from-motors-to-lasers-spring-2011/lecture-notes/) Sections 30, 32, and 33 are relevant at least. (You can also look elsewhere, since that series seems intended to have a professor talking to the slides and filling in some of the not explicitly stated information.)The reflected energy of light is contained, if temporarily, within the surface reflecting it, without any electrons necessarily being dislodged from their atoms. How else would reflection work?It would work according to the description that you can find in any descent text book. The incident fields induce currents on the surface. These currents immediately reflect the energy back in the other direction. There is no absorption and emission in the way you are describing it, and even if there was (say we were talking about a fluorescent surface) that would still not produce any sort of imbalance in inertia.
you are right, I did not stop to think about scattering etc before I posted that. I have a question; incident fields may be immediately reflected by the currents they engender when their wavelength is a small fraction of the extent of the reflective surface, but when their wavelength is similar to the extent of the reflective surface, is it possible that the rapidity of that reflection is somehow proportional to the extent of the reflective surface?
Edit: thanks also for the references.
Post by: otlski on 11/05/2018 11:45 pm
I read DARPA's position to be 'it is worth $1.3 million in chump change to ensure we cannot possibly get surprised by the small chance that the EM drive is for real coming to fruition'.
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/05/2018 11:55 pm
Just who is DARPA giving $1.3 million to?
I read DARPA's position to be 'it is worth $1.3 million in chump change to ensure we cannot possibly get surprised by the small chance that the EM drive is for real coming to fruition'.
DARPA is giving $1.3m to Mike McCulloch's group for his "quantized inertia" theory research.
Your reading of DARPA's position is exactly what I took away from the presentation at Estes Park. Mike Fiddy even said they like it when the results are negative, because that means our potential adversaries are not onto something novel that could be used against us.
Post by: spupeng7 on 11/05/2018 11:56 pm
Just who is DARPA giving $1.3 million to?To Mike McCulloch at the University of Plymouth in the UK, for development of his quantized inertia theory.
I read DARPA's position to be 'it is worth $1.3 million in chump change to ensure we cannot possibly get surprised by the small chance that the EM drive is for real coming to fruition'.
Post by: meberbs on 11/06/2018 12:00 am
Thanks meberbs,The overall effect of the reflection becomes different in that case (in part because the width of the incoming energy would be guaranteed to spillover and go around the reflector.) But the time scale it takes effect on would not change. It makes certain things harder to work out, since rather than a nice clean reflection, you also have spillover and such which could cause other interference effects depending on the shape.
you are right, I did not stop to think about scattering etc before I posted that. I have a question; incident fields may be immediately reflected by the currents they engender when their wavelength is a small fraction of the extent of the reflective surface, but when their wavelength is similar to the extent of the reflective surface, is it possible that the rapidity of that reflection is somehow proportional to the extent of the reflective surface?
Edit: thanks also for the references.
Post by: spupeng7 on 11/06/2018 12:26 am
In my opinion, understanding this is central to understanding the mechanism of action of the emdrive. None of the other theory discussed on this forum is as close to the coalface of this investigation.Thanks meberbs,The overall effect of the reflection becomes different in that case (in part because the width of the incoming energy would be guaranteed to spillover and go around the reflector.) But the time scale it takes effect on would not change. It makes certain things harder to work out, since rather than a nice clean reflection, you also have spillover and such which could cause other interference effects depending on the shape.
you are right, I did not stop to think about scattering etc before I posted that. I have a question; incident fields may be immediately reflected by the currents they engender when their wavelength is a small fraction of the extent of the reflective surface, but when their wavelength is similar to the extent of the reflective surface, is it possible that the rapidity of that reflection is somehow proportional to the extent of the reflective surface?
Edit: thanks also for the references.
Post by: RERT on 11/06/2018 11:09 am
In my opinion, understanding this is central to understanding the mechanism of action of the emdrive. None of the other theory discussed on this forum is as close to the coalface of this investigation.Thanks meberbs,The overall effect of the reflection becomes different in that case (in part because the width of the incoming energy would be guaranteed to spillover and go around the reflector.) But the time scale it takes effect on would not change. It makes certain things harder to work out, since rather than a nice clean reflection, you also have spillover and such which could cause other interference effects depending on the shape.
you are right, I did not stop to think about scattering etc before I posted that. I have a question; incident fields may be immediately reflected by the currents they engender when their wavelength is a small fraction of the extent of the reflective surface, but when their wavelength is similar to the extent of the reflective surface, is it possible that the rapidity of that reflection is somehow proportional to the extent of the reflective surface?
Edit: thanks also for the references.
It's been observed that the surface currents causing the reflected wave are due to motion of electrons induced by the incident wave. Since the electrons are massive, they take time to accelerate. There must be parallel electric fields in the surface to move the electrons, and there will be delays in the reflected wave caused by their acceleration time. It's a very small effect, but I haven't heard any suggestion that it is captured by modelling software.
Post by: dustinthewind on 11/06/2018 03:20 pm
In my opinion, understanding this is central to understanding the mechanism of action of the emdrive. None of the other theory discussed on this forum is as close to the coalface of this investigation.Thanks meberbs,The overall effect of the reflection becomes different in that case (in part because the width of the incoming energy would be guaranteed to spillover and go around the reflector.) But the time scale it takes effect on would not change. It makes certain things harder to work out, since rather than a nice clean reflection, you also have spillover and such which could cause other interference effects depending on the shape.
you are right, I did not stop to think about scattering etc before I posted that. I have a question; incident fields may be immediately reflected by the currents they engender when their wavelength is a small fraction of the extent of the reflective surface, but when their wavelength is similar to the extent of the reflective surface, is it possible that the rapidity of that reflection is somehow proportional to the extent of the reflective surface?
Edit: thanks also for the references.
It's been observed that the surface currents causing the reflected wave are due to motion of electrons induced by the incident wave. Since the electrons are massive, they take time to accelerate. There must be parallel electric fields in the surface to move the electrons, and there will be delays in the reflected wave caused by their acceleration time. It's a very small effect, but I haven't heard any suggestion that it is captured by modelling software.
I think the modeling software catches it at the moment of equilibrium and is time averaged. That moment the friction slowing the electrons matches the input energy keeping them at equilibrium. There might be some small effect due to the friction [inducing thermal effects where thermal radiation transmits through the entire material] but it's small compared to the stored energy of a high Q cavity.
Edit:
I almost forgot to emphasize that half of the energy in the cavity is in the magnetic field. The magnetic field is what's up against the skin of the cavity. A changing magnetic field induces an electric field. These electrons see the changing magnetic field has an electric field. In a sense they see both electric and magnetic field. They see this Electro-magnetic field as moving at the speed of light. During their acceleration the electromagnetic field they emit cancels the electric field of the incoming light while constructively enhancing the magnetic field when they are free to accelerate. The skin depth for this to happen is what contains the radiation inside the cavity.
The time to reflect I think has to do with penetration depth which depends on the frequency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penetration_depth
also related:
googled "time to reflect penetration depth"
https://www.fer.unizg.hr/_download/repository/1992_JQE_v28_n02_Babic_Corzine.pdf
Analytic Expressions for the Reflection Delay,
Penetration Depth, and Absorptance of
Quarter-Wave Dielectric Mirrors
Dubravko I. Babic and Scott W. Corzine
Quote
...In this paper we derive expressions for the penetration depth and mirror reflection delay that are valid for arbitrary material refractive index combinations and any number of layers... ...the reflection delay adds to the laser cavity roundtrip
time.
So there does appear to be a time delay in reflection via skin depth where I think the first electrons are not capable of totally reflecting the entire signal via resistance and I think mass. As a new change in power or a beam of light coming in has both electric and magnetic field then yes there would be some electric field penetration into the surface of the material.
Post by: meberbs on 11/06/2018 03:44 pm
It's been observed that the surface currents causing the reflected wave are due to motion of electrons induced by the incident wave. Since the electrons are massive, they take time to accelerate. There must be parallel electric fields in the surface to move the electrons, and there will be delays in the reflected wave caused by their acceleration time. It's a very small effect, but I haven't heard any suggestion that it is captured by modelling software.The effect of reflection happens due to the changing currents, the acceleration itself. This means that the finite mass of the electrons does not delay the effect.
There are electric fields that penetrate due to the finite conductivity, but the depth is small, and effectively changes the cavity shape by less than the manufacturing tolerance for most cavities anyway.
Post by: X_RaY on 11/06/2018 08:20 pm
Totally agreeable, butIt's been observed that the surface currents causing the reflected wave are due to motion of electrons induced by the incident wave. Since the electrons are massive, they take time to accelerate. There must be parallel electric fields in the surface to move the electrons, and there will be delays in the reflected wave caused by their acceleration time. It's a very small effect, but I haven't heard any suggestion that it is captured by modelling software.The effect of reflection happens due to the changing currents, the acceleration itself. This means that the finite mass of the electrons does not delay the effect.
There are electric fields that penetrate due to the finite conductivity, but the depth is small, and effectively changes the cavity shape by less than the manufacturing tolerance for most cavities anyway.
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/f9580c0209dd4181136cfb5c9728d280b929d8d8)
with 'α' as the angle between the longitudinal direction of the conductor and the direction of the magnetic flux density vec _B.
I'm sticking with it since the electrical field component is negligibly small within the conductive wall, therefore the reason of the force acting on the electrons must the magnetic field and the associated Lorentz force which triggers the charge carrier movement to the first approximation.
However, I fully agree with meberbs regarding the scattering conditions described in the message written by spupeng7 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1873086#msg1873086).
The electric field within the skin penetration depth exists but again - it is negligible - regarding its field strength.
Post by: meberbs on 11/07/2018 06:40 am
Totally agreeable, butI was trying for a quick simple answer, the magnetic field and electric fields are tied together since changing one creates the other, so there is more than one perspective and looking based on the magnetic field does make it more straightforward to see the current pattern. In this kind of situation I essentially just consider electric and magnetic fields the same thing, but always saying "electromagnetic field" is a mouthful.
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/f9580c0209dd4181136cfb5c9728d280b929d8d8)
with 'α' as the angle between the longitudinal direction of the conductor and the direction of the magnetic flux density vec _B.
I'm sticking with it since the electrical field component is negligibly small within the conductive wall, therefore the reason of the force acting on the electrons must the magnetic field and the associated Lorentz force which triggers the charge carrier movement to the first approximation.
However, I fully agree with meberbs regarding the scattering conditions described in the message written by spupeng7 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1873086#msg1873086).
The electric field within the skin penetration depth exists but again - it is negligible - regarding its field strength.
Post by: meberbs on 11/07/2018 09:38 pm
Question:The problem is built into an assumption in your setup. After you split the beam, there is no way for you to perfectly recombine them on top of each other. When you attempt to do so what you end up with is a set of interference fringes. There will be dark spots, but for every dark spot where fields cancel, there will be a light spot where fields add so the energy still exists.
Where has the energy that we put into the initial ray disappeared? In this situation it is not transferred into another form or another particle.
OK, both rays work towards each other, but no heat is generated or radiated.
Will this energy vanish in a magical way ::) or will it be added to the energetic background vacuum field?
This exact setup can be done with a Michelson interferometer.
Post by: 1 on 11/07/2018 11:22 pm
1) E&M energy, like most things, can never be truly constrained to one single path. Even photons, which are nigh-unsplittable by most definitions, are not constrained to a single path. But even in the classical world, at a bare minimum, E&M energy can always move at least two directions: forwards and backwards. This always ends up giving energy a way out, so to speak.
2) A lot of situations that are often visualized through ray-tracing or other graphical means will break down in some way if you think about them too hard, because ultimately those visualizations are oversimplified. The hypothetical setup you propose, I believe, suffers from this. Most good interferometers actually use another (if not the same) beamsplitter to do the recombining operation; so even if you did have near perfect recombination, you'd simply end up sending energy back into the interferometer.
The closest real-world things I can think of that would relate to your question would be quarter-wave (or half wave, for that matter) interference devices. Antireflection coatings in the optical world, or impedance transformers in the RF world, for example. These devices maximize destructive interference in one direction, often near-perfectly, but by doing so maximize constructive interference in another.
This is all, of course, just another way of stating what mberbes already said. A dark spot somewhere will simply result in a light spot somewhere else. CoE lives to shine another day.
Or at least another spot.
Post by: spupeng7 on 11/08/2018 12:00 am
Thanks All,In my opinion, understanding this is central to understanding the mechanism of action of the emdrive. None of the other theory discussed on this forum is as close to the coalface of this investigation.Thanks meberbs,The overall effect of the reflection becomes different in that case (in part because the width of the incoming energy would be guaranteed to spillover and go around the reflector.) But the time scale it takes effect on would not change. It makes certain things harder to work out, since rather than a nice clean reflection, you also have spillover and such which could cause other interference effects depending on the shape.
you are right, I did not stop to think about scattering etc before I posted that. I have a question; incident fields may be immediately reflected by the currents they engender when their wavelength is a small fraction of the extent of the reflective surface, but when their wavelength is similar to the extent of the reflective surface, is it possible that the rapidity of that reflection is somehow proportional to the extent of the reflective surface?
Edit: thanks also for the references.
It's been observed that the surface currents causing the reflected wave are due to motion of electrons induced by the incident wave. Since the electrons are massive, they take time to accelerate. There must be parallel electric fields in the surface to move the electrons, and there will be delays in the reflected wave caused by their acceleration time. It's a very small effect, but I haven't heard any suggestion that it is captured by modelling software.
I think the modeling software catches it at the moment of equilibrium and is time averaged. That moment the friction slowing the electrons matches the input energy keeping them at equilibrium. There might be some small effect due to the friction [inducing thermal effects where thermal radiation transmits through the entire material] but it's small compared to the stored energy of a high Q cavity.
Edit:
I almost forgot to emphasize that half of the energy in the cavity is in the magnetic field. The magnetic field is what's up against the skin of the cavity. A changing magnetic field induces an electric field. These electrons see the changing magnetic field has an electric field. In a sense they see both electric and magnetic field. They see this Electro-magnetic field as moving at the speed of light. During their acceleration the electromagnetic field they emit cancels the electric field of the incoming light while constructively enhancing the magnetic field when they are free to accelerate. The skin depth for this to happen is what contains the radiation inside the cavity.
The time to reflect I think has to do with penetration depth which depends on the frequency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penetration_depth
also related:
googled "time to reflect penetration depth"
https://www.fer.unizg.hr/_download/repository/1992_JQE_v28_n02_Babic_Corzine.pdf
Analytic Expressions for the Reflection Delay,
Penetration Depth, and Absorptance of
Quarter-Wave Dielectric Mirrors
Dubravko I. Babic and Scott W. Corzine
Quote...In this paper we derive expressions for the penetration depth and mirror reflection delay that are valid for arbitrary material refractive index combinations and any number of layers... ...the reflection delay adds to the laser cavity roundtrip
time.
So there does appear to be a time delay in reflection via skin depth where I think the first electrons are not capable of totally reflecting the entire signal via resistance and I think mass. As a new change in power or a beam of light coming in has both electric and magnetic field then yes there would be some electric field penetration into the surface of the material.
reflection with any delay at all, means that the momentum of the reflected radiation is retained in the surface during that delay...
Question: is the speed of conduction across a surface a product of its refractive index?
Post by: mwvp on 11/08/2018 01:19 am
@all
I have a small energy paradox in my head... I hope someone can explain it?!
To generate an EM wave, we have to pump energy into a generator, for example a laser. Imagine a perfect interferometer device without any loss where the initial beam is divided into two beams. Both beams carry exactly half the energy of the initial beam. Let us now add a phase delay of exactly 180 degrees to one of the individual beams. Finally, let both carriers overlap.
The related formulas tell us that the rays will cancel each other out. There is nothing left, as far as i understand it.Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energyIn physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant, it is said to be conserved over time. This law means that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another.
Question:
Where has the energy that we put into the initial ray disappeared? In this situation it is not transferred into another form or another particle.
OK, both rays work towards each other, but no heat is generated or radiated.
Will this energy vanish in a magical way ::) or will it be added to the energetic background vacuum field?
If it is true that we can put energy into the vacuum field this way it may be possible to harvest some energy from it in a similar way to get thrust (a net force against a proper device).
Unlike a fermion inelastic collision, bosons are super-positions of fields. Now what is the phase-relationship between the E & M fields for counter-propagating waves? And the spin/polarization? The momentum, defined by the fields, just keeps on propagating as super-positions of the fields. I suppose then, it could be considered as instantaneous angular-momentum.
Post by: mwvp on 11/08/2018 01:25 am
In my opinion, understanding this is central to understanding the mechanism of action of the emdrive. None of the other theory discussed on this forum is as close to the coalface of this investigation.Thanks meberbs,The overall effect of the reflection becomes different in that case (in part because the width of the incoming energy would be guaranteed to spillover and go around the reflector.) But the time scale it takes effect on would not change. It makes certain things harder to work out, since rather than a nice clean reflection, you also have spillover and such which could cause other interference effects depending on the shape.
you are right, I did not stop to think about scattering etc before I posted that. I have a question; incident fields may be immediately reflected by the currents they engender when their wavelength is a small fraction of the extent of the reflective surface, but when their wavelength is similar to the extent of the reflective surface, is it possible that the rapidity of that reflection is somehow proportional to the extent of the reflective surface?
Edit: thanks also for the references.
It's been observed that the surface currents causing the reflected wave are due to motion of electrons induced by the incident wave. Since the electrons are massive, they take time to accelerate. There must be parallel electric fields in the surface to move the electrons, and there will be delays in the reflected wave caused by their acceleration time. It's a very small effect, but I haven't heard any suggestion that it is captured by modelling software.
I believe it is, in Meep anyways. See the Lorentz-Drude model. It models the plasma-frequency (cut-off) and plasmons, IIRC, which are a result of the mass of the charge carriers.
Post by: Bob Woods on 11/08/2018 02:13 am
Unlike a fermion inelastic collision, bosons are super-positions of fields. Now what is the phase-relationship between the E & M fields for counter-propagating waves? And the spin/polarization? The momentum, defined by the fields, just keeps on propagating as super-positions of the fields. I suppose then, it could be considered as instantaneous angular-momentum.All we need to do is figure out how to continually induce spin 2 into an electric field quanta and we have a Z Boson momentum drive.
Post by: meberbs on 11/08/2018 03:11 am
Thanks All,"retained in the surface" could be taken different ways, and it is not the whole momentum just a bit that hasn't been reflected yet, still present in the form of the fields that penetrated.
reflection with any delay at all, means that the momentum of the reflected radiation is retained in the surface during that delay...
Question: is the speed of conduction across a surface a product of its refractive index?
I do not know what you mean by "speed of conduction," but since the refractive index of a metal is irrelevant to most of its conductive properties, the answer is probably "no." (Unless you define a complex index of refraction that combines conductivity and standard linear permittivity effects into a single term, but even then, it has little to no relation to many things you might be referring to)
Post by: RERT on 11/08/2018 08:20 am
It's been observed that the surface currents causing the reflected wave are due to motion of electrons induced by the incident wave. Since the electrons are massive, they take time to accelerate. There must be parallel electric fields in the surface to move the electrons, and there will be delays in the reflected wave caused by their acceleration time. It's a very small effect, but I haven't heard any suggestion that it is captured by modelling software.
I believe it is, in Meep anyways. See the Lorentz-Drude model. It models the plasma-frequency (cut-off) and plasmons, IIRC, which are a result of the mass of the charge carriers.
Thanks!
I do not know what you mean by "speed of conduction," but since the refractive index of a metal is irrelevant to most of its conductive properties, the answer is probably "no." (Unless you define a complex index of refraction that combines conductivity and standard linear permittivity effects into a single term, but even then, it has little to no relation to many things you might be referring to)
If you model classically a plane wave incident on a conductor such as copper, the fields only penetrate the skin depth. But the variation in the incident fields causes variation in the fields at the surface, which propagate inwards into the metal dissipatively. So an incident peak moves in with a given speed, admittedly shrinking rapidly.
So there is definitely a 'speed of light' in copper, namely the speed of motion of those peaks through the skin - though when I tried, Googling 'speed of light in copper' gave no joy. As far as I can tell, the speed is very low, and the refractive index therefore very high, though I don't know if the concept of a refractive index is helpful.
Hoping I have done the sums right...
Post by: OnlyMe on 11/08/2018 05:05 pm
It's been observed that the surface currents causing the reflected wave are due to motion of electrons induced by the incident wave. Since the electrons are massive, they take time to accelerate. There must be parallel electric fields in the surface to move the electrons, and there will be delays in the reflected wave caused by their acceleration time. It's a very small effect, but I haven't heard any suggestion that it is captured by modelling software.
I believe it is, in Meep anyways. See the Lorentz-Drude model. It models the plasma-frequency (cut-off) and plasmons, IIRC, which are a result of the mass of the charge carriers.
Thanks!I do not know what you mean by "speed of conduction," but since the refractive index of a metal is irrelevant to most of its conductive properties, the answer is probably "no." (Unless you define a complex index of refraction that combines conductivity and standard linear permittivity effects into a single term, but even then, it has little to no relation to many things you might be referring to)
If you model classically a plane wave incident on a conductor such as copper, the fields only penetrate the skin depth. But the variation in the incident fields causes variation in the fields at the surface, which propagate inwards into the metal dissipatively. So an incident peak moves in with a given speed, admittedly shrinking rapidly.
So there is definitely a 'speed of light' in copper, namely the speed of motion of those peaks through the skin - though when I tried, Googling 'speed of light in copper' gave no joy. As far as I can tell, the speed is very low, and the refractive index therefore very high, though I don't know if the concept of a refractive index is helpful.
Hoping I have done the sums right...
It would be better to ask what the speed of an electromagnetic wave through a copper conductor is... Rather than the speed of light in copper.
The result would be close to but less than the speed of light in vacuum. A google search phrased as indicated above, returns an answer of c x 0.951 (for 12 gauge copper wire), but I am sure there are other variables that would affect the issue as it involves the discussion here.
Post by: dustinthewind on 11/09/2018 05:19 am
Question:The problem is built into an assumption in your setup. After you split the beam, there is no way for you to perfectly recombine them on top of each other. When you attempt to do so what you end up with is a set of interference fringes. There will be dark spots, but for every dark spot where fields cancel, there will be a light spot where fields add so the energy still exists.
Where has the energy that we put into the initial ray disappeared? In this situation it is not transferred into another form or another particle.
OK, both rays work towards each other, but no heat is generated or radiated.
Will this energy vanish in a magical way ::) or will it be added to the energetic background vacuum field?
This exact setup can be done with a Michelson interferometer.
Now this is an interesting topic because what this does is concentrate energy into spots. My mind wanders to the magnetron putting energy in a cavity. Even more interesting is that something carries the energy in areas where there appears to be none (between the spots). Lets also consider that merging black holes can lose energy to the vacuum in the form of gravitational waves. Also remember that gravitational radiation is quadrapole in nature. Imagine I think 2 electrons and 2 positrons in the vacuum polarized. Neg left and right, positive top and bottom. Now imagine the polarized vacuum as some how canceled light. Is it possible? If kinetic energy can be lost to the vacuum why not light which can impart kinetic energy to matter?
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave
Supernovae... This is because gravitational waves are generated by a changing quadrupole moment, which can happen only when there is asymmetrical movement of masses.Anyone Reminded of the assymetrical movement of the matter required to induce the mach effect and the generation of gravitational waves? Pull hard push light?
Anyone remember this paper? "Robert M L Baker, Jr. (2010), “Applications of High-Frequency Gravitational Waves to the Global War on Terror”
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=15069694701410883990&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26
Post by: RERT on 11/09/2018 01:20 pm
It would be better to ask what the speed of an electromagnetic wave through a copper conductor is... Rather than the speed of light in copper.
The result would be close to but less than the speed of light in vacuum. A google search phrased as indicated above, returns an answer of c x 0.951 (for 12 gauge copper wire), but I am sure there are other variables that would affect the issue as it involves the discussion here.
The speed of conduction along the skin is a different question, and not surprising to be a large fraction of c. I was referring to the speed of transmission of disturbances across the skin when the copper is reflecting an incident wave.
Post by: meberbs on 11/09/2018 09:53 pm
http://theoryofsuperunification-leonov.blogspot.com/I haven't looked in much detail, but it sure sounds like pseudoscience:
http://leonov-leonovstheories.blogspot.com/
Results of measurement of the specific thrust force of the quantum engine
If anyone has looked at this? Is this similar to EM Drive? Is this pseudoscience? Profile says Dr. V. Leonov was awarded a Russian government prize in the area of science and technology and in 2007 was included in 100 leaders of science and technology of CIS countries.
-The best sources being blogs is never a good start
-They talk about force per power as a metric for typical rockets. This is not a metric actually used for rockets, since it is meaningless, and ignores the kinetic energy of the exhaust.
-They casually claim to have solved quantum gravity, if true, and they knew what it meant, that would be the headline
-Their claim inherently breaks fundamental laws like conservation of momentum, yet they fail to state that explicitly.
-They present this as an improved space drive, 100 times better than typical rocket engines, yet if they knew the first thing about physics they should be pointing out that their propellantless drive can't even be talked about in the same terms, and destroys limitations like the rocket equation. (Their numbers claim many million times a photon rocket, which is itself orders of magnitude better than any chemical rocket if you put them on the same scale by assuming an antimatter power source for the laser.)
-Clicking on another blog post says "Leonov's report “The discovery of the zero element of the periodic table” 01.06.17 " The rest is in Russian, but the title is self-contradictory by the definition of the word "element" in the context of the periodic table.
Post by: spupeng7 on 11/09/2018 11:15 pm
OK,It would be better to ask what the speed of an electromagnetic wave through a copper conductor is... Rather than the speed of light in copper.
The result would be close to but less than the speed of light in vacuum. A google search phrased as indicated above, returns an answer of c x 0.951 (for 12 gauge copper wire), but I am sure there are other variables that would affect the issue as it involves the discussion here.
The speed of conduction along the skin is a different question, and not surprising to be a large fraction of c. I was referring to the speed of transmission of disturbances across the skin when the copper is reflecting an incident wave.
so we may need to define terms for this question. If the mechanism of reflection involves conduction in the reflector surface, and the incident radiation causing that current has a component of inertia in the direction of incidence, is that inertia not a dynamic component of that surface until the process of reflection is complete?
Post by: meberbs on 11/10/2018 06:52 am
OK,Lets start with the simplest case where the wave is incident normal (perpendicular) to the surface. Currents will be present parallel to the surface, so will not contain the momentum from the wave. The currents are circular in nature due to the magnetic field and therefore have no net momentum. The momentum of the fields that penetrate into the conductor is still present as part of the fields by the Poynting vector. (There are a couple ways to book keep the effects on the fields due to material permittivity, but that is a separate discussion, and wouldn't change anything, relative permittivity is close to 1 in most metals to my knowledge anyway.) Some tiny bit of the momentum from the fields overlaps into the material, but it is still momentum in the form of electromagnetic fields as it finishes turning around.
so we may need to define terms for this question. If the mechanism of reflection involves conduction in the reflector surface, and the incident radiation causing that current has a component of inertia in the direction of incidence, is that inertia not a dynamic component of that surface until the process of reflection is complete?
Note that I am using some loose language here for descriptive purposes. Since everything is happening continuously and waves are propagating in both directions, the momentum density due to the fields can be roughly 0 at points in a resonant cavity, while the energy density is actually non-zero.
Post by: Ricvil on 11/10/2018 03:26 pm
Under the presented formalism, the spacetime can be dissipative, with superluminal and subluminal polarization states of electromagnetic modes undergoing a caustic behaviour.
Post by: spupeng7 on 11/12/2018 11:06 pm
Thanks meberbs,OK,Lets start with the simplest case where the wave is incident normal (perpendicular) to the surface. Currents will be present parallel to the surface, so will not contain the momentum from the wave. The currents are circular in nature due to the magnetic field and therefore have no net momentum. The momentum of the fields that penetrate into the conductor is still present as part of the fields by the Poynting vector. (There are a couple ways to book keep the effects on the fields due to material permittivity, but that is a separate discussion, and wouldn't change anything, relative permittivity is close to 1 in most metals to my knowledge anyway.) Some tiny bit of the momentum from the fields overlaps into the material, but it is still momentum in the form of electromagnetic fields as it finishes turning around.
so we may need to define terms for this question. If the mechanism of reflection involves conduction in the reflector surface, and the incident radiation causing that current has a component of inertia in the direction of incidence, is that inertia not a dynamic component of that surface until the process of reflection is complete?
Note that I am using some loose language here for descriptive purposes. Since everything is happening continuously and waves are propagating in both directions, the momentum density due to the fields can be roughly 0 at points in a resonant cavity, while the energy density is actually non-zero.
forgive me if I labor the question; if there is any inertia from the reflecting energy, present in the reflector with any duration, then the difference in scale between the opposing reflectors in our resonant cavity would alter those durations bringing the inertia of the waveguide itself out of balance. We are assuming Machian interactions but talking about nothing more complicated than radiation pressure.
Post by: meberbs on 11/13/2018 12:34 am
Thanks meberbs,You seem to have still misunderstood, the momentum of the fields inside the conductor is still momentum of the fields. Just because the fields overlap with matter does not transfer the momentum to the matter. (And here I repeat the previous caveat I mentioned about bookkeeping due to some of the fields existing due to the polarization of the material in the presence of the externally applied field.)
forgive me if I labor the question; if there is any inertia from the reflecting energy, present in the reflector with any duration, then the difference in scale between the opposing reflectors in our resonant cavity would alter those durations bringing the inertia of the waveguide itself out of balance. We are assuming Machian interactions but talking about nothing more complicated than radiation pressure.
The size of the endplates has no relation to the field penetration depth, so the durations are unaffected.
Even if you made the endplates out of materials with different conductivities, this would in no way bring the inertia of anything out of balance. At all times the sum of the momentum in the fields and the momentum of the cavity walls is constant (and zero for simplicity.) You can set up a situation such as a short pulse emitted in the cavity from a directional antenna, which would briefly cause the cavity to move in one direction, while the fields move in the other direction. The center of energy (relativistic equivalent for center of mass) would not move. The fields would get to one end, and then the reflection would reverse the momentum between the fields and the cavity.
I have trouble figuring out what kind of logic you are using sometimes. In just this post you made 2 or 3 gigantic leaps concluding relations between things that are unrelated. For example, your incorrect claims that "the difference in scale between the opposing reflectors in our resonant cavity would alter those durations" and "alter(ing) those durations bring(s) the inertia of the waveguide itself out of balance." Neither of these are supported by any kind of logic that I can see, yet you treat them like facts.
Post by: demofsky on 11/13/2018 04:38 am
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/11/making-light-twist-into-a-bowtie-may-reveal-dark-matter/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/11/making-light-twist-into-a-bowtie-may-reveal-dark-matter/)
Post by: spupeng7 on 11/14/2018 11:23 pm
meberbs,Thanks meberbs,You seem to have still misunderstood, the momentum of the fields inside the conductor is still momentum of the fields. Just because the fields overlap with matter does not transfer the momentum to the matter. (And here I repeat the previous caveat I mentioned about bookkeeping due to some of the fields existing due to the polarization of the material in the presence of the externally applied field.)
forgive me if I labor the question; if there is any inertia from the reflecting energy, present in the reflector with any duration, then the difference in scale between the opposing reflectors in our resonant cavity would alter those durations bringing the inertia of the waveguide itself out of balance. We are assuming Machian interactions but talking about nothing more complicated than radiation pressure.
The size of the endplates has no relation to the field penetration depth, so the durations are unaffected.
Even if you made the endplates out of materials with different conductivities, this would in no way bring the inertia of anything out of balance. At all times the sum of the momentum in the fields and the momentum of the cavity walls is constant (and zero for simplicity.) You can set up a situation such as a short pulse emitted in the cavity from a directional antenna, which would briefly cause the cavity to move in one direction, while the fields move in the other direction. The center of energy (relativistic equivalent for center of mass) would not move. The fields would get to one end, and then the reflection would reverse the momentum between the fields and the cavity.
I have trouble figuring out what kind of logic you are using sometimes. In just this post you made 2 or 3 gigantic leaps concluding relations between things that are unrelated. For example, your incorrect claims that "the difference in scale between the opposing reflectors in our resonant cavity would alter those durations" and "alter(ing) those durations bring(s) the inertia of the waveguide itself out of balance." Neither of these are supported by any kind of logic that I can see, yet you treat them like facts.
you are correct, I do not understand how anyone could think of fields as being anything more than illusions created by a misinterpretation of the nature of electromagnetic interaction. But, being as GR is the zeitgeist and you will defend it with all the zeal of a true believer, all I can do is wish you satisfaction.
Meantime, the possibility remains that am emdrive or a MET will one day prove itself with undeniable thrust measurements. What I am attempting to do is preempt the necessary considerations which will then follow. How could that be possible, if it proves to be happening. GR, QM and the Standard Model are not going to help you much if that happens.
Post by: meberbs on 11/16/2018 02:14 pm
meberbs,So you ask a question, don't like the answer, and resort to incorrect ad hominem attacks rather than address what was said.My previous post had nothing to do with GR, and what I was describing about basic facts about how electromagnetism works with reflection is based on well tested experimental regimes. The results of previous experiments won't change if some new physics is discovered. Denying what we already know happens will not help you understand any new physics if it were shown to exist.
you are correct, I do not understand how anyone could think of fields as being anything more than illusions created by a misinterpretation of the nature of electromagnetic interaction. But, being as GR is the zeitgeist and you will defend it with all the zeal of a true believer, all I can do is wish you satisfaction.
Meantime, the possibility remains that am emdrive or a MET will one day prove itself with undeniable thrust measurements. What I am attempting to do is preempt the necessary considerations which will then follow. How could that be possible, if it proves to be happening. GR, QM and the Standard Model are not going to help you much if that happens.
Post by: Notsosureofit on 11/16/2018 11:36 pm
"The symmetries that govern the world of elementary particles at the most elementary level could be radically different from what has so far been thought. This surprising conclusion emerges from new work published by theoreticians from Warsaw and Potsdam. The scheme they posit unifies all the forces of nature in a way that is consistent with existing observations and anticipates the existence of new particles with unusual properties that may even be present in our close environs.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-11-infinite-dimensional-symmetry-possibility-physicsand-particles.html#jCp"
Post by: spupeng7 on 11/17/2018 01:50 am
meberbs,meberbs,So you ask a question, don't like the answer, and resort to incorrect ad hominem attacks rather than address what was said.My previous post had nothing to do with GR, and what I was describing about basic facts about how electromagnetism works with reflection is based on well tested experimental regimes. The results of previous experiments won't change if some new physics is discovered. Denying what we already know happens will not help you understand any new physics if it were shown to exist.
you are correct, I do not understand how anyone could think of fields as being anything more than illusions created by a misinterpretation of the nature of electromagnetic interaction. But, being as GR is the zeitgeist and you will defend it with all the zeal of a true believer, all I can do is wish you satisfaction.
Meantime, the possibility remains that am emdrive or a MET will one day prove itself with undeniable thrust measurements. What I am attempting to do is preempt the necessary considerations which will then follow. How could that be possible, if it proves to be happening. GR, QM and the Standard Model are not going to help you much if that happens.
ad hominem attacks!
Quote
meberbs
Personal Message (Online)
(No subject)
« Sent to: spupeng7 on: 11/15/2018 12:09 AM »
Your most recent post is little more than an insult, so it is against site rules for me to reply to it in the thread.
You can measure the existence of fields. There are experiments that demonstrate all of the properties known in electromagnetism. However, because you find these results unintuitive, you refuse to accept them, and keep making poor attempts to cram those facts into your personal model of the universe, simply refusing to acknowledge the inconsistencies. Your random mention of GR in response to a post that has no relation to GR only serves to demonstrate that you have no interest in understanding.
At this point you appear to have comparable interest in scientific research to a flat-earther. You deny and distort the facts, and when that fails you resort to insults. I find your continued insistence that fields can't be real things with no justification other than you don't understand them nearly incomprehensible. My only explanation is a severe case of Dunning–Kruger, since you seem to think you are the only one on the planet who is right. (The fact that you don't understand fields is not what confuses me, that is obviously because you have made no apparent attempt at understanding.)
meberbs,
all I said was that I can not understand how anyone could think of fields as being anything more than illusions created by a misinterpretation of the nature of electromagnetic interaction. Oh and wished you satisfaction. This is not a debate closed to alternative viewpoints, so long as they are genuine. Your refusal to accept my opinion is of little consequence unless the science you are defending is at the very least seamless and complete :)
Post by: meberbs on 11/17/2018 04:43 am
ad hominem attacks!Yes, that part where you accuse me of religious zealotry about something not even related to my post rather than responding to what I wrote.
meberbs,That sentence means nothing less than you claiming that every scientist on the planet is an idiot. You are rejecting the results of countless experiments and a consensus of understanding among the entire scientific community for no reason other than that you don't understand it. You are concluding on the basis of nothing other than your own lack of understanding that every scientist on the planet is wrong. This is why I mentioned Dunning–Kruger to you in PM, you are taking evidence of your lack of understanding and using it to conclude that it is countless other people who are wrong.
all I said was that I can not understand how anyone could think of fields as being anything more than illusions created by a misinterpretation of the nature of electromagnetic interaction.
This is not a debate closed to alternative viewpoints, so long as they are genuine.Really, then how come every time I explain scientific consensus or basic experimental facts to you, you reject them, usually with no reasoning? I have looked at the theory you have proposed, pointed out specific problems with it, and asked you specific questions you need to answer to have any further productive conversation about it. You have not responded to even some trivial questions I asked. There is one person between the 2 of us that has acted completely closed to alternative viewpoints, and it isn't me.
Your refusal to accept my opinion is of little consequence unless the science you are defending is at the very least seamless and complete :)Calling every scientist on the planet an idiot is not a valid opinion, it is just a baseless insult.
Your implication that any of the science I explained to you is not seamless and complete is false. (Scientists know where the unknowns in physics are and that isn't it.) This fact has been explained to you repeatedly, and the few times you attempted to point to inconsistencies, I showed that you were either misrepresenting statements out of context, or just completely wrong.
Post by: JohnFornaro on 11/18/2018 01:20 pm
Just because the fields overlap with matter does not transfer the momentum to the matter.
Am I correct in summarizing EM drive in this English sentence?
EM drive is an attempt to convert electrical energy to forward momentum.
Post by: meberbs on 11/18/2018 07:29 pm
I would add slightly more definition to that, at least "at levels greater than a photon rocket." And maybe something constraining the problem to involve microwaves is a resonant cavity roughly shaped like a truncated cone.Just because the fields overlap with matter does not transfer the momentum to the matter.
Am I correct in summarizing EM drive in this English sentence?
EM drive is an attempt to convert electrical energy to forward momentum.
The first addition I feel is necessary to separate it from the known way to turn electrical energy into momentum using a photon rocket. The second depends on what purpose you want to use the definition for. You don't need it to state just the purpose of the research, but it is needed to put some constraints on the scope. There is always another variable to change when working with something like this that has no sound theory to support it. At some point you can change so much that there is no actual meaningful relationship to what you started with, and it should have a new name. (Also by that point you need to admit the original device was actually a dead end.)
Post by: Notsosureofit on 11/18/2018 10:22 pm
The"Notsosureofit Hypothesis", I think, at this point has been shown as "False" by orders of magnitude, as are the initial very large claims.
One of the interesting points, to me, is the illustration that the dispersion shown, by this exercise, in the cavity is not a dispersion of the speed of light proper, but just an example of the summation of spherical wavefronts in reflection.
An open question is whether such a proper dispersion mechanism exists, or can exist.
"at levels greater than a photon rocket" implies that an external field or particle (same thing ?) must be available for interaction under some as yet unspecified conditions.
So, rather than a resonant cavity, I would generalize to a bounded space of limited extent. (Boundary function TBD)
Post by: spupeng7 on 11/19/2018 03:26 am
John,Just because the fields overlap with matter does not transfer the momentum to the matter.
Am I correct in summarizing EM drive in this English sentence?
EM drive is an attempt to convert electrical energy to forward momentum.
what if the matter is not neutral and is already accelerating?
Post by: RotoSequence on 11/19/2018 11:11 pm
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-018-0328-0
Design and characterization of electrons in a fractal geometry
Quote
Abstract
The dimensionality of an electronic quantum system is decisive for its properties. In one dimension, electrons form a Luttinger liquid, and in two dimensions, they exhibit the quantum Hall effect. However, very little is known about the behaviour of electrons in non-integer, or fractional dimensions1. Here, we show how arrays of artificial atoms can be defined by controlled positioning of CO molecules on a Cu (111) surface2,3,4, and how these sites couple to form electronic Sierpiński fractals. We characterize the electron wavefunctions at different energies with scanning tunnelling microscopy and spectroscopy, and show that they inherit the fractional dimension. Wavefunctions delocalized over the Sierpiński structure decompose into self-similar parts at higher energy, and this scale invariance can also be retrieved in reciprocal space. Our results show that electronic quantum fractals can be artificially created by atomic manipulation in a scanning tunnelling microscope. The same methodology will allow future studies to address fundamental questions about the effects of spin–orbit interactions and magnetic fields on electrons in non-integer dimensions. Moreover, the rational concept of artificial atoms can readily be transferred to planar semiconductor electronics, allowing for the exploration of electrons in a well-defined fractal geometry, including interactions and external fields.
Quote from: short summary
Electrons are confined to an artificial Sierpiński triangle. Microscopy measurements show that their wavefunctions become self-similar and their quantum properties inherit a non-integer dimension between 1 and 2.
Post by: JohnFornaro on 11/20/2018 03:04 pm
John,Just because the fields overlap with matter does not transfer the momentum to the matter.
Am I correct in summarizing EM drive in this English sentence?
EM drive is an attempt to convert electrical energy to forward momentum.
what if the matter is not neutral and is already accelerating?
Thanks for asking, but I cannot get involved in those kinds of hypothetical questions.
Post by: Mulletron on 11/20/2018 07:03 pm
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/19/science/space-travel-physics.html
Post by: aero on 11/22/2018 01:07 am
https://phys.org/news/2018-11-defy-19th-century-law-physics.html?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral (https://phys.org/news/2018-11-defy-19th-century-law-physics.html?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral)
Quote
Dr. Jordi Prat-Camps, a research fellow at the University of Sussex, has for the first time demonstrated that the coupling between two magnetic elements can be made extremely asymmetrical.
Post by: demofsky on 11/22/2018 08:34 am
I thought this discovery was quite interesting. Not a magnetic monopole, but ... interesting. I wonder if it could be applied here or to the Woodward effect.
https://phys.org/news/2018-11-defy-19th-century-law-physics.html?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral (https://phys.org/news/2018-11-defy-19th-century-law-physics.html?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral)QuoteDr. Jordi Prat-Camps, a research fellow at the University of Sussex, has for the first time demonstrated that the coupling between two magnetic elements can be made extremely asymmetrical.
From the associated paper (https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.213903 (https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.213903)) they have the following figure below. Notice the distortions introduced! Where have we seen such things before!! (And *cough* it would be remiss to not mention the passing similarity to spinning mercury volumes allegedly used for antigravity effects in UFO/Vril lore.)
Post by: RotoSequence on 11/22/2018 11:13 am
I thought this discovery was quite interesting. Not a magnetic monopole, but ... interesting. I wonder if it could be applied here or to the Woodward effect.
https://phys.org/news/2018-11-defy-19th-century-law-physics.html?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral (https://phys.org/news/2018-11-defy-19th-century-law-physics.html?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral)QuoteDr. Jordi Prat-Camps, a research fellow at the University of Sussex, has for the first time demonstrated that the coupling between two magnetic elements can be made extremely asymmetrical.
From the associated paper (https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.213903 (https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.213903)) they have the following figure below. Notice the distortions introduced! Where have we seen such things before!! (And *cough* it would be remiss to not mention the passing similarity to spinning mercury volumes allegedly used for antigravity effects in UFO/Vril lore.)
Arxiv link for said paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.00832
Post by: aero on 11/26/2018 03:01 am
https://phys.org/news/2018-11-infinite-dimensional-symmetry-possibility-physicsand-particles.html?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral (https://phys.org/news/2018-11-infinite-dimensional-symmetry-possibility-physicsand-particles.html?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral)
I don't know (I doubt anyone does) just how it is applicable to space propulsion, but it looks like new physics to me.
Quote
In a recent paper in Physical Review Letters, Prof. Krzysztof Meissner from the Institute of Theoretical Physics, Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, and Prof. Hermann Nicolai from the Max-Planck-Institut für Gravitationsphysik in Potsdam have presented a new scheme generalizing the Standard Model that incorporates gravitation into the description. The new model applies a kind of symmetry not previously used in the description of elementary particles.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-11-infinite-dimensional-symmetry-possibility-physicsand-particles.html#jCp
Post by: Notsosureofit on 11/27/2018 05:23 pm
"An interesting article that may be related to The Mach effect generating gravitational waves. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/ligo-doesn-t-just-detect-gravitational-waves-it-makes-them-t... "
Interesting point in that article is that it illustrates a connection between a resonant photon cavity (LIGO) and the generation of gravity waves.
"But the fact that LIGO is so sensitive to the stretching of spacetime implies that it is also exceedingly efficient at generating ripples. To prove it, Pang and her colleagues developed a quantum mechanical model of how the stretching of space affects or “couples” to light waves bouncing back and forth in one of LIGO’s arms."
It would seem to imply that the degree of coupling is dependent on Q. I'll be looking for a writeup on ArXiv ??
See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPIlxV7JBkI (Belinda Pang - On decoherence under gravity...)
Post by: SeeShells on 11/27/2018 06:54 pm
Stolen from Dustinthewind:Can't help but relate these two.
"An interesting article that may be related to The Mach effect generating gravitational waves. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/ligo-doesn-t-just-detect-gravitational-waves-it-makes-them-t... "
Interesting point in that article is that it illustrates a connection between a resonant photon cavity (LIGO) and the generation of gravity waves.
"But the fact that LIGO is so sensitive to the stretching of spacetime implies that it is also exceedingly efficient at generating ripples. To prove it, Pang and her colleagues developed a quantum mechanical model of how the stretching of space affects or “couples” to light waves bouncing back and forth in one of LIGO’s arms."
It would seem to imply that the degree of coupling is dependent on Q. I'll be looking for a writeup on ArXiv ??
See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPIlxV7JBkI (Belinda Pang - On decoherence under gravity...)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White%E2%80%93Juday_warp-field_interferometer
Shell
Post by: RotoSequence on 11/27/2018 09:10 pm
Post by: Notsosureofit on 11/27/2018 10:03 pm
An interesting tickler at the end of the abstract:
"We finally propose that dephasing due to gravity may in fact take place for certain modifications to the gravitational potential where the equivalence principle is violated."
And vice versa ??
From Thesis: https://thesis.library.caltech.edu/11057/2/Pang_Belinda_Thesis_Final.pdf
Post by: RotoSequence on 11/27/2018 10:28 pm
Paywalled: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.090401
An interesting tickler at the end of the abstract:
"We finally propose that dephasing due to gravity may in fact take place for certain modifications to the gravitational potential where the equivalence principle is violated."
And vice versa ??
Arxiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.01984
Post by: demofsky on 11/28/2018 04:46 am
Quote
For the past few years, Hartnoll, Sachdev, and other theorists have been attacking the problem using a surprising “holographic duality” (https://www.quantamagazine.org/albert-einstein-holograms-and-quantum-gravity-20181114/) that mathematically connects systems of scrambled quantum particles, like those in strange metals, to imaginary black holes in one higher dimension. (The black hole pops out of the particle system like a hologram.) Remarkably, physicists find that black holes—incredibly dense, spherical objects whose gravity is so strong that not even light can escape—do the equivalent of Planckian dissipation, reaching a bound on how fast they can possibly scramble information that falls into them. In other words, black holes and strange metals go to extremes in some common way. The holographic duality is enabling the researchers to translate properties of black holes into dual properties of the scrambled-particle systems
https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/576484/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/576484/)
Post by: JohnFornaro on 11/29/2018 05:48 pm
Quote from: JF
EM drive is an attempt to convert electrical energy to forward momentum.
I would add slightly more definition to that, at least "at levels greater than a photon rocket." And maybe something constraining the problem to involve microwaves is a resonant cavity roughly shaped like a truncated cone.
The first addition I feel is necessary to separate it from the known way to turn electrical energy into momentum using a photon rocket. The second depends on what purpose you want to use the definition for. You don't need it to state just the purpose of the research, but it is needed to put some constraints on the scope. There is always another variable to change when working with something like this that has no sound theory to support it. At some point you can change so much that there is no actual meaningful relationship to what you started with, and it should have a new name. (Also by that point you need to admit the original device was actually a dead end.)
May I try again?
The purpose of the following sentence is to differentiate EM drive from the principle of a photon rocket.
EM drive is an attempt to convert electric energy to forward momentum by interacting with an object's inertia thru a suspected connection between inertia and electricity that has yet to be observed and confirmed in a replicable experiment.
It is thought that demonstrating this connection experimentally will lead to an expansion the theory of general relativity.
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 11/30/2018 01:58 pm
May I try again?
The purpose of the following sentence is to differentiate EM drive from the principle of a photon rocket.
EM drive is an attempt to convert electric energy to forward momentum by interacting with an object's inertia thru a suspected connection between inertia and electricity that has yet to be observed and confirmed in a replicable experiment.
It is thought that demonstrating this connection experimentally will lead to an expansion the theory of general relativity.
The "inertia" thing was just speculations from some theorists. It is not an inseparable part of the concept of EM drive. Let me try:
Em drive is an attempt to obtain thrust by keeping asymmetric microwave electromagnetic oscillation in the cavity inside a conductive container.
Post by: MaciejOrman on 11/30/2018 06:24 pm
FYI: https://phys.org/news/2018-11-infinite-dimensional-symmetry-possibility-physicsand-particles.htmlUnfortunately those theoretical advances are created based on false assumptions and symmetry is a mathematical construct which does not exist in reality...
"The symmetries that govern the world of elementary particles at the most elementary level could be radically different from what has so far been thought. This surprising conclusion emerges from new work published by theoreticians from Warsaw and Potsdam. The scheme they posit unifies all the forces of nature in a way that is consistent with existing observations and anticipates the existence of new particles with unusual properties that may even be present in our close environs.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-11-infinite-dimensional-symmetry-possibility-physicsand-particles.html#jCp"
Post by: X_RaY on 12/01/2018 08:21 pm
On the contrary, there are physical symmetries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry). They exist in different forms and are a central part of physical research. Please ask a physicist at CERN (https://home.cern) or similar institutions if they see symmetries of E and H fields, or if they have experimental results which indicate different properties of particles and their antiparticles. Scientists are looking for the differences between symmetric particles such as electrons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron)and positrons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron) to explore new physics. Unfortunately, there are hardly any asymmetries yet.FYI: https://phys.org/news/2018-11-infinite-dimensional-symmetry-possibility-physicsand-particles.htmlUnfortunately those theoretical advances are created based on false assumptions and symmetry is a mathematical construct which does not exist in reality...
"The symmetries that govern the world of elementary particles at the most elementary level could be radically different from what has so far been thought. This surprising conclusion emerges from new work published by theoreticians from Warsaw and Potsdam. The scheme they posit unifies all the forces of nature in a way that is consistent with existing observations and anticipates the existence of new particles with unusual properties that may even be present in our close environs.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-11-infinite-dimensional-symmetry-possibility-physicsand-particles.html#jCp"
There is only one strong indication of asymmetric behavior, and that is our own existence in the present universe (why didn't the particles produced by the Big Bang (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang) perfectly destroy each other (https://home.cern/science/physics/matter-antimatter-asymmetry-problem)?).
I see the absolutism of my words as opposed to Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle), but my assumption refers to the average total values of the fields/particles.
Consider that without the knowledge of such symmetries (as shown in the Maxwell equations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations)) we could not make devices like your smart phone.
Post by: spupeng7 on 12/03/2018 04:04 am
PotomacNeuron,
May I try again?
The purpose of the following sentence is to differentiate EM drive from the principle of a photon rocket.
EM drive is an attempt to convert electric energy to forward momentum by interacting with an object's inertia thru a suspected connection between inertia and electricity that has yet to be observed and confirmed in a replicable experiment.
It is thought that demonstrating this connection experimentally will lead to an expansion the theory of general relativity.
The "inertia" thing was just speculations from some theorists. It is not an inseparable part of the concept of EM drive. Let me try:
Em drive is an attempt to obtain thrust by keeping asymmetric microwave electromagnetic oscillation in the cavity inside a conductive container.
that circumvents equal and opposite reaction. What does constitute a mechanism for emdrive thrust without circumventing equal and opposite reaction, is radiation reaction acting on the charges of its internal surfaces. Such reaction is consequent upon quantum interactions that cannot escape the frustum but cause motion in the conduction electrons of the inside surface, which could have a Coulomb interaction with the distant universe.
All perfectly logical and necessary in a Machian universe, a thing which deserves a lot more discussion on this forum.
Post by: meberbs on 12/03/2018 05:59 am
That is the whole point of the emDrive. It either violates conservation of momentum, or interact with some part of the universe that is unmeasureable by the rest of physics that we know. The alternative is that it is a useless hunk of metal.PotomacNeuron,
May I try again?
The purpose of the following sentence is to differentiate EM drive from the principle of a photon rocket.
EM drive is an attempt to convert electric energy to forward momentum by interacting with an object's inertia thru a suspected connection between inertia and electricity that has yet to be observed and confirmed in a replicable experiment.
It is thought that demonstrating this connection experimentally will lead to an expansion the theory of general relativity.
The "inertia" thing was just speculations from some theorists. It is not an inseparable part of the concept of EM drive. Let me try:
Em drive is an attempt to obtain thrust by keeping asymmetric microwave electromagnetic oscillation in the cavity inside a conductive container.
that circumvents equal and opposite reaction.
What does constitute a mechanism for emdrive thrust without circumventing equal and opposite reaction, is radiation reaction acting on the charges of its internal surfaces. Such reaction is consequent upon quantum interactions that cannot escape the frustum but cause motion in the conduction electrons of the inside surface,No, radiation reaction cannot be the explanation, because it does not meet the criteria for the emdrive to be useful, equal and opposite internal forces can never lead to useful thrust.
which could have a Coulomb interaction with the distant universe.I split this part of your quote off, because you apparently completely changed topics mid sentence.
All perfectly logical and necessary in a Machian universe, a thing which deserves a lot more discussion on this forum.
The only electromagnetic interaction with the distant universe that is possible is mediated by photons, with their terrible energy to momentum ratio. (Their flight time is irrelevant, since they carry the momentum away regardless of whether they ever will hit something and get absorbed.) The Mach effect is for gravity, recent results presented by Rodal show that it doesn't work the way Woodward claims. Also thinking about it, there is some difficulty with the claim that that represents "equal and opposite reaction with the distant universe." Momentum conservation is still violated locally, and defining what instantaneous means for distant objects causes major problems, different observers will disagree on when the transfer happened, and therefore in what order it happened, and will see some momentum temporarily disappear, or be duplicated.
Post by: spupeng7 on 12/04/2018 11:11 pm
(...)meberbs,
there is some difficulty with the claim that that represents "equal and opposite reaction with the distant universe." Momentum conservation is still violated locally, and defining what instantaneous means for distant objects causes major problems, different observers will disagree on when the transfer happened, and therefore in what order it happened, and will see some momentum temporarily disappear, or be duplicated.
we assume that photons are the mechanism of all electromagnetic interaction. That is an assumption. Yes, 'defining what instantaneous means for distant objects causes major problems' because we have as yet failed to work out how electromagnetic interaction works. Until we do, it is presumptuous in the extreme to write off every alternative explanation on the basis that it doesn't agree with what we already know to be nonsense.
Thankyou for thinking about this, more people should.
Post by: meberbs on 12/05/2018 12:36 am
we assume that photons are the mechanism of all electromagnetic interaction. That is an assumption.That is not an assumption made in my post. It is also not an assumption that is present in physics in general. Electromagnetic interactions happen through electromagnetic fields. Disturbances in electromagnetic fields (due to accelerating charges) are experimentally known to propagate at the speed of light. Fields themselves store energy and momentum. These are all experimental facts, not assumptions. The word "photons," which explains that the electromagnetic waves propagating through space can be considered to consist of discrete particles, is a further concept that comes up from quantum mechanics, where yet again, the discreteness is an experimental fact.
For Maxwell's electromagnetism the wave theory came first (building from experiments) and then experiment (though the full understanding of the relativistic part came later.) For quantum mechanics, discrete behavior from experiments came first followed by theory, followed by more experiments on new predictions from the theory. No matter how you cut it, what I have described about electromagnetism is based on experimental fact, not assumptions.
Yes, 'defining what instantaneous means for distant objects causes major problems' because we have as yet failed to work out how electromagnetic interaction works.Completely false. You are yet again making an assertion that physics does not describe phenomena that it is known to correctly describe. As I have said before when you keep repeating that scientists don't understand something that they do with no evidence to support your position, you are doing little other than lobbing insults at every scientist on the planet.
Since you have not explained in what way "we have as yet failed to work out how electromagnetic interaction works" I cannot give you a specific counterargument and instead point to every single piece of technology you have ever interacted with.
Until we do, it is presumptuous in the extreme to write off every alternative explanation on the basis that it doesn't agree with what we already know to be nonsense.Since you have not given any support for your claims, and many things you have said are known to be nonsense, and electrodynamics does not have "nonsense" in it despite your assertions, you are the one making extreme claims. You are literally writing off and discarding well over a hundred years of experimental data.
Edit: Also, I forgot to mention that the "problems with defining instantaneous for distant objects" are not tied to electromagnetism anyway. Some of the best and original data illustrating them comes from well understood electromagnetism, but there is other relevant data available that confirms this.
Post by: RotoSequence on 12/05/2018 09:45 am
A paper by J. S. Farnes proposes a negative mass model of cold dark matter and dark energy. By adding a Creation Tensor to the model, constantly adding negative-mass dark matter to the cosmos, the accelerating expansion of the universe is preserved. Interestingly, his "toy model" also predicts Dark Matter Halos around galaxies.
Quote from: Abstract
Dark energy and dark matter constitute 95% of the observable Universe. Yet the physical nature of these two phenomena remains a mystery. Einstein suggested a long-forgotten solution: gravitationally repulsive negative masses, which drive cosmic expansion and cannot coalesce into light-emitting structures. However, contemporary cosmological results are derived upon the reasonable assumption that the Universe only contains positive masses. By reconsidering this assumption, I have constructed a toy model which suggests that both dark phenomena can be unified into a single negative mass fluid. The model is a modified ΛCDM cosmology, and indicates that continuously-created negative masses can resemble the cosmological constant and can flatten the rotation curves of galaxies. The model leads to a cyclic universe with a time-variable Hubble parameter, potentially providing compatibility with the current tension that is emerging in cosmological measurements. In the first three-dimensional N-body simulations of negative mass matter in the scientific literature, this exotic material naturally forms haloes around galaxies that extend to several galactic radii. These haloes are not cuspy. The proposed cosmological model is therefore able to predict the observed distribution of dark matter in galaxies from first principles. The model makes several testable predictions and seems to have the potential to be consistent with observational evidence from distant supernovae, the cosmic microwave background, and galaxy clusters. These findings may imply that negative masses are a real and physical aspect of our Universe, or alternatively may imply the existence of a superseding theory that in some limit can be modelled by effective negative masses. Both cases lead to the surprising conclusion that the compelling puzzle of the dark Universe may have been due to a simple sign error.
EDIT: The author wrote this entry as well
https://theconversation.com/bizarre-dark-fluid-with-negative-mass-could-dominate-the-universe-what-my-research-suggests-107922
Post by: Monomorphic on 12/05/2018 01:20 pm
https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.07962
A paper by J. S. Farnes proposes a negative mass model of cold dark matter and dark energy. By adding a Creation Tensor to the model, constantly adding negative-mass dark matter to the cosmos, the accelerating expansion of the universe is preserved. Interestingly, his "toy model" also predicts Dark Matter Halos around galaxies.Quote from: AbstractDark energy and dark matter constitute 95% of the observable Universe. Yet the physical nature of these two phenomena remains a mystery. Einstein suggested a long-forgotten solution: gravitationally repulsive negative masses, which drive cosmic expansion and cannot coalesce into light-emitting structures. However, contemporary cosmological results are derived upon the reasonable assumption that the Universe only contains positive masses. By reconsidering this assumption, I have constructed a toy model which suggests that both dark phenomena can be unified into a single negative mass fluid. The model is a modified ΛCDM cosmology, and indicates that continuously-created negative masses can resemble the cosmological constant and can flatten the rotation curves of galaxies. The model leads to a cyclic universe with a time-variable Hubble parameter, potentially providing compatibility with the current tension that is emerging in cosmological measurements. In the first three-dimensional N-body simulations of negative mass matter in the scientific literature, this exotic material naturally forms haloes around galaxies that extend to several galactic radii. These haloes are not cuspy. The proposed cosmological model is therefore able to predict the observed distribution of dark matter in galaxies from first principles. The model makes several testable predictions and seems to have the potential to be consistent with observational evidence from distant supernovae, the cosmic microwave background, and galaxy clusters. These findings may imply that negative masses are a real and physical aspect of our Universe, or alternatively may imply the existence of a superseding theory that in some limit can be modelled by effective negative masses. Both cases lead to the surprising conclusion that the compelling puzzle of the dark Universe may have been due to a simple sign error.
EDIT: The author wrote this entry as well
https://theconversation.com/bizarre-dark-fluid-with-negative-mass-could-dominate-the-universe-what-my-research-suggests-107922
I was about to post this as it appears Mike McCulloch has some serious competition. In my opinion, this is exactly the kinds of things McCulloch should be doing to bolster his theory.
Jamie Farnes is an established cosmologist at Oxford who took the time to base his theory in seemingly well-founded math and significant computational methods. He has some simulations with interesting results.
He is able to show that his model creates dark matter halos, large-scale structure, and he has observation time at the Square Kilometer Array (SKA) soon. Here is his youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8ltFtaETXDphec0l-VxMsg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56AIR9ZDv3w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AS8_BfsY0SA
Post by: Bob Woods on 12/07/2018 03:48 am
Assuming a "spherical" expanding universe, the expansion needs to to creates additional spacetime at an exponential rate to accommodate the expanding volume, if spacetime universally fills the increasing volume.
Is that correct? If so could the exponentially expanding spacetime be a mechanism to convey a push to the fixed amount of matter as part of the increasing speed of expansion?
Matter/Gravity warps spacetime; expanding spacetime moves the relative position of mass.
Post by: spupeng7 on 12/07/2018 06:09 am
(...)meberbs,Yes, 'defining what instantaneous means for distant objects causes major problems' because we have as yet failed to work out how electromagnetic interaction works.Completely false. You are yet again making an assertion that physics does not describe phenomena that it is known to correctly describe. As I have said before when you keep repeating that scientists don't understand something that they do with no evidence to support your position, you are doing little other than lobbing insults at every scientist on the planet.
(...)
are you saying that you have a logical explanation for radiation reaction?
Post by: meberbs on 12/07/2018 06:42 am
Every good electrodynamics textbook explains it. As I have stated repeatedly (including in the post you just quoted), electromagnetic fields themselves can store energy and momentum. This is a fact both from experiment and derived straight out of basic electrodynamic theory. It should be intuitively obvious that if a charged particle emits radiation that carries away momentum, the particle itself must experience a force that balances the momentum carried away. Similarly, when something later absorbs that radiation, (or reflects it in another direction), it experiences the appropriate balancing force as radiation pressure.(...)meberbs,Yes, 'defining what instantaneous means for distant objects causes major problems' because we have as yet failed to work out how electromagnetic interaction works.Completely false. You are yet again making an assertion that physics does not describe phenomena that it is known to correctly describe. As I have said before when you keep repeating that scientists don't understand something that they do with no evidence to support your position, you are doing little other than lobbing insults at every scientist on the planet.
(...)
are you saying that you have a logical explanation for radiation reaction?
If you want some of the math to back it up, here is a reference that describes some of the history of how this was derived. You can skip to section 15 for explicit formulas for change in energy and momentum.
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/selfforce.pdf
Post by: Ricvil on 12/08/2018 06:23 pm
"In (3+1) space-time dimensions, the pseudo-vector Pµ selects a direction in space-time and thus breaks the Lorentz and rotational invariance [22]: the temporal component M breaks the invariance w.r.t. Lorentz boosts, while the spatial component P picks a certain direction in space."
A DC current flowing along cavity's axis of symmetry direction can produce a magnetic field at skin depth region, but the effective percentage of mixing region with the internal fields depends on thickness of copper walls.
Can it inducing a chiral magnetic effect?
https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/MagParticle/Physics/CircularFields.htm
Post by: spupeng7 on 12/09/2018 01:55 am
meberbs,Every good electrodynamics textbook explains it. As I have stated repeatedly (including in the post you just quoted), electromagnetic fields themselves can store energy and momentum. This is a fact both from experiment and derived straight out of basic electrodynamic theory. It should be intuitively obvious that if a charged particle emits radiation that carries away momentum, the particle itself must experience a force that balances the momentum carried away. Similarly, when something later absorbs that radiation, (or reflects it in another direction), it experiences the appropriate balancing force as radiation pressure.(...)meberbs,Yes, 'defining what instantaneous means for distant objects causes major problems' because we have as yet failed to work out how electromagnetic interaction works.Completely false. You are yet again making an assertion that physics does not describe phenomena that it is known to correctly describe. As I have said before when you keep repeating that scientists don't understand something that they do with no evidence to support your position, you are doing little other than lobbing insults at every scientist on the planet.
(...)
are you saying that you have a logical explanation for radiation reaction?
If you want some of the math to back it up, here is a reference that describes some of the history of how this was derived. You can skip to section 15 for explicit formulas for change in energy and momentum.
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/selfforce.pdf
that still assumes the same old argument, that the individual quanta of exchanged electromagnetic energy know where they are going as they are emitted. That breaks causality. You simply cannot have it both ways without assuming something like a pilot wave to fill in the logic gap, and those explanations are not physically real solutions.
This is not as complicated as it sounds but it does fail to fit into GR, QM or the fabulous standard model. If emdrive thrust is measured, we need a better model of interaction to explain it, is all I'm saying. I know you cannot accept this but there may come a day when we may all need to because the evidence is too clear. I think that evidence is already clear and I am not the only one asking these questions.
Consider synchrotron radiation; the paths between emission and absorption narrow to a beam as the emitting electrons approach the speed of light. At lower velocity the distribution of those paths is wide. Quantum or field, causality requires us to reconsider the explanation you offer. If you have a seamless logical explanation, could we please hear it.
Post by: demofsky on 12/09/2018 03:39 am
In "cme transport.pdf" file, PAGE 9:
"In (3+1) space-time dimensions, the pseudo-vector Pµ selects a direction in space-time and thus breaks the Lorentz and rotational invariance [22]: the temporal component M breaks the invariance w.r.t. Lorentz boosts, while the spatial component P picks a certain direction in space."
A DC current flowing along cavity's axis of symmetry direction can produce a magnetic field at skin depth region, but the effective percentage of mixing region with the internal fields depends on thickness of copper walls.
Can it inducing a chiral magnetic effect?
https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/MagParticle/Physics/CircularFields.htm (https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/MagParticle/Physics/CircularFields.htm)
This is a very interesting perspective on what could result in an EM drive. I can’t remember if there was any discussion of using materials that had high levels of chiral fermions. There MAY have been some in the context of dialectic inserts within a fustrum - this seems to ring a bell but I could be wrong about this!
Post by: meberbs on 12/09/2018 04:47 am
meberbs,And AGAIN, you make up assumptions that were never made. The description I provided does not require any knowledge about the future of the photons. The photons have momentum, they move in the direction of their momentum. This is no different than throwing a baseball. As soon as you throw the baseball, you know what direction it is moving in. Whether or not anybody catches the baseball has no relevance whatsoever.
that still assumes the same old argument, that the individual quanta of exchanged electromagnetic energy know where they are going as they are emitted. That breaks causality. You simply cannot have it both ways without assuming something like a pilot wave to fill in the logic gap, and those explanations are not physically real solutions.
This is not as complicated as it sounds but it does fail to fit into GR, QM or the fabulous standard model.The only thing that does not fit into those theories is the nonsensical leaps of logic you made to go from my description of how the fields themselves locally store momentum, to a completely contradctory claim that the ultimate fate of the photon matters.
If emdrive thrust is measured, we need a better model of interaction to explain it, is all I'm saying. I know you cannot accept this but there may come a day when we may all need to because the evidence is too clear. I think that evidence is already clear and I am not the only one asking these questions.So far the evidence seems pretty clear that the emDrive does not work. It is basically beyond doubt at this point that all of the original claims of high thrust from Shawyer are inaccurate.
What I can't accept is why you continue to implicitly call every scientist on the planet an idiot by insisting that there are contradictions in theories that are universally accepted to be self-consistent and match experimental data within all measurable regions of applicability.
Consider synchrotron radiation; the paths between emission and absorption narrow to a beam as the emitting electrons approach the speed of light. At lower velocity the distribution of those paths is wide. Quantum or field, causality requires us to reconsider the explanation you offer. If you have a seamless logical explanation, could we please hear it.Here is an entire textbook on synchotron radiation.
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacreports/reports10/slac-r-637a.pdf
You haven't stated anything illogical or contradictory, it is expected due to Lorentz contraction that the spatial distribution depends on your choice of reference frame.
Either you can accept that scientists who spend their lives studying physics have a better understanding of it than you do, and we can have a productive conversation, or you can continue with your campaign of indirect insults where you misrepresent things that I or sometimes famous scientists have said, and twist them into idiotic and nonsensical statements.
Let me state it again to be clear:
When you keep repeating that scientists don't understand something that they do with no evidence to support your position, you are doing little other than lobbing insults at every scientist on the planet.
You have not given a shred of evidence that the explanations given by electrodynamics are anything other than self-consistent and consistent with experiment, yet you still claim that they are anything other them seamless and logical.
Post by: OnlyMe on 12/09/2018 07:35 pm
...
So far the evidence seems pretty clear that the emDrive does not work. It is basically beyond doubt at this point that all of the original claims of high thrust from Shawyer are inaccurate.
...
I agree with the second part above, to the extent that any claims of “high” thrust, can from the evidence at hand be considered “inaccurate”. I would even personally go further, and assert they seem the fruit of fantasy and fiction.
I am unsure of the accuracy of the first statement above, “So far the evidence seems pretty clear that the emDrive does not work.”...
Some while back in a PM I was asked, what experiment I might suggest to address my concerns. I did not respond at the time. I was no longer funding any EmDrive research, or in any other way even indirectly involved, aside from following these discussions.
However, now as in the past, the conclusion that there has been evidence that an EmDrive cannot produce any useable thrust, based on the publicly shared information, seems flawed. The early claims and limited experimental data suggested the potential for a small anomalous force, generated by EmDrive designs that incorporated the use of magnetrons, operating at high power (750 to 1000 watts?), compared to the more recent designs incorporating signal generators delivering, perhaps tens of watts. Power levels a couple of magnitudes lower than those early magnetron based designs.
Without a proven functional design upon which to develop a credible theoretical model, it seems many of the more recent design changes leading to tests, at a few tens of watts, are tests of those “incredible” claims of “high” thrust designs and flying cars, rather than the possibility that in those early magnetron driven tests there may have been hidden, even an unlikely possibility of some small useable thrust.
So if I were still funding any research, it would be to step back and re-examine one or more of those early magnetron driven designs, with test beds and controls designed to address and refine the questionable issues, inherent in those early attempts.
A great deal of effort has been placed in experimental design and test equipment. As yet there seems no concerted effort to re-examine/evaluate those early high power designs. There is enough design difference between even professor Yang’s two experiments, that the results cannot be thought of as comparable. Attempting to nail down the coffin on a 1000 watt magnetron driven prototype, with the results from a design built around tens of watts...
There was never any practical evidence in the early tests and data that supports scalability. Nothing to say that a larger or smaller frustum, functioning at higher or lower frequencies or power levels, would produce similar results. A great deal of speculation, but data?
I don’t know if there is any practical potential in the EmDrive concept. At the same time I don’t believe that any test data in the public domain proves that there is no practical potential. Even a few ounces of propellant less thrust, could revolutionize the space industry from low earth orbit on...
Post by: spupeng7 on 12/10/2018 03:14 am
(...)meberbs,
So far the evidence seems pretty clear that the emDrive does not work. It is basically beyond doubt at this point that all of the original claims of high thrust from Shawyer are inaccurate.
What I can't accept is why you continue to implicitly call every scientist on the planet an idiot by insisting that there are contradictions in theories that are universally accepted to be self-consistent and match experimental data within all measurable regions of applicability.
thankyou for your excellent references. Unlike you I am not trying to insult anyone, I am simply saying that you are too easily satisfied and too quick to reject potentially interesting experimental evidence. It is a bad plan to reject any evidence on the basis that it challenges your presumptions. Science is an open investigation of reality, there is reason in consideration of the possibility that we do not yet have a perfect definition of electromagnetic interaction. There are good reasons not to reject difficult questions. If it offends you that other people choose to pursue this, well good for you, go get a better hobby would be my advice.
Post by: meberbs on 12/10/2018 05:54 am
thankyou for your excellent references.Have you read any of them? If so I would expect you to make some acknowledgement of the content, rather than the actual content of you post which is mostly a series of falsehoods about me.
Unlike you I am not trying to insult anyone,Then how come you keep repeating things that I have repeatedly explained to you why they are insulting? And why have you not apologized for them?
Also, I am not aware of any time I said something insulting, so I certainly have not done so intentionally. By the way I also find it inappropriate how you keep assigning motives behind my words that simply are not there.
I am simply saying that you are too easily satisfied and too quick to reject potentially interesting experimental evidence. It is a bad plan to reject any evidence on the basis that it challenges your presumptions.Yet another case of you assigning actions to me that I have not done. You accuse me with rejecting experimental evidence, when you have not provided any experimental evidence for me to reject. In fact, you are the one who has rejected evidence in this conversation apparently for no other reason than a refusal to accept that scientific theories which are known to be self-consistent are in fact self-consistent.
Science is an open investigation of reality, there is reason in consideration of the possibility that we do not yet have a perfect definition of electromagnetic interaction.Except there is no reason. Electromagnetic interactions have been tested, and are consistent with theory across a huge range of scales. It is not reasonable to reject the countless experiments that have been done. Besides which, you haven't "asked about the possibility." You have straight asserted inconsistencies where there are none.
There are good reasons not to reject difficult questions.I have given responses to all of your questions. In the past you have repeatedly ignored even straightforward questions I have asked of you.
If it offends you that other people choose to pursue this, well good for you, go get a better hobby would be my advice.Try reading my posts again, what is offensive is when you start with an assumption that is equivalent to "scientists are all idiots," by insisting that inconsistencies exist in theories that countless scientists have reviewed and agreed that they are consistent. The first time maybe you never did any research on your own and thought that there were flaws, but you have been repeating the claim over and over again, while adding no evidence to support it and after you have been provided with evidence contrary to your claim. It is also offensive when you misrepresent things that I have previously said.
Post by: meberbs on 12/10/2018 06:42 am
...The problem with "proves that there is no practical potential" is the typical problem with proving a negative. There is always going to be some other variable or combination that hasn't been tested. This is why I think it is important to set some kind of defined boundaries for when to call it a dead end.
There was never any practical evidence in the early tests and data that supports scalability. Nothing to say that a larger or smaller frustum, functioning at higher or lower frequencies or power levels, would produce similar results. A great deal of speculation, but data?
I don’t know if there is any practical potential in the EmDrive concept. At the same time I don’t believe that any test data in the public domain proves that there is no practical potential. Even a few ounces of propellant less thrust, could revolutionize the space industry from low earth orbit on...
At this point with the available data, there is certainly some additional final testing that can reasonably be done, as there are a few ongoing experiments that haven't been finalized. But given that there is little in potentially positive data that hasn't been countered with more sensitive experiments I am not sure how much more is reasonable. It is also useful to keep in mind that electrodynamics really has been well tested in a wide range of regimes, spanning everything that occurs in an emDrive. This is why from the beginning it was just short of certain that the data that showed thrust was nothing other than experimental errors.
As to your suggestion for higher power tests, there were issues with magnetrons, and their poor frequency stability, which is a problem for matching good resonance, it could be done, but despite the lower total power, more recent tests have been more sensitive in a force/power ratio sense. I am not going to tell anyone not to run an experiment (unless there are clear flaws that would make the experiment useless), I would just suggest defining in a precise sense what "good enough" means for what testing you want to do. (Even if you aren't planning on funding or doing more testing yourself, you can still state your opinion on what you think is worthwhile.)
Post by: flux_capacitor on 12/10/2018 12:21 pm
https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.07962
A paper by J. S. Farnes proposes a negative mass model of cold dark matter and dark energy. By adding a Creation Tensor to the model, constantly adding negative-mass dark matter to the cosmos, the accelerating expansion of the universe is preserved. Interestingly, his "toy model" also predicts Dark Matter Halos around galaxies.Quote from: AbstractDark energy and dark matter constitute 95% of the observable Universe. Yet the physical nature of these two phenomena remains a mystery. Einstein suggested a long-forgotten solution: gravitationally repulsive negative masses, which drive cosmic expansion and cannot coalesce into light-emitting structures. However, contemporary cosmological results are derived upon the reasonable assumption that the Universe only contains positive masses. By reconsidering this assumption, I have constructed a toy model which suggests that both dark phenomena can be unified into a single negative mass fluid. The model is a modified ΛCDM cosmology, and indicates that continuously-created negative masses can resemble the cosmological constant and can flatten the rotation curves of galaxies. The model leads to a cyclic universe with a time-variable Hubble parameter, potentially providing compatibility with the current tension that is emerging in cosmological measurements. In the first three-dimensional N-body simulations of negative mass matter in the scientific literature, this exotic material naturally forms haloes around galaxies that extend to several galactic radii. These haloes are not cuspy. The proposed cosmological model is therefore able to predict the observed distribution of dark matter in galaxies from first principles. The model makes several testable predictions and seems to have the potential to be consistent with observational evidence from distant supernovae, the cosmic microwave background, and galaxy clusters. These findings may imply that negative masses are a real and physical aspect of our Universe, or alternatively may imply the existence of a superseding theory that in some limit can be modelled by effective negative masses. Both cases lead to the surprising conclusion that the compelling puzzle of the dark Universe may have been due to a simple sign error.
EDIT: The author wrote this entry as well
https://theconversation.com/bizarre-dark-fluid-with-negative-mass-could-dominate-the-universe-what-my-research-suggests-107922
I was about to post this as it appears Mike McCulloch has some serious competition. In my opinion, this is exactly the kinds of things McCulloch should be doing to bolster his theory.
Jamie Farnes is an established cosmologist at Oxford who took the time to base his theory in seemingly well-founded math and significant computational methods. He has some simulations with interesting results.
He is able to show that his model creates dark matter halos, large-scale structure, and he has observation time at the Square Kilometer Array (SKA) soon. Here is his youtube channel: {snip}
Beware of all these web media "discovering" this "new" and "revolutionary" theory (really just because of a PR issued by the University of Oxford (http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-12-05-bringing-balance-universe) and a subsequent article Farnes published in the Conversation (https://theconversation.com/bizarre-dark-fluid-with-negative-mass-could-dominate-the-universe-what-my-research-suggests-107922) on December 5, 2018) dismissing all other prior work about negative mass and negative energy states in quantum mechanics and cosmology.
Jamie Farnes' theory "unifying dark matter and dark energy as a repulsive dark fluid" is plagued by the theoretically unphysical and experimentally unobserved runaway motion effect arising in general relativity when one adds negative mass to the Einstein field equations, that Farnes yet embraces in his paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.07962), writing:
Quote from: Jamie Farnes
[the runaway motion] behaviours violate no known physical laws. Negative masses are consistent with both conservation of momentum and conservation of energy.
Which is the same as saying that "perpetual motion does not violate conservation laws of physics". Indeed, it should be noted at first that as a couple (+m)(-m) indefinitely accelerates according to GR's runaway motion, it reaches a relativistic speed, but the total kinetic energy of the couple ½(+m)v² + ½(-m)v² stays constant… Moreover, there is an even more preposterous yet simpler explanation of such unphysical paradox. Astrophysicist Thomas Gold said, discussing Bondi's paper with Peter Bergmann, Felix Pirani and Dennis Sciama in 1957:
Quote from: Thomas Gold
What happens if one attaches a negative and positive mass pair to the rim of a wheel? This is incompatible with general relativity, for the device gets more massive.
As a consequence (but nobody seems to notice?) Farnes' model is an overunity theory.
EDIT: Comments from Sabine Hossenfelder about Farnes' theory (http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2018/12/no-negative-masses-have-not.html). Hossenfelder is a physicist who published in Physical Review D a bimetric theory (https://arxiv.org/abs/0807.2838) that also unifies dark matter and dark energy as one dark fluid, in 2008, ten years before Farnes (yet today ignored by memorylessness media). See also her 2009 presentation paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508013). She was the first to publish a Lagrangian derivation of a system of two coupled field equations managing positive and negative masses in cosmology with no runaway paradox, in a very similar way to the Janus cosmological model (https://januscosmologicalmodel.com/negativemass#cfe), which uses about the same sets of equations (except various additional "pull-overs" in Hossenfelder's theory).
Post by: Monomorphic on 12/10/2018 09:04 pm
As a consequence (but nobody seems to notice?) Farnes' model is an overunity theory.
EDIT: Comments from Sabine Hossenfelder about Farnes' theory (http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2018/12/no-negative-masses-have-not.html). Hossenfelder is a physicist who published in Physical Review D a bimetric theory (https://arxiv.org/abs/0807.2838) that also unifies dark matter and dark energy as one dark fluid, in 2008, ten years before Farnes (yet today ignored by memorylessness media). See also her 2009 presentation paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508013). She was the first to publish a Lagrangian derivation of a system of two coupled field equations managing positive and negative masses in cosmology with no runaway paradox, in a very similar way to the Janus cosmological model (https://januscosmologicalmodel.com/negativemass#cfe), which uses about the same sets of equations (except various additional "pull-overs" in Hossenfelder's theory).
I am by no means a proponent of the theory and would not want to die on this hill, but I thought this point was covered by Farnes in the paper here, which you partially quoted:
"One of the more bizarre properties of negative mass is that which occurs in positive–negative mass particle pairs. If both masses have equal magnitude, then the particles undergo a process of runaway motion. The net mass of the particle pair is equal to zero. Consequently, the pair can eventually accelerate to a speed equal to the speed of light, c. Due to the vanishing mass, such motion is strongly subject to Brownian motion from interactions
with other particles. In the alternative cases where both masses have unequal magnitudes, then either the positive or the negative mass may outpace the other – resulting in either a collision or the end of the interaction.
Although counterintuitive and “preposterous” (Bonnor 1989), all of these behaviours violate no known physical laws. Negative masses are consistent with both conservation of momentum and conservation of energy (Forward 1990), and have been shown to be fully consistent with general relativity in the seminal work of Bondi (1957)."
As for Hossenfelder's comments on Farnes' theory, Farnes responded in the comments with this:
"Jamie Farnes submits the following comment:
"Thank you for writing an article about this. However, I do not think these comments are actually related to the findings in my paper, but rather the papers of others. Your disagreement appears to be with the work of Bondi, who showed that these negative masses are compatible with GR. The comments seem to ignore Bondi's seminal work. I highlight in my paper that spin-2 particles are not at all relevant in this model - I know that is the lens through which you view these equations, but it is just one of many perspectives.
There also seems to be some confusion about section 2.3.3. and the “counterintuitive” finding. This is not actually related to my own work, but is actually an outcome from the cited work of Stephen Hawking and Don Page. It's not counterintuitive because it is wrong, just because that is how the predicted universe would behave!
So the article in its current form gives the impression that it disagrees with my paper, but you are actually disagreeing with far more influential works and authors.
A creation term is also not a "magic fix by which you can explain everything and anything". That is incredibly misleading. It provides very exact and specific well-defined physical properties.
The article also currently reads: "The primary reason that we use dark matter and dark energy to explain cosmological observations is that they are simple." Here you are neglecting the fact that there is ***no physical explanation*** for either dark energy and dark matter. My theory provides the first physical explanation for both of these phenomena in a single unified and intuitive framework. Given the lack of evidence for all conventional theories at present, including those which you frequently highlight, I am surprised that you would not see the advantage to a new idea.
Highlighting the vacuum instability is also completely wrong. This is a feature of the theory, and this is clearly emphasised in the paper. The creation term moderates the production rate of negative mass particles, and prevents this from being a catastrophic event.
Having said all that, I do greatly appreciate the last paragraph, which I think is much more correct. The article also does not mention the abundance of astrophysical observations which my model seems to match - I think to present it as a theory is not really fair or accurate, given the initial matching to the real world."
Post by: TheTraveller on 12/11/2018 02:22 am
Quote
December 2018
A short Technical Note on Thrust performance versus Load conditions of EmDrive Thrusters is given here.
The note explains why EmDrive complies with both the Law of Conservation of Momentum, as well as the Law of Conservation of Energy.
Technical Note on Emdrive Thrust v Load
http://www.emdrive.com/thrustvload.pdf
Post by: meberbs on 12/11/2018 04:30 am
Enjoy the latest www.emdrive.com newsAnyone actually need a detailed explanation of how everything in the provided link is nothing but gibberish?QuoteDecember 2018
A short Technical Note on Thrust performance versus Load conditions of EmDrive Thrusters is given here.
The note explains why EmDrive complies with both the Law of Conservation of Momentum, as well as the Law of Conservation of Energy.
Technical Note on Emdrive Thrust v Load
http://www.emdrive.com/thrustvload.pdf
Post by: TheTraveller on 12/11/2018 11:35 am
Enjoy the latest www.emdrive.com newsAnyone actually need a detailed explanation of how everything in the provided link is nothing but gibberish?QuoteDecember 2018
A short Technical Note on Thrust performance versus Load conditions of EmDrive Thrusters is given here.
The note explains why EmDrive complies with both the Law of Conservation of Momentum, as well as the Law of Conservation of Energy.
Technical Note on Emdrive Thrust v Load
http://www.emdrive.com/thrustvload.pdf
Meberbs,
Please note that in 2006 the Demonstrator EmDrive had a 8.2g frictional load applied while it accelerated on the rotary test rig.
Quote
The rotary air bearing supports a total load of 100kg, with a friction torque resulting in a calibrated resistance force of 8.2 gm at the engine centre of thrust.
http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.html
Might ask yourself why the frictional load was required?
Post by: Flyby on 12/11/2018 02:39 pm
Less words, more proof...to put it bluntly...
Post by: OnlyMe on 12/11/2018 03:34 pm
...The problem with "proves that there is no practical potential" is the typical problem with proving a negative. There is always going to be some other variable or combination that hasn't been tested. This is why I think it is important to set some kind of defined boundaries for when to call it a dead end.
There was never any practical evidence in the early tests and data that supports scalability. Nothing to say that a larger or smaller frustum, functioning at higher or lower frequencies or power levels, would produce similar results. A great deal of speculation, but data?
I don’t know if there is any practical potential in the EmDrive concept. At the same time I don’t believe that any test data in the public domain proves that there is no practical potential. Even a few ounces of propellant less thrust, could revolutionize the space industry from low earth orbit on...
At this point with the available data, there is certainly some additional final testing that can reasonably be done, as there are a few ongoing experiments that haven't been finalized. But given that there is little in potentially positive data that hasn't been countered with more sensitive experiments I am not sure how much more is reasonable. It is also useful to keep in mind that electrodynamics really has been well tested in a wide range of regimes, spanning everything that occurs in an emDrive. This is why from the beginning it was just short of certain that the data that showed thrust was nothing other than experimental errors.
As to your suggestion for higher power tests, there were issues with magnetrons, and their poor frequency stability, which is a problem for matching good resonance, it could be done, but despite the lower total power, more recent tests have been more sensitive in a force/power ratio sense. I am not going to tell anyone not to run an experiment (unless there are clear flaws that would make the experiment useless), I would just suggest defining in a precise sense what "good enough" means for what testing you want to do. (Even if you aren't planning on funding or doing more testing yourself, you can still state your opinion on what you think is worthwhile.)
meberbs,
The word “proves” is itself subjective, and yet does tend toward an more rigid interpretation. To avoid a discussion of semantics, just replace it with “demonstrates”. In context they mean the same thing, while demonstrates does not insist on the same absolute interpretation. You know that there have been and will continue to be both theoretical and experimental proofs, that are later falsified. I never intended the more rigid interpretation of the word.
Beyond that, I believe my intention should have been clear. If you begin with a design that produces even questionable positive results, in this case a frustum with an adjustable small end and powered by a magnetron, you cannot clarify those questionable results, including the even unlikely possibility of an anomalous force, by preforming the experiment with a substantially different design. Redesign the testbed and retest the original build.
I had hopes that SeeShells’ build from late 2015 might have been repaired and tested on a testbed capable of addressing some of the concerns raised. It seems she had cleaned up the magnetron frequency stability and retained some of the early design characteristics...
Without beginning with a build that has generated even a questionable positive result, you cannot know that the design changes have not designed out the potential.
There is no way to know that matching resonance is the key. It very well could be that the instability of the magnetron is important or even that whatever might have been happening is subject to a minimum power threshold. There has not been enough testing in the public realm to know., one way or the other. It seems that each time a design has been tested with questionable results, both the build and testbeds have been redesigned. That was true even with professor Yang’s two published examples... two substantially different builds tested on two substantially different testbeds.
It seems that even Eagleworks early intent was to build a device test it and then provide that same device/build to another lab to be retested. I would like to have seen that kind of experimental rigor followed with a magnetron powered early frustum design... demonstrate some repeatability, before beginning to refine and experiment with fundamental design changes.
Post by: OnlyMe on 12/11/2018 03:48 pm
Enjoy the latest www.emdrive.com newsAnyone actually need a detailed explanation of how everything in the provided link is nothing but gibberish?QuoteDecember 2018
A short Technical Note on Thrust performance versus Load conditions of EmDrive Thrusters is given here.
The note explains why EmDrive complies with both the Law of Conservation of Momentum, as well as the Law of Conservation of Energy.
Technical Note on Emdrive Thrust v Load
http://www.emdrive.com/thrustvload.pdf
Meberbs,
Please note that in 2006 the Demonstrator EmDrive had a 8.2g frictional load applied while it accelerated on the rotary test rig.QuoteThe rotary air bearing supports a total load of 100kg, with a friction torque resulting in a calibrated resistance force of 8.2 gm at the engine centre of thrust.
http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.html
Might ask yourself why the frictional load was required?
TT,
Your comment implies that without that load the rotary rig was frictionless and does not address the past unanswered criticisms, questioning the affect of coolant flow and pump operation, among other design issues, suggested by the photos.
BTW where is that rotary rig now? If it really worked it would have been worth a pretty penny then, let alone today.
Post by: meberbs on 12/11/2018 05:18 pm
Meberbs,Others have already explained other problems with that experiment, and in no way can you claim that the friction was "required" (That would require removing all other error sources, and more tests showing that it only works with friction present)
Please note that in 2006 the Demonstrator EmDrive had a 8.2g frictional load applied while it accelerated on the rotary test rig.QuoteThe rotary air bearing supports a total load of 100kg, with a friction torque resulting in a calibrated resistance force of 8.2 gm at the engine centre of thrust.
http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.html
Might ask yourself why the frictional load was required?
The paper is obviously wrong in many ways, and it has already been explained to you repeatedly that a device that accelerates free space without interacting with anything outside of itself (i.e. something not accelerating with it) is the definition of violating conservation of momentum. The paper ignores this entirely.
Also, the explanation for the first row of the table is yet again Shawyer using reaction force as a term he just inserts wherever he finds in convenient, ignoring the actual definition. In reality if the emDrive was actually generating a force, the readout of the scale would reduce, because the scale measures only the force pushing down on it, which is just the portion of the weight of the object not cancelled by the magical upwards force generated by the emDrive.
If you consider what happens when transitioning from row 3 to row 2 of the table, Shawyer is claiming that adding an additional mass on top that creates an additional downwards force, with no effect on the internals of the emDrive, he even assumes that motion of the scale surface downwards is ideally 0, suddenly makes the drive jump upwards.
The only thing the paper shows is actually a bunch of handwaving that Shawyer can use to reject any experiment he doesn't like the results of given the logical inconsistency of his claims. Whether this is due to willful ignorance or deliberate deception on his part is the only question, but I decline to speculate on this.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 12/11/2018 05:39 pm
As a consequence (but nobody seems to notice?) Farnes' model is an overunity theory.
EDIT: Comments from Sabine Hossenfelder about Farnes' theory (http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2018/12/no-negative-masses-have-not.html). Hossenfelder is a physicist who published in Physical Review D a bimetric theory (https://arxiv.org/abs/0807.2838) that also unifies dark matter and dark energy as one dark fluid, in 2008, ten years before Farnes (yet today ignored by memorylessness media). See also her 2009 presentation paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508013). She was the first to publish a Lagrangian derivation of a system of two coupled field equations managing positive and negative masses in cosmology with no runaway paradox, in a very similar way to the Janus cosmological model (https://januscosmologicalmodel.com/negativemass#cfe), which uses about the same sets of equations (except various additional "pull-overs" in Hossenfelder's theory).
I am by no means a proponent of the theory and would not want to die on this hill, but I thought this point was covered by Farnes in the paper here, which you partially quoted:
{extensive quotes of Hossenfelder and Farnes}
Yes I understand you're not a proponent of that theory, you're just like me and others here interested in such questions about negative energy states.
The simple fact is: Farnes dodges this question. Because the simple answer is: Farnes uses a negative gravitational mass AND a negative inertial mass in his theory for his negative mass (or "dark fluid" as he calls it). All the issue boils down to that simple axiom.
Why? In his answer to Hossenfelder, he tries to toss the hot potato to Hermann Bondi, saying that all these questions are rather related to the work of others and not his own work, but in fact Bondi justly covered all possibilities including the one chosen by Farnes, that is:
gravitational mass = inertial mass for each kind of particles
+ both positive and negative mass particles share the same family of geodesics (from the same metric gμν in the Einstein field equations)
which corresponds to Bondi's hypothesis (iv) in his 1957 paper (http://ayuba.fr/pdf/bondi1957.pdf).
This arbitrary choice seems at first handy and elegant as it naturally satisfies Einstein's equivalence principle, but as noted by Hossenfelder this leads to catastrophic behaviors in real examples. One can try to reduce the problem talking of "Brownian motion for interactions with other particles" as Farnes does in his paper, as well as resorting to different mass values for a couple (+m)(-m) which fortunately prevent in this case such pair to accelerate indefinitely in a runaway motion. But the true fact is, according to these fundamental hypotheses, if one attaches Farnes' negative mass next to a positive mass (of the same amount |m | ) on a wheel, it accelerates as a perpetual motion and "gets more massive" which is incompatible with general relativity, as noted by Gold. For me, this is a much more simple yet bigger problem than all other peripheral things Farnes acknowledged to discuss.
Bondi's hypothesis (iii) does not violate the EEP if two metrics (two distinct families of geodesics) are considered, one for positive energy species and a second one for negative energy species. Two metrics for a single manifold, a frontside and a backside on the same 4D hypersurface describing the universe.
This is the path independently followed by S. Hossenfelder and J.P. Petit. In such a case, the "negativity" of some mass is not an intrinsic physical feature, it arises instead from the geometry of spacetime itself, from its local amount of curvature.
According to these two authors, some negative curvature that would be measured somewhere in spacetime (Look! A Negative Mass!) introduces a new concept of apparent mass. EVERY single inertial mass is always positive, for any massive particle in the whole universe. But from a different perspective, from the point of view of its own metric or as measured from the opposite one (from the "backside" of the hypersurface) the gravitational mass of that particle appears positive or negative, respectively. This geometric concept of "conjugate curvatures" is still absolutely not understood (or at least absolutely not discussed).
Incidentally, bimetric models also explains why negative mass (= dark matter) remains optically invisible, a feature unexplainable in single-metric models like Farnes' theory.
All this to set the pendulum back on a more neutral position ;) It's good to finally hear about theories introducing negative mass in cosmology, but it doesn't hurt to talk about all valid theories, especially when some prior work do exist in parallel to an undue biased buzz by the media.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 12/11/2018 06:48 pm
Also, the explanation for the first row of the table is yet again Shawyer using reaction force as a term he just inserts wherever he finds in convenient, ignoring the actual definition. In reality if the emDrive was actually generating a force, the readout of the scale would reduce, because the scale measures only the force pushing down on it, which is just the portion of the weight of the object not cancelled by the magical upwards force generated by the emDrive.
Agreed. Let's say otherwise it the simplest way possible. This would work if the EmDrive was a rocket expelling matter (hot gas) backward behind its nozzle, but the EmDrive has no exhaust and does not expel ANYTHING. So if it worked as a genuine propellantless thruster, it would be rather like an aerostat or a warp drive. TT: if you have a 800-pound gorilla sitting in a room on a scale, the scale reads 800 pounds, OK? Now suppose you have a big helium balloon able to lift a mass of exactly 400 pounds. Being kind with him, you attach your balloon to the gorilla. What is the result? The gorilla does not lift in the air, for the ballon does not apply enough force upward to counteract gravity. But according to 1st row of table 1, Shawyer says the scale still reads 800 pounds. This is wrong: it now reads 400 pounds.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 12/12/2018 12:23 am
One post deleted, posting the above to warn people "not to go there" as I know a lot of you are in this EM Drive bubble and forget the forum rules apply even in this wacky backwater. ;)
Post by: Monomorphic on 12/12/2018 02:48 am
But the true fact is, according to these fundamental hypotheses, if one attaches Farnes' negative mass next to a positive mass (of the same amount |m | ) on a wheel, it accelerates as a perpetual motion and "gets more massive" which is incompatible with general relativity, as noted by Gold.
I played around with these kinds of n-body toy universe models many years ago and one thing I noticed then was that it is fairly easy to simulate "structure formation" - so perhaps that is the least impressive things his model mimics as far as I am concerned. It is also fairly subjective when describing tendrils, walls, voids, etc.
Farnes says the creation term is not a "magic fix," but it is simple to throw together a toy universe model that shows structure formation when using a similar creation metric. In the model below, I am simulating 5,000 particles of positive mass, but with a creation metric similar to Farnes' creation tensor for the negative mass particles.
I noticed that creating particles randomly out of nowhere helps smooth out the results of the model. This definitely helps improve structure formation (such as tendrils) - so it is kind of a magic fix.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRR6geVOTlM
Post by: TheTraveller on 12/12/2018 11:40 pm
Also, the explanation for the first row of the table is yet again Shawyer using reaction force as a term he just inserts wherever he finds in convenient, ignoring the actual definition. In reality if the emDrive was actually generating a force, the readout of the scale would reduce, because the scale measures only the force pushing down on it, which is just the portion of the weight of the object not cancelled by the magical upwards force generated by the emDrive.
Agreed. Let's say otherwise it the simplest way possible. This would work if the EmDrive was a rocket expelling matter (hot gas) backward behind its nozzle, but the EmDrive has no exhaust and does not expel ANYTHING. So if it worked as a genuine propellantless thruster, it would be rather like an aerostat or a warp drive. TT: if you have a 800-pound gorilla sitting in a room on a scale, the scale reads 800 pounds, OK? Now suppose you have a big helium balloon able to lift a mass of exactly 400 pounds. Being kind with him, you attach your balloon to the gorilla. What is the result? The gorilla does not lift in the air, for the ballon does not apply enough force upward to counteract gravity. But according to 1st row of table 1, Shawyer says the scale still reads 800 pounds. This is wrong: it now reads 400 pounds.
Hi FC,
In example 1, as per Roger's assumptions, the EmDrive can't move / accelerate so there is no force generated, being F = ma, and the result is correct. This has been the case since day one.
Yes in reality the scale does move down slightly to record the 2g added mass and thus a 1g upward force from the EmDrive will cause a very small upward acceleration and a reduction in the displayed mass. However it is no way as simple as either case given here nor are the effects linear at the start of acceleration plus the thrust will stop when the EmDrive has moved upward as far as it can and acceleration stops.
All of this has been gone over many times, so nothing new here.
Post by: meberbs on 12/13/2018 03:20 am
In example 1, as per Roger's assumptions, the EmDrive can't move / accelerate so there is no force generated, being F = ma, and the result is correct. This has been the case since day one.As anyone who has taken introductory physics knows, the F in that equation is the sum of all forces on an object.
For Shawyer's example, there is the force of the balance beam which is equal and opposite to the force of gravity on the drive, there is the force of the mass pushing the drive down, there is the force of the scale keeping the drive from moving downwards (which is what the readout of the scale reports) and there is the magic upwards force produced by the drive (or the 400lb upwards force of the balloon in flux_capacitor's example.) There being no acceleration just means that these forces are balanced. It does not make any of them zero. By the logic in your statement, the scale reading would not change when the balloon is attached to the gorilla, which is simply wrong.
Yes in reality the scale does move down slightly to record the 2g added mass and thus a 1g upward force from the EmDrive will cause a very small upward acceleration and a reduction in the displayed mass. However it is no way as simple as either case given here nor are the effects linear at the start of acceleration plus the thrust will stop when the EmDrive has moved upward as far as it can and acceleration stops.Nope, Shawyer claims none of this. Statements about nonlinearities, or necessity of freedom for downwards motion (when any motion would be upwards anyway) irrelevant.
All of this has been gone over many times, so nothing new here.Yet you still deny that Shawyer is failing introductory level physics, and simply ignore things like the obvious incongruity moving from line 3 to line 2 of the table Shawyer wrote that I pointed out.
Post by: TheTraveller on 12/14/2018 01:56 pm
In example 1, as per Roger's assumptions, the EmDrive can't move / accelerate so there is no force generated, being F = ma, and the result is correct. This has been the case since day one.As anyone who has taken introductory physics knows, the F in that equation is the sum of all forces on an object.
For Shawyer's example, there is the force of the balance beam which is equal and opposite to the force of gravity on the drive, there is the force of the mass pushing the drive down, there is the force of the scale keeping the drive from moving downwards (which is what the readout of the scale reports) and there is the magic upwards force produced by the drive (or the 400lb upwards force of the balloon in flux_capacitor's example.) There being no acceleration just means that these forces are balanced. It does not make any of them zero. By the logic in your statement, the scale reading would not change when the balloon is attached to the gorilla, which is simply wrong.Yes in reality the scale does move down slightly to record the 2g added mass and thus a 1g upward force from the EmDrive will cause a very small upward acceleration and a reduction in the displayed mass. However it is no way as simple as either case given here nor are the effects linear at the start of acceleration plus the thrust will stop when the EmDrive has moved upward as far as it can and acceleration stops.Nope, Shawyer claims none of this. Statements about nonlinearities, or necessity of freedom for downwards motion (when any motion would be upwards anyway) irrelevant.All of this has been gone over many times, so nothing new here.Yet you still deny that Shawyer is failing introductory level physics, and simply ignore things like the obvious incongruity moving from line 3 to line 2 of the table Shawyer wrote that I pointed out.
Meberbs,
As has been stated from day one, if an EmDrive can't accelerate, as in example one, there is no force generated. Ie if a = 0 then F = ma = 0.
Using an example of a helium filled balloon, which generates upward force even if not accelerating, is clearly not a valid argument to use with example 1.
Post by: meberbs on 12/14/2018 02:21 pm
Meberbs,As has been explained to you countless times the "can't accelerate" condition makes no sense. As I literally just explained, F =ma means something different. F =ma applies just as much to the balloon as it does to the emDrive. If you base your argument on that, you are clearly wrong. There is no way for the electrodynamic forces to know the difference between the situations described in Shawyer's paper and change whether they are producing a net force. Plus what you are saying continues to ignore the other examples, such as the second one where a net deflection happens, and the emDrive remains deflected despite the no motion in the lab frame. Plus in the third one, it is more free to accelerate, but doesn't move for no reason whatsoever.
As has been stated from day one, if an EmDrive can't accelerate, as in example one, there is no force generated. Ie if a = 0 then F = ma = 0.
Using an example of a helium filled balloon, which generates upward force even if not accelerating, is clearly not a valid argument to use with example 1.
Also you are still ignoring that as far as the effect on emWaves inside the cavity is concerned, pointing upwards in a gravity well is equivalent to accelerating at 1 g. The force is either there or it isn't. Claiming that it comes and goes based on factors that don't have any way to effect the electrodynamic forces makes no sense.
Post by: OnlyMe on 12/14/2018 03:23 pm
Enjoy the latest www.emdrive.com newsQuoteDecember 2018
A short Technical Note on Thrust performance versus Load conditions of EmDrive Thrusters is given here.
The note explains why EmDrive complies with both the Law of Conservation of Momentum, as well as the Law of Conservation of Energy.
Technical Note on Emdrive Thrust v Load
http://www.emdrive.com/thrustvload.pdf
TT,
Most of your argument just doesn’t make sense. Still a single sentence from early in the link above seems to suggest I have missed something very important... These have been repeatedly observed during experimental work extending over many years, and under many different test conditions, including reports of in orbit tests.
Where is the data from these, “…in orbit tests.”?
Post by: krsears on 12/14/2018 04:38 pm
Enjoy the latest www.emdrive.com newsQuoteDecember 2018
A short Technical Note on Thrust performance versus Load conditions of EmDrive Thrusters is given here.
The note explains why EmDrive complies with both the Law of Conservation of Momentum, as well as the Law of Conservation of Energy.
Technical Note on Emdrive Thrust v Load
http://www.emdrive.com/thrustvload.pdf
TT,
Most of your argument just doesn’t make sense. Still a single sentence from early in the link above seems to suggest I have missed something very important... These have been repeatedly observed during experimental work extending over many years, and under many different test conditions, including reports of in orbit tests.
Where is the data from these, “…in orbit tests.”?
Why not follow the advice on the site and contact [email protected] instead of asking here?
Kendall
Post by: Monomorphic on 12/14/2018 09:09 pm
including reports of in orbit tests.[/b]
Where is the data from these, “…in orbit tests.”?
The key word here is "reports." As in media reports that as far as we can tell have not been independently substantiated.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 12/18/2018 01:50 pm
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329754104_Propellant-less_Propulsion_from_Quantised_Inertia (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329754104_Propellant-less_Propulsion_from_Quantised_Inertia)
Post by: meberbs on 12/18/2018 05:47 pm
Mike McCulloch's article on "propellantless horizon drives" (including hypotheses about the EmDrive and Mach Effect thrusters) has been recently accepted for publication in the Journal of Space Exploration. Here is the preprint:The good news is that this paper has numerical predictions.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329754104_Propellant-less_Propulsion_from_Quantised_Inertia (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329754104_Propellant-less_Propulsion_from_Quantised_Inertia)
The bad news is that there are major problems with the comparisons to experimental data, which seem to be severely cherry picked.
The emDrive thrust values are based on early measurements from Shawyer that have long since been shown to not be real. More recent experiments clearly show that if there is any thrust, it is much smaller. This mismatch with experiment alone is possibly enough to invalidate the entire theory.
Possibly a worse infraction from the standpoint of academic behavior is an inaccurate citation of Tajmar. The cited paper is a purely theoretical one, and the value of the supposedly observed measurement is apparently taken from the theoretical model that is the worst fit to the experimental data from Fearn et al referenced by Tajmar. This complete misrepresentation is made worse by the fact that Tajmar has in fact taken experimental data, but there was no real measured force. (The actual report from Tajmar identifies an error in the setup, (refining the setup was the main point) and if there was any real signal, the expectation was that it was too small to detect due to the error present.)
Post by: Ricvil on 12/19/2018 07:46 pm
The classical electrodynamics presents conformal invariance too.
The file attached presents the use of conformal invariance to calculate the fields generated by a constantly accelerating charged particle, starting from a static charged particle before the special conformal transformation.
A interesting comment about causality and the special conformal transformation on page two.
"Transformations such as (2.2) or (2.3) do not in general preserve the time ordering of even time-like separated points."
Basically, at page 5, the expressions defining frontiers between causal and not causal regions by signal changes of a conformal factor.
The final discussion ( page 18) has an interesting pointing about quantum electrodynamic:
"At a mundane level there are immediate problems of introducing gauge fixing while maintaining conformal invariance [13]. More significantly attempts to impose exact conformal invariance on quantum electrodynamics have led to the condition that current Jµ = 0 as an operator equation, which leads to a trivial theory."
Looking at page six, one can note the gauge invariance between advanced and retarded potentials depends on a gradient of a function wich can becomes complex and non analytic.
Curiously, similar situation of a additive imaginary vector potential arises when one tries to find a path integral representation of klein gordon propagator in non harmonic coordinate systens.
Post by: JohnFornaro on 12/20/2018 01:48 pm
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329754104_Propellant-less_Propulsion_from_Quantised_Inertia
"A new model for inertial mass, quantised inertia, that predicts galaxy rotation without dark matter, also predicts that a highly-accelerated system surrounded by an asymmetric conductor will feel thrust in a new way, without having to store and expel propellant."
Here is the definition of an "asymmetric conductor" that I am familiar with:
"A conductor which exerts different conductivity depending on the direction of the current flowing through it. A diode is an example of an asymmetric conductor."
http://thesciencedictionary.org/asymmetric-conductor/
Is this paper using the term "asymmetric conductor" as per this definition? If not, what is the difference between an asymmetric conductor as is widely known, and an asymmetric conductor as used in this paper?
Post by: Notsosureofit on 12/20/2018 01:58 pm
Post by: R.W. Keyes on 12/21/2018 06:03 pm
Pretty sure he means "conductor of asymmetric geometry".
Regarding McCulloch's pre-print of Dec 2018,
That is how I interpreted it. I asked him, and he said yes that's what he means.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 12/21/2018 06:25 pm
Mike McCulloch's article on "propellantless horizon drives" (including hypotheses about the EmDrive and Mach Effect thrusters) has been recently accepted for publication in the Journal of Space Exploration. Here is the preprint:[…]
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329754104_Propellant-less_Propulsion_from_Quantised_Inertia (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329754104_Propellant-less_Propulsion_from_Quantised_Inertia)
Possibly a worse infraction from the standpoint of academic behavior is an inaccurate citation of Tajmar. The cited paper is a purely theoretical one, and the value of the supposedly observed measurement is apparently taken from the theoretical model that is the worst fit to the experimental data from Fearn et al referenced by Tajmar. This complete misrepresentation is made worse by the fact that Tajmar has in fact taken experimental data, but there was no real measured force. (The actual report from Tajmar identifies an error in the setup, (refining the setup was the main point) and if there was any real signal, the expectation was that it was too small to detect due to the error present.)
Post by: R.W. Keyes on 12/21/2018 08:01 pm
"1. I did not cherry pick. The publications in this area are usually non very
comprehensive and those were the only papers I could find with all the information I
needed in them.
2. The early data of Shawyer has not be falsified at all. Tajmar's emdrive results
appear to be about 10 times smaller than what were expected and seem to be due to a
thermal deformation. According to Shawyer, he has no resonance in his cavity.
3. By asymmetric conductor, I simply mean any conductor that has an asymmetric
shape. This fits the emdrive, MET and asymmetric capacitor.
4. The last criticism is a good one and it seems I have made a mistake somehow in
misinterpreting Tajmar's paper. In my rush I may have confused that one with his
later one. Very embarrassing, but what can you do? I will be changing the paper as
soon as I can."
He also asked me to thank the fellow who originally pointed it out, and that's you, meberbs.
If anyone feels as though there is data that he left out, that he should have included, please cite the data.
I have found Prof. McCulloch to be very approachable, responsive, and committed to good science.
Post by: meberbs on 12/21/2018 10:02 pm
Here's what Mike McCulloch said to me in email, posted here with permission:McCulloch's response to this is very good. I can't overstate how important being willing to own a mistake like this is in having confidence in someone's integrity. I initially had a good impression of him, but after reading some of his blog posts, that had begun to sour, but this rights that and then some.
"1. I did not cherry pick. The publications in this area are usually non very
comprehensive and those were the only papers I could find with all the information I
needed in them.
2. The early data of Shawyer has not be falsified at all. Tajmar's emdrive results
appear to be about 10 times smaller than what were expected and seem to be due to a
thermal deformation. According to Shawyer, he has no resonance in his cavity.
3. By asymmetric conductor, I simply mean any conductor that has an asymmetric
shape. This fits the emdrive, MET and asymmetric capacitor.
4. The last criticism is a good one and it seems I have made a mistake somehow in
misinterpreting Tajmar's paper. In my rush I may have confused that one with his
later one. Very embarrassing, but what can you do? I will be changing the paper as
soon as I can."
He also asked me to thank the fellow who originally pointed it out, and that's you, meeberbs.
If anyone feels as though there is data that he left out, that he should have included, please cite the data.
I have found Prof. McCulloch to be very approachable, responsive, and committed to good science.
I still think those blog posts I mentioned are wrong (I think I was specific in a past post on here, but specifics aren't important right now), and I do not believe that the full available experimental data actually supports the theory. I am not sure I really want to get into many details right now, since the most important concern was addressed, and the rest falls into the category of standard academic discussion. I'll at least make a few comments now though.
For the emDrive, I would expect at least Eaglework's results to be included, unfortunately many emDrive results, particularly null results, are not published, and if they are reported at all, they are from DIYers (even if some have extremely excellent setups.) Tajmar's recent testing, while an inconclusive null result due to errors present, provides an upper limit that McCulloch could potentially use (not the original emDrive from Tajmar, which I think we can all agree should be excluded.) Shawyer's results would be in doubt simply from questions about how he can measure a force, when he has repeatedly published papers that demonstrate a lack of understanding of what a force is.
I refrain from further comment on the MET data until seeing which of the available data sets get referenced in McCulloch's update (the data from Fearn that Tajmar referenced, presumably, since Tajmar's most recent results are just a very weak upper bound due to the setup issues.) Possibly someone else here knows of a recent publication from Woodward that could be used.
...and as usual that was longer than what I intended. The important point is McCulloch should be applauded for this kind of response.
Post by: Notsosureofit on 12/22/2018 06:20 pm
Quantum extension of the Kruskal spacetime
Abhay Ashtekar, Javier Olmedo, and Parampreet Singh
Phys. Rev. D 98, 126003 – Published 10 December 2018
ABSTRACT
A new description of macroscopic Kruskal black holes that incorporates the quantum geometry corrections of loop quantum gravity is presented. It encompasses both the “interior” region that contains classical singularities and the “exterior” asymptotic region. Singularities are naturally resolved by the quantum geometry effects of loop quantum gravity. The resulting quantum extension of spacetime has the following features: (i) It admits an infinite number of trapped, anti-trapped and asymptotic regions; (ii) All curvature scalars have uniform (i.e., mass independent) upper bounds; (iii) In the large mass limit, all asymptotic regions of the extension have the same ADM mass; (iv) In the low curvature region (e.g., near horizons) quantum effects are negligible, as one would physically expect; and (v) Final results are insensitive to the fiducial structures that have to be introduced to construct the classical phase space description (as they must be). Previous effective theories shared some but not all of these features. We compare and contrast our results with those of these effective theories and also with expectations based on the AdS/CFT conjecture. We conclude with a discussion of limitations of our framework, especially for the analysis of evaporating black holes.
Quantum Transfiguration of Kruskal Black Holes
Abhay Ashtekar, Javier Olmedo, and Parampreet Singh
Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 241301 – Published 10 December 2018
ABSTRACT
We present a new effective description of macroscopic Kruskal black holes that incorporates corrections due to quantum geometry effects of loop quantum gravity. It encompasses both the “interior” region that contains classical singularities and the “exterior” asymptotic region. Singularities are naturally resolved by the quantum geometry effects of loop quantum gravity, and the resulting quantum extension of the full Kruskal space-time is free of all the known limitations of previous investigations of the Schwarzschild interior. We compare and contrast our results with these investigations and also with the expectations based on the AdS/CFT duality.
Post by: Ricvil on 12/26/2018 11:40 am
AND
For the called Petrov Type D spacetimes appears to exist an analog of holographic principle, linking full 4d space time to 2d null boundary conditions.
PS: The conical cavity with flat end plates presents two impulsive rings of intrinsic curvature originated by the shape of boundary conditions, and by mirror symmetry at end plates, these rings of curvature has different signals, and the electromagnetic wavefronts, under optical approximation of conformal invariant eikonal equation, feels and interact with these rings of curvature.
Post by: Ricvil on 12/28/2018 03:11 pm
There is a classe of Type D spacetimes related to "twisted gravitational waves".
AND...
There is the "holographic principle" for Type D spacetimes.
:)
Post by: Flyby on 12/29/2018 08:33 am
at first glance, this might be somewhat related to the EM topic....
Post by: Star One on 12/29/2018 10:13 am
Here's what Mike McCulloch said to me in email, posted here with permission:
"1. I did not cherry pick. The publications in this area are usually non very
comprehensive and those were the only papers I could find with all the information I
needed in them.
2. The early data of Shawyer has not be falsified at all. Tajmar's emdrive results
appear to be about 10 times smaller than what were expected and seem to be due to a
thermal deformation. According to Shawyer, he has no resonance in his cavity.
3. By asymmetric conductor, I simply mean any conductor that has an asymmetric
shape. This fits the emdrive, MET and asymmetric capacitor.
4. The last criticism is a good one and it seems I have made a mistake somehow in
misinterpreting Tajmar's paper. In my rush I may have confused that one with his
later one. Very embarrassing, but what can you do? I will be changing the paper as
soon as I can."
He also asked me to thank the fellow who originally pointed it out, and that's you, meberbs.
If anyone feels as though there is data that he left out, that he should have included, please cite the data.
I have found Prof. McCulloch to be very approachable, responsive, and committed to good science.
Thanks for this. At least you did it the right way by approaching him privately rather than certain alternatives.
Post by: MadMarx on 12/30/2018 07:58 pm
First post, won't bother you too much.
But I've been following this story for years, coming from bioscience, can someone please explain to me why people are still arguing about stuff that won't ever get any closure.
Everybody is trying to build a truncated cone with a resonating EM field inside all other parameters being at the discretion of the experimenter.
Last year I saw Sonny White presenting not vague ideas, not theoretical paper, but a full blown computer simulation of what he thinks in going inside the device.
This simulation shows how inefficient the current geometry is and seems perfectly able to be the virtual test bed for potential huge increase in the thrust efficiency or at least to test the theory.
But Mr White tells us he sees the humongous inefficiency (like 2-3 orders of magnitude on the animation), but is not interested in decreasing it right now...
Would the numerical optimization of the EMdrive not be a more direct path to clear science that the current fumbling with non linearities of torsion pendulum and ultra tiny weird interaction with earth magnetic field etc
Is the simulation code available? Could it explain the discrepancies between current experiments? Can it lead to a big improvement in efficiency yielding clear and indisputable measurements?
Isn't the pinnacle of science to be able to design a simulation that fit the experiments? :-)
Post by: aero on 12/30/2018 11:28 pm
I took a shot at such a thing using meep software, unfortunately, meep is pure classical electrodynamics and gives pure classical results. Meep does provide source code and some contributors to this thread are sufficiently skilled to modify it, but it requires they have a theoretical path to follow. Maybe Sonny White's theory gives a direction but It doesn't seem to have gained much traction on this thread. As for myself, I can run meep as it exists but I can't even get it to compile, let alone code and integrate new modules so I have passed the baton.
Post by: meberbs on 12/31/2018 07:00 am
Hi, all!A theme of several of my recent posts has been that if anyone has any remaining interest in looking into the emDrive, they should come up with something falsifiable so that it is possible to call an end to it.
First post, won't bother you too much.
But I've been following this story for years, coming from bioscience, can someone please explain to me why people are still arguing about stuff that won't ever get any closure.
Last year I saw Sonny White presenting not vague ideas, not theoretical paper, but a full blown computer simulation of what he thinks in going inside the device.You seem to be confused, you reference "theoretical paper" and "computer simulation" as separate things with the second being implied as better somehow. A computer simulation is just a single method that can be used for working out a theory. Many papers are based on such models, but depending on the context sometimes they are more useful than working out the math directly, and sometimes they are less. A simulation is useless if it doesn't accurately represent the theory, and a theory is useless if it disagrees with experiment in the relevant regimes.
This simulation shows how inefficient the current geometry is and seems perfectly able to be the virtual test bed for potential huge increase in the thrust efficiency or at least to test the theory.Except there is no generally accepted theory for the emDrive, in fact I haven't seen one that was even slightly plausible. No matter how many times you run a simulation that doesn't actually plausibly describe reality in the regimes you are testing, the results aren't going to be useful. I don't know specifically what theory the presentation you saw was based on, but the old quantum vacuum proposal never made any sense to begin with since it required the quantum vacuum to have contradictory properties.
Would the numerical optimization of the EMdrive not be a more direct path to clear science that the current fumbling with non linearities of torsion pendulum and ultra tiny weird interaction with earth magnetic field etcNo, because no one has any clue what to optimize it for. Without some real data to back up, simulations prove nothing other than to answer "what if we lived in a universe with an alternate set of laws of physics?"
Isn't the pinnacle of science to be able to design a simulation that fit the experiments? :-)The best experiments that have been done have have shown null results to within their sensitivities, or have had probable error sources comparable to any signal. The best model to fit these results is therefore the standard electrodynamics that has been around for over a century. This is an unsurprising result, because the field strengths and other aspects of the emDrive are well within realms that have been thoroughly tested before.
edit:typo
Post by: dustinthewind on 01/01/2019 02:37 am
The combined electric field inside a cavity of the frequency serries at Max electron acceleration in the desired direction would create the voltage or electron acceleration podkletnov expects. My guess is that when the electrons are in their ground state in the vacuum electron cloud in a superconductor that it enhances interaction with the vacuum.
He claims to now be generating gravity impulses with enough force to dent inch thick plates of some metal I think it was. Problem is his isn't on a cycle. I think the Mach effect is the same thing but on a cycle. In the end you end up pushing the vacuum in a direction like a rocket but there is another effect that begins to modify the effective mass (the worm hole effect). Even if the Mach effect is bogus we know black holes can exhaust real momentum into the vacuum. That the vacuum is even dragged around plants and rotating black holes almost like a fluid as in the lens thirring effect. If podkletnov's experiments are real then I think it's the next step.
I also think the gravity wave podkletnov is generating is a negative gravity. Stretched space. That's why his experiments seem to show it traveling faster than c and deflecting laser pulses. WarpTech used to also talk about adding energy to the vacuum also. Where gravity was a depeltion of energy from the vacuum leading to lorentz contraction. Enhancing the vacuum with energy stretches it. podkletnov's wave pushes objects away as it passes through them.
Post by: MadMarx on 01/01/2019 11:26 am
I understand fairly well the non magical nature of "computer simulations".
My point was that as a black box capable of letting a new crazy theoretical framework in and producing out "Newtons of thrust", it could prove itself to be pretty useful to prove the theory exists and behaves as expected. If through in silico optimization you could produce a very obvious thrust model that if still isn't measured, should discredit the theory not the measurements.
In fact, it brings out a methodological problem: instead of trying to isolate an hypothesis (does the theory exist or not) people are testing a great many at once. The parameter space is too big. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Look-elsewhere_effect
And for the Higgs Boson they even had the advantage of a high pretest expected probability of a non null hypothesis.
With the empiric "simulation" of airfoil aerodynamics the Wright Brothers had, they didn't do like Sonny and build a cube atop a railroad car to try to show microscopic lift, they tried to isolate their hypothesis, increase signal/noise ratio and make the thing fly.
With such a low pretest probability, I don't think "does it produce a microscopical force or not" is a good enough hypothesis. Using the theory to isolate the effect and make provable testable assumptions, is the way, is the only way science moves forward.
Post by: Monomorphic on 01/01/2019 02:28 pm
With the empiric "simulation" of airfoil aerodynamics the Wright Brothers had, they didn't do like Sonny and build a cube atop a railroad car to try to show microscopic lift, they tried to isolate their hypothesis, increase signal/noise ratio and make the thing fly.
MadMarx brings up a good point by reminding us that White claimed to have a virtual particle simulation model that predicted some of the measurement results with their frustum and mode. It would naturally follow that White should try altering the geometry and/or mode shape in the simulation to increase the efficiency - and then try to replicate that geometry and mode in a real experiment.
Post by: dustinthewind on 01/01/2019 05:06 pm
With the empiric "simulation" of airfoil aerodynamics the Wright Brothers had, they didn't do like Sonny and build a cube atop a railroad car to try to show microscopic lift, they tried to isolate their hypothesis, increase signal/noise ratio and make the thing fly.
MadMarx brings up a good point by reminding us that White claimed to have a virtual particle simulation model that predicted some of the measurement results with their frustum and mode. It would naturally follow that White should try altering the geometry and/or mode shape in the simulation to increase the efficiency - and then try to replicate that geometry and mode in a real experiment.
Not only the shape but try modifying the frequencies. I would like to see him try the frequency series to maximize unidirectional electron acceleration and the resulting effect.
Post by: demofsky on 01/02/2019 03:11 am
Not only the shape but try modifying the frequencies. I would like to see him try the frequency series to maximize unidirectional electron acceleration and the resulting effect.
YES!! YES!! This is the kind of thinking that needs to happen to move this forward!
Also transients need to be investigated (which could be frequency shifts but also power levels). Both TT and Shell noticed significant results when they switched on their apparatus at one time or another. This say to me that whatever is happening in those fustrums MAY be a nonlinear effect that is triggered by some type of transient effect that happens when they “flick the switch”.
Post by: Ricvil on 01/02/2019 09:30 am
Under this composed symmetry , I don't know the dependence of eigenfunctions, and resonant frequencys, related to the scaling parameter, but I'm thinking if internal fields must have many frequency components to follow this spatial scaling, and to reflect the composed symmetry of boundary conditions.
The spatial radius inversion is not the same of the special conformal transformations because time is not involved (except by the occurrence of some kind of event horizon), but apparentely there is a curious relation with the dark zones of superficial current under resonance conditions, related to the curvature of "inverted" surface.
PS: Just a remember, the surfaces are obtained by a rotation of contour around the axis of symmetry, and the signal of curvature of "inverted" surface will change in some regions. What are the corresponding regions at the untransformed surface?
PS2: Kenjee's Lorentizian cavity has two distinct small regions of changing signals of inverted surface curvature, one at each side, at the neighborhood of end plates.
Post by: WarpTech on 01/05/2019 03:58 pm
With the empiric "simulation" of airfoil aerodynamics the Wright Brothers had, they didn't do like Sonny and build a cube atop a railroad car to try to show microscopic lift, they tried to isolate their hypothesis, increase signal/noise ratio and make the thing fly.
MadMarx brings up a good point by reminding us that White claimed to have a virtual particle simulation model that predicted some of the measurement results with their frustum and mode. It would naturally follow that White should try altering the geometry and/or mode shape in the simulation to increase the efficiency - and then try to replicate that geometry and mode in a real experiment.
White's team has been limited by both budget (there is none) and software capabilities. There is only so much they can do with COMSOL when it comes to simulating particle interactions.
That being said, there is very little evidence, if any, that electron-positron pairs in the vacuum occur naturally in such large numbers. Woodward published an article last year in JBIS refuting Sonny White's hypothesis. Personally, I don't see how a "practically" empty vacuum can be treated as a hydrodynamic system with any significant thrust. The e-p pairs should be proportional to the applied energy stored in the EM field, and it is a long way from the Schwinger limit. So the only place such particles could exist is within the metal.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 01/05/2019 04:10 pm
With the empiric "simulation" of airfoil aerodynamics the Wright Brothers had, they didn't do like Sonny and build a cube atop a railroad car to try to show microscopic lift, they tried to isolate their hypothesis, increase signal/noise ratio and make the thing fly.
MadMarx brings up a good point by reminding us that White claimed to have a virtual particle simulation model that predicted some of the measurement results with their frustum and mode. It would naturally follow that White should try altering the geometry and/or mode shape in the simulation to increase the efficiency - and then try to replicate that geometry and mode in a real experiment.
White's team has been limited by both budget (there is none) and software capabilities. There is only so much they can do with COMSOL when it comes to simulating particle interactions.
That being said, there is very little evidence, if any, that electron-positron pairs in the vacuum occur naturally in such large numbers. Woodward published an article last year in JBIS refuting Sonny White's hypothesis. Personally, I don't see how a "practically" empty vacuum can be treated as a hydrodynamic system with any significant thrust. The e-p pairs should be proportional to the applied energy stored in the EM field, and it is a long way from the Schwinger limit. So the only place such particles could exist is within the metal.
Paul March explained here on NSF that Sonny White thinks indeed that a large amount of virtual particles do not "integrally" pop out of the vacuum to come 100% into "existence" as real particles (if such words have a physical meaning…) but instead could have a transitional state "not entirely virtual, not entirely real neither" that would increase their density.
Personally I tend to agree more with Woodward's statement in the JBIS paper you referred to. It sounds way more logical (and physical).
Post by: RonM on 01/05/2019 04:36 pm
https://youtu.be/Rh898Yr5YZ8?t=345
Post by: Ricvil on 01/07/2019 10:00 am
Conical and almost toroidal surface sections.
PS: I am giving a name to this cavity as "Owl Cavity".
Post by: X_RaY on 01/07/2019 07:09 pm
A cavity with two inverted curvature signal changing (shadowed), without scaling involved on inversion spheres (same radius), with spatial radius inversion symmetry of inverted surface and untransformed surface.
Conical and almost toroidal surface sections.
Ricvil, excuse me, but I guess you're the only one who understands what you mean. Could you please explain exactly what you are talking about? At best, in terms of scientific relations.
Which basis for any net thrust of such cavity do you propose?
Post by: Ricvil on 01/07/2019 10:16 pm
Dear X_RaY,A cavity with two inverted curvature signal changing (shadowed), without scaling involved on inversion spheres (same radius), with spatial radius inversion symmetry of inverted surface and untransformed surface.
Conical and almost toroidal surface sections.
Ricvil, excuse me, but I guess you're the only one who understands what you mean. Could you please explain exactly what you are talking about? At best, in terms of scientific relations.
Which basis for any net thrust of such cavity do you propose?
Sorry about that.
At this point it is just a very complicated hypothesis.
Sometime ago, I've talked about to concentrate the radiation pressure at conical section of cavity, and to me this can be achieved using the intrinsic curvature of cavity boundary condition surface.
It is like to use a curved pipe to convert TE to TM modes, and vice versa, but at a frequency where one of modes are not avaiable, then the "dark zones" arises. When the both modes are avaiable at the same frequency then they appears together.
But all this probably will produce just another photon rocket, except something more exotic is happening,
Post by: cvbn on 01/10/2019 01:22 pm
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2016/07/lemdrive.html
https://www.rymdstyrelsen.se/contentassets/de067a79466749efa22b953340e47293/19.-investigation-of-propellant-less-propulsion-on-electromagnetic-resonant-cavities-em-drive.pdf
"There is a photon - thrust effect in the amplitude (4 times larger than noise level - third harmonic)"
Post by: Notsosureofit on 01/10/2019 02:01 pm
LEMdrive:
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2016/07/lemdrive.html
https://www.rymdstyrelsen.se/contentassets/de067a79466749efa22b953340e47293/19.-investigation-of-propellant-less-propulsion-on-electromagnetic-resonant-cavities-em-drive.pdf
"There is a photon - thrust effect in the amplitude (4 times larger than noise level - third harmonic)"
Post by: cvbn on 01/10/2019 04:52 pm
Post by: meberbs on 01/11/2019 12:30 am
LEMdrive:That powerpoint presentation does not have enough information to make many conclusions, but it brings up a lot of questions.
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2016/07/lemdrive.html
https://www.rymdstyrelsen.se/contentassets/de067a79466749efa22b953340e47293/19.-investigation-of-propellant-less-propulsion-on-electromagnetic-resonant-cavities-em-drive.pdf
"There is a photon - thrust effect in the amplitude (4 times larger than noise level - third harmonic)"
For most of the graphs in it, I am not sure what they are supposed to be of, but some bring up major questions. One in particular shows "frequency versus temperature" has data points with error bars that are all over the place and best fit lines that don't even come close to passing within the error bars of most points. Another graph with unlabeled axes appears to show that the apparent trend does not care whether something is "on" or "off."
The data claims 0.04 uN/W, but then when calculating photon rocket forces, it uses 100mW, so that implies force was actually 4 nN. While not impossible to measure such a force, it would take an extremely good setup with very careful calibration, but there is no information to even determine what type of setup was used. Compared to the 4nN force measured, a photon rocket without reflection is 0.3 nN, and I question how if there is 100mW dissipated by some kind of current, that this would only correspond to magnetic force of 0.2nN, but again not enough information. Either way, forces about 1/10th of the measured signal do not count as "much smaller" especially when there are multiple of them and some (like photon thrust) can be amplified by reflections from the environment.
Basically a lot of words to say: There is so little information in the plain slides, they don't communicate much, but even if this is just initial work for a later paper, it brings up many more questions than answers.
Post by: RERT on 01/11/2019 09:13 am
Judging by what google tells me about cubesat thrusters, it looks to me as if 1 μN/W would be useful, if cheap and light enough to replace a 0.6U cubesat thruster. So roughly a few hundred times a photon-rocket. Maybe notably less if the ability to thrust 'forever' is taken into account.
Any other opinions? Are there any other missions made feasible by a lower propellant-less thrust?
Post by: Star One on 01/11/2019 10:13 am
Post by: MathewOrman on 01/11/2019 12:15 pm
Post by: meberbs on 01/11/2019 07:30 pm
Orman Force Drive https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhldn0ef138&feature=youtu.beTry posting a link to a pdf, rather than a painfully formatted youtube video of a pdf.
Also, the Lorentz force works and has been measured and confirmed by countless experiments. Go study some basic electrodynamics before making absurd claims to the contrary. There are some unintuitive aspects to electrodynamics, and they only all make sense together when considered alongside special relativity, and energy and momentum being present inside of fields (which ties to massless particles in special relativity.)
Post by: hyperplanck on 01/14/2019 12:51 am
a photon rocket without reflection is 0.3 nN,
May I ask for your source of this assertion and your logical reasoning to its sigma validity as an absolute value?
I did a little recent searching, on some of the papers published for force of a photon, but from reassessing myself to this fields subject matter, it seems to be a very immature understanding of the subject, without a general consensus to spatial and time Planck scale considerations. This abstract understanding of the values of photons pressure/force is especially the case for complex mediums.
A cavity-confined qubit can register the reflection of a single microwave photon without destroying it.
https://physics.aps.org/articles/v11/38
Experimental evidence for Abraham pressure of light
"the momentum transfer of light in fluids is truly Janus–faced: the Minkowski or the Abraham momentum can emerge in similar experiments. The Abraham momentum, equation (2), emerges as the optomechanical momentum when the fluid is moving and the Minkowski momentum, equation (1), when the light is too focused or the container too small to set the fluid into motion."
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/17/5/053035
https://phys.org/news/2015-06-physicists-pressure.html
Nanonewton force generation and detection based
on a sensitive torsion pendulum
Sheng-Jui Chen and Sheau-Shi Pan
"Converting to force
by 70 mm torque armlength and the spring constant
of the pendulum, the force is 4.9 ± 0.4 nN which is in
good agreement with the prediction."
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0806.3300.pdf
Comparison of electrostatic and photon pressure force references at the nanonewton level:
Accepted Manuscript online 19 December 2018
"This work demonstrates a method to link mass, force and laser power within the International System of Units with explicit treatment of absorption, diffuse reflection, and a detailed uncertainty analysis. Additionally, it demonstrates a viable method to scale this force continuously using a pulsed laser technique while maintaining the constant thermal load necessary for precision measurement of nanonewton forces with a mechanical balance."
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1681-7575/aaf9c2/pdf
A self-calibrating optomechanical force sensor with femtonewton resolution
John Melcher,∗ Julian Stirling, Felipe Guzm´an Cervantes, Jon R. Pratt, and Gordon A. Shaw
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Physical Measurement Laboratory
(Dated: October 5, 2018)
"We observe two distinct distributions of 626 ± 7 fN
and 780 ± 7 fN, where the uncertainty quoted represents
one standard deviation of the measurements. Including
the uncertainty in the calibration, the combined standard
uncertainty estimate becomes ±9 fN [30]. Since the distributions of the force measurements are approximately
Gaussian, we conservatively estimate a force resolution
of approximately 14 fN. It is important to note that this
resolution is achieved with a stiff sensor that is suitable
for atomic-resolution AFM, as opposed to low stiffness
MRFM sensors [6] or nanowires [25].
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.5725.pdf
Post by: rq3 on 01/14/2019 02:45 am
Seashells and Monomorphic, you've been great.
TT, good luck, whatever universe you're in.
Game over, at least for Shawyer. There's definitely "new physics", but it's not here.
Post by: hyperplanck on 01/14/2019 03:35 am
Roughly 700 femtonewtons. About 0.00000000007 grams force.
What is your logical reasoning behind the absolute value of the validity to the sigma significance of that claim? Did you account for the absorbtion in the media? Did you fail to acknowledge the other experiments that showed nano newtons? To me it seems like you just cherry picked the first thing you could find without actually critically assessing it and then you used your bias as an appealum ad absurdum to try to make others seem incompetent, but its your hubris that it is actually you who are the uninformed and uneducated in your attack.
The careful reader would have noticed that there was a higher newton of force in complex media, related to the recurrence thus enabling far higher ranges of newton forces in cavities. It also suggests a relative force that decreased towards stiff reflective materials and increased for more complex media, likely due to recurrence. Though again the entire schematic is not assessed and the electrostatic force assessment paper relative to photon force just published, was in the range of 1-10 nano newtons, of which the experiment has not been fully completed, nor has NISTs experiment been reproduced under different conditions.
Post by: meberbs on 01/14/2019 06:30 am
Did you bother to read the presentation I was responding to? They do the calculation there, which is where I got the 100mW number I used to do the calculation.a photon rocket without reflection is 0.3 nN,
May I ask for your source of this assertion and your logical reasoning to its sigma validity as an absolute value?
The formula for the force is extremely simple: F = P/c where F is the force, P is power, and c is the speed of light. In practice, you have to add in factors for how collimated the emitted photons are (i.e. are they all going in the same direction) and other related effects (like if there may be reflections happening.)
Contrary to your claim, understanding of the subject is not immature. The momentum carried by photons is a century old part of electrodynamics, with the formula stated above as a an important generic result from special relativity.
The references you provided are mostly irrelevant:
-A quantum mechanics measurement effect, which has no relevance (not dealing with single-photon anything)
-Abraham/Minkowski controversy, which is irrelevant (not dealing with transmission through a medium substantially different from vacuum) and mostly boils down to bookkeeping due to the way physicists approximate the effect of linear materials. (which is what the article says, the correct one to use depends on your perspective)
-Followed by 3 different discussions of sensitive force measurements, which gets back to one of the points I made previously: Much more detail is needed on how they measured the forces they claimed, because while there is no doubt about the force generated by radiation pressure, actually measuring such tiny forces is in fact difficult.
The force due to radiation pressure is so well understood (and only depends on the speed of light, which has an exactly known value, due to it being used in the definition of metric units) that NIST has developed techniques to use it for calibration.
In one case, they can use a known power laser as a calibration standard for small forces:
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2016/08/measuring-tiny-forces-light
And in another, they use a situation where the force can be measured well to calibrate the RF power:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323217450_Measurement_of_Radio-Frequency_Radiation_Pressure
Post by: hyperplanck on 01/14/2019 04:15 pm
Did you bother to read the presentation I was responding to? They do the calculation there, which is where I got the 100mW number I used to do the calculation.a photon rocket without reflection is 0.3 nN,
May I ask for your source of this assertion and your logical reasoning to its sigma validity as an absolute value?
The formula for the force is extremely simple: F = P/c where F is the force, P is power, and c is the speed of light. In practice, you have to add in factors for how collimated the emitted photons are (i.e. are they all going in the same direction) and other related effects (like if there may be reflections happening.)
Contrary to your claim, understanding of the subject is not immature.
The references you provided are mostly irrelevant:
-A quantum mechanics measurement effect, which has no relevance (not dealing with single-photon anything)
-Abraham/Minkowski controversy, which is irrelevant (not dealing with transmission through a medium substantially different from vacuum) and mostly boils down to bookkeeping due to the way physicists approximate the effect of linear materials. (which is what the article says, the correct one to use depends on your perspective)
-Followed by 3 different discussions of sensitive force measurements, which gets back to one of the points I made previously: Much more detail is needed on how they measured the forces they claimed, because while there is no doubt about the force generated by radiation pressure, actually measuring such tiny forces is in fact difficult.
The force due to radiation pressure is so well understood (and only depends on the speed of light, which has an exactly known value, due to it being used in the definition of metric units) that NIST has developed techniques to use it for calibration.
In one case, they can use a known power laser as a calibration standard for small forces:
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2016/08/measuring-tiny-forces-light
And in another, they use a situation where the force can be measured well to calibrate the RF power:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323217450_Measurement_of_Radio-Frequency_Radiation_Pressure
Yes i did 'bother' to read it. You have made that 'photon rocket' data figure before this paper. You are absuive to people working on experiments but dont have any type of critical assessment of your own claims. Still you make no sigma significance validity to your claim. You have the gaul to state it as an absolute value when its not and can differ in experiments with complex media. Nor did you actually answer my question.
Contrary to your claim the understanding of photon pressure is immature. You have not assessed the flaws of the experiments nor have you assessed the sigma validity of them, yet you seem to go into diatribe attacks on others and their experiments, but cant seem to be critical of your own claims and cited research.
The citations are not at all 'mostly irrelevant' in the least. In FACT THEY ARE ALL RELEVANT.. None of them are irrelevant. That is a fallacious appeal to irrelevancy. You even used ONE OF THEM IN YOUR your argument against my statements but didnt even know you did.
You dont even realize that i cited the paper which you claim they use it for 'calibration'. You are citing the paper of the femto radition pressure which is the paper i cited but you provided the summarized NIST article and made false conclusions from it.
`Its not the force of light they are using as the calibration. If you would of actually 'bothered' to read it, here is the summarized article they link in your article about that 'calibration'.
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2014/12/nist-sensor-could-improve-one-nano-researchs-most-useful-microscopes
Considering you made such erroneous conclusions with the information right in front off you, it makes me question your ability to logically assess complex dynamics at play in these technologies and experiments. I also doubt your ability to use reason in a scientific context as you make many fallacious appeals in many of your arguments but are unaware that you do. You didnt even realize they werent using photon forces for calibration but a chip sensor that was the calibrator because you were too lazy to actually read the article.
This aggressive tone and attempt to undermine is how you talk to people and Im pretty sick of it. You need an attitude adjustment because your toxic attitude wears off on other people and keeps us from progressing and moving forward.
Post by: meberbs on 01/14/2019 06:46 pm
Yes i did 'bother' to read it. You have made that 'photon rocket' data figure before this paper.If you had read it, then you would know that they did the calculation, so it is not "my claim" but a general known fact of electrodynamics.
You are absuive to people working on experiments but dont have any type of critical assessment of your own claims.You are now resorting to ad hominem attacks on me. I have not been abusive to anyone, though I have on occasion been short with people who insult me when I point out problems with their claims, or explain basic accepted physics.
Still you make no sigma significance validity to your claim. You have the gaul to state it as an absolute value when its not and can differ in experiments with complex media.You appear to not understand the concept of experimental uncertainty. It only applies when you are talking about a specific experiment. Theoretical calculations for a given defined situation have no uncertainty on them when the only constants involved are ones like the speed of light which are perfectly known by definition. The fact you would get a different result if you did an entirely different experiment is not something that can be expressed as an uncertainty. Also, you appear to have missed the point entirely, because one significant figure (which is all I gave) is all that is needed for the purposes in my original post.
Nor did you actually answer my question.
The force due to radiation pressure is so well understood (and only depends on the speed of light, which has an exactly known value, due to it being used in the definition of metric units) that NIST has developed techniques to use it for calibration.That should have answered the question, there is no uncertainty because the power is defined by the experimenters (and the "perfectly collimated" "no reflections" and "not through a dielectric" assumptions are so obvious to people who know electrodynamics that they shouldn't need to be stated, though I stated the reflection one anyway)
Contrary to your claim the understanding of photon pressure is immature.Again, it is a century old, the formulas are in countless textbooks.
You have not assessed the flaws of the experiments nor have you assessed the sigma validity of them, yet you seem to go into diatribe attacks on others and their experiments,In the specific case referenced, my criticisms mostly boil down to the lack of information required to do any of the things you just said. In cases where there was sufficient information to do so, I have assessed the flaws in experiments, so your whole statement here is a baseless ad hominem attack.
but cant seem to be critical of your own claims and cited research.If there is something to criticize about the references I linked, then point it out, your failure to do so is not helping you.
The citations are not at all 'mostly irrelevant' in the least. In FACT THEY ARE ALL RELEVANT.. None of them are irrelevant. That is a fallacious appeal to irrelevancy. You even used ONE OF THEM IN YOUR your argument against my statements but didnt even know you did. You dont even realize that i cited the paper which you claim they use it for 'calibration'.I stated why they were irrelevant, your bare assertion to the contrary is meaningless. And I was aware that you had also referenced related work at NIST, I hoped that the summary would help you to understand the fact that the purpose of the research is to use the extremely well known properties of light to calibrate a force measurement device. Calibration is literally the primary purpose of NIST. (In case you don't know what that means, it means to compare measurements to a standard reference to ensure that measurements are accurate) It is not my claim that they are using photon pressure for calibration, but a direct statement from them.
You are citing the paper of the femto radition pressure which is the paper i cited but you provided the summarized NIST article and made false conclusions from it.
Quote
"There are very few references for these small forces," Shaw says. "This is a way to try and get at those."They would not even be attempting to use radiation pressure as a calibration source unless the physics was very well understood. Referencing their work to claim otherwise only shows that you did not understand what you read.
`Its not the force of light they are using as the calibration. If you would of actually 'bothered' to read it, here is the summarized article they link in your article about that 'calibration'.As they state in the article, that link is a related application based on the same technology. If you actually read the whole article, and don't skip the parts you find inconvenient to your point you would see they say:
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2014/12/nist-sensor-could-improve-one-nano-researchs-most-useful-microscopes
Quote
They found that if you reflect laser light off the surface, there's a relatively straightforward way to calculate what the force should be based on the laser power.
Quote
But even at the lowest laser powers they have used so far – just millionths of a watt – the light still contains an enormous number of photons. Someday, Shaw says, he hopes to develop a force measurement device capable of single-photon detection. The reason is that integers don't have uncertainty; if you count individual photons, and you know how much force each photon produces, then you can calculate the force.
Quote
Shaw says it's exciting to be able to use essentially one physics principle for accurate measurements of force, mass, and laser power across such a large range, from milligram-scale objects to atomic interactions. "Because this is still in the basic research phase, there's a little room to develop new methods and think about things in a different way," Shaw says.They are explicitly stating my point here: the physics principle is well understood, and therefore can be used for all kinds of measurement calibrations.
Considering you made such erroneous conclusions with the information right in front off you, it makes me question your ability to logically assess complex dynamics at play in these technologies and experiments. I also doubt your ability to use reason in a scientific context as you make many fallacious appeals in many of your arguments but are unaware that you do. You didnt even realize they werent using photon forces for calibration but a chip sensor that was the calibrator because you were too lazy to actually read the article.As I stated in my previous post, depending on the application, they are using the well known force of radiation pressure to calibrate power either power or force. It is certainly true that one of us doesn't understand what they read (hint: look in a mirror)
You accuse me of making "fallacious appeals," but you don't point to any of them, while in literally the same sentence you make the ad hominem fallacy.
This aggressive tone and attempt to undermine is how you talk to people and Im pretty sick of it. You need an attitude adjustment because your toxic attitude wears off on other people and keeps us from progressing and moving forward.More ad hominem attacks, who is being aggressive here?
The only thing keeping discussion from moving forward is people who make ad hominem attacks in response to any technical criticism. (Take a look back (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1893926#msg1893926) in this thread to see how people who actually care about doing science respond to criticism that they both accept and reject.)
Edit: If anyone has specific examples of the "abusive" behavior I was accused of, please PM them to me, as that would never have been my intention with anything I have written, and I would want to apologize as appropriate, and avoid such accidents in the future. I ask for PM, because that is obviously off topic. Responses to the actual technical statements I made obviously would go in the thread.
Post by: OnlyMe on 01/15/2019 09:57 pm
....
meberbs,
I have looked at both of your earlier references. Both seem to be claiming that they can DETECT pressure from in one case a laser and the other an RF source. They have not claimed the current ability to MEASURE force in either case... though they seem to have high hopes. The paper on Measuring RF force actually ends with, Finally, the uncertainties of these types of measurements are currently being investigated, …
One of the things in many of these discussions that bothers me is that there is all too often, no real distinction between what remains theoretical, what is based on theory, what has been experimentally demonstrated based on theoretical assumptions and what has been experimentally demonstrated without (some) reservation.
Most of what is being discussed on all sides of these discussions is far less certain, than parties on either side of the discussion believe. Even where some published experimental evidence suggests certainty, as far as it applies to an exchange of momentum between photons/EM radiation pressure and any massive object, that certainty remains limited to a vary narrow set of circumstances/conditions. A photon does not interact with and transfer momentum to every atom it might encounter, in an identical manner.
Post by: meberbs on 01/15/2019 11:13 pm
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/calcon/CALCON2018/all2018content/9/....
meberbs,
I have looked at both of your earlier references. Both seem to be claiming that they can DETECT pressure from in one case a laser and the other an RF source. They have not claimed the current ability to MEASURE force in either case... though they seem to have high hopes. The paper on Measuring RF force actually ends with, Finally, the uncertainties of these types of measurements are currently being investigated, …
One of the things in many of these discussions that bothers me is that there is all too often, no real distinction between what remains theoretical, what is based on theory, what has been experimentally demonstrated based on theoretical assumptions and what has been experimentally demonstrated without (some) reservation.
This abstract states power measurements through force (and therefore force measurements) have been demonstrated to about 1%, matching other power measurement techniques. Without seeing an error budget, I can't know for certain, but the force uncertainty should be a bit better than power uncertainty, since the power measurement would have a couple other error terms such as reflectivity (which has 0.025% uncertainty for one mirror that was used, so not significant compared to 1%)
Measuring these forces in these applications is obviously cutting edge, and still being researched, I only brought it up as evidence that we understand the theory very well, since NIST wouldn't be able to consider using radiation pressure for calibration if the basic theory of radiation pressure wasn't well understood and generally accepted.
Post by: cvbn on 01/16/2019 08:02 pm
http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=10144532&IDKey=049BA918F26D%0D%0A&HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fpatimg.htm
Post by: OhYeah on 01/16/2019 08:20 pm
US Navy patent “Craft Using an Inertial Mass Reduction Device":
http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=10144532&IDKey=049BA918F26D%0D%0A&HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fpatimg.htm
Can anyone with an actual physics degree comment on whether the technology described in this patent makes any sense or not?
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 01/17/2019 01:33 am
US Navy patent “Craft Using an Inertial Mass Reduction Device":
http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=10144532&IDKey=049BA918F26D%0D%0A&HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fpatimg.htm
Can anyone with an actual physics degree comment on whether the technology described in this patent makes any sense or not?
They quoted "quantum vacuum plasma", the concept used by White. Likely not working.
Post by: meberbs on 01/17/2019 07:01 am
I believe they are trying to say something different than what White did, but just as wrong. First, some background. Quantum vacuum is a real part of accepted physics, but it is deep enough into quantum field theory, that not nearly as many people understand what it means in any depth (to the extent that anyone understands anything about quantum mechanics.) The particle physics of QED that talks about this is beyond the what is taught in introductory or intermediate quantum mechanics classes. This makes "quantum vacuum" a term that seems popular among people who want to handwave their wa around actual physics. Most people never see the math backing it up to begin with, so fewer people know how to call BS when someone starts giving incorrect explanations of it. This is a area I am not expert enough in to quickly tell bunk from good science either. I know a few things about it though, enough to find it questionable when they claim the Casmir effect is evidence of the reality of the quantum vacuum, when that effect is identical to the concept of van der Waals forces between plates, all the effect shows is that quantum vacuum is compatible with existing physics, and doesn't change it at most accessible scales.US Navy patent “Craft Using an Inertial Mass Reduction Device":
http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=10144532&IDKey=049BA918F26D%0D%0A&HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fpatimg.htm
Can anyone with an actual physics degree comment on whether the technology described in this patent makes any sense or not?
They quoted "quantum vacuum plasma", the concept used by White. Likely not working.
In this case I managed to find a couple issues with their claims, mostly because they tied in concepts I can talk about more easily. The obvious red flag is they are claiming violations of Noether's theorem. By definition, they are claiming a device which can change its inertial mass, which means change its own rest energy, which violates conservation of energy. If that were true, the violation of conservation of momentum they were claiming goes hand-in-hand.
The harder part was finding the root cause of their mistake. I dislike working backwards from patents since the format and information presented is focused too little on the theoretical support. In this case it appears that the problem is when they claim that the quantum vacuum lets them create true negative energy (or negative mass, same thing) complete with negative spatial curvature, because "quantum vacuum." They cite Harold Puthoff, which in itself is a very bad sign (go look him up on Wikipedia for details). The problem here is that fundamentally quantum vacuum already effectively represents the lowest possible energy state (greater than 0.) You can in theory create an electron and a positron by applying a large enough electric field to it, but that is all positive energy. Claims that you can use it to create negative energy are simply in contradiction to the basic theory.
If there really was a way to create true negative energy, it would make all kinds of "impossible" devices possible.
Also, since this is a patent, I noted an interesting reference (https://web.archive.org/web/20150925131935/http://hosted.law.wisc.edu/lawreview/issues/2006-4/rislove.pdf) on the previously mentioned WIkipedia article, which talks in detail about why many non-physical devices like this one manage to get patents, despite not actually working.
Post by: MathewOrman on 01/17/2019 08:02 am
The links to document's PDF and Matlab script are in the description as everybody else's...Orman Force Drive https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhldn0ef138&feature=youtu.beTry posting a link to a pdf, rather than a painfully formatted youtube video of a pdf.
Also, the Lorentz force works and has been measured and confirmed by countless experiments. Go study some basic electrodynamics before making absurd claims to the contrary. There are some unintuitive aspects to electrodynamics, and they only all make sense together when considered alongside special relativity, and energy and momentum being present inside of fields (which ties to massless particles in special relativity.)
As for the Lorentz experimental confirmation evidence of, please provide a link to at least one...
Post by: meberbs on 01/17/2019 08:33 am
Okay:The links to document's PDF and Matlab script are in the description as everybody else's...Orman Force Drive https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhldn0ef138&feature=youtu.beTry posting a link to a pdf, rather than a painfully formatted youtube video of a pdf.
Also, the Lorentz force works and has been measured and confirmed by countless experiments. Go study some basic electrodynamics before making absurd claims to the contrary. There are some unintuitive aspects to electrodynamics, and they only all make sense together when considered alongside special relativity, and energy and momentum being present inside of fields (which ties to massless particles in special relativity.)
As for the Lorentz experimental confirmation evidence of, please provide a link to at least one...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1xWllhstqk
You should be able to use a basic web search and find countless variations. The one I linked to shows an experiment that uses a magnetic field to bend electrons in a cathode ray tube. Since old CRT TVs worked by electron beams you can find some interesting videos of people distorting CRT monitor images with powerful magnets.
Post by: MathewOrman on 01/17/2019 08:48 am
I expected that you would provide this very link :-)Okay:The links to document's PDF and Matlab script are in the description as everybody else's...Orman Force Drive https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhldn0ef138&feature=youtu.beTry posting a link to a pdf, rather than a painfully formatted youtube video of a pdf.
Also, the Lorentz force works and has been measured and confirmed by countless experiments. Go study some basic electrodynamics before making absurd claims to the contrary. There are some unintuitive aspects to electrodynamics, and they only all make sense together when considered alongside special relativity, and energy and momentum being present inside of fields (which ties to massless particles in special relativity.)
As for the Lorentz experimental confirmation evidence of, please provide a link to at least one...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1xWllhstqk
You should be able to use a basic web search and find countless variations. The one I linked to shows an experiment that uses a magnetic field to bend electrons in a cathode ray tube. Since old CRT TVs worked by electron beams you can find some interesting videos of people distorting CRT monitor images with powerful magnets.
I have to disappoint you: In this setup there is no place where electrons move in constant linear velocity...
Electrons are accelerated by the electric field generated by anode and after they pass anode aperture they are decelerated or pulled back by the anode thus the curve liner trajectory of electrons are due to and consistent with Orman Force law and equation... To confirmed it I used my own setup where I've placed second anode outside the glass of my Teltron 552 and made the beam curve in opposite direction thus proved as invalidating evidence of Lorentz force...
Post by: meberbs on 01/17/2019 08:52 am
I expected that you would provide this very link :-)I will reply in the other thread, because your claims are more relevant to that thread, and splitting this conversation between threads will just confuse people.
I have to disappoint you: In this setup there is no place where electrons move in constant linear velocity...
Electrons are accelerated by the electric field generated by anode and after they pass anode aperture they are decelerated or pulled back by the anode thus the curve liner trajectory of electrons are due to and consistent with Orman Force law and equation... To confirmed it I used my own setup where I've placed second anode outside the glass of my Teltron 552 and made the beam curve in opposite direction thus proved as invalidating evidence of Lorentz force...
Post by: dustinthewind on 01/18/2019 04:54 am
I believe they are trying to say something different than what White did, but just as wrong. First, some background. Quantum vacuum is a real part of accepted physics, but it is deep enough into quantum field theory, that not nearly as many people understand what it means in any depth (to the extent that anyone understands anything about quantum mechanics.) The particle physics of QED that talks about this is beyond the what is taught in introductory or intermediate quantum mechanics classes. This makes "quantum vacuum" a term that seems popular among people who want to handwave their wa around actual physics. Most people never see the math backing it up to begin with, so fewer people know how to call BS when someone starts giving incorrect explanations of it. This is a area I am not expert enough in to quickly tell bunk from good science either. I know a few things about it though, enough to find it questionable when they claim the Casmir effect is evidence of the reality of the quantum vacuum, when that effect is identical to the concept of van der Waals forces between plates, all the effect shows is that quantum vacuum is compatible with existing physics, and doesn't change it at most accessible scales.US Navy patent “Craft Using an Inertial Mass Reduction Device":
http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=10144532&IDKey=049BA918F26D%0D%0A&HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fpatimg.htm
Can anyone with an actual physics degree comment on whether the technology described in this patent makes any sense or not?
They quoted "quantum vacuum plasma", the concept used by White. Likely not working.
In this case I managed to find a couple issues with their claims, mostly because they tied in concepts I can talk about more easily. The obvious red flag is they are claiming violations of Noether's theorem. By definition, they are claiming a device which can change its inertial mass, which means change its own rest energy, which violates conservation of energy. If that were true, the violation of conservation of momentum they were claiming goes hand-in-hand.
The harder part was finding the root cause of their mistake. I dislike working backwards from patents since the format and information presented is focused too little on the theoretical support. In this case it appears that the problem is when they claim that the quantum vacuum lets them create true negative energy (or negative mass, same thing) complete with negative spatial curvature, because "quantum vacuum." They cite Harold Puthoff, which in itself is a very bad sign (go look him up on Wikipedia for details). The problem here is that fundamentally quantum vacuum already effectively represents the lowest possible energy state (greater than 0.) You can in theory create an electron and a positron by applying a large enough electric field to it, but that is all positive energy. Claims that you can use it to create negative energy are simply in contradiction to the basic theory.
If there really was a way to create true negative energy, it would make all kinds of "impossible" devices possible.
Also, since this is a patent, I noted an interesting reference (https://web.archive.org/web/20150925131935/http://hosted.law.wisc.edu/lawreview/issues/2006-4/rislove.pdf) on the previously mentioned WIkipedia article, which talks in detail about why many non-physical devices like this one manage to get patents, despite not actually working.
I wanted to add a little to this for thought. I didn't like the patent because its quite obscure. I think that is what I don't like about a lot of patents. I noticed they were suggesting they are spinning the cone. This creates an acceleration on the electrons. It seemed they are attempting to create asymmetrical acceleration on the electrons. I would suspect they would induce a transverse magnetic mode in the cone. This means the current accelerates back and forth between the large end and the tip. When accelerated out radially the electrons should accelerate more rapidly while spinning than when being accelerated inward toward the tip of the rotating cone. I suspect they are trying to replicate the Mach Effect where you asymmetrically accelerate a metal disk (aluminum for instance).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/e62b998a10ec8b78115845895fb3f412789ad871)
The Woodward effect or Mach Effect equation has a negative mass term in it. Negative mass is required for warp drive.
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass
It is used in certain speculative hypotheses, such as on the construction of traversable wormholes and the Alcubierre drive. Initially, the closest known real representative of such exotic matter is a region of negative pressure density produced by the Casimir effect.
Arrow of time and energy inversion
In quantum mechanics
See also: T-symmetry § Time reversal in quantum mechanics, and T-symmetry § Anti-unitary representation of time reversal
In quantum mechanics, the time reversal operator is complex, and can either be unitary or antiunitary. In quantum field theory, T has been arbitrarily chosen to be antiunitary for the purpose of avoiding the existence of negative energy states:
I included the below quote because I suspect anti-matter or matter upon annihilation reveals it self to its partner as negative mass as they annihilate. However before annihilation the negative mass is also reverse time so it behaves just like normal matter until annihilation in which it transforms. If this is the case then negative mass can exist in a vacuum state but to recreate the mass takes positive energy.
In Feynman diagrams there are virtual particles that exist in the vacuum that seem to run backward in time or maybe they have negative mass. I suspect this is the nature of quantum tunneling. Quantum tunneling seems instantaneous. If a particle has a wave function and it comes up to a barrier and its wave function extends beyond the barrier then there is a chance with thermal vacuum fluctuations that it will provide the energy for the particle to exist on the other side of the barrier. I think when this happens the particle tunnels but its previous position is instantaneously annihilated. Imagine an energy spike that exist with in its wave function shrinking while growing on the other side of the barrier. What is annihilating the particles previous position? How about negative mass or reverse time virtual particles while the counter parts of the vacuum accumulate at the particles new position creating new mass. In a sense the particle is made non-unique. Its previous position was annihilated and a new particle was created. Is this evidence of negative mass or reverse time in the vacuum? Is this what Feynman diagrams describe?
http://scipp.ucsc.edu/outreach/23FeynmanDiagrams.pdf <-- see attached pdf from this link at bottom.
Back to the Woodward effect. I don't think they mention superconductors in the patent but I suspect the way to really see the mach effect is to use superconductors. Superconductors are not normally conductive so when they do become conductive there are very few electrons involved unlike in copper where there is a lot of electrons. So when there is a current in a superconductor this current is at a much higher velocity than in copper.
Now I don't accept Eugene Podkletnov's experiments as absolute truth but I am not one to assume they are liars untill I have good reason, so I'm still very interested in this guy currently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCA_pteLdAo
He claims to have generated very intense gravitational waves in a gravity impulse generator. These waves he describes in my opinion are negative gravity waves because they repel objects.
Imagine drawing a line down the center of the waves. As an object encounters it, it is pushed away till the wave passes and after the waves passes the wave slows the object. The object wouldn't feel the acceleration because its being gravitationally accelerated but it might feel the gradient in the force the same as how a black hole can spaghettify an object falling into an event horizon.
He does this by accelerating electrons in a superconductor via charged capacitors discharging. Now think the
Here is what I think may be going on. The accelerated electrons are inducing friction in the vacuum. You can think of the vacuum as possibly cubes with plank-length (the minimum size of the vacuum). The more thermal energy they contain the more they swell up like balloons. The plank length defines the non-local speed of light, time and mass (less energy slower time, slower speed of light, more effective mass). Locally the speed of light and time if you live in a plank cell is always the same but non-locally the plank length can change depending on how energized the vacuum is. We have measured this non-local change in time above the surface of the earth and clocks closer to earth tick slower than clocks away from earths gravitational field. Space is curved because of the physical shrinking of the plank length I think.
The gravitational field is the rate in which these cubes change in thermal energy. A very fast moving object may also have an accompanying vacuum wave of depleted vacuum which slows its time and speed to remain c and creating the effect of what seems to be increased mass.
Eugene Podkletnov claims in the video to have measured the velocity of one of his waves as traveling not only faster than light but much faster than light. I think it was something like sixty four times faster than c. I think he claims the waves deflect a laser and he uses multiple lasers to detect the waves velocity. I think this might fit in with swelling the plank length of the vacuum. If you swell the plank length of the vacuum you increase the speed of light and induce effects that seem to induce negative mass (hence the negative gravitational effect).
I think this may be related to Woodward's negative mass term.
Now how do we use it? I think we need a rectangular superconductive cavity. In such a cavity I think we can have the 1f 2f 3f frequencies needed to properly emulate the mach effect simultaneously in a cavity. We induce via the sum of frequencies the electrons to experience large accelerations in the superconductive cavity, mainly in one direction, generating these negative mass gravitational waves. The energy put into these waves may be the rocket term in the Woodward effect (propellant) but what we want to push us is the negative gravitational effect so we feed the waves through our ship and at some power level it should start pulling us in the same direction as the propellant (the vacuum waves).
rectangular cavity description
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1812364#msg1812364 <--should be rectangular cavity I think. See top image at bottom.
Fourier series of frequencies to induce asymmetric electron acceleration.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1806976#msg1806976 <---See 2nd image at bottom.
When we reach relativistic velocities where our effective mass would increase, our time slow, we begin to pancake and become flatter the negative g waves swell the vacuum back to normal size at the proper energy levels. We effectively eliminate the Lorentz contraction and the slowing of time allowing us to exceed the speed of light while keeping the clock at normal levels.
Anyways it's currently my speculation, but I think its pretty good speculation, though I'm open to other insights based on reality and physics that is.
Anyway I think the patent doesn't direct electron acceleration in the proper direction. Forwards. They don't mention superconductors and they seem obscure to me using terminology more than being concise. They however do strike me as possibly attempting to replicate the mach effect. Their claims of negative mass or energy may possibly have some merit and is necessary for warp drive I think.
Post by: MathewOrman on 01/18/2019 07:52 am
Post by: dustinthewind on 01/18/2019 03:26 pm
Navy has many nonworking concepts but they have a policy that any idea developed by member of Navy must be patented...
I don't know that it works or doesn't. I just feel it's obscure. That could be for security reasons or even lack of understanding for all we know. In the field of science being concise is highly valued. We shouldn't like fumbling around in the dark.
Post by: MathewOrman on 01/19/2019 02:12 pm
I have just learned from Mike McDonald from the US Navy Emdrive group that he is also reporting negative results.
Which video is that?
Post by: MathewOrman on 01/19/2019 02:48 pm
Did not fool me, when I first saw his video demo I've estimated that the torque exhibited in his video is at least million times higher than what NASA reported, also the direction of rotation was opposite to what his theory claims...Funny though, how he managed to fool us (well, at least some of us) for almost 20 years.
You can't put this all on Shawyer. A lot of us were thinking with our hearts instead of our heads. We were all to eager to buy what he was selling.
I email him and he replied: Force action is on the bigger end so emdrive reaction is in the opposite direction...
Post by: Ricvil on 01/22/2019 05:58 pm
The conical section are really in contact with the flat end plates, or was used some kind of Insulator between them, creating a lambda/2 stub at two sides?
If in contact, is the corner at big end sharp, or there is a small curvature?
Post by: Ricvil on 01/23/2019 12:12 am
Very interesting, considering the cavity is producing the analog of "event horizons".
What kind of analog strong effect could it to produce?
Post by: OnlyMe on 01/23/2019 03:02 am
Let me do a question.
The conical section are really in contact with the flat end plates, or was used some kind of Insulator between them, creating a lambda/2 stub at two sides?
If in contact, is the corner at big end sharp, or there is a small curvature?
I believe that for all publicly posted designs, the large ends are in contact with the frustum walls. Most later designs both ends seem to be in conductive contact with the frustum walls. Shawyer, SeeShells and Prof. Yang (I believe) started with designs with an adjustable small end plate.., still I believe the intent was to maintain conductive contact even between the small end plate and the frustum walls. I don’t remember either Shawyer or Prof. Yang providing sufficient design detail to be certain. SeeShells did provide considerable detail, you might check back to the latter part of 2015 maybe Later portion of Thread 6 early Thread 7.
Post by: Ricvil on 01/24/2019 09:41 am
Thank you by the indication.
It was reported as a aproximation error, but the asymmetric field pointed by Seeshells, appears to be exactly the rare case of 3D odd-degeneracy, explained in the article anexed.
"As a result, two eigenmodes are in the broken-symmetry phase with infini-
tesimal T breaking and the other one stays in the symmetric
phase. The existence of the latter is determined solely by
the fact that these non-Hermitian eigenfrequencies are
given by the roots of a cubic equation with real coefficients.
The latter is well known but has never found its way into
non-Hermitian systems as far as we know, since it is very
rare to find real eigenvalues systematically in non-Hermitian systems without the PT symmetry."
And there is, of course, the beautiful asymmetric RS signature of a possible Fano resonance.
PS: PT symmetry and it's breaking can be purely dissipative (without gain).
Post by: oyzw on 01/25/2019 01:40 am
Dear Onlyme.观察这个电磁场分布图，未呈现出明显的电磁场强度差异，腔体净推力也不会太明显。包括我之前设计的TE013模腔体，内部电磁场强度梯度差异都很弱。一定要采用新的结构设计，来提高电磁梯度差异，比如采用内部导电结构来偏转电磁场形态。
Thank you by the indication.
It was reported as a aproximation error, but the asymmetric field pointed by Seeshells, appears to be exactly the rare case of 3D odd-degeneracy, explained in the article anexed.
"As a result, two eigenmodes are in the broken-symmetry phase with infini-
tesimal T breaking and the other one stays in the symmetric
phase. The existence of the latter is determined solely by
the fact that these non-Hermitian eigenfrequencies are
given by the roots of a cubic equation with real coefficients.
The latter is well known but has never found its way into
non-Hermitian systems as far as we know, since it is very
rare to find real eigenvalues systematically in non-Hermitian systems without the PT symmetry."
And there is, of course, the beautiful asymmetric RS signature of a possible Fano resonance.
PS: PT symmetry and it's breaking can be purely dissipative (without gain).
Post by: Mark7777777 on 01/25/2019 02:27 am
Dear Onlyme.观察这个电磁场分布图，未呈现出明显的电磁场强度差异，腔体净推力也不会太明显。包括我之前设计的TE013模腔体，内部电磁场强度梯度差异都很弱。一定要采用新的结构设计，来提高电磁梯度差异，比如采用内部导电结构来偏转电磁场形态。
Thank you by the indication.
It was reported as a aproximation error, but the asymmetric field pointed by Seeshells, appears to be exactly the rare case of 3D odd-degeneracy, explained in the article anexed.
"As a result, two eigenmodes are in the broken-symmetry phase with infini-
tesimal T breaking and the other one stays in the symmetric
phase. The existence of the latter is determined solely by
the fact that these non-Hermitian eigenfrequencies are
given by the roots of a cubic equation with real coefficients.
The latter is well known but has never found its way into
non-Hermitian systems as far as we know, since it is very
rare to find real eigenvalues systematically in non-Hermitian systems without the PT symmetry."
And there is, of course, the beautiful asymmetric RS signature of a possible Fano resonance.
PS: PT symmetry and it's breaking can be purely dissipative (without gain).
Google translate:
Observing this electromagnetic field distribution map, there is no obvious difference in electromagnetic field strength, and the net thrust of the cavity is not too obvious. Including the TE013 cavity that I designed earlier, the internal electromagnetic field strength gradient is very weak. New structural designs must be used to improve electromagnetic gradient differences, such as the use of internal conductive structures to deflect electromagnetic field patterns.
Post by: meberbs on 01/25/2019 06:01 am
Dear Onlyme.
Thank you by the indication.
It was reported as a aproximation error, but the asymmetric field pointed by Seeshells, appears to be exactly the rare case of 3D odd-degeneracy, explained in the article anexed.
I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but the pictures provided* have no relationship to the article that you provided. Also, that picture really does appear to be a case of a modelling error, it is not hard to get all sort of weird results from such models if you configure them wrong. There are straightforward ways to confirm results in cases like this, such as changing the mesh and see if you still get the same results.
In general, I am not sure what value you are intending to add with your post. You don't draw any conclusions that would explain a working emDrive, or help with running any experiments. You seem to be saying "hey look, asymmetry!" but asymmetry doesn't just erase conservation of energy and momentum, and you can't cal 2 things equivalent just because they aren't symmetric.
*you should post a link to original sources, if it is a locked thread, right click on the post title and click "copy shortcut" or whatever similar text your browser provides.
Post by: Ricvil on 01/25/2019 11:27 am
Dear Onlyme.
Thank you by the indication.
It was reported as a aproximation error, but the asymmetric field pointed by Seeshells, appears to be exactly the rare case of 3D odd-degeneracy, explained in the article anexed.
I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but the pictures provided* have no relationship to the article that you provided. Also, that picture really does appear to be a case of a modelling error, it is not hard to get all sort of weird results from such models if you configure them wrong. There are straightforward ways to confirm results in cases like this, such as changing the mesh and see if you still get the same results.
In general, I am not sure what value you are intending to add with your post. You don't draw any conclusions that would explain a working emDrive, or help with running any experiments. You seem to be saying "hey look, asymmetry!" but asymmetry doesn't just erase conservation of energy and momentum, and you can't cal 2 things equivalent just because they aren't symmetric.
*you should post a link to original sources, if it is a locked thread, right click on the post title and click "copy shortcut" or whatever similar text your browser provides.
Dear meberbs,
I will do a affirmation and you can agree or disagree.
A simple yes or no.
If irrelevant to you, then this conversation ends here, and no more waste of time to us.
There is a Fano like resonance happening at the frequency of simulation.
Quoted from rfmguy , thread 6, Page 169
"Thanks for the new runs. Almost positive rfmwguy_freq_sweep_reflection_coefficient_real.jpg is a phase transition rather than a S11 plot."
Post by: meberbs on 01/25/2019 04:50 pm
Dear meberbs,First, that is not a link to the original sources which I explained how to provide. Second, while the text you provided is from rfmwguy, the pictures were from Monomorphic, again demonstrating why you should post the link.
I will do a affirmation and you can agree or disagree.
A simple yes or no.
If irrelevant to you, then this conversation ends here, and no more waste of time to us.
There is a Fano like resonance happening in the frequency of simulation.
Quoted from rfmguy , thread 6, Page 169
"Thanks for the new runs. Almost positive rfmwguy_freq_sweep_reflection_coefficient_real.jpg is a phase transition rather than a S11 plot."
As to your question, the answer is no.
The first picture in your post is meaningless, as the quoted text says. The real part of an S parameter on its own has little meaning.
The simulation was run by someone still learning how to use the tool at the time. They later posted an alternate resonance picture from the same run that did not show the distorted mode shape.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1500243#msg1500243
Based on this, the original picture likely was due to a numerical error, probably due to something like the scale auto-adjusting and making numerical noise visible in a picture where the field was effectively 0 everywhere.
Also, the plots shown here are all plotting different things than what Fano resonance refers to.
Post by: Ricvil on 01/25/2019 06:36 pm
The "real part" is the phase of S parameter, as explained by the quote, so it has a very clear meaning, a 180 degree inversion.Dear meberbs,First, that is not a link to the original sources which I explained how to provide. Second, while the text you provided is from rfmwguy, the pictures were from Monomorphic, again demonstrating why you should post the link.
I will do a affirmation and you can agree or disagree.
A simple yes or no.
If irrelevant to you, then this conversation ends here, and no more waste of time to us.
There is a Fano like resonance happening in the frequency of simulation.
Quoted from rfmguy , thread 6, Page 169
"Thanks for the new runs. Almost positive rfmwguy_freq_sweep_reflection_coefficient_real.jpg is a phase transition rather than a S11 plot."
As to your question, the answer is no.
The first picture in your post is meaningless, as the quoted text says. The real part of an S parameter on its own has little meaning.
The simulation was run by someone still learning how to use the tool at the time. They later posted an alternate resonance picture from the same run that did not show the distorted mode shape.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1500243#msg1500243
Based on this, the original picture likely was due to a numerical error, probably due to something like the scale auto-adjusting and making numerical noise visible in a picture where the field was effectively 0 everywhere.
Also, the plots shown here are all plotting different things than what Fano resonance refers to.
If you cannot see the signature of a Fano like resonant effect, that it is only your problem.
The simulation is in time domain, and the frequency of interest is exactly in the middle of narrow bandwidth of phase inversion, so the frequency of the source must be exact, or the simulation will converge out of phase inversion region, and yes, the discretization process will add a quantization noise and it can spread the energy of the source out of phase inversion region, but during the transients of simulation, the pattern of fields of phase inversion region may appears.
I will to anex a reference about Fano like resonances.
PS: Link to article of M. Limonov - "Fano resonances in photonics"
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://amolf.nl/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/FanoKivshar.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiXze3474ngAhUFJrkGHcEDAq0QFjAAegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw1S58FQRAz6dVehwm0TKD4t
In the article the "delta" parameter, related to "q" parameter by q=cot(delta) and is related to the phase response of one of oscillators as explained in the article.
Post by: Alex_O on 01/25/2019 07:36 pm
Please have a look at one simulation? I want to understand what this can mean.
(https://a.radikal.ru/a09/1811/45/9638549afa2e.gif)
Once I thought that the magnetron .. That it works like that is unstable. And I decided to model. I took two frequencies, two modes and came up with the idea that you can quickly change, switch the frequency. It seemed to me that I heard photons knocking on walls. Knock Knock.
Then I want to ask - what will the electrons do in the skin layer, what will happen to the eddy currents in the walls.?
It seemed to me that using a computer you can create a very complex motion of traveling waves in the resonator. And you can build a special system to control the movement of electrons in the walls.
It even seems to me that I hear the vibrating hammer knocking. But this hammer knocks only in a small bottom. And the hammer has no retroactive impact force.
I also wanted to hear how this resonator. That it radiates gravitational waves. But how? It seems there is a focus of gravitational waves here?
Post by: meberbs on 01/25/2019 08:24 pm
The "real part" is the phase of S parameter, as explained by the quote, so it has a very clear meaning, a 180 degree inversion.The real part is a weird meaningless (on its own) mix of the amplitude and phase. To actually get the phase you need the imaginary part as well. A sudden change in sign of the real part could represent a 180 degree phase shift, a 90 degree phase shift, or possibly some random phase shift if there are also amplitude shifts at the same time.
If you cannot see the signature of a Fano like resonant effect, that it is only your problem.It appears you have no clue what you are looking at. The axes of the graph are simply not the parameters that would be relevant for Fano resonance. S11 parameters are not something that are related to Fano resonance in this situation. Actually, I don't know of a way that you could make Fano resonance applicable to this situation.
The simulation is in time domain, and the frequency of interest is exactly in the middle of narrow bandwidth of phase inversion, so the frequency of the source must be exact, or the simulation will converge out of phase inversion region, and yes, the discretization process will add a quantization noise and it can spread the energy of the source out of phase inversion region, but during the transients of simulation, the pattern of fields of phase inversion region may appears.What in the world are you talking about? It sounds like you are trying to respond to my explanation of why the resonance pattern simulation is wrong by using words I used, but nothing you are saying actually relates to the points I made (such as the fact that the original modeler, found that the picture you showed was clearly an artifact due to them not understanding how to use the tool fully.) Plus you mix in some more comments about phase that further indicates that you don't understand what the S11 plots mean.
Post by: meberbs on 01/25/2019 08:41 pm
Hello friends ! I have been reading the forum for many years, and I want to send a lot of respect to all the forum members. You are great fellows.Welcome!
Please have a look at one simulation? I want to understand what this can mean.
It means that someone took results for 2 different resonance modes and superimposed them in a single image to compare their appearances.
The frequency and the graph scale are both significantly different for the 2 modes, which is to be expected.
Once I thought that the magnetron .. That it works like that is unstable. And I decided to model. I took two frequencies, two modes and came up with the idea that you can quickly change, switch the frequency. It seemed to me that I heard photons knocking on walls. Knock Knock.
It is entirely possible to put 2 frequencies in at the same time the result would be a simple linear superposition of the individual results.
The exact result of rapidly switching between 2 frequencies depends on several things including the definition of rapid, especially relative to the cavity fill time. Fast enough, and it would basically just be equivalent to putting them in at the same time, but with half of the respective power. Slower, and it would just transition between the 2 modes over the relevant fill/decay times. There would be no knocking. The location of the peak fields moving back and forth would not have significant effects.
Then I want to ask - what will the electrons do in the skin layer, what will happen to the eddy currents in the walls.?Linear superposition, just like the fields.
I also wanted to hear how this resonator. That it radiates gravitational waves. But how? It seems there is a focus of gravitational waves here?Gravitational waves are generally only significant when coming from black holes, the most massive objects in the universe (Or comparably massive stars). No benchtop anything can radiate gravitational waves in any measureable way (energy, momentum, or amplitude of spatial distortion.)
Post by: Ricvil on 01/25/2019 09:48 pm
The "real part" is the phase of S parameter, as explained by the quote, so it has a very clear meaning, a 180 degree inversion.The real part is a weird meaningless (on its own) mix of the amplitude and phase. To actually get the phase you need the imaginary part as well. A sudden change in sign of the real part could represent a 180 degree phase shift, a 90 degree phase shift, or possibly some random phase shift if there are also amplitude shifts at the same time.If you cannot see the signature of a Fano like resonant effect, that it is only your problem.It appears you have no clue what you are looking at. The axes of the graph are simply not the parameters that would be relevant for Fano resonance. S11 parameters are not something that are related to Fano resonance in this situation. Actually, I don't know of a way that you could make Fano resonance applicable to this situation.The simulation is in time domain, and the frequency of interest is exactly in the middle of narrow bandwidth of phase inversion, so the frequency of the source must be exact, or the simulation will converge out of phase inversion region, and yes, the discretization process will add a quantization noise and it can spread the energy of the source out of phase inversion region, but during the transients of simulation, the pattern of fields of phase inversion region may appears.What in the world are you talking about? It sounds like you are trying to respond to my explanation of why the resonance pattern simulation is wrong by using words I used, but nothing you are saying actually relates to the points I made (such as the fact that the original modeler, found that the picture you showed was clearly an artifact due to them not understanding how to use the tool fully.) Plus you mix in some more comments about phase that further indicates that you don't understand what the S11 plots mean.
Thank's meberbs.
Your appointment about the wrong nomenclature is correct.
My fault.
The plot just shows a fast transition of one component of reflection coefficient ( max norm equals to 1), with a signal change, and I can not affirm it was a almost pi transition of phase response, just like the plot below.
I've added the link about Fano resonances in my last post.
Post by: Alex_O on 01/27/2019 04:00 pm
Hello friends ! I have been reading the forum for many years, and I want to send a lot of respect to all the forum members. You are great fellows. Please have a look at one simulation? I want to understand what this can mean.Welcome!
It means that someone took results for 2 different resonance modes and superimposed them in a single image to compare their appearances.
The frequency and the graph scale are both significantly different for the 2 modes, which is to be expected.Once I thought that the magnetron .. That it works like that is unstable. And I decided to model. I took two frequencies, two modes and came up with the idea that you can quickly change, switch the frequency. It seemed to me that I heard photons knocking on walls. Knock Knock.It is entirely possible to put 2 frequencies in at the same time the result would be a simple linear superposition of the individual results.
The exact result of rapidly switching between 2 frequencies depends on several things including the definition of rapid, especially relative to the cavity fill time. Fast enough, and it would basically just be equivalent to putting them in at the same time, but with half of the respective power. Slower, and it would just transition between the 2 modes over the relevant fill/decay times. There would be no knocking. The location of the peak fields moving back and forth would not have significant effects.Then I want to ask - what will the electrons do in the skin layer, what will happen to the eddy currents in the walls.?Linear superposition, just like the fields.
Thank you meberbs. I try to carry out non-standard, creative thinking. I read all the known reports and many scientific articles that were also discussed at NFS. I noticed (like NFS) that R.Shawyer used magnetrons, and teams from Dresden, NRL and James A Ciomperlik (Helloy James!!) used solid-state microwave generators. I also read a lot of Rodal's (hello Jose!!) messages and understand the problems of calculating radiation pressure in a closed cavity, for example, Greg Egan (http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html). But I would like, as a detective, to show flexible thinking outside the box. I would like to ask the most unexpected, the most stupid questions, but receive the most accurate answers based on the most relevant physics. So I went to this forum for discussion. Thank.
So, about the magnetron. I compare the magnetron with the ideas
of Mario J. Pinheiro (On Newton's Third Law (http://https: //arxiv.org/abs/0901.3726)) that the force of action and reaction works no faster than the speed of light). I also like the Montillet reports on the Advanced Propulsion Workshop 2016/2017.
I thought that we should look at a time interval of about 10 -10 seconds. In the system magnetron-waveguide-resonator. What is a magnetron? How does he work? Is there a magnetron in nature, some important detail?
I went to the world of comsol and found an article about Key-Holes Magnetron Design and Multiphysics Simulation (https://www.comsol.ru/paper/download/182519/leggieri_presentation.pdf). I now understand better what a magnetron is.
Also on NFS
Quote
Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10See, Shell says (helloy SeeShells!!) - My goodness. If you strap a magnetron to a frustum you are going to get a mess.
« Reply #3294 on: 05/19/2018 03:47 pm »
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1823224#msg1823224)Like
Quote from: X_RaY on 05/19/2018 03:06 pm
On the Anomalous Forces in Microwave Cavity-Magnetron Systems
March 2018
DOI10.13140/RG.2.2.14981.86243
Elio Battista PorcelliElio Battista PorcelliVicto S. FilhoVicto S. Filho
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324023769_On_the_Anomalous_Forces_in_Microwave_Cavity-Magne...
My goodness. If you strap a magnetron to a Frustum you're going to get a mess. Heat, magnetic fields, DC currents and pulsing AC along with RF splattering all over base frequencies.
Rfmwguy and Monomorphic and a few others found this out. If you're going to use a magnetron to get your RF, please clean up the power supply, fix the issues with the heater, thermally stabilize the magnetron, and get it away from the frustum!
Shell
I read Mario J. Pinheiro (http://https: //arxiv.org/abs/0901.3726) and I think - wow, maybe a mess - is that what we need? But it is necessary to look at the physics of magnetron on a time interval of the order of 10 -10 sec?
Seems to have one idea. These are the effects of GTR in the cavity drive if the magnetron creates plane waves.
What do you think about the magnetron in general?
Helloy James !! Please tell me if your installation can quickly-quickly switch the frequency and test the hypothesis that the Emdrive needs a very-very fast-unstable magnetron?
==
Sorry, I use Google translator.
Post by: dustinthewind on 01/27/2019 06:15 pm
For the most part this is true. There is very little coupling to the vacuum normally to detect much less generate gravity waves.Hello friends ! I have been reading the forum for many years, and I want to send a lot of respect to all the forum members. You are great fellows.Gravitational waves are generally only significant when coming from black holes, the most massive objects in the universe (Or comparably massive stars). No benchtop anything can radiate gravitational waves in any measureable way (energy, momentum, or amplitude of spatial distortion.)
...I also wanted to hear how this resonator. That it radiates gravitational waves. But how? It seems there is a focus of gravitational waves here?
Some physicists think LIGO is generating gravity waves because of their coupling. Because gravity waves can induce detectable changes in EM fields it also goes the other way. Their EM fields can also induce minor gravity waves.
There are many systems like this. Electric generators can also be electric motors. Thermal heat engines that run off thermal gradients can also be used to induce thermal gradients if energy is put in. Water flowing over a pump can generate power while power put into the pump can be used to pump water, and it goes on and on. The key is coupling.
I was speculating if Eugene Podkletnov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov experiments might have some validity. If so there there may have been a massive increase in the coupling to the vacuum. When an object goes very fast is goes through Lorentz contraction which I believe is induced by the vacuum. There are also factors on that Lorentz effect by acceleration which is what the Mach Effect questions.
By Eugene accelerating charges in superconductors which are not normally conducting and very few electrons are involved in superconductivity this means for a set current the charge velocity is much larger, unlike in copper where charge velocity is much slower. I suspected the charge velocities induced and accelerations involved may have increased vacuum coupling via the Lorentz effects involved and the accelerations involved.
There is the plank length of the vacuum which can change and the wave he is generating has components that seem like hyper inflated vacuum, increased plank length, and appears to be a negative gravity waves. He claims it moves faster than light. In a hyper inflated vacuum with increased plank length the speed of light would be faster than in a non-inflated vacuum.
I was speculating a way of generating a continuous form of these waves (using a cavity) re-inflating the vacuum at near the speed of light, counter acting the Lorentz contraction and allowing one to exceed the speed of light non-locally compared to the standard vacuum but not actually exceeding the local speed of light.
All of this depends if Eugene's experiments are valid and actually generate the waves he claims. I tend not to jump to the conclusion he is a liar so I'm still currently interested to learn more. (particularly the gravity impulse generator)
Post by: Monomorphic on 01/28/2019 01:28 pm
Helloy James !! Please tell me if your installation can quickly-quickly switch the frequency and test the hypothesis that the Emdrive needs a very-very fast-unstable magnetron?
Hello and welcome! The signal generator I use is capable of fast frequency switching. You can read about its capabilities here: https://windfreaktech.com/product/rf-signal-generator-and-power-detector/
However, we have seen that Shawyer now uses solid state RF amplifiers. He claims that the end-plates need to be spherical to get the full "thrust" when using solid state RF.
I've tried both spherical and flat end-plates and I understand that TU Dresden has also tried both without success.
Post by: meberbs on 01/28/2019 11:42 pm
Thank's meberbs.Thanks, we got some of the confusion cleared up, but I still don't see Fano resonance being applicable in any way to this situation, and even if it was applicable, I don't see how it would have any usefulness to either experimenters, or to coming up with a theory that would allow the device to produce thrust.
Your appointment about the wrong nomenclature is correct.
My fault.
The plot just shows a fast transition of one component of reflection coefficient ( max norm equals to 1), with a signal change, and I can not affirm it was a almost pi transition of phase response, just like the plot below.
I've added the link about Fano resonances in my last post.
Post by: meberbs on 01/29/2019 12:15 am
For the most part this is true. There is very little coupling to the vacuum normally to detect much less generate gravity waves.GR generally talks about "space-time," not "the vacuum."
Some physicists think LIGO is generating gravity waves because of their coupling. Because gravity waves can induce detectable changes in EM fields it also goes the other way. Their EM fields can also induce minor gravity waves.I assume you are talking aboutthis. (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/ligo-doesn-t-just-detect-gravitational-waves-it-makes-them-too) The article doesn't mention the strength of the emission even relative to what is detected there, but my guess would be negligible, and the claim only true if there were rapidly moving large masses rather than photons bouncing back and forth. More importantly, the article says that they came up with their conclusion through a quantum theory, but there is no proven theory of quantum gravity, and not much in terms of good options. Biggest reason for this is the lack of testable predictions, the article I linked mentions an experiment and calls it "unbelievably difficult" What they actually mean is "beyond the capability of any foreseeable technology."
All of this depends if Eugene's experiments are valid and actually generate the waves he claims. I tend not to jump to the conclusion he is a liar so I'm still currently interested to learn more. (particularly the gravity impulse generator)He has asserted that multiple other labs have replicated his experiments, but this is not true. One lab did some tests, but not a replication. There are multiple examples in the article you linked of cases where someone has to be making false statements.
The technical statements he has made about his device amount to complete gibberish. At a minimum he has no clue what he is talking about, and there is absolutely no reason to think that any measurements he made are anything other than experimental error. Apparently the original observation was that smoke was observed rising above a very cold object, which basically indicates there were problems with air currents.
Post by: oyzw on 01/29/2019 01:18 am
您好 Jamic先生，能否把球形端面腔体的电磁仿真图上传？传统锥形腔体TE模，电磁梯度差异都很小，端面电磁场强度差异更小，所以推力很小，我之前的设计是错误的。TM模应该是更合适的。Helloy James !! Please tell me if your installation can quickly-quickly switch the frequency and test the hypothesis that the Emdrive needs a very-very fast-unstable magnetron?
Hello and welcome! The signal generator I use is capable of fast frequency switching. You can read about its capabilities here: https://windfreaktech.com/product/rf-signal-generator-and-power-detector/
However, we have seen that Shawyer now uses solid state RF amplifiers. He claims that the end-plates need to be spherical to get the full "thrust" when using solid state RF.
I've tried both spherical and flat end-plates and I understand that TU Dresden has also tried both without success.
Post by: Mark7777777 on 01/29/2019 07:51 am
您好 Jamic先生，能否把球形端面腔体的电磁仿真图上传？传统锥形腔体TE模，电磁梯度差异都很小，端面电磁场强度差异更小，所以推力很小，我之前的设计是错误的。TM模应该是更合适的。Helloy James !! Please tell me if your installation can quickly-quickly switch the frequency and test the hypothesis that the Emdrive needs a very-very fast-unstable magnetron?
Hello and welcome! The signal generator I use is capable of fast frequency switching. You can read about its capabilities here: https://windfreaktech.com/product/rf-signal-generator-and-power-detector/
However, we have seen that Shawyer now uses solid state RF amplifiers. He claims that the end-plates need to be spherical to get the full "thrust" when using solid state RF.
I've tried both spherical and flat end-plates and I understand that TU Dresden has also tried both without success.
Google translate:
Hello, Mr. Jamic, can you upload the electromagnetic simulation of the spherical end cavity? In the traditional tapered cavity TE mode, the difference in electromagnetic gradient is very small, and the difference in the strength of the end face electromagnetic field is smaller, so the thrust is small, and my previous design is wrong. The TM mode should be more suitable.
Post by: Mark7777777 on 01/29/2019 07:56 am
您好 Jamic先生，能否把球形端面腔体的电磁仿真图上传？传统锥形腔体TE模，电磁梯度差异都很小，端面电磁场强度差异更小，所以推力很小，我之前的设计是错误的。TM模应该是更合适的。Helloy James !! Please tell me if your installation can quickly-quickly switch the frequency and test the hypothesis that the Emdrive needs a very-very fast-unstable magnetron?
Hello and welcome! The signal generator I use is capable of fast frequency switching. You can read about its capabilities here: https://windfreaktech.com/product/rf-signal-generator-and-power-detector/
However, we have seen that Shawyer now uses solid state RF amplifiers. He claims that the end-plates need to be spherical to get the full "thrust" when using solid state RF.
I've tried both spherical and flat end-plates and I understand that TU Dresden has also tried both without success.
Hello oyzw
Are you able to access google translate in China? That way you could post in English straight after your Chinese text.
Regards
Mark
你好oyzw
你能在中国访问谷歌翻译吗？这样你就可以在中文文本后直接用英文发帖。
问候
标记
Post by: Ricvil on 01/29/2019 09:59 am
If the resonance is a Fano resonance or not, the sharp phase response around central frequency remembers one thing called in telecom as "FM discriminator".
A FM discriminator coverts frequency variations on a carrier signal into amplitude variations, and a high slope curve under a narrow bandwidth converts small changes in frequency into large amplitude variations.
One can imagine a frequency switch from the source of cavity from lower frequency mode to higher frequency mode, under the action of discriminator behavior, remembering the changes of fields will begins at the antenna.
How would be the change of pressure on the cavity walls?
Post by: Monomorphic on 01/29/2019 03:58 pm
您好 Jamic先生，能否把球形端面腔体的电磁仿真图上传？传统锥形腔体TE模，电磁梯度差异都很小，端面电磁场强度差异更小，所以推力很小，我之前的设计是错误的。TM模应该是更合适的。
These are the two cavities that I have tested: the one you provided, which was flat ended, and the 3D printed version that used copper foil. The Q factor on the 3D printed/copper foil was measured at about ~8,000, while the solid copper cavity was ~32,000.
It is possible I can test some TM modes. I believe there may be one or two TM modes within the 2.35 - 2.45Ghz range that I can test at. I have to use a specially shaped antenna to get the TM mode, so I do not see a reason why the existing cavity can't be used. What makes you think your previous design was wrong?
Post by: meberbs on 01/29/2019 04:08 pm
Looking at frequency sweep of the cavity with half dipole antenna, I see two almost complementary fields distributions, at least the electric field distribution.The phase difference is in the reflected signal, which is the energy that doesn't make it into the cavity. It has no meaningful effect on things that happen actually inside the cavity. It has a minor effect on tracking resonance via the reflected signal, but considering the frequency range used by most experiments, it is not a problem, detecting the total reflected power is what matters, and is not that difficult.
If the resonance is a Fano resonance or not, the sharp phase response around central frequency remembers one thing called in telecom as "FM discriminator".
A FM discriminator coverts frequency variations on a carrier signal into amplitude variations, and a high slope curve under a narrow bandwidth converts small changes in frequency into large amplitude variations.Since the phase shift you are looking at is on the reflected signal, it again can't change things inside the cavity. There is no mechanism for a frequency discriminator to make the relatively large arbitrary sized jump to the frequency at a different resonant mode, that is not even close to what a frequency discriminator does. In actuality, it uses rectifier diodes and produces output that is no longer an AC signal.
One can imagine a frequency switch from the source of cavity from lower frequency mode to higher frequency mode, under the action of discriminator behavior, remembering the changes of fields will begins at the antenna.
How would be the change of pressure on the cavity walls?You jumped from an irrelevant phase shift on a reflected signal, to some random RF device which has no particular relevance to discussion of significantly changing the input frequency to jump between resonance modes. I am not sure which of these unrelated things this question refers to, but the last is the only one that possibly makes sense. The answer is exactly what I told Alex_O a few posts back. There would be no meaningful change. Radiation pressure from each mode individually averages out to 0. Adding them together in any linear superposition does not change that. You mention transients as it radiates from the antenna, but again this is the same as the case where you just turn it on with no frequency shift. Any directionality in the radiation causes an equal and opposite force on the antenna, which gets balanced as the wave reflects off whichever wall it is headed to.
Post by: Ricvil on 01/29/2019 05:45 pm
Dear meberbs, be a cavity or a lumped circuit , the linearity /superposition are presents, and I just wana see the spatio-temporal transients of fields. The antenna is just one point where this transients occurs.Looking at frequency sweep of the cavity with half dipole antenna, I see two almost complementary fields distributions, at least the electric field distribution.The phase difference is in the reflected signal, which is the energy that doesn't make it into the cavity. It has no meaningful effect on things that happen actually inside the cavity. It has a minor effect on tracking resonance via the reflected signal, but considering the frequency range used by most experiments, it is not a problem, detecting the total reflected power is what matters, and is not that difficult.
If the resonance is a Fano resonance or not, the sharp phase response around central frequency remembers one thing called in telecom as "FM discriminator".A FM discriminator coverts frequency variations on a carrier signal into amplitude variations, and a high slope curve under a narrow bandwidth converts small changes in frequency into large amplitude variations.Since the phase shift you are looking at is on the reflected signal, it again can't change things inside the cavity. There is no mechanism for a frequency discriminator to make the relatively large arbitrary sized jump to the frequency at a different resonant mode, that is not even close to what a frequency discriminator does. In actuality, it uses rectifier diodes and produces output that is no longer an AC signal.
One can imagine a frequency switch from the source of cavity from lower frequency mode to higher frequency mode, under the action of discriminator behavior, remembering the changes of fields will begins at the antenna.How would be the change of pressure on the cavity walls?You jumped from an irrelevant phase shift on a reflected signal, to some random RF device which has no particular relevance to discussion of significantly changing the input frequency to jump between resonance modes. I am not sure which of these unrelated things this question refers to, but the last is the only one that possibly makes sense. The answer is exactly what I told Alex_O a few posts back. There would be no meaningful change. Radiation pressure from each mode individually averages out to 0. Adding them together in any linear superposition does not change that. You mention transients as it radiates from the antenna, but again this is the same as the case where you just turn it on with no frequency shift. Any directionality in the radiation causes an equal and opposite force on the antenna, which gets balanced as the wave reflects off whichever wall it is headed to.
Diodes? I don't want to recover the modulating signal from resulting amplitude envelop after resonant differential response.
Post by: meberbs on 01/29/2019 07:03 pm
Dear meberbs, be a cavity or a lumped circuit , the linearity /superposition are presents, and I just wana see the spatio-temporal transients of fields. The antenna is just one point where this transients occurs.Why though? This does little other then generate some pretty pictures. The transients of the antenna are dwarfed in amplitude by the resonant fields, which is the whole point of resonance in this case, it makes the field inside much stronger than the input. The actual resonant pattern oscillates, and if you want to see that, there are gifs people have made for some cases in old versions of this thread.
Diodes? I don't want to recover the modulating signal from resulting amplitude envelop after resonant differential response.Diodes are a component of a typical implementation of an FM discriminator. What you just said you don't want to do is what the device that you brought up does. That use is obviously irrelevant because there is no modulating signal in this case. Rather than state what you don't want to do could you answer my repeated question of what you are trying to do?
Post by: Ricvil on 01/30/2019 12:16 am
Dear meberbs.Dear meberbs, be a cavity or a lumped circuit , the linearity /superposition are presents, and I just wana see the spatio-temporal transients of fields. The antenna is just one point where this transients occurs.Why though? This does little other then generate some pretty pictures. The transients of the antenna are dwarfed in amplitude by the resonant fields, which is the whole point of resonance in this case, it makes the field inside much stronger than the input. The actual resonant pattern oscillates, and if you want to see that, there are gifs people have made for some cases in old versions of this thread.Diodes? I don't want to recover the modulating signal from resulting amplitude envelop after resonant differential response.Diodes are a component of a typical implementation of an FM discriminator. What you just said you don't want to do is what the device that you brought up does. That use is obviously irrelevant because there is no modulating signal in this case. Rather than state what you don't want to do could you answer my repeated question of what you are trying to do?
What I'm trying to do?
At the end, I'm desire to realize an active special conformal transformation of electromagnetic field (conformal to a acceleration) inside the cavity, by a active spectral inversion in frequency domain.
The switching of frequency is only a passive test, to see the effect of field "duality rotation" during the transient.
A continuous spectral inversion can be achivied using a circulator, a magnetron, and a adjustable load, like the chinese design already showed in this forum.
Post by: meberbs on 01/30/2019 06:03 am
Dear meberbs.Everything you just said is literally gibberish. Some of the terms you used would mean something if you removed 1 or 2 extraneous adjectives, but you would still be applying a purely abstract mathematical construct to a physical system, which doesn't make sense. To use an example from special relativity, since more people are familiar with it:
What I'm trying to do?
At the end, I'm desire to realize an active special conformal transformation of electromagnetic field (conformal to a acceleration) inside the cavity, by a active spectral inversion in frequency domain.
The switching of frequency is only a passive test, to see the effect of field "duality rotation" during the transient.
A continuous spectral inversion can be achivied using a circulator, a magnetron, and a adjustable load, like the chinese design already showed in this forum.
Lorentz transformation is a mathematical tool used to change from one frame of reference to another. Applying a Lorentz transformation changes nothing about the underlying physics, and does not change any results. It simply lets you work in a reference frame of your choosing to do the math. If someone were to run an experiment and have one of the steps be "apply a Lorentz transformation to the system" This would be nonsensical, since there is no physical action associated with a Lorentz transformation. The only meaningful thing that can be extrapolated from such a statement is that the person saying it has no clue what they are talking about. Some of your statements in this post are generally equivalent to this, saying that you want to apply purely mathematical operations to a physical system.
I have no clue what "Chinese design" you are talking about. The only actual solid information I know of about Chinese things relevant to this thread is Yang's experiments which clearly had problems, and in the end Yang no longer claims successful thrust generation.
Also, spectral inversion is something that happens from mixing signals. None of the RF components you listed is a mixer, so again, you appear to have no clue what you are talking about.
This series of posts from you has involved you jumping to different irrelevant or nonsensical claims in every post. If you want to continue this conversation, please try to write something coherent that has something to do with the topic of this thread.
Post by: Ricvil on 01/30/2019 08:09 am
Dear meberbs.Dear meberbs.Everything you just said is literally gibberish. Some of the terms you used would mean something if you removed 1 or 2 extraneous adjectives, but you would still be applying a purely abstract mathematical construct to a physical system, which doesn't make sense. To use an example from special relativity, since more people are familiar with it:
What I'm trying to do?
At the end, I'm desire to realize an active special conformal transformation of electromagnetic field (conformal to a acceleration) inside the cavity, by a active spectral inversion in frequency domain.
The switching of frequency is only a passive test, to see the effect of field "duality rotation" during the transient.
A continuous spectral inversion can be achivied using a circulator, a magnetron, and a adjustable load, like the chinese design already showed in this forum.
Lorentz transformation is a mathematical tool used to change from one frame of reference to another. Applying a Lorentz transformation changes nothing about the underlying physics, and does not change any results. It simply lets you work in a reference frame of your choosing to do the math. If someone were to run an experiment and have one of the steps be "apply a Lorentz transformation to the system" This would be nonsensical, since there is no physical action associated with a Lorentz transformation. The only meaningful thing that can be extrapolated from such a statement is that the person saying it has no clue what they are talking about. Some of your statements in this post are generally equivalent to this, saying that you want to apply purely mathematical operations to a physical system.
I have no clue what "Chinese design" you are talking about. The only actual solid information I know of about Chinese things relevant to this thread is Yang's experiments which clearly had problems, and in the end Yang no longer claims successful thrust generation.
Also, spectral inversion is something that happens from mixing signals. None of the RF components you listed is a mixer, so again, you appear to have no clue what you are talking about.
This series of posts from you has involved you jumping to different irrelevant or nonsensical claims in every post. If you want to continue this conversation, please try to write something coherent that has something to do with the topic of this thread.
Sorry if you cannot understand what I'm trying to say.
Operators in math are implemented all time using active and passive components, and differentiators/integrators are two simple examples.
The magnetron is a microwave source with a no so small bandwidth, and it can be used as a nonlinear negative resistence amplifier by reflection ( as already discuted in this forum), and a frequency inversion needs the presence of a quadratic nonlinear term as one of its components.
You are a smart guy meberbs, constantly right, but wrong in a interesting way sometimes.
The chineses had fail? It is very compelling.
End of conversation.
Post by: mandrewa on 01/30/2019 06:54 pm
That is one amazing theory. It seems to explain so many different things that have lacked explanation. I'm not talking about the EM drive. This proposed EM drive effect is almost a footnote compared to some other things that the idea of quantized inertia explains.
But having said that, this persuasive theory, radically increases the odds, in my mind anyway, that the EM Drive is a real thing.
I see the wikipedia entry on "quantized inertia" describes it as "fringe science." Really?!! Compared to what exactly?
This is science. That does not mean the theory is true, but it is falsifiable. And inertia effects everything. That means there are hundreds of implicit predictions that can be tested.
And if Mike McCullogh is giving the straight account, we already have a significant list of tests passed.
Here's a video that does a good job of explaining the idea in an understandable way: How quantized inertia gets rid of dark matter (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1itasiXNUPg).
I'm now looking for the counter-argument. I just did a quick search on duckduckgo and I'm having trouble finding it.
Post by: meberbs on 01/30/2019 07:28 pm
Dear meberbs.I don't recall any discussion here about using a magnetron as a negative resistance amplifier. The extent to which a magnetron has a broad spectrum signal is mostly in the form of noise so any frequency inversion that happens would be essentially indistinguishable. Also for a high resonance cavity, the wideband part of the signal is mostly reflected, and therefore has no effect inside the emDrive.
Sorry if you cannot understand what I'm trying to say.
Operators in math are implemented all time using active and passive components, and differentiators/integrators are two simple examples.
The magnetron is a microwave source with a no so small bandwidth, and it can be used as a nonlinear negative resistence amplifier by reflection ( as already discuted in this forum), and a frequency inversion needs the presence of a quadratic nonlinear term as one of its components.
You are a smart guy meberbs, constantly right, but wrong in a interesting way sometimes.
The chineses had fail? It is very compelling.
End of conversation.
And yes, Yang retracted any claim of generating real thrust after realizing unaccounted for errors in the original experiment. There have been rumors about other tests, but nothing solid, and from what I have seen, probably mistranslations of discussion of standard electric propulsion (ion engines).
Post by: meberbs on 01/30/2019 08:05 pm
I'm really quite excited. I've just discovered Mike McCulloch's theory of quantized inertia. I'm sure everyone on this thread has already heard about it, but I was unaware of it until a short-time ago.Compared to science that actually has experimental evidence to back it up, and has not already been falsified. The many radical claims are just that: radical claims. If there were so many waysthat it manifested itself, it should be easy to demonstrate, but it hasn't been.
That is one amazing theory. It seems to explain so many different things that have lacked explanation. I'm not talking about the EM drive. This proposed EM drive effect is almost a footnote compared to some other things that the idea of quantized inertia explains.
But having said that, this persuasive theory, radically increases the odds, in my mind anyway, that the EM Drive is a real thing.
I see the wikipedia entry on "quantized inertia" describes it as "fringe science." Really?!! Compared to what exactly?
This is science. That does not mean the theory is true, but it is falsifiable. And inertia effects everything. That means there are hundreds of implicit predictions that can be tested.And if any one is wrong then the theory is falsified. There are multiple ways that the theory can be falsified by all of the different claims that have been made, and several are already falsified:
-Strongest falsification from my perspective is the Pioneer anomaly. McCulloch predicts ripples in the Pioneer anomaly. Not only have I never hear of ripples in the Pioneer anomaly, the anomaly itself doesn't actually exist. It has been completely explained by the emission of black body radiation in specific directions due to the thermal profile of the spacecraft. This is completely case closed since 2012 with independent analysis. McCulloch has written a blog post trying to claim that the analysis is flawed that does nothing but reveal his ignorance of how thermal modeling is done. This claim alone that well accepted thoroughly reviewed papers on well understood physics that is accepted by the scientific community is completely wrong on its own puts him well into "fringe" territory.
-Recently, there have been discoveries that some galaxies have different amounts of dark matter than other comparable galaxies. If dark matter exists, it makes sense that such a thing can happen. It fundamentally cannot be explained by theories that rely on general modifications to the laws of physics. More data is still needed on this, but if confirmed it completely invalidates a broad range of alternatives to dark matter including McCulloch's theory.
-Last I checked, McCulloch is still working on the modeling needed to that his model matches the observed universe at least as well as the current best accepted model of dark matter: ΛCDM.
-The lack of success in emDrive experiments is itself evidence against his theory since his theory predicts it to work, apparently at thrust levels comparable to Shawyer's original experiments, (based on a recent pre-print from McCulloch) but the many DIY and other experiments, including those from Eagleworks have if nothing else confirmed that any actual thrust is orders of magnitude below what Shawyer claimed.
-He also predicts the Mach effect thruster to work for different reasons than Woodward claims, but evidence seems to be building that the positive results so far are due to systematic errors.
And if Mike McCullogh is giving the straight account, we already have a significant list of tests passed.I don't have time to sit through a half hour video right now, can you summarize what tests have been passed (that aren't already on the list I just provided of tests that have either already failed or look like they will fail)
I'm now looking for the counter-argument. I just did a quick search on duckduckgo and I'm having trouble finding it.Yeah, when someone writes a blog post (http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2016/01/ulysses-also-showed-pioneer-anomaly.html) claiming that thoroughly reviewed papers are wrong because the model "has 1000s of finite elements" (which is actually a good thing for the model), or because it has adjustable parameters that allow it to fit actual measured spacecraft temperatures (obviously would not be used to fit thrust), scientists will tend to not publish full articles explaining why the person who wrote the blog post has no comprehension of how thermal modeling works. That kind of thing also will tend to decrease scientists' interest in reading even published articles from someone who repeatedly makes such absurd claims.
Post by: mandrewa on 01/30/2019 10:44 pm
I'm really quite excited. I've just discovered Mike McCulloch's theory of quantized inertia. I'm sure everyone on this thread has already heard about it, but I was unaware of it until a short-time ago.Compared to science that actually has experimental evidence to back it up, and has not already been falsified. The many radical claims are just that: radical claims. If there were so many waysthat it manifested itself, it should be easy to demonstrate, but it hasn't been.
That is one amazing theory. It seems to explain so many different things that have lacked explanation. I'm not talking about the EM drive. This proposed EM drive effect is almost a footnote compared to some other things that the idea of quantized inertia explains.
But having said that, this persuasive theory, radically increases the odds, in my mind anyway, that the EM Drive is a real thing.
I see the wikipedia entry on "quantized inertia" describes it as "fringe science." Really?!! Compared to what exactly?
What experimental evidence?
Two of the theories the physics community currently believes in, "dark matter" and "dark energy," and that McCullogh is offering this alternative explanation for, have absolutely no experimental evidence for them at all.
It is difficult even to construct an imaginary experiment to test for "dark matter" and "dark energy" since what they are is so unspecified.
Suppose you are offered two explanations for something. One cannot be disproven because it makes no predictions that can be tested. The second makes many predictions and can be tested many ways. Which do you prefer?
By the way I do not mean to say that it is easy to test this hypothesis. The percent difference between "quantized inertia" and inertia is tiny in most contexts. The percent difference between "quantized acceleration" and acceleration is tiny in most contexts. The percent difference between "quantized force" and force is tiny in most contexts. And the list goes on. We can create imaginary experiments for these and other things, but finding an actual experiment where the difference is large enough to be measured by real instruments is not so easy.
I don't know exactly how McCullogh came up with his theory but I can construct a scenario. It starts off with him thinking about the Casimir Effect and then looking for other places in nature where a similar thing is going on. He realizes that information boundaries can act like the plates in the Casimir Effect experiment and he looks for information boundaries in nature. Then perhaps inspired by Stephen Hawking's hypothesis of blackhole evaporation he looks for other interactions between the quantum vacuum and other information boundaries.
A huge part of his logic depends on the idea that an information boundary is formed every time something accelerates. I wonder about that. I don't have the mathematical background to check that, but my intuition suggests that would be one of the first things to verify.
He claims that this is also consist with, and derivable from, quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity. I admit I doubt that. My impression is that very few people actually understand the math of these theories. Further I get the feeling that for those that kind of do, they spend a huge amount of time just working through the equations of these theories for specific situations. Further as soon as quantum mechanics is mentioned I know that the equations are not, except in special situations, computable.
So I'm guessing that what McCullogh is actually doing is trying to estimate the effect of these things, which is a very different thing from precisely calculating them.
So although it may be conceptually true that one can imagine calculating these things and testing for them, that is actually far beyond what is possible and what he knows how to do. Instead he is trying to find situations where he can estimate the effects and the expected effect is large enough to be perceptible.
This is science. That does not mean the theory is true, but it is falsifiable. And inertia effects everything. That means there are hundreds of implicit predictions that can be tested.And if any one is wrong then the theory is falsified. There are multiple ways that the theory can be falsified by all of the different claims that have been made, and several are already falsified:
-Strongest falsification from my perspective is the Pioneer anomaly. McCulloch predicts ripples in the Pioneer anomaly. Not only have I never hear of ripples in the Pioneer anomaly, the anomaly itself doesn't actually exist. It has been completely explained by the emission of black body radiation in specific directions due to the thermal profile of the spacecraft. This is completely case closed since 2012 with independent analysis. McCulloch has written a blog post trying to claim that the analysis is flawed that does nothing but reveal his ignorance of how thermal modeling is done. This claim alone that well accepted thoroughly reviewed papers on well understood physics that is accepted by the scientific community is completely wrong on its own puts him well into "fringe" territory.
-Recently, there have been discoveries that some galaxies have different amounts of dark matter than other comparable galaxies. If dark matter exists, it makes sense that such a thing can happen. It fundamentally cannot be explained by theories that rely on general modifications to the laws of physics. More data is still needed on this, but if confirmed it completely invalidates a broad range of alternatives to dark matter including McCulloch's theory.
-Last I checked, McCulloch is still working on the modeling needed to that his model matches the observed universe at least as well as the current best accepted model of dark matter: ΛCDM.
-The lack of success in emDrive experiments is itself evidence against his theory since his theory predicts it to work, apparently at thrust levels comparable to Shawyer's original experiments, (based on a recent pre-print from McCulloch) but the many DIY and other experiments, including those from Eagleworks have if nothing else confirmed that any actual thrust is orders of magnitude below what Shawyer claimed.
-He also predicts the Mach effect thruster to work for different reasons than Woodward claims, but evidence seems to be building that the positive results so far are due to systematic errors.
Thanks for these examples. I will need to think about them, although as I have already implied since there is no experimental evidence for the "dark matter" hypothesis, judging something from this perspective may be a case of assuming your conclusion.
Post by: Ricvil on 01/30/2019 11:36 pm
Dear meberbs.I don't recall any discussion here about using a magnetron as a negative resistance amplifier. The extent to which a magnetron has a broad spectrum signal is mostly in the form of noise so any frequency inversion that happens would be essentially indistinguishable. Also for a high resonance cavity, the wideband part of the signal is mostly reflected, and therefore has no effect inside the emDrive.
Sorry if you cannot understand what I'm trying to say.
Operators in math are implemented all time using active and passive components, and differentiators/integrators are two simple examples.
The magnetron is a microwave source with a no so small bandwidth, and it can be used as a nonlinear negative resistence amplifier by reflection ( as already discuted in this forum), and a frequency inversion needs the presence of a quadratic nonlinear term as one of its components.
You are a smart guy meberbs, constantly right, but wrong in a interesting way sometimes.
The chineses had fail? It is very compelling.
End of conversation.
And yes, Yang retracted any claim of generating real thrust after realizing unaccounted for errors in the original experiment. There have been rumors about other tests, but nothing solid, and from what I have seen, probably mistranslations of discussion of standard electric propulsion (ion engines).
I agree with you meberbs.
Post by: meberbs on 01/30/2019 11:55 pm
What experimental evidence?Maybe you should do some more research before making assertions about what scientists think. (That means outside of McCulloch's claims, since he has made false claims similar to some of what you say.) Both "dark matter" and "dark energy" refer to effects that have been in experiments. In particular dark energy is not a theory, but a quantification of the magnitude of the correction term that needs to be applied to current theories to match reality. I know of no accepted theory that explains the "why" of it. Your assertion about what physicists think is not accurate.
Two of the theories the physics community currently believes in, "dark matter" and "dark energy," and that McCullogh is offering this alternative explanation for, have absolutely no experimental evidence for them at all.
It is difficult even to construct an imaginary experiment to test for "dark matter" and "dark energy" since what they are is so unspecified.
Dark matter is also originally based on experimental evidence, but there is a complete theory for it that successfully predicts many things in cosmology, and it is falsifiable.
Suppose you are offered two explanations for something. One cannot be disproven because it makes no predictions that can be tested. The second makes many predictions and can be tested many ways. Which do you prefer?False analogy, change it so that both make predictions and the second makes predictions that are not consistent with observations, and you would be getting closer to relevance.
So I'm guessing that what McCullogh is actually doing is trying to estimate the effect of these things, which is a very different thing from precisely calculating them.Most of your narrative is not worth discussing since as you say, it is just your guess at his thought process. This last part is similar to my observations that many of his claims of effects that he predicts often involve thought experiments with significant handwaving, but if this is the case many assertions he has made about what his theory predicts are not actually things he can truly assert. While GR and quantum mechanics are both involve difficult equations to work with, with computers, solving everything by hand is no longer necessary. There are ways to get the relevant answers.
So although it may be conceptually true that one can imagine calculating these things and testing for them, that is actually far beyond what is possible and what he knows how to do. Instead he is trying to find situations where he can estimate the effects and the expected effect is large enough to be perceptible.
Thanks for these examples. I will need to think about them, although as I have already implied since there is no experimental evidence for the "dark matter" hypothesis, judging something from this perspective may be a case of assuming your conclusion.Your statement that there is no evidence for dark matter is 100% false. I even referenced some of it in my previous post. There is a list of different effects predicted by dark matter theories and observed in experiment in the "Observational Evidence" section of its Wikipedia article. As I mentioned in my last post there is evidence (https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/mysterious-galaxy-measured-exquisitely-and-contains-no-dark-matter-at-all-753338968df6) that dark matter distribution is not completely uniform, and that is a difficult set of data to reconcile with any theory that claims that there is no dark matter. (No dark matter anywhere, just modified physics, would be a perfectly uniform distribution by definition.)
Post by: meberbs on 01/31/2019 12:08 am
Interesting work creating a monopole ananolgy: https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/01/funky-mirror-turns-electric-field-into-a-magnetic-field-with-missing-pole/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/01/funky-mirror-turns-electric-field-into-a-magnetic-field-with-missing-pole/)Possibly I should just report this to moderator, but this seems like a good time to remind people that this section is for "new physics with spaceflight applications" and this thread is for the "emdrive." This article makes a good example because it goes out of its way to mention that the research it is discussing has essentially no real application.
Random posts of some random "new physics" article, with no explanation of relevance, are not on topic, and do not add value. They do add more work for the moderators.
Post by: TheTraveller on 01/31/2019 05:24 am
Have asked Mike if he will also produce and make available a report on the meeting.
BTW Roger has done EmDrive presentations at Shrivenham before:
"An edited set of slides from a presentation made to the UK Defence Academy in February this year [2017] can be downloaded here. They give the background story to the emergence of EmDrive, and illustrate how important Global Defence applications are to the continuing development of the technology."
http://www.emdrive.com/ShrivenhampresentationV.3.pdf
https://www.cranfield.ac.uk/study/life-on-campus/life-at-shrivenham
Post by: dustinthewind on 01/31/2019 07:07 am
For the most part this is true. There is very little coupling to the vacuum normally to detect much less generate gravity waves.GR generally talks about "space-time," not "the vacuum."
There are those that are bridging the gap. The vacuum is obviously not empty. Not only can light be squeezed but also the vacuum. The Casimir force exists. Matter and anti-matter can be created from the vacuum. Space time can curve. Those in LIGO use squeezed light or vacuum to detect space time waves or (gravity waves).
The Quantum Enhanced LIGO Detector Sets New Sensitivity Record
https://www.ligo.org/science/Publication-SqueezedVacuum/index.php
Recent progress in generating quantum states of squeezed vacuum has made it possible to enhance the sensitivity of the 4 km gravitational wave detector at the LIGO Hanford Observatory to an unprecedented level...
Quote from: https://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2016111114440325.pdf
The Nature of Inertial and Vacuum Gravitational Field
Ning Wu
In the literature [32], the problem of the change of space-time structure under Lorentz
transformation is studied. In that paper, only the Lorentz transformation of uniform
motion in a straight line is studied. If the motion is constantly accelerated motion,
what will happen? In this paper, the gravitational field in a local constantly accelerated
reference is studied. In Section 2, a simple introduction to the gauge theory of gravity is
given. The gravitational field and the field strength of gravitational field in a constantly
accelerated reference are calculated in Section 3. The gravitational force on a mass
point in that local reference is studied in Section 4.
...
Through discussions in this paper and literature [32], we know that, if there is an inertial
reference with no gravity, a non-trivial gravitational gauge field will be generated in the
reference after a Lorentz transformation. In other words, if the reference is an inertial
reference before transformation and the gravitational gauge field vanishes in it, the gravitational gauge field does not vanish after a Lorentz transformation. The gravitational
gauge field not only affects the space-time structure, but also generates non-trivial gravitational force. The non-trivial gravitational force is generated from vacuum by a Lorentz transformation, so we call it vacuum gravitational force. The gravitational gauge
field C x( ) a
µ after Lorentz transformation is called vacuum gravitational field.
...
It is known that the equivalence principle
is a transcendental principle in general relativity. But in quantum gauge theory of
gravity, it is obtained through a strict derivation. Essentially speaking, it is only a deduction
of the gauge principle.
Through the discussions in this paper, we know that there are two ways to produce
gravitational field and gravitational force. One way is that it is produced by a massive
object, which is given by classical Newtonian gravity and general relativity. Another
way is that it is produced by a transformation, which is a new way to produce gravitational
field and gravitational force. It is an inevitable outcome of gravitational gauge
symmetry.
some more.
pardon the copy of text from the pdf is a bit lacking in translation.
Quote from: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=7215708368369917637&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26
=http%3A%2F%2Ftud.qucosa.de%2Fapi%2Fqucosa%253A31140%2Fmets]donloaded from (http://tud.qucosa.de/landing-page/?tx_dlf[id)
The Planck Constant and the Origin of Mass due to a Higher Order Casimir Effect
C. Baumg¨artel and M. Tajmar
...
Researchers have made di erent attempts not only to modify
Weber’s law and derive Maxwell’s field equations from
them [8–10], but also conducted experiments to check back
on the validity of the theory [11–14]. Especially the experiments
of Smith et al. [12] showed some interesting measurements
where the behaviour of an electron beam could
[email protected]; corresponding author
be predicted more accurately with Weber-type formulae than
Maxwell-Lorentz ones.
This interest leads us to study further on this subject and investigate
the bonds that connectWeber’s law and nature’s phenomena,
as this may be a possibility to find a long sought after
unification of theories. Therefore, we will present our findings
that combine electromagnetism, gravitational-like forces,
quantum e ects and even the origin of mass itself all through
the derivation of the Planck constant from a single model of
oscillating dipoles.
...
This equation is used in [2,
3] to identify a gravitational e ect and this is again used in
[1] to obtain a constant in the order of magnitude of Planck’s
constant.
The above presented calculations were done by Assis with pen
and paper and are very long. This is why we wanted to check
the results using a computer, so the calculations were redone
in MAXIMA and showed a slightly di erent result.
...
Furthermore, the Beta-term can
be identified as a gravity-like force, as already done by Assis
[2, 3], since only the pre-factor deviates but the structure is the
same. Keeping in mind that the
gamma-term can be interpreted as
inertial e ects [2], what does the new alpha-term correspond to?
Since it falls with 1/R^4, it looks similar to the Casimir force
[17] which originates from Van-der-Waals dipole-dipole interaction
[18]. There were earlier approaches from Puthoff and
Haisch to model gravity and inertia as zero-point energy fluctuations
based on the Casimir effect [19–22], but they were
heavily discussed afterwards [23–25].
However, it seems in agreement with Casimir’s original assumptions
to find his force in this model of dipole-dipole interactions.
...
Furthermore, this connects
to the origin of mass as the higher order of the Casimir force
shows a mass-like behaviour depending on the electrical properties
of the interacting particles. These properties also lead
to a gravitational-like attracting force between the particles.
That means that there is a really interesting connection between
electrodynamics, gravitation, quantum-theory and the
origin of mass, all linked by the Planck constant.
Quote from: meberbs
yes the gravitational waves they generate aren't detectable yet, though they think the coupling exists.Some physicists think LIGO is generating gravity waves because of their coupling. Because gravity waves can induce detectable changes in EM fields it also goes the other way. Their EM fields can also induce minor gravity waves.I assume you are talking aboutthis. (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/ligo-doesn-t-just-detect-gravitational-waves-it-makes-them-too) The article doesn't mention the strength of the emission even relative to what is detected there, but my guess would be negligible, and the claim only true if there were rapidly moving large masses rather than photons bouncing back and forth. More importantly, the article says that they came up with their conclusion through a quantum theory, but there is no proven theory of quantum gravity, and not much in terms of good options. Biggest reason for this is the lack of testable predictions, the article I linked mentions an experiment and calls it "unbelievably difficult" What they actually mean is "beyond the capability of any foreseeable technology."
Quote from: meberbs
All of this depends if Eugene's experiments are valid and actually generate the waves he claims. I tend not to jump to the conclusion he is a liar so I'm still currently interested to learn more. (particularly the gravity impulse generator)He has asserted that multiple other labs have replicated his experiments, but this is not true. One lab did some tests, but not a replication. There are multiple examples in the article you linked of cases where someone has to be making false statements.
The technical statements he has made about his device amount to complete gibberish. At a minimum he has no clue what he is talking about, and there is absolutely no reason to think that any measurements he made are anything other than experimental error. Apparently the original observation was that smoke was observed rising above a very cold object, which basically indicates there were problems with air currents.
I make no claims as to the validity of his experiments just point out what he claims to have observed. That they seem to line up with the idea of inflated vacuum and negative gravity. I'm only really interested in the gravity impulse generator. Not sure what to think of the spinning disk.
I notice this guy claims his experiments were not actually replicated. Not really sure I care for the paper though.
Quote from: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=9247623384598092464&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26
New Evidence, Conditions, Instruments & Experiments for Gravitational Theories
Benjamin T. Solomon
...
1Three teams set out to investigate Podkletnov’s claims. The first was led by RC Woods. The second led by Hathaway. These are discussed in this paper. Ning Li led the third team comprised of members from NASA and University of Huntsville, AL. It was revealed in conversa-tions with a former team member that Ning Li’s team was disbanded before they could build the superconducting discs required to investi-gate Podkletnov’s claims.
...
It is obvious that neither teams were able to faithfully reproduce Podkletnov’s work. It is no wonder that at least Woods et al. team stated “the tests have not fulfilled the specified conditions for a gravity effect”. This state- ment definitely applies to Hathaway, Cleveland & Bao’s research.
Here is an extra that seemed interesting.
A Theoretical Justification of NASA Electromagnetic
Drive based on Cosmic Dark Matter
Mohamed S. ElNaschie
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=16671618278540492657&as_sdt=5,26&sciodt=0,26&hl=en
I think its based on this papper here:
Completing Einstein’s Spacetime
M. S. El Naschie
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=2307852642997297549&hl=en&as_sdt=5,26&sciodt=0,26
From a dual Einstein-Kaluza spacetime to 'tHooft renormalon and the reality of accelerated cosmic expansion
MS El Naschie
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=17151164495508288154&hl=en&as_sdt=5,26&sciodt=0,26
Never mind the last part. Stayed up too late skimming papers.
Post by: as58 on 01/31/2019 09:16 am
Here is an extra that seemed interesting.
A Theoretical Justification of NASA Electromagnetic
Drive based on Cosmic Dark Matter
Mohamed S. ElNaschie
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=16671618278540492657&as_sdt=5,26&sciodt=0,26&hl=en
I think its based on this papper here:
Completing Einstein’s Spacetime
M. S. El Naschie
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=2307852642997297549&hl=en&as_sdt=5,26&sciodt=0,26
From a dual Einstein-Kaluza spacetime to 'tHooft renormalon and the reality of accelerated cosmic expansion
MS El Naschie
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=17151164495508288154&hl=en&as_sdt=5,26&sciodt=0,26
El Naschie is a notorious crackpot.
Post by: dustinthewind on 01/31/2019 03:24 pm
Here is an extra that seemed interesting.
A Theoretical Justification of NASA Electromagnetic
Drive based on Cosmic Dark Matter
Mohamed S. ElNaschie
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=16671618278540492657&as_sdt=5,26&sciodt=0,26&hl=en
I think its based on this papper here:
Completing Einstein’s Spacetime
M. S. El Naschie
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=2307852642997297549&hl=en&as_sdt=5,26&sciodt=0,26
From a dual Einstein-Kaluza spacetime to 'tHooft renormalon and the reality of accelerated cosmic expansion
MS El Naschie
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=17151164495508288154&hl=en&as_sdt=5,26&sciodt=0,26
El Naschie is a notorious crackpot.
You appear to be right. Thanks. Wasn't sure what to think of his paper but seemed related. Recommend doing a wiki search on authors I guess.
Post by: oyzw on 02/01/2019 02:53 am
Post by: Bob Woods on 02/01/2019 01:22 pm
我重新设计了一个组合腔体 TM模，Q35000I redesigned a combined cavity TM module, Q35000
Post by: Ricvil on 02/02/2019 06:03 pm
我重新设计了一个组合腔体 TM模，Q35000Beautiful design.
Very simple.
It could be done with a perfect cylinder section, without division of forces with the flat end.
Why do you use (wich appears to be) an almost cylinder ( but not perfect cylinder) section?
PS: As it is a screenshot figure, I can go wrong, and it is a perfect cylinder section.
Post by: Ricvil on 02/03/2019 09:10 am
Post by: OhYeah on 02/03/2019 03:13 pm
Your statement that there is no evidence for dark matter is 100% false. I even referenced some of it in my previous post. There is a list of different effects predicted by dark matter theories and observed in experiment in the "Observational Evidence" section of its Wikipedia article. As I mentioned in my last post there is evidence (https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/mysterious-galaxy-measured-exquisitely-and-contains-no-dark-matter-at-all-753338968df6) that dark matter distribution is not completely uniform, and that is a difficult set of data to reconcile with any theory that claims that there is no dark matter. (No dark matter anywhere, just modified physics, would be a perfectly uniform distribution by definition.)
Well... that depends on how you define "evidence". We have no direct evidence, but we have a variety of cosmic phenomena that *could* be explained by various dark matter models. These phenomena don't necessarily need a single explanation and there could be many different processes that produce the effect we currently attribute to dark matter.
I think that alternative theories need to be explored because so far dark matter research has come up with absolutely nothing concrete. I'm sure you are familiar with the research a couple of years ago where they discovered that after looking at 150+ galaxies it seemed that galaxy rotations depend completely on the amount of visible matter only. If I'm not mistaken most physicists hoped to find direct evidence of dark matter with the LHC but so far it has produced no results.
How many more years or decades of dark matter research - and how much money spent - with zero results do we need until people start seriously thinking about alternatives here? My gut feeling (which is worth sod all in the grand scheme of things) says that the key must be in a link that ties GR and QM together in some form.
Post by: meberbs on 02/03/2019 07:52 pm
Well... that depends on how you define "evidence". We have no direct evidence, but we have a variety of cosmic phenomena that *could* be explained by various dark matter models. These phenomena don't necessarily need a single explanation and there could be many different processes that produce the effect we currently attribute to dark matter.This is getting off topic, and your post is mostly addressed by information I provided in previous posts, but I will try to restate it one more time.
"Observational Evidence" is the title of the Wikipedia section I referenced. In other words that is evidence. You seem to be implying that "direct evidence" would be a laboratory experiment where you can observe dark matter directly, which is not necessarily even possible since dark matter appears to only interact through gravitational force. In this case the only way to have direct evidence of it is by measuring its gravitational effects which scientists have done. (See the "gravitational lensing" subsection in the Wikipedia article.)
I think that alternative theories need to be explored because so far dark matter research has come up with absolutely nothing concrete. I'm sure you are familiar with the research a couple of years ago where they discovered that after looking at 150+ galaxies it seemed that galaxy rotations depend completely on the amount of visible matter only. If I'm not mistaken most physicists hoped to find direct evidence of dark matter with the LHC but so far it has produced no results.Alternative theories have been explored, but none of them really fit all of the data.
https://xkcd.com/1758/
I don't read every paper that comes out on this subject, so I haven't read the one you referenced, but I am aware that most galaxies have close to the same ratio of matter and dark matter. That doesn't change the evidence I linked to about outliers with extra or very little dark matter. Outliers are expected to be uncommon and they are. They are still expected to exist and they do.
As for the LHC, you are confusing the terms "hope" and "expect." I was hoping that the LHC would not find the Higgs Boson where it was expected, because that would have had much more interesting consequences. Scientists hoped that the LHC would discover all kinds of completely new things, but for the most part they had little reason to expect it to do so, and for the most part it didn't.
How many more years or decades of dark matter research - and how much money spent - with zero results do we need until people start seriously thinking about alternatives here? My gut feeling (which is worth sod all in the grand scheme of things) says that the key must be in a link that ties GR and QM together in some form.The answer to your first question is zero years. Scientists have been working on alternatives to dark matter for as long as there has been evidence to suggest the existence of dark matter. As I already said, none of them really explain the data as well as dark matter does. The recent evidence that I linked to, as well as various other details make it seem increasingly unlikely that any theory will work out that doesn't contain at least some form of dark matter.
As for a link between GR and QM, that has been an area of research for as long as both of those theories have existed. There are many difficulties with doing that, and there are a variety of theories that attempt to make it work. The biggest problem is that the relevant regimes to test them are generally well beyond current technology. At this point though, such things may be helpful for explaining dark energy, but probably won't help much for dark matter, unless they happen to predict new particles that have the expected properties of dark matter.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 02/04/2019 09:55 am
Ashkin is known for his discoveries in lasers, especially the "laser trap" able to levitate and manipulate very small bodies (like DNA). Now he thinks he will "save the world" bringing "more efficient and cheaper electricity" with an improved technique to funnel and concentrate light down to solar cells or heat transfer fluid pipes.
A recent article on Ashkin and his solar research in Business Insider:
Hilary Brueck (26 Jan 2019): "The world's oldest Nobel Prize winner, a 96-year-old physicist, says his new invention will give everyone in the world clean, cheap energy" (https://www.businessinsider.fr/us/oldest-nobel-prize-winner-arthur-ashkin-optical-tweezers-levitation-2019-1)
At first, nothing to do with the EmDrive. But let's have a look at Ashkin's patents (https://patents.justia.com/inventor/arthur-ashkin), in particular this one:
Ashkin, Arthur: "Compound collector system for solar energy concentration" (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8960185). US Patent 8960185B2. Filed: December 13, 2011. Granted: February 24, 2015.
PDF version attached below.
Excerpts (emphasis added):
ABSTRACT: A solar collector is formed as a compound arrangement of a multiple number of tapered, pyramidal-type structures. This forms an N-stage solar collector, each stage providing a degree of concentration and thus forming an arrangement that is smaller than a single stage collector (while achieving the same amplification factor). The stages are arranged in tandem along a common optical axis, with the output of the first stage becoming the input for the second stage, and so on. It was found that a reduced number of reflections is required, reducing the loss of the overall system.
FIG. 1(a) shows a right-angled, truncated pyramidal solar collector formed in accordance with the present invention, having a square geometry input and output face:
(https://ayuba.fr/ashkin/fig1a.png)
FIG. 1(b) is a variation of the collector of FIG. 1(a), in this case being of conic form with a circular geometry input and output face:
(https://ayuba.fr/ashkin/fig1b.png)
FIG. 2 is a cut-away side view of the collector of FIGS. 1(a) and (b), taken along collector axis CA:
(https://ayuba.fr/ashkin/fig2.png)
FIG. 3 is a master diagram derived from the geometry of the solar collector of FIG. 1(a):
(https://ayuba.fr/ashkin/fig3.png)
FIG. 4(a) contains a diagram showing the paths of various solar rays propagating through the collector of FIG. 1(a):
(https://ayuba.fr/ashkin/fig4a.png)
FIG. 5 shows the resulting image from the collector of FIG. 1(a), generating a Buckminster-Fullerene-type solar radiation pattern as produced by a single stage solar collector of the present invention. Entering parallel rays that strike the inner Buckminster-Fullerene “sphere” all pass through the output face and are utilized. Entering rays that miss the sphere are all retro-reflected. This aspect of pyramidal collectors provides a useful way of evaluating the performance of the overall collector system:
(https://ayuba.fr/ashkin/fig5.png)
FIG. 12(a) is a side view of an exemplary ziggurat-like support structure for use with a square-based truncated pyramidal solar collector, such as shown in FIG. 1(a), where FIG. 12(b) is an experimental model of the arrangement o FIG. 12(a), as seen from the collector entrance:
(https://ayuba.fr/ashkin/fig12b.png)
FIG. 13 shows different truncated pyramidal geometries which may be used to form solar collectors in accordance with the present invention:
(https://ayuba.fr/ashkin/fig13.png)
FIG. 14 depicts the Buckminster-Fullerene type images associated with the solar collector geometries of FIG. 13:
(https://ayuba.fr/ashkin/fig14.png)
FIG. 17 illustrates an exemplary collector array, as held within a framework, in this case supporting a 4×5 array of compound collectors formed in accordance with the present invention:
(https://ayuba.fr/ashkin/fig17.png)
Obviously, I admit that aside the shape, the possible relation with RF resonant cavities is loose, especially as such system does not use microwaves but light; and more than anything it is not a resonator (no EM modes). Therefore this post may appear almost off-topic, my apologies for that.
Still, FIGs 2 and 12(b) are quite reminiscent of Shawyer's first schemes about the EmDrive. More interesting perhaps, I wonder if Ashkin's findings, especially shown in FIG. 12(b), could be linked to Travis S. Taylor's research in the optical (laser-based) EmDrive (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=45824.0;attach=1506944;sess=41785), especially about the length to small diameter ratio (S/D) in FIGs 2 and 3, which reminds me of Shawer's "design factor" and "cut-off condition" as well as McCulloch's optimal aspect ratio according to his theory of quantized inertia.
Anyway, I found this "Buckminster-Fullerene-type solar radiation pattern" interesting. This may not be a kaleidoscope thruster at all, but it is entertaining. And after the recent EmDrive debacle, it may prove that frustums can have a real application in physics, finally… ;D
Post by: Ricvil on 02/08/2019 05:05 pm
A mixing of Shawyer and Oyzw designs.
PS: Sorry, there is a fatal error in this design.
It's happening because it is a free hand drawing, and the design needs precision.
A small adjust is necessary.
PS2: Corrected design added.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 02/10/2019 11:24 am
As I mentioned in my last post there is evidence (https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/mysterious-galaxy-measured-exquisitely-and-contains-no-dark-matter-at-all-753338968df6) that dark matter distribution is not completely uniform
That observation was indeed weird, not only by the findings themselves, but also due to its uniqueness. At that time, it could have been the beginning of a series of similar observations, later confirmed. But it didn't turn out that way, and the "evidence" has recently evaporated. NGC 1052-DF2 seems to be a normal galaxy (i.e. equally confined by a dark matter halo) after all: "Later studies (https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.04136) have failed to confirm the lack of dark matter, and shown only that it is likely to have a mass-to-light ratio towards the low end of expected values for a dwarf galaxy."
Anyway, recent large-scale surveys (like KiDS (http://kids.strw.leidenuniv.nl/pr_dec2016.php)) tend to prove that dark matter distribution is even more uniform and smoother than thought initially.
Which implies that the lambda-CDM model cannot explain, with such an even distribution of DM across the galaxy, smaller scale anomalous behaviors like globular clusters (https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601581) and wide binaries anomalies (https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1873), for example.
The chapter "Gravitational Anomalies Signaling the Breakdown of Classical Gravity" in the book "Accelerated Cosmic Expansion" (Springer 2014) exposes this problem well. Attached below for reference.
Post by: meberbs on 02/10/2019 06:56 pm
Every last statement in that paragraph is false. Even the quote is misrepresented by you. That is a quote from Wikipedia. (The sentence from Wikipedia has been corrected now for consistency with what the (singular) referenced paper says.)As I mentioned in my last post there is evidence (https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/mysterious-galaxy-measured-exquisitely-and-contains-no-dark-matter-at-all-753338968df6) that dark matter distribution is not completely uniform
That observation was indeed weird, not only by the findings themselves, but also due to its uniqueness. At that time, it could have been the beginning of a series of similar observations, later confirmed. But it didn't turn out that way, and the "evidence" has recently evaporated. NGC 1052-DF2 seems to be a normal galaxy (i.e. equally confined by a dark matter halo) after all: "Later studies (https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.04136) have failed to confirm the lack of dark matter, and shown only that it is likely to have a mass-to-light ratio towards the low end of expected values for a dwarf galaxy."
The article I linked references more than one piece of evidence to my point, so it appears you did not read the whole thing. It has been something like a year since the initial results on the low dark matter content got reported. It takes time for astronomers to look through data and acquire new data. It also takes time to get results published. A lack of additional finds in one year means literally nothing. The paper you cite in "contradiction" actually is basically saying that the error bars are a bit wider. Note that the part you quote states "towards the low end." In other words even after widening the error bars, it still shows a different ratio than the average for its class, which still supports the point.
Anyway, recent large-scale surveys (like KiDS (http://kids.strw.leidenuniv.nl/pr_dec2016.php)) tend to prove that dark matter distribution is even more uniform and smoother than thought initially.The first result you link to is showing disagreement with a previous experiment, not disagreement with theory. It may change some parameters in theory that had been based on the previous result, but there is no evidence to support your claim that the new data is completely incompatible with the models.
Which implies that the lambda-CDM model cannot explain, with such an even distribution of DM across the galaxy, smaller scale anomalous behaviors like globular clusters (https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601581) and wide binaries anomalies (https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1873), for example.
The next 2 papers just are evidence of what I already said: scientists have been considering alternatives to dark matter such as MOND, and claims from poster like OhYeah to the contrary are completely false.
The chapter "Gravitational Anomalies Signaling the Breakdown of Classical Gravity" in the book "Accelerated Cosmic Expansion" (Springer 2014) exposes this problem well. Attached below for reference.Something written in 2014 does not address results from years after it was written. Also, it claims to find problems with GR that can't be explained by GR, but the only one that seems to be a real potential issue is the bullet cluster, which has since been shown to be explained just fine by ΛCDM models. I honestly don't like how it is written, since it seems to jump between "this can't be explained by GR (without dark matter)" and make it sound like it still wouldn't be explained with dark matter. It also generally ignores the fact that there are problems with MOND. A basic list can be found on Wikipedia.
Post by: Ricvil on 02/12/2019 01:43 pm
Post by: Star One on 02/12/2019 07:43 pm
2019 Symposium Call for Papers (https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2019/02/12/2019-symposium-call-for-papers/)
Quote
In collaboration with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Tennessee Valley Interstellar Workshop (TVIW) hereby invites participation in its 6th Interstellar Symposium and Interstellar Propulsion Workshop -hosted by Wichita State University (WSU) and Ad Astra Kansas Foundation – to be held from Sunday, November 10 through Friday, November 15, 2019, in Wichita, Kansas. The 2019 TVIW has the following elements:
The NASA Workshop on Interstellar Propulsion will focus solely on physics-based propulsion technologies that have the potential to meet the goal of launching an interstellar probe within the next century and achieving .1c transit velocity: Beamed Energy Propulsion, Fusion, and Antimatter.
At this meeting, the state-of-the-art of each will be examined, competing approaches to advancing the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of each will be presented by advocates and assessed by non-advocates for synthesis into a workshop report to serve as the blueprint for possible future interstellar propulsion technology development.
Post by: meberbs on 02/12/2019 09:11 pm
Corrected design for radiation pressure localized at the central part of cavity, showing expected oyzw and Shawyer regions of attenuated fields, one at each end(dotted lines showing the separation).First, I believe the term that you are looking for is "field strength" or roughly equivalently "electromagnetic energy density." Radiation pressure by definition requires a surface that pressure is being applied to.
Second, drawing a bunch of equally spaced circles has nothing to do with where the fields would be. The fields are in the locations that the laws of electrodynamics say they will be for a given frequency given the boundary conditions defined by the metal walls of the cavity.
I am curious where you got the idea that drawing a bunch of circles on top of a picture of a cavity would have any relation to the electromagnetic fields at all.
Post by: X_RaY on 02/12/2019 09:13 pm
Corrected design for radiation pressure localized at the central part of cavity, showing expected oyzw and Shawyer regions of attenuated fields, one at each end(dotted lines showing the separation).It seems that you have put some work into it and you think that it might be of interest to the public. There is, however, a considerable lack of explaining what you mean and what you have outlined. So, what does it mean what you show and what do you think about the possible net thrust of such a system? Where in your 'model' comes the thrust from? (I am aware of your previous 'explanations'.)
EDIT
Thank's meberbs,
you came up with your quote just before mine. You put my thoughts into words in a similar way.
Post by: Monomorphic on 02/13/2019 12:29 am
This article seems relevant to this thread.
2019 Symposium Call for Papers (https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2019/02/12/2019-symposium-call-for-papers/)QuoteIn collaboration with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Tennessee Valley Interstellar Workshop (TVIW) hereby invites participation in its 6th Interstellar Symposium and Interstellar Propulsion Workshop -hosted by Wichita State University (WSU) and Ad Astra Kansas Foundation – to be held from Sunday, November 10 through Friday, November 15, 2019, in Wichita, Kansas. The 2019 TVIW has the following elements:
The NASA Workshop on Interstellar Propulsion will focus solely on physics-based propulsion technologies that have the potential to meet the goal of launching an interstellar probe within the next century and achieving .1c transit velocity: Beamed Energy Propulsion, Fusion, and Antimatter.
At this meeting, the state-of-the-art of each will be examined, competing approaches to advancing the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of each will be presented by advocates and assessed by non-advocates for synthesis into a workshop report to serve as the blueprint for possible future interstellar propulsion technology development.
It is relevant in that NASA seems to have now excluded so-called "advanced propulsion" in favor of "physics-based" propulsion technologies such as Beamed Energy Propulsion, Fusion, and Antimatter.
No Emdrive. No Mach Effect. No Quantized Inertia.
Post by: Ricvil on 02/13/2019 12:39 am
Corrected design for radiation pressure localized at the central part of cavity, showing expected oyzw and Shawyer regions of attenuated fields, one at each end(dotted lines showing the separation).It seems that you have put some work into it and you think that it might be of interest to the public. There is, however, a considerable lack of explaining what you mean and what you have outlined. So, what does it mean what you show and what do you think about the possible net thrust of such a system? Where in your 'model' comes the thrust from? (I am aware of your previous 'explanations'.)
EDIT
Thank's meberbs,
you came up with your quote just before mine. You put my thoughts into words in a similar way.
Dear Meberbs and X_RaY.
The "circles" and straight lines, are in fact, spheres, planes and conical surfaces under rotation around the axis of symmetry. Their intersections, are the most easy way to define the geometry of the cavity on any scale.
When in chinese (by internet translator), oyzw named it's cavity as "bouquet cavity", the geometry with all this "circles" becomes clear to me.
But I not see any questions directed about the "bouquet cavity".
I've worked with inverse scattering problems, many time ago, doing continuation of free space electromagnetic fields, using bessel functions expansions, around metalic surfaces, in frequency domain.
Curiously, I've already observed these abrupt transitions of electromagnetic fields intensity as caustic around metalic surfaces.
There are conformal symmetries, for both space time and electromagnetic fields, and I just exploring an empirical one, as a guidind for aproximation.
The final result depends of simulation, or experimentation.
You're already understood the result presented by oyzw?
Are you using Shawyer "cutoff rules" ?
I'm using a "inverse surface intrinsic curvature signal change", from my observation of results presented in this forum.
My cavity design is just a sugestion.
They will produce thrust if almost field strenght of a TE/TM mode is restricted only at central conical section of cavity, and if at the flat ends the field strenght becomes very attenuated.
Post by: meberbs on 02/13/2019 06:22 am
The "circles" and straight lines, are in fact, spheres, planes and conical surfaces under rotation around the axis of symmetry. Their intersections, are the most easy way to define the geometry of the cavity on any scale.Are you saying that all the circles represent metal surfaces that would actually be built? I assume the answer is no, because that would just create a bunch of separate small cavities, and have no sensible use.
If they are just there to illustrate the relative dimensions of the cavity, then the question is why are those dimensions special, and why do you think they would cause the electromagnetic energy to be concentrated in the center of the cavity? Based on seeing lots of field patterns in these threads over the years, and understanding the physics behind them, I doubt that the cavity you drew has any mode that would behave inthe manner you describe.
When in chinese (by internet translator), oyzw named it's cavity as "bouquet cavity", the geometry with all this "circles" becomes clear to me.I don't recall any post from oyzw that mentions a "bouquet cavity," so I don't know what you are talking about, maybe you got a bad translation for some reason.
But I not see any questions directed about the "bouquet cavity".
You're already understood the result presented by oyzw?He presented a field pattern result for a specific cavity shape. It looks reasonable, but has no provided reason why that design should be expected to produce useful thrust versus all of the other designs that people have proposed or tried.
Are you using Shawyer "cutoff rules" ?No. Shawyer's discussion about "cutoff" is mostly nonsensical, though it does give a rule of thumb for predicting some aspects of what a mode shape will look like in certain cases.
They will produce thrust if almost field strenght of a TE/TM mode is restricted only at central conical section of cavity, and if at the flat ends the field strenght becomes very attenuated.First, I do not believe a mode shape like you described can exist in anything even close to the cavities that people have been working with. Especially not the design you provided, since with the constant diameter near the small end, the field would not particularly attenuate towards the small end as oyzw's result showed. Second, there is no reason to expect concentrating the field in the center of the cavity to somehow allow the drive to violate conservation of momentum.
Post by: Star One on 02/13/2019 06:26 am
This article seems relevant to this thread.
2019 Symposium Call for Papers (https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2019/02/12/2019-symposium-call-for-papers/)QuoteIn collaboration with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Tennessee Valley Interstellar Workshop (TVIW) hereby invites participation in its 6th Interstellar Symposium and Interstellar Propulsion Workshop -hosted by Wichita State University (WSU) and Ad Astra Kansas Foundation – to be held from Sunday, November 10 through Friday, November 15, 2019, in Wichita, Kansas. The 2019 TVIW has the following elements:
The NASA Workshop on Interstellar Propulsion will focus solely on physics-based propulsion technologies that have the potential to meet the goal of launching an interstellar probe within the next century and achieving .1c transit velocity: Beamed Energy Propulsion, Fusion, and Antimatter.
At this meeting, the state-of-the-art of each will be examined, competing approaches to advancing the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of each will be presented by advocates and assessed by non-advocates for synthesis into a workshop report to serve as the blueprint for possible future interstellar propulsion technology development.
It is relevant in that NASA seems to have now excluded so-called "advanced propulsion" in favor of "physics-based" propulsion technologies such as Beamed Energy Propulsion, Fusion, and Antimatter.
No Emdrive. No Mach Effect. No Quantized Inertia.
Do you blame them?
Post by: Bob Woods on 02/13/2019 07:03 am
It is relevant in that NASA seems to have now excluded so-called "advanced propulsion" in favor of "physics-based" propulsion technologies such as Beamed Energy Propulsion, Fusion, and Antimatter.
No Emdrive. No Mach Effect. No Quantized Inertia.
Monomorphic did excellent work showing deficiencies in the test and measurement systems. That's what science is about, and he did an admirable job.
But... it would be nice if new avenues could be discovered to develop a workable and provable "propellantless" drive. That's also what science is, and would also be an admirable job.
Post by: dustinthewind on 02/13/2019 03:01 pm
This article seems relevant to this thread.
2019 Symposium Call for Papers (https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2019/02/12/2019-symposium-call-for-papers/)QuoteIn collaboration with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Tennessee Valley Interstellar Workshop (TVIW) hereby invites participation in its 6th Interstellar Symposium and Interstellar Propulsion Workshop -hosted by Wichita State University (WSU) and Ad Astra Kansas Foundation – to be held from Sunday, November 10 through Friday, November 15, 2019, in Wichita, Kansas. The 2019 TVIW has the following elements:
The NASA Workshop on Interstellar Propulsion will focus solely on physics-based propulsion technologies that have the potential to meet the goal of launching an interstellar probe within the next century and achieving .1c transit velocity: Beamed Energy Propulsion, Fusion, and Antimatter.
At this meeting, the state-of-the-art of each will be examined, competing approaches to advancing the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of each will be presented by advocates and assessed by non-advocates for synthesis into a workshop report to serve as the blueprint for possible future interstellar propulsion technology development.
It is relevant in that NASA seems to have now excluded so-called "advanced propulsion" in favor of "physics-based" propulsion technologies such as Beamed Energy Propulsion, Fusion, and Antimatter.
No Emdrive. No Mach Effect. No Quantized Inertia.
They are looking for experimental confirmation. If the experimentalists can correctly predict a theoretical behavior of vacuum propulsion and make a repeatable experiment that demonstrates this then we will be in business. I think the factor is making an experiment that maximizes vacuum coupling and in such a way as to give net thrust.
That is if we're looking for warp drive type propellant less. Even then I don't think it would be necessarily propellant less. Momentum and energy should still be conserved. Just like black holes losing momentum to the vacuum when they merge. Photon rockets also conserve momentum and energy. It's just being able to observe the propellant that makes the difference is my guess. A propellant that escapes the cavity being key.
Post by: RERT on 02/13/2019 04:48 pm
This article seems relevant to this thread.
2019 Symposium Call for Papers (https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2019/02/12/2019-symposium-call-for-papers/)QuoteIn collaboration with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Tennessee Valley Interstellar Workshop (TVIW) hereby invites participation in its 6th Interstellar Symposium and Interstellar Propulsion Workshop -hosted by Wichita State University (WSU) and Ad Astra Kansas Foundation – to be held from Sunday, November 10 through Friday, November 15, 2019, in Wichita, Kansas. The 2019 TVIW has the following elements:
The NASA Workshop on Interstellar Propulsion will focus solely on physics-based propulsion technologies that have the potential to meet the goal of launching an interstellar probe within the next century and achieving .1c transit velocity: Beamed Energy Propulsion, Fusion, and Antimatter.
At this meeting, the state-of-the-art of each will be examined, competing approaches to advancing the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of each will be presented by advocates and assessed by non-advocates for synthesis into a workshop report to serve as the blueprint for possible future interstellar propulsion technology development.
It is relevant in that NASA seems to have now excluded so-called "advanced propulsion" in favor of "physics-based" propulsion technologies such as Beamed Energy Propulsion, Fusion, and Antimatter.
No Emdrive. No Mach Effect. No Quantized Inertia.
The prognosis for 'advanced propulsion' does seem bleak right now. However, as a matter of logic, NASA participating in 'physics based' interstellar efforts no more excludes Emdrive etc than their participation in Ion-drive technology or rocketry. It's a big organisation, and it would be a surprise (to me) if NASA wasn't involved in any such discussion with a reasonable prospect of a useful mission coming out of it.
Post by: TheTraveller on 02/15/2019 01:02 pm
The thrust data is current and obtained from a 10
year old Flight Thruster using the test rig shown in the presentation.
Presentation is now uploaded to www.emdrive.com
February 2019
"An edited copy of this year’s presentation at Shrivenham Defence Academy is given here. Note that this is the first time nominal experimental data showing the Thrust/Load response of an EmDrive Thruster has been released. Shrivenham Presentation 2019"
Post by: TheTraveller on 02/15/2019 06:19 pm
Roger just sent me the attached presentation, which he presented at his recent discussions with Mike McCulloch.
Is bring put up on www.emdrive.com
The thrust data is current and obtained from a 10 year old Flight Thruster using the test rig shown in the presentation.
From Mike McCulloch
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1096435887544635399
Post by: Mark7777777 on 02/15/2019 09:10 pm
Roger just sent me the attached presentation, which he presented at his recent discussions with Mike McCulloch.
The thrust data is current and obtained from a 10
year old Flight Thruster using the test rig shown in the presentation.
Presentation is now uploaded to www.emdrive.com
February 2019
"An edited copy of this year’s presentation at Shrivenham Defence Academy is given here. Note that this is the first time nominal experimental data showing the Thrust/Load response of an EmDrive Thruster has been released. Shrivenham Presentation 2019"
I wonder, if upon seeing the picture of the experiment setup in the presentation, Monomorphic sees anything that alerts him to possible interference (e.g. Lorentz - non-twisted cables etc) or other setup elements that he thinks would negate a true result?
Post by: Monomorphic on 02/15/2019 10:32 pm
I wonder, if upon seeing the picture of the experiment setup in the presentation, Monomorphic sees anything that alerts him to possible interference (e.g. Lorentz - non-twisted cables etc) or other setup elements that he thinks would negate a true result?
Here is the image in question along with a graph of the results.
First thing that jumps out is that this is a teeter-totter balance and not a torsional pendulum. The beam movement direction is what one would expect from thermal "balloon" lifting.
The waveguide connection to the balance could be another area for problems. Also notice that there is no insulation on any of the metal parts that might heat up during a test?
Is the black RF cable taped to the balance beam??? And then taped to two other locations off the beam? It sure looks like it from the picture. If that is the case, then simple flexing of the cable from heating could be the source of the false-positive.
Post by: meberbs on 02/15/2019 10:58 pm
Roger just sent me the attached presentation, which he presented at his recent discussions with Mike McCulloch.In addition to what Monomorphic said and the fact that the data itself seems to jump all over the place, there are a couple blatant problems with the report as a whole:
Yet again, Shawyer is making claims stating that an object will accelerate in the opposite direction of the direction force is applied to it. This is simply wrong by definition.
Also it includes a repeat of a table of data that is simply contradictory as has been previously discussed starting around this post. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1886974#msg1886974) Any experiment that supposedly replicates such data clearly has some deep flaws in it.
Post by: TheTraveller on 02/16/2019 01:50 am
Note the table of results in slide 11 is reflected:
Slide 13 - result 1
Slide 14 - result 2
Slide 15 - result 3
This is a balance beam, ie at balance there is no progressive increasing back torque as in a torsion pendulum setup. In test 2, with a 1g upward force and a 0.5g downward weight, there is a constant 0.5g downward force as the EmDrive very slightly moves up, reduces the weight registered on the scale. Very different to a torsion balance with an increasing back torque.
Post by: TheTraveller on 02/16/2019 12:23 pm
100% preload: 0 thrust (test 1)
33% preload: 100% thrust (test 2 used 50%)
0-0.5% preload: 0 thrust (test 3)
All negative tests I know of used 0% preload.
BTW the Demonstrator rotary test used an 8.2g preload and achieved a useful thrust of 10g.
http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.html
"The rotary air bearing supports a total load of 100kg, with a friction torque resulting in a calibrated resistance force of 8.2 gm at the engine centre of thrust.
For this test a thrust of 96 mN was recorded for an input power of 334 W."
There it is. The need for a preload. Clear and in the open since 2006.
Was told that without the preload, there was no rotation.
Post by: Monomorphic on 02/16/2019 01:12 pm
There it is. The need for a preload. Clear and in the open since 2006.
It is hard to believe that placing a ~0.5g mass on top of the Emdrive somehow makes it work. Shouldn't the existing mass of the Emdrive and all the components create a load already? I just don't see what placing another mass on top accomplishes.
And furthermore, how does one expect to place a "load" on the emdrive when free-floating in space?
Post by: meberbs on 02/16/2019 06:05 pm
Interesting data Roger just released for the 1st time:False. The data simply does not show what you claim.
100% preload: 0 thrust (test 1)
33% preload: 100% thrust (test 2 used 50%)
0-0.5% preload: 0 thrust (test 3)
In both test 2 and test 3 the scale reading goes negative, which would not be a valid reading if the test setup matched the claim. The data for test 3 shows supposed "lift-off" before the frequency lock is even achieved. Shawyer doesn't even claim that test 1 shows "no force" He claims it shows an "underdamped balance response" which it doesn't in reality he appears to just be reading things in to the noise that he uses to dismiss the result of test 3, where he acknowledges that it is noise. (but ignores that it appears to have a negative average.)
Overall the results make no sense, with test 2 showing that the drive is floating off of the balance after power is already turned off, and negative readings that demonstrate that Shawyer is not accurately describing the experimental setup. This is unsurprising, since I don't expect someone who doesn't know which direction something moves when you push on it no know how to use a scale.
BTW the Demonstrator rotary test used an 8.2g preload and achieved a useful thrust of 10g.False on multiple counts. Friction does not exist when there is no force for it to resist, so it can't be a "preload." There is no data showing that the drive did not move when the friction was removed. It also doesn't make sense to just "remove" the friction. Even if there was some unnecessary component generating the friction that Shawyer neglected to explain, air resistance would still exist, and like friction is also 0 when there is no force or motion for it to resist.
http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.html
"The rotary air bearing supports a total load of 100kg, with a friction torque resulting in a calibrated resistance force of 8.2 gm at the engine centre of thrust.
For this test a thrust of 96 mN was recorded for an input power of 334 W."
There it is. The need for a preload. Clear and in the open since 2006.
Was told that without the preload, there was no rotation.
Since there certainly was no explanation of your claim that it supposedly did not move without the (nonexistent) preload, you can't claimthis was in the open since 2006. It is just the latest in self-contradictory statements made to defend the emDrive after repeated tests have falsified Shawyer's claims.
Also I can't take your word that Shawyer told you he had data. Shawyer's word itself is unreliable based on the fact that at best he does not understand the definition of the word force. Your word is also extremely unreliable, as the simple existence of your post shows, after a promise you made a few months ago:
I'll not be posting on this forum until my rotary test rig build is completed and I have data, either way, to share.
If any post I have made has upset anybody, I apologise.
Post by: Ricvil on 02/19/2019 11:33 am
Hello friends ! I have been reading the forum for many years, and I want to send a lot of respect to all the forum members. You are great fellows.
Please have a look at one simulation? I want to understand what this can mean.
(https://a.radikal.ru/a09/1811/45/9638549afa2e.gif)
Once I thought that the magnetron .. That it works like that is unstable. And I decided to model. I took two frequencies, two modes and came up with the idea that you can quickly change, switch the frequency. It seemed to me that I heard photons knocking on walls. Knock Knock.
Then I want to ask - what will the electrons do in the skin layer, what will happen to the eddy currents in the walls.?
It seemed to me that using a computer you can create a very complex motion of traveling waves in the resonator. And you can build a special system to control the movement of electrons in the walls.
It even seems to me that I hear the vibrating hammer knocking. But this hammer knocks only in a small bottom. And the hammer has no retroactive impact force.
I also wanted to hear how this resonator. That it radiates gravitational waves. But how? It seems there is a focus of gravitational waves here?
Hi Alex O.
Are you working with homographic transformations, relating acceleration to conformal transformations?
Post by: RERT on 02/19/2019 01:59 pm
I've looked at an interstellar rocket mission powered by a fusion plant, expelling nuclear ash as exhaust. If the exhaust carries away a sensible fraction of the power output, it will be travelling at about c/25. It makes sense in that context to divert power from the exhaust plume to a propellantless thruster if the efficiency is more than 25 times a photon rocket.
Looking again at how one might optimize the exhaust velocity, I still get a number of under 100 as a threshold of usefulness.
If I recall correctly, in earlier posts there was discussion of station-keeping applications only needing milli-newtons. An efficiency of about 300 would get that from a few m^2 of solar panel.
So my answer is 30-300, or 100 give or take, in internet-speak.
In any event, I've just reminded myself quite how royally scr**ed we are by the rocket equation. An engine that runs at 20 kW/kg might park itself 4 light-years away, provided it could run for about 400 years unattended. (My calculations could of course be off.)
New Physics for Space Propulsion would be really good!
Post by: Mark7777777 on 02/20/2019 09:15 am
https://www.tsijournals.com/articles/propellantless-propulsion-from-quantized-inertia-13923.html
Post by: meberbs on 02/21/2019 12:28 am
I’m not sure if the following has been noted here already:Yes it has:
https://www.tsijournals.com/articles/propellantless-propulsion-from-quantized-inertia-13923.html
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1889273#msg1889273
It looks like it has been updated now with an important correction (An incorrect citation of Tajmar in the original, which is mentioned in the post just after the one I linked.) I haven't looked through the new version to see if there are any other related changes. I expect not, but I had other issues I had listed about the paper. McCulloch kindly responded to these in a message that was copied onto this site. I disagree with some of the responses he provided, though his correction of the citation, and ownership of what appears to have been an honest mistake is a very good thing. Anyone interested can read the details in the history on this thread.
Post by: Mulletron on 02/23/2019 04:01 pm
https://phys.org/news/2019-02-navy-patent-room-temperature-superconductor.amp
Post by: cuddihy on 02/23/2019 07:19 pm
If it turns out to be legit, it would explain a bit still unexplained post vibration analysis questions.
Post by: RotoSequence on 02/23/2019 07:25 pm
It seems like a very fundamental idea and design, that one can adapt in unlimited ways, limited only by your imagination.
https://phys.org/news/2019-02-navy-patent-room-temperature-superconductor.amp
I'm not going to get my hopes on this one without independent corroborating data.
Post by: Freddled Gruntbuggly on 02/24/2019 12:09 am
Gravity Wave Generator : https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180229864A1/en?inventor=Salvatore+Cezar+Pais
Craft using Inertial Mass Reduction Device : https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en?inventor=Salvatore+Cezar+Pais
Post by: Monomorphic on 02/24/2019 01:01 am
I'm not going to get my hopes on this one without independent corroborating data.
"No data was included in the patent documents."
That will be hard to do without any published data.
Here is the patent: https://techlinkcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/RTSC.pdf
Post by: Mark7777777 on 02/24/2019 01:29 am
您好 我在不断反思我设计的腔体推力弱小的原因，我认为必须要以端面电磁场强度为标准，大小端面的电磁强度差异应最大化，而不能以空间电磁场强度值为准。我设计的腔体端面电磁强度差异很小，而陈粤博士的设计实现了这种差异最大化的效果。 腔体的设计原则不准确，则很难获得推力效果。我个人的工作非常繁忙，希望各位能参考我的思路，继续设计新腔体，并投入实验。另外，TE013模不能获得最佳电磁场差异率，不适合实验。
“Hello, I am constantly rethinking the reason why the cavity thrust of my design is weak. I think that it is necessary to use the end-face electromagnetic field strength as the standard, and the electromagnetic strength difference between the large and small end faces should be maximized, but not the spatial electromagnetic field strength value. The difference in electromagnetic strength between the end faces of the cavity I designed is very small, and Dr. Chen Yue's design achieves the effect of maximizing this difference. The design principle of the cavity is not accurate, and it is difficult to obtain the thrust effect. My personal work is very busy. I hope that you can refer to my ideas and continue to design new chambers and put them into experiment. In addition, the TE013 mode does not achieve the best electromagnetic field difference rate and is not suitable for experiments.”
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2019 03:06 am
You have a period of time to edit the recent posts into English.
Post by: Ricvil on 02/24/2019 02:08 pm
您好 我在不断反思我设计的腔体推力弱小的原因，我认为必须要以端面电磁场强度为标准，大小端面的电磁强度差异应最大化，而不能以空间电磁场强度值为准。我设计的腔体端面电磁强度差异很小，而陈粤博士的设计实现了这种差异最大化的效果。 腔体的设计原则不准确，则很难获得推力效果。我个人的工作非常繁忙，希望各位能参考我的思路，继续设计新腔体，并投入实验。另外，TE013模不能获得最佳电磁场差异率，不适合实验。
“Hello, I am constantly rethinking the reason why the cavity thrust of my design is weak. I think that it is necessary to use the end-face electromagnetic field strength as the standard, and the electromagnetic strength difference between the large and small end faces should be maximized, but not the spatial electromagnetic field strength value. The difference in electromagnetic strength between the end faces of the cavity I designed is very small, and Dr. Chen Yue's design achieves the effect of maximizing this difference. The design principle of the cavity is not accurate, and it is difficult to obtain the thrust effect. My personal work is very busy. I hope that you can refer to my ideas and continue to design new chambers and put them into experiment. In addition, the TE013 mode does not achieve the best electromagnetic field difference rate and is not suitable for experiments.”
Hi oyzw
Are you looking for something singular like this?
Me too.
But it appears to be only a bad simulation, perhaps a TM 212, with Teflon gasket, some gaussian noise and other details.
Many sensible discussions about fractals, but none about the intense field strenght gradient in the middle of conical section surface.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1399843#msg1399843
Post by: meberbs on 02/24/2019 07:42 pm
It seems like a very fundamental idea and design, that one can adapt in unlimited ways, limited only by your imagination.So this is not a superconductor. First of all, if it was its utility is killed by the fact that they have to keep vibrating it, and have it surrounded by a coil with a pulsed current running through it (Also, they have a pulsed current running through the supposed superconductor as well). This makes it an active device that consumes energy to run.
https://phys.org/news/2019-02-navy-patent-room-temperature-superconductor.amp
The claim that it would satisfy the perfect exclusion of magnetic fields because it is carrying a current and it is vibrating and would therefore exclude magnetic field lines from other magnets. This is a complete non-sequiter. It having its own magnetic field under its default state is not the same thing as reacting to the presence of an external magnetic field to generate a perfect exclusion of that field from its interior.
They also describe it as having a thickness of approximately the London penetration depth. They ignore that this depth is material dependent and use the depth for a different actual superconductor. Also, the London penetration depth is the thickness where about 60% of the external magnetic field is excluded (because you need some thickness of material, "perfect exclusion" has an asterisk on it in practice.) This means that their device is designed to be too thin to actually exhibit true superconducting properties.
Post by: Star One on 02/24/2019 09:17 pm
It seems like a very fundamental idea and design, that one can adapt in unlimited ways, limited only by your imagination.
https://phys.org/news/2019-02-navy-patent-room-temperature-superconductor.amp
I'm not going to get my hopes on this one without independent corroborating data.
Yeah you’ll be waiting a long time for that on a military project like this one.
Post by: oyzw on 02/25/2019 02:47 am
Hello, yes. To form a good difference in electromagnetic field gradient, it is best to load a high-k material or use an intracavity conductive diaphragm to create a disturbance to the electromagnetic field. The TE013 cavity is to be loaded with polymer on the small end face, so that the electromagnetic field strength of the small end face continues to increase, in order to obtain a significant thrust response.您好 我在不断反思我设计的腔体推力弱小的原因，我认为必须要以端面电磁场强度为标准，大小端面的电磁强度差异应最大化，而不能以空间电磁场强度值为准。我设计的腔体端面电磁强度差异很小，而陈粤博士的设计实现了这种差异最大化的效果。 腔体的设计原则不准确，则很难获得推力效果。我个人的工作非常繁忙，希望各位能参考我的思路，继续设计新腔体，并投入实验。另外，TE013模不能获得最佳电磁场差异率，不适合实验。
“Hello, I am constantly rethinking the reason why the cavity thrust of my design is weak. I think that it is necessary to use the end-face electromagnetic field strength as the standard, and the electromagnetic strength difference between the large and small end faces should be maximized, but not the spatial electromagnetic field strength value. The difference in electromagnetic strength between the end faces of the cavity I designed is very small, and Dr. Chen Yue's design achieves the effect of maximizing this difference. The design principle of the cavity is not accurate, and it is difficult to obtain the thrust effect. My personal work is very busy. I hope that you can refer to my ideas and continue to design new chambers and put them into experiment. In addition, the TE013 mode does not achieve the best electromagnetic field difference rate and is not suitable for experiments.”
Hi oyzw
Are you looking for something singular like this?
Me too.
But it appears to be only a bad simulation, perhaps a TM 212, with Teflon gasket, some gaussian noise and other details.
Many sensible discussions about fractals, but none about the intense field strenght gradient in the middle of conical section surface.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1399843#msg1399843
Post by: Monomorphic on 02/25/2019 06:09 pm
Hello, yes. To form a good difference in electromagnetic field gradient, it is best to load a high-k material or use an intracavity conductive diaphragm to create a disturbance to the electromagnetic field. The TE013 cavity is to be loaded with polymer on the small end face, so that the electromagnetic field strength of the small end face continues to increase, in order to obtain a significant thrust response.
I have a piece of HDPE that I had previously used elsewhere. Using the HDPE on the small end, there are three obvious modes within the bandwidth I can test (2.35GHz - 2.45GHz). What looks like TE013 may have moved from ~2.401GHz to ~2.36798GHz and is very near that second mode at 2.36759GHz.
Post by: oyzw on 02/26/2019 08:05 am
Can you directly calculate the sum of the electric field and magnetic field strength data on the large and small end faces? The total intensity difference of the electromagnetic field at the end face may not exceed 10%.Hello, yes. To form a good difference in electromagnetic field gradient, it is best to load a high-k material or use an intracavity conductive diaphragm to create a disturbance to the electromagnetic field. The TE013 cavity is to be loaded with polymer on the small end face, so that the electromagnetic field strength of the small end face continues to increase, in order to obtain a significant thrust response.
I have a piece of HDPE that I had previously used elsewhere. Using the HDPE on the small end, there are three obvious modes within the bandwidth I can test (2.35GHz - 2.45GHz). What looks like TE013 may have moved from ~2.401GHz to ~2.36798GHz and is very near that second mode at 2.36759GHz.
Post by: Monomorphic on 02/26/2019 01:09 pm
Can you directly calculate the sum of the electric field and magnetic field strength data on the large and small end faces? The total intensity difference of the electromagnetic field at the end face may not exceed 10%.
I am not sure if FEKO can do that but I will take a look. I am curious where you get the idea that the EM-field difference between end-plates may not exceed 10%. This is the first time I have seen that.
Post by: Bob Woods on 02/27/2019 11:22 pm
September 24-26 | 2019 NIAC Symposium, Huntsville, AL
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/key_dates (https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/key_dates)
Post by: MathewOrman on 03/02/2019 09:31 am
Post by: Notsosureofit on 03/02/2019 02:28 pm
The method of propelling without momentum split is to convert electric energy to kinetic using full momentum transfer by pushing or pooling against space occupied by xxxx entity of matter... That way momentum and energy i conserved... In reality some energy will be converted to heat due to ohmic loses...
Any new transfer mechanism would be especially welcome !!!!
Post by: Ricvil on 03/03/2019 02:47 am
Aero's simulations using meep (adding proposital noise to accelerate convergence) show many times this behaviour,
But it is just an idea under evolution.
Post by: MathewOrman on 03/03/2019 08:53 am
Use Orman Force law and equations and you will have a drive without momentum split AKA propellant-less drive...The method of propelling without momentum split is to convert electric energy to kinetic using full momentum transfer by pushing or pooling against space occupied by xxxx entity of matter... That way momentum and energy i conserved... In reality some energy will be converted to heat due to ohmic loses...
Any new transfer mechanism would be especially welcome !!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhldn0ef138&feature=youtu.be
Post by: MathewOrman on 03/03/2019 09:19 am
I made a public disclosure of physics behind Orman Force Drive because the laws of physics are not patent-able and one must establish a patent priority date as early as possible...Use Orman Force law and equations and you will have a drive without momentum split AKA propellant-less drive...The method of propelling without momentum split is to convert electric energy to kinetic using full momentum transfer by pushing or pooling against space occupied by xxxx entity of matter... That way momentum and energy i conserved... In reality some energy will be converted to heat due to ohmic loses...
Any new transfer mechanism would be especially welcome !!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhldn0ef138&feature=youtu.be
The xxxx name of the entity is in Orman Force equation and will be disclosed in the patent if ever published since prospective owners of Orman Force Drive technology may elect to make it proprietary...
Post by: Notsosureofit on 03/03/2019 11:59 am
I made a public disclosure of physics behind Orman Force Drive because the laws of physics are not patent-able and one must establish a patent priority date as early as possible...Use Orman Force law and equations and you will have a drive without momentum split AKA propellant-less drive...The method of propelling without momentum split is to convert electric energy to kinetic using full momentum transfer by pushing or pooling against space occupied by xxxx entity of matter... That way momentum and energy i conserved... In reality some energy will be converted to heat due to ohmic loses...
Any new transfer mechanism would be especially welcome !!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhldn0ef138&feature=youtu.be
The xxxx name of the entity is in Orman Force equation and will be disclosed in the patent if ever published since prospective owners of Orman Force Drive technology may elect to make it proprietary...
Ok. Well, I guess we will just have to be content with Einstein and the Standard Model 'til then.
Post by: meberbs on 03/03/2019 05:45 pm
Have you already forgotten the post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38996.msg1916542#msg1916542) you just made in the other thread where you finally found an experiment that seemed to convince you that the effects predicted by standard electrodynamics do in fact exist, so it is standard electrodynamics that works, not your so-called force law?Use Orman Force law and equations and you will have a drive without momentum split AKA propellant-less drive...I made a public disclosure of physics behind Orman Force Drive because the laws of physics are not patent-able and one must establish a patent priority date as early as possible...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhldn0ef138&feature=youtu.be
The xxxx name of the entity is in Orman Force equation and will be disclosed in the patent if ever published since prospective owners of Orman Force Drive technology may elect to make it proprietary...
(I call it "so-called" force law, because you have yet to provide a version of it that has consistent units, so it does not predict a force and is self-inconsistent.)
Post by: oyzw on 03/05/2019 12:13 am
In Cannae's expired patent, the electromagnetic field gradient difference is described, with a numerical limit of approximately 13%.Can you directly calculate the sum of the electric field and magnetic field strength data on the large and small end faces? The total intensity difference of the electromagnetic field at the end face may not exceed 10%.
I am not sure if FEKO can do that but I will take a look. I am curious where you get the idea that the EM-field difference between end-plates may not exceed 10%. This is the first time I have seen that.
Post by: rfmwguy on 03/06/2019 01:47 pm
Seems drive work winding down here and elsewhere. A bit sad but linevitable without a high level breakthru at an accredited lab. NRL? NASA?
Cheers to all, especially those who encouraged me during my garage lab days.
"Set aside philosophy and keyboarding for a soldering iron and lets come up with the next greatest thing."
Peace...out.
Dave
Post by: X_RaY on 03/06/2019 05:55 pm
Interesting article on the Casimir effect...
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.07994.pdf
Quote
Chiral Casimir Forces: Repulsive, Enhanced, Tunable
Qing-Dong Jiang1, Frank Wilczek1234 1Department of Physics, Stockholm University, Stockholm SE-106 91 Sweden 2Center for Theoretical Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 USA 3Wilczek Quantum Center, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China 4Department of Physics and Origins Project, Arizona State University, Tempe AZ 25287 USA
Both theoretical interest and practical significance attach to the sign and strength of Casimir
forces. A famous, discouraging no-go theorem states that “The Casimir force between two bodies
with reflection symmetry is always attractive.” Here we identify a loophole in the reasoning, and
propose a universal way to realize repulsive Casimir forces. We show that the sign and strength
of Casimir forces can be adjusted by inserting optically active or gyrotropic media between bodies,
and modulated by external fields.
Post by: wroger90 on 03/12/2019 08:02 pm
Most part of algorithms consider instantaneous wave propagation - so action and reaction forces -, that mask the action and reaction dynamics, between the opposite cavity sides of the EM Driver, also it is not possible to distinguish phase of currents generated in the surface of the cavity.
Post by: Asteroza on 03/13/2019 04:11 am
The gravitational mass carried by sound waves (https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.08771)
Post by: Ricvil on 03/14/2019 11:35 am
Interesting paper, suggesting phonons have gravitational mass, which might be interesting, in terms of maybe some things people think they are seeing (which might be both a real force, and/or a source of error as well....) and which might apply more to cavities filled with diaelectrics.
The gravitational mass carried by sound waves (https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.08771)
Not only a gravitational mass, but a negative gravitational mass.
The interesting point is the electromagnetic response of of EMdrive cavity, appears to remember the response of an optomechanical system.
The question is...why?
Post by: dustinthewind on 03/15/2019 01:01 pm
Interesting paper, suggesting phonons have gravitational mass, which might be interesting, in terms of maybe some things people think they are seeing (which might be both a real force, and/or a source of error as well....) and which might apply more to cavities filled with diaelectrics.
The gravitational mass carried by sound waves (https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.08771)
Not only a gravitational mass, but a negative gravitational mass.
The interesting point is the electromagnetic response of of EMdrive cavity, appears to remember the response of an optomechanical system.
The question is...why?
This reminds me a lot of the Podkletnov gravity impulse generator. I think I posted before that I was a bit curious if there was any validity to his claims. Imagine a sort of sound waves in the vacuum or a space time wave. I noticed that his claimed gravity impulse wave seemed to be repulsive which meant it was negative gravity and behaved like negative energy.
The wild thing was he also claimed it traveled faster than light. Like 64 times c or something. Just a wild claim but was it a real observation and could it be explained. It is interesting that maybe his claim is congruent with over-inflated vacuum. In over-inflated vacuum the plank length is increased. Imagine you super-heat the air in a balloon and the balloon inflates. Its real positive energy being lost to the vacuum. Some how black holes are losing real positive energy to the vacuum also by generating gravity waves and they merge.
So what about his claim of 64 times c speed of the wave. Well if you inflate the vacuum 64 times its size the speed of light should be 64 times faster. Maybe the wave isn't traveling faster than c locally but is non-locally. This is exactly what we need counter the Lorentz contraction. When the vacuum slows our time and the plank length decreases if we inflate the vacuum this creates a negative gravity speeds up time and counters the Lorentz contraction.
The displacement of the pendulum seemed to be to be a temporary gravitational displacement by space possibly. The incoming wave gravitation-ally repulses on the front of the wave. As the wave passes, the pendulum experiences a repulsion from the center of the back of the gravity wave, decelerating it. In essence the center of the wave seems to have negative energy and exhibit negative gravity via the warping of the vacuum plank length,,, maybe. If there is any validity of Podkletnov's claim.
edit: Its interesting that they claim such a wave might exhibit negative energy characteristics. Hard for me to really understand why it would exhibit negative energy though. Will think about it.
You mention optomechanical coupling. I'm guessing your wondering at the photon gas cloud coupling. I guess you can think of electrons in a material as somewhat like gas trapped that can osculate. If so maybe a connection to negative energy there, maybe during acceleration. This reminds me of the Mach effect and modulating the mass of the electrons during acceleration.
Post by: Ricvil on 03/16/2019 05:26 pm
Interesting paper, suggesting phonons have gravitational mass, which might be interesting, in terms of maybe some things people think they are seeing (which might be both a real force, and/or a source of error as well....) and which might apply more to cavities filled with diaelectrics.
The gravitational mass carried by sound waves (https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.08771)
Not only a gravitational mass, but a negative gravitational mass.
The interesting point is the electromagnetic response of of EMdrive cavity, appears to remember the response of an optomechanical system.
The question is...why?
This reminds me a lot of the Podkletnov gravity impulse generator. I think I posted before that I was a bit curious if there was any validity to his claims. Imagine a sort of sound waves in the vacuum or a space time wave. I noticed that his claimed gravity impulse wave seemed to be repulsive which meant it was negative gravity and behaved like negative energy.
The wild thing was he also claimed it traveled faster than light. Like 64 times c or something. Just a wild claim but was it a real observation and could it be explained. It is interesting that maybe his claim is congruent with over-inflated vacuum. In over-inflated vacuum the plank length is increased. Imagine you super-heat the air in a balloon and the balloon inflates. Its real positive energy being lost to the vacuum. Some how black holes are losing real positive energy to the vacuum also by generating gravity waves and they merge.
So what about his claim of 64 times c speed of the wave. Well if you inflate the vacuum 64 times its size the speed of light should be 64 times faster. Maybe the wave isn't traveling faster than c locally but is non-locally. This is exactly what we need counter the Lorentz contraction. When the vacuum slows our time and the plank length decreases if we inflate the vacuum this creates a negative gravity speeds up time and counters the Lorentz contraction.
The displacement of the pendulum seemed to be to be a temporary gravitational displacement by space possibly. The incoming wave gravitation-ally repulses on the front of the wave. As the wave passes, the pendulum experiences a repulsion from the center of the back of the gravity wave, decelerating it. In essence the center of the wave seems to have negative energy and exhibit negative gravity via the warping of the vacuum plank length,,, maybe. If there is any validity of Podkletnov's claim.
edit: Its interesting that they claim such a wave might exhibit negative energy characteristics. Hard for me to really understand why it would exhibit negative energy though. Will think about it.
You mention optomechanical coupling. I'm guessing your wondering at the photon gas cloud coupling. I guess you can think of electrons in a material as somewhat like gas trapped that can osculate. If so maybe a connection to negative energy there, maybe during acceleration. This reminds me of the Mach effect and modulating the mass of the electrons during acceleration.
Dear dustinthewind,
About "You mention optomechanical coupling", I'm just looking for squeezing of light and I've found this:
"Strong Optomechanical Squeezing of Light"
https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.3.031012
Interesting points of article to me are:
"An optomechanical system can be thought of as an effective Kerr medium, and hence ponderomotive squeezing can be understood using many of the same ideas as typical nonlinear media."
"The line shape of the squeezing is not symmetric about !m in our case but instead follows a Fano-like line shape."
About "Podkletnov gravity impulse generator" , if you are puting together superconductors pinned by high magnetic fields + intense currents discharges and claim gravitational effects then I would think You are speculating about gravitational anomalies linked to chiral vortical effects.
Post by: Ricvil on 03/19/2019 02:11 am
If the Emdrive cavity is acting as a ponderomotive optomechanical system, then the fields may be squeezed and entangled.
"Entanglement and squeezing of continuous-wave stationary light"
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/17/4/043025/meta
Post by: Monomorphic on 03/19/2019 11:17 am
Here is the full video list from the event: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_YvUODKu7CsdWPGxPm4uVxGdSv_m7gwb
I did not see the US Navy presentation by Dr. McDonald. Perhaps he didn't sign the release form.
This is the TU Dresden group's presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnT9by1-Ydo
Here is my presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6q2QsV9RNjU
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 03/20/2019 12:20 pm
I have this data from the meep simulations I ran and I added up some forms of this data as well as animated it. What data formats does FEKO output?Can you directly calculate the sum of the electric field and magnetic field strength data on the large and small end faces? The total intensity difference of the electromagnetic field at the end face may not exceed 10%.
I am not sure if FEKO can do that but I will take a look. I am curious where you get the idea that the EM-field difference between end-plates may not exceed 10%. This is the first time I have seen that.
Post by: oyzw on 03/21/2019 07:42 am
I gave the newly designed simulation diagram of cavity electromagnetic field to Ms. Yang Juan, who agreed with me. She also believed that electromagnetic gradient distribution is very importantI have this data from the meep simulations I ran and I added up some forms of this data as well as animated it. What data formats does FEKO output?Can you directly calculate the sum of the electric field and magnetic field strength data on the large and small end faces? The total intensity difference of the electromagnetic field at the end face may not exceed 10%.
I am not sure if FEKO can do that but I will take a look. I am curious where you get the idea that the EM-field difference between end-plates may not exceed 10%. This is the first time I have seen that.
Post by: oyzw on 03/27/2019 09:17 am
Post by: Vlad Kri on 03/27/2019 05:42 pm
Post by: oyzw on 03/28/2019 12:54 am
Cover the wide side of the resonator with a lead shield.Take the liberty to ask, what is your purpose?
Post by: flux_capacitor on 04/03/2019 03:31 pm
American physicist Jack Sarfatti (Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Sarfatti)) has a new hypothesis for low-power warp drive.
• Basic summary: https://www.academia.edu/38649950/Low_Power_Warp_Drive_for_Dummies
• Long essay: https://www.academia.edu/6582748/Sarfatti_Stargate_March282014
• Presentation slides: https://www.academia.edu/17018485/Metric_Engineering_the_Fabric_of_Space-Time_Dark_Energy_Propellantless_Warp_Drive_and_Wormhole
Let's sum up his ideas with simpler words, translated from his messages on Jim Woodward's email list and his other stuff gathered online (papers and videos).
In the Einstein field equations, Einstein's constant:
χ = (8π G)/c⁴
is a coupling constant that tells how the RHS mass-energy stress density tensor Tμν couples with the LHS gravitational field Gμν. Its value represents the strength of such coupling. Therefore, the coupling is usually very low, due to the fourth power of the speed of light in the denominator, a very large number making the constant very small. One can say that "spacetime is darned stiff".
Sarfatti proposes a new way to soften the natural stiffness of spacetime with a small amount of EM energy density, enabling large spacetime distortions locally, i.e. a low-power warp drive. This is new as a warp drive would usually need (Alcubierre metric) a gigantic amount of "exotic material" of negative energy: about a Jupiter-equivalent mass.
The thing is, Sarfatti considers the speed of light in the coupling constant to not be the constant c as in the vacuum, but the speed of light in the medium. He proposes the idea (testable and popper-falsifiable) that some special material (possibly high Tc superconducting metamaterial) with very high electric permittivity Ɛ and magnetic permeability μ would give a very large refractive index n (as n² = Ɛ×μ) which would make the speed of light very low inside the medium, writing the coupling constant:
χ = (8π G n⁴)/c⁴
in the particular case of a local scalar field not uniform in time and space at different parts of such solid metamaterial (spatially inhomogenous & time-dependent anisotropic matter).
Please note at this stage that this proposal has nothing to do with other fringe ideas involving "slow light" i.e. variation of the group velocity in some optical materials or metamaterials.
Also, do not throw the baby out with the bath water yet, regarding past unhappy marriages of Maxwell with Einstein. It is true that electromagnetic susceptibilities cannot usually describe a physical response of matter, subjected to electric and magnetic fields, satisfying general covariance (which is a basic principle of relativity). Indeed, such material reacts to these fields in a non-inertial frame of reference (i.e. accelerating) differently than in an inertial frame. Consequently, those electromagnetic susceptibilities seem to not be adapted to GR, even in the case of a linear response.
But, and this seems to be new, contrary to other past models, Sarfatti does not use EM susceptibilities in the standard way, i.e. as in linear response theory. He uses tetrad transformations and generalizes the 3D permittivity and permeability space tensors to 4D spacetime, whose inner product is a zero rank tensor invariant. Therefore, his equations are:
- consistent with Newtonian limit
- obey special relativity locally
- obey the general covariance of general relativity & background independence
Warning: "Local invariance" of the speed of light must not be confused with the "global spatial homogeneity" of the speed of light in a chunk of material. A "scalar invariant" is a scalar quantity that is invariant under a specified class of coordinate transformations, which is achieved, by definition, with a tensor of rank 0, with respect to the specified class of transformations.
So Sarfatti's conjecture has nothing to do with changes in the value of a constant like c within a particular coordinate system, that might result from the presence of an optical medium, or from any other physical influence such as a gravitational field.
Einstein's relativity principle only requires that the laws of physics be invariant under inertial frame transformations; it doesn't require that a law of physics make precisely the same predictions for the results of direct measurements of a given quantity at every
point in space – which is how Carl H. Brans defined a "locally measured invariant". That's the reason why it's important to distinguish carefully between "constancy" and "invariance" in such context.
Hence, for a fixed gravitational field, when EM susceptibilities tend to infinite (i.e. in real-world when the value of Ɛ×μ becomes very large) then the mandatory EM energy becomes ridiculously low.
Explained in a more compact way:
for Gμν = cst, if Ɛμ → ∞ then Tμν → 0
It is worth noting that Tμν here is not the mass-energy of the whole spaceship. It is the stress-energy density of the EM pump field ("fuel" of the warp drive) permeating the thickness of the fuselage - not the ship as a whole. Consider it as the electric field between the plates of a special capacitor with a metamaterial between the plates, or the magnetic field inside a solenoid wound with such special metamaterial in the core.
Russian physicist Alexander Balakin has published a paper 12 years ago where, while not considering Sarfatti's more recent idea of G(permittivity tensor × permeability tensor)² for the matter-geometry coupling, uses mandatory tensors and tetrad transformations:
• Balakin, A. B. (September 2007). "Extended Einstein-Maxwell model". Gravitation and Cosmology. 13(51): 163–177. arXiv:0710.0606 (https://arxiv.org/abs/0710.0606).
Finally, a possible recent candidate material to test Sarfatti's conjecture has been discovered by Korean researchers:
• Chang, T. et al. (30 August 2016). "Broadband giant-refractive-index material based on mesoscopic space-filling curves" (https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms12661.pdf). Nature Communications. 7: 12661. doi:10.1038/ncomms12661.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 04/03/2019 03:35 pm
Moreover Jack Sarfatti's ideas, not about low-power warp drive only, but the Unruh effect too, makes him think the later explains WHY electromagnetic susceptibilities MUST be included in the Einstein field equations, and not the other way around (EFE w/o Ɛ nor μ). In return, it seems that this may also have possible ramifications (?) with Mike McCulloch's quantized inertia (and his horizon drives) as well as conical resonant cavities aka the EmDrive, when one considers filling the resonator with such optical metamaterial, instead of a gas or a vacuum, considerably boosting "thrust".
Sarfatti's doesn't consider resonant cavities. His idea is that the fuselage of a spaceship should be a multi-layered 4D space-time quasi-crystal that, when externally pumped with resonant non-radiating near electromagnetic fields, would develop warp-drive function. When the pump is switched off, the material goes dormant.
"Near electromagnetic fields" are Glauber coherent states of virtual photons with three polarizations (not the usual two of transverse far-field electromagnetic radiation).
The dispersive "speed of light" c(𝗸,f) in general, for both near and far fields, is:
c(𝗸,f)² = [ 4D(𝗸,f) Fourier transform of the electrical permittivity × 4D(𝗸,f) Fourier transform magnetic permeability ]-1
In classical vacuum, only the virtual electron-positron pairs matter. However, Einstein's Equivalence Principle, that predicts both real and virtual charges, will contribute to the way matter back reacts on space-time geometrodynamics. By the way, this is also related to Dark Energy.
Therefore, off mass shell virtual photon resonances in the material will lower the near field analytic continuation of the far-field speed of light. This softens the space-time stiffness barrier G/c(𝗸,f)⁴ in the NEAR EM FIELD 4D Fourier spectrum, allowing low power weightless warp-drive on-board steering of the timelike geodesic path of the spaceship.
Sarfatti then asks, about the Unruh effect (Unruh temperature):
Properly accelerating non-inertial frame detectors see real particles ("hot bath" seen by an accelerating observer). But 'same' particles are virtual zero point seen by a locally non-accelerating inertial detector (nothin seen by a distant observer). Why?
Because the EM 4-force needed to push the non-inertial detector off a free-float timelike geodesic does work W on the vacuum.
Therefore, the local Einstein field equation is only generally covariant when both matter and vacuum indices of refraction n(𝗸,f) are included inside matter… QED.
So low-power warp drive is possible when there are large resonant index n peaks in the off-mass shell ck/n(𝗸,f) ≠ f near EM fields in the source stress-energy Tμν, where f ≈ 0 and 𝗸 ≠ 0 for static near fields.
He then makes the prediction that the Unruh temperature is:
T = (h n g)/(c 𝗸)
So that energy density increases according to n⁴
Following this idea, it is very interesting to read the following recent preprint by Igor Smolyaninov, a physicist specialized in optical metamaterials working at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. He independently makes roughly the same prediction, using completely different model and hypotheses. The author predicts that the usually extremely tiny hence quasi undetectable Unruh effect could become very large, depending on the gradient of the refractive index, so depending not on n ≫ 1 (as Sarfatti conjectures) but on dn/dz ≫ 1.
• Smolyaninov, I.I. (November 2018). "Giant Unruh effect in hyperbolic metamaterial waveguides". arXiv:1811.08555 (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1811.08555.pdf).
In this scheme, the electric permittivity Ɛ and the magnetic permeability μ gradually change as a function of z-coordinate inside the optical metamaterial filling the resonant cavity.
This does not only goes in the exact same direction as Sarfatti's Popper-falsifiable idea about an anisotropic metamaterial in the shell of a low-power warp-drive spaceship. Indeed, Smolyaninov's proposal to use a truncated conical resonant cavity filled with some metamaterial instead of air or a vacuum, in order to considerably enhance the Unruh effect, is shockingly reminiscent of the EmDrive being precisely a resonator with a frustum shape on one hand, but also connecting the dots on the other hand, for its alleged propellantless feature when considering McCulloch's conjecture that RF resonant cavities are in fact "horizon drives" using such asymmetric Unruh waves pushing on matter (through its whole volume, not only just on its surface like photon radiation pressure). According to all these ideas, an anisotropic metamaterial filling the EmDrive would considerably enhance its thrust.
This is precisely implied in equation 12 of McCulloch's paper about EmDrives and dielectrics:
• McCulloch, M. E. (May 2017). "Testing quantised inertia on emdrives with dielectrics" (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1209/0295-5075/118/34003/pdf). EPL. 118(3): 34003. doi:10.1209/0295-5075/118/34003.
At the recent workshop he attended in Albuquerque, he was suggested to test as well, on the contrary, Epsilon-Near-Zero (ENZ) materials, i.e. materials having an electrical permittivity (and/or magnetic permeability) approaching zero.
--
I do not especially endorse these developments, nor I am able to prove/disprove them. But maybe you'll be interested in the reading, and that some of the specialists here can discuss the validity of such innovative ideas.
Post by: meberbs on 04/05/2019 10:59 pm
The thing is, Sarfatti considers the speed of light in the coupling constant to not be the constant c as in the vacuum, but the speed of light in the medium. He proposes the idea (testable and popper-falsifiable) that some special material (possibly high Tc superconducting metamaterial) with very high electric permittivity Ɛ and magnetic permeability μ would give a very large refractive index n (as n² = Ɛ×μ) which would make the speed of light very low inside the medium, writing the coupling constant:So where is this testable claim you mention?
χ = (8π G n⁴)/c⁴
A high index of refraction material having a high index of refraction is a tautology. The relationship between the speed of propagation of light in a material, the permittivity and permeability of the material, and the index of refraction is not new physics, it is well known and tested.
The claim that material properties change the fundamental constant c that is used in the equations of general relativity can only be tested by a prediction that actually makes use of the equations of general relativity. (And for a situation where the predicted result is different between standard GR and the distorted, modified GR.)
I could try to explain why claims like this that try to couple electromagnetic material properties into modifications of the fundamental constant c indicate an ignorance of why "c" appears in the GR equations, and the physical origin of the electromagnetic material properties. I'll just point out that permittivity and permeability aren't single numbers in general, in part due to frequency dependence, and the actual results of these kind of predictions would probably result in materials either being much lighter or heavier than otherwise depending on their permittivity, if the people proposing them actually ever worked out the real consequences of their claims.
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/06/2019 01:09 pm
The thing is, Sarfatti considers the speed of light in the coupling constant to not be the constant c as in the vacuum, but the speed of light in the medium. He proposes the idea (testable and popper-falsifiable) that some special material (possibly high Tc superconducting metamaterial) with very high electric permittivity Ɛ and magnetic permeability μ would give a very large refractive index n (as n² = Ɛ×μ) which would make the speed of light very low inside the medium, writing the coupling constant:So where is this testable claim you mention?
χ = (8π G n⁴)/c⁴
I had a slightly different question: What is this "special material"? If it cannot be found, then it cannot be tested nor falsified.
Quote from: meberbs
I could try to explain why claims like this that try to couple electromagnetic material properties into modifications of the fundamental constant c indicate an ignorance of why "c" appears in the GR equations, and the physical origin of the electromagnetic material properties. I'll just point out that permittivity and permeability aren't single numbers in general, in part due to frequency dependence, and the actual results of these kind of predictions would probably result in materials either being much lighter or heavier than otherwise depending on their permittivity, if the people proposing them actually ever worked out the real consequences of their claims.
If you don't mind explaining this "coupling" briefly that would be helpful to me and maybe a few others. Just because light is a mite slower in glass doesn't mean that the fundamental constant of c has changed.
BTW, I remember a sci-fi story where they had a "special material" such that in an inch thickness of the material, it would take light some ten years to travel thru. They would put slabs of this material on mountain scenes, or jungle scenes or beach scenes for ten years, and then sell the slabs as a sort of teevee. You could have a "living" television in your room that showed an everchanging natural environment. I thought that it was a great idea.
Post by: Monomorphic on 04/07/2019 03:54 pm
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1114176825733914625
Mike McCulloch
Good news from Madrid: the #QI laser loop experiment is showing a thrust 6.5 sigma over the noise. Its size is as expected. We have 2b cautious still that it is not some spurious effect, but photon absorption & magnetic fields have been ruled out. #QI #theempiriciststrikesback
Mike McCulloch
Yes. The thrust is tiny (1 microNewton) but, if it is real, then it is scale-up-able.
Post by: Notsosureofit on 04/07/2019 04:13 pm
Now Jack Sarfatti is reputed to have a history of brilliant speculation in the matter of physical phenomena, albeit without much in the way of concrete results, at least in as much as has been released and that I am personally aware of.
I think previous comments have pretty well summed things up.
PS: that was a great, but rather sad story of the slow light windows..........
PPS: Madrid ??
Post by: meberbs on 04/07/2019 06:13 pm
I had a slightly different question: What is this "special material"? If it cannot be found, then it cannot be tested nor falsified.I was going to ask that, but I don't see any reason it has to be a material with both high permeability and high permittivity. Either one or both an result in a high refractive index, and there are plenty of materials with high permittivity that could be used if an experiment was proposed. (I don't know of any non-metallic materials with high permeability, and for metals, you need to model permittivity as a complex number, so they are a difficult choice to explain with this theory.)
If you don't mind explaining this "coupling" briefly that would be helpful to me and maybe a few others. Just because light is a mite slower in glass doesn't mean that the fundamental constant of c has changed.I am assuming this question is directed towards flux_capacitor. I agree with you so I can't answer it.
BTW, I remember a sci-fi story where they had a "special material" such that in an inch thickness of the material, it would take light some ten years to travel thru. They would put slabs of this material on mountain scenes, or jungle scenes or beach scenes for ten years, and then sell the slabs as a sort of teevee. You could have a "living" television in your room that showed an everchanging natural environment. I thought that it was a great idea.Probably off topic, but that is quite an interesting idea. Due to the extremely high refractive index involved path length should be close to the same from all angles, but looking from near the edge should make you look farther back into the past. You could probably design a curved version that intentionally has a time gradient across the observed image. I can think of a lot of applications for such a material.
Post by: webdan on 04/07/2019 07:46 pm
The thing is, Sarfatti considers the speed of light in the coupling constant to not be the constant c as in the vacuum, but the speed of light in the medium. He proposes the idea (testable and popper-falsifiable) that some special material (possibly high Tc superconducting metamaterial) with very high electric permittivity Ɛ and magnetic permeability μ would give a very large refractive index n (as n² = Ɛ×μ) which would make the speed of light very low inside the medium, writing the coupling constant:So where is this testable claim you mention?
χ = (8π G n⁴)/c⁴
I had a slightly different question: What is this "special material"? If it cannot be found, then it cannot be tested nor falsified.Quote from: meberbsI could try to explain why claims like this that try to couple electromagnetic material properties into modifications of the fundamental constant c indicate an ignorance of why "c" appears in the GR equations, and the physical origin of the electromagnetic material properties. I'll just point out that permittivity and permeability aren't single numbers in general, in part due to frequency dependence, and the actual results of these kind of predictions would probably result in materials either being much lighter or heavier than otherwise depending on their permittivity, if the people proposing them actually ever worked out the real consequences of their claims.
If you don't mind explaining this "coupling" briefly that would be helpful to me and maybe a few others. Just because light is a mite slower in glass doesn't mean that the fundamental constant of c has changed.
BTW, I remember a sci-fi story where they had a "special material" such that in an inch thickness of the material, it would take light some ten years to travel thru. They would put slabs of this material on mountain scenes, or jungle scenes or beach scenes for ten years, and then sell the slabs as a sort of teevee. You could have a "living" television in your room that showed an everchanging natural environment. I thought that it was a great idea.
Quite off topic, but FYI, the original story you speak of:
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Light_of_Other_Days (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Light_of_Other_Days)
Later on, a novel book by Stephen Baxter & A.C. Clark was great.
Mods: Delete if you see fit.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 04/07/2019 08:01 pm
So where is this testable claim you mention?
{…}
What is this "special material"? If it cannot be found, then it cannot be tested nor falsified.
If you don't mind explaining this "coupling" briefly that would be helpful to me and maybe a few others. Just because light is a mite slower in glass doesn't mean that the fundamental constant of c has changed.
Maybe you haven't read all the documents in my two previous posts? First, please have a look at Low Power Warp Drive for Dummies (https://www.academia.edu/38649950/Low_Power_Warp_Drive_for_Dummies) where all is very briefly explained. I think Notsosureofit has read it and has understood.
The index of refraction n given alone in my posts was indeed misleading, my apologies. It is the inner product of electric permittivity ε and magnetic permeability μ that enables Sarfatti to produce a local frame invariant 4D zero rank tensor. Then, appropriate tetrad transformations make his equations valid for any non-inertial proper accelerating frame of reference. It is how general covariance and background independence are satisfied in his equations. To give some physical effects noticeable in an experiment, high ε alone is not enough if μ is low at the same time. Both need to be large enough.
Strong spacetime stiffness usually requires large values of mass-energy to induce noticeable curvature, due to the c4 term to the denominator of Einstein's coupling constant.
Sarfatti does not propose to change the value of the constant c in the vacuum, but to include the 4D inner-product of permittivity and permeability in the field equations, which should be written according to him:
Gμν = 8πG(εγδ μγδ)2 Tμν
In this field equation, it is easy to see that when the value of the inner product ε×μ becomes large enough, the coupling between Gμν (how much spacetime is distorted) and Tμν (EM energy required for the "engine", i.e. the amount of "fuel" of the warp drive) becomes large also. In other words, the stiffness of spacetime is not so rigid anymore and it should be possible to induce large curvatures very locally, with little energy.
This is Sarfatti's Popper-falsifiable prediction, as an experiment that could show any deviation from standard general relativity. Indeed, one could test this conjecture using an appropriate optically-pumpable anisotropic material with giant ε and μ. In Sarfatti's mind, this should be a special metamaterial made of a pixelated 2D-layered quasicrystal, multi-layered like Russian dolls (lattices within lattices) and resonant from at least angstrom scale to roughly micro-wave frequencies. Such material, also high-Tc superconducting, would activate into weightless warp drive when resonantly pumped into Fröhlich macro-quantum coherent state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Fröhlich), somewhat similarly to a Bose-Einstein condensate. I don't think such material has been produced yet.
If Sarfatti's conjecture is right, such material would obviously exhibit noticeable different physical responses to applied EM fields, with respect to what plain-vanilla GR predicts (that is, nothing special).
No such material has been produced yet, but up to now, physicists only considered the thermal equilibrium case for superconductors. The clue may be in lasers that are pumped open non-equilibrium complex systems. Herbert Fröhlich suggested that almost any many-particle system when properly pumped far off thermodynamic equilibrium can be put into a robust macro-quantum coherent state immune from environmental decoherence. Sarfatti has justly written some notes recently (Nov 2017) about Fröhlich coherent state room-temperature superconductors (https://www.academia.edu/35250757/Solving_the_Hard_Problem_Mind-Matter-Conscious_AI_Frohlich_Coherent_Room_Temperature_Superconductors).
As a side note, it is worth noting that a high-Tc superconductor proposal has been reported here by Mulletron a few weeks ago (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1914499#msg1914499), found in a recent US Navy patent application. Although quickly dismissed by meberbs, Sarfatti describes the device in the patent as follows:
Quote from: Jack Sarfatti
The pulsed current coil is the resonant Fröhlich pump.
The effective non-equilibrium temperature of the pulsed device is:
T’ = T / [1 + k(pulsed current power)]
T is the ambient thermodynamic equilibrium temperature when the pulse is switched off.
Applying the pulse lowers the effective temperature to the critical temperature Tc for the onset of superconductivity (macro-quantum coherence).
May I add finally (and again, this is written in the document I linked to, not my analysis) that in order to satisfy general covariance, one needs to take into account both real particles in matter (on-mass-shell) and virtual particles of the ZPF (off-mass-shell) when doing calculations, i.e.:
εγδμγδ = εγδ(ZPF)μγδ(ZPF) + εγδ(ZPF)μγδ(Matter) + εγδ(Matter)μγδ(ZPF) + εγδ(Matter)μγδ(Matter)
Then
εγδ μγδ → ∞ ⇒ Tμν → 0
for fixed Gμν
So low-power warp drive may be possible.
Post by: meberbs on 04/07/2019 08:37 pm
Maybe you haven't read all the documents in my two previous posts? First, please have a look at Low Power Warp Drive for Dummies (https://www.academia.edu/38649950/Low_Power_Warp_Drive_for_Dummies) where all is very briefly explained. I think Notsosureofit has read it and has understood.Maybe I wasn't clear enough: What is the supposed testable claim that is being made? This requires a specific replicable test description with actual predicted results.
The link you just provided does not answer that question, and neither does anything else in this post.
The index of refraction n given alone in my posts was indeed misleading, my apologies. It is the inner product of electric permittivity Ɛ and magnetic permeability μ that enables Sarfatti to produce a local frame invariant 4D zero rank tensor. Then, appropriate tetrad transformations make his equations valid for any non-inertial proper accelerating frame of reference. It is how general covariance and background independence are satisfied in his equations, yet high Ɛ alone is not enough.It doesn't matter if you write the permittivity as a tensor, which is only necessary for anisotropic materials. The math plainly states that after you do the inner product (or simple product for non-isotropic materials) then the result simply is the result. It does not matter if you get to 20 by multiplying 5 times 4 or 20 times 1. The prediction that results from the math will not change.
Gμν = 8πG(εγδ μγδ)2 TμνIt is easy to see from that equation that if you allow the permeability to be 1 (equivalent to an identity tensor) you can just make the permittivity larger to get the same conclusion.
It is easy to see, reading this equation, that when the value of the inner product Ɛ×μ becomes large enough, the coupling between Gμν (how much spacetime is distorted) and Tμν (EM energy required for the "engine", i.e. the amount of "fuel" of the warp drive) becomes large also. In other words, the stiffness of spacetime is not so rigid anymore and it should be possible to induce large curvatures very locally, with little energy.
This is Sarfatti's Popper-falsifiable prediction, as an experiment that could show any deviation from standard general relativity. Indeed, one could test this conjecture using an appropriate optically-pumpable anisotropic material with giant ε and μ.You are missing the part where you actually specify what exactly this deviation would be from general relativity.
In Sarfatti's mind, this should be a special metamaterial made of a pixelated 2D-layered quasicrystal, multi-layered like Russian dolls (lattices within lattices) and resonant from at least angstrom scale to roughly micro-wave frequencies. Such material, also high-Tc superconducting, would activate into weightless warp drive when resonantly pumped into Fröhlich macro-quantum coherent state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Fröhlich), somewhat similarly to a Bose-Einstein condensate. I don't think such material has been produced yet.Lesson in spotting crackpots and con-artists in "new physics" research: They love proposing the need for fanciful materials without providing a solid reason why such would be needed. This lets them make all sorts of claims without anyone being able to run the experiment the suggest
It is plainly obvious in the equation above that a if you set permeability to 1, and use the permittivity of water, which has a relative permittivity of around 80 (depending on temperature, for low frequency) then you would be changing the effective gravitational constant in GR by a factor of about 6400. (I implicitly added in a normalization factor to make the inner product come out sensibly when converting between the scalar and tensor version.) GR has been tested way more accurately than that, so the hypothesis is not even remotely plausible. This would fail basic tests in the Newtonian limit such as: Do 3 objects fall at the same rate?
If Sarfatti-s conjecture is right, such material would obviously exhibit noticeable different physical responses to applied EM fields, with respect to what plain-vanilla GR predicts (that is, nothing special).No, the modification being made is not to the apparent propagation of electromagnetic fields in dielectrics, but a modification of the fundamental gravitational constant in GR. You don't need to do anything electrodynamic, except have a material with high permittivity.
May I add (and again, this is written in the document I linked to) that one needs to take into account both real particles in matter (on-mass-shell) and virtual particles of the ZPF (off-mass-shell) when doing calculations, i.e.:This constitutes yet more "look at this complicated math with lots of symbols and fancy terms and please don't notice the simple ways in which this theory is obviously broken." It doesn't work so well on people who know what they are talking about. Any virtual particle contribution is simply built into the vacuum permittivity (there are couple equivalent ways to look at it.) The numbers I gave above stand.
As a side note, it is worth noting that a high-Tc superconductor proposal has been reported here by Mulletron a few weeks ago (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1914499#msg1914499), found in a recent US Navy patent application. Although quickly dismissed by meberbs, Sarfatti describes the device in the patent as follows:Oh, is this that same person again, I didn't remember the name. I dismissed the superconductor claim because it seems he doesn't understand the definition of a superconductor. This new stuff you are talking about is just more evidence that nothing stated by him should be taken at face value.
P.S. it looks like you accidentally duplicated most of your previous post.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 04/07/2019 09:54 pm
Post by: as58 on 04/07/2019 09:59 pm
Post by: JackSarfatti on 04/07/2019 10:03 pm
As to the anonymous trolls. Anyone who hides behind a false name loses credibility in technical discussions. I have physics degrees (PhD) from Cornell and University of California. David Kaiser (MIT physics) in his award-winning book "How the Hippies Saved Physics" credits me and Nick Herbert as the catalysts for the creation of the field of quantum information/scamgraphy.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 04/07/2019 10:17 pm
@JackSarfatti: Welcome to the forum Jack, and thank you for having positively answered so fast to my informal invitation. Could you perhaps answer some of meberbs' critics, for example about his simple example involving water, and maybe some quantitative prediction (deviation) between Einstein's untouched field equations and yours?
Post by: JackSarfatti on 04/07/2019 10:18 pm
Guv(x) ~ G(epsilon(x)wlmu(x)^wl)^2Tuv(x)
Make a Wigner phase space type transform (Short time Fourier transform et-al)
Guv(x,k) ~ G(epsilon(x,k)*wlmu(x,k)^wl)^2*Tuv(x,k)
x, k are 4D positions, wave vectors
* denotes convolution integral
e.g. simple example
f(x,k)*g(x,k) = Integral f(x, K)g(k - K)dK
Tuv(x,k) is the stress-energy tensor for an applied EM field inside the meta-material.
The low power warp drive effect happens for resonant peaks
e.g. epsilon(x,k) gets large relative to vacuum value
Post by: JackSarfatti on 04/08/2019 02:13 am
Guv ~ G(e*u)^2Tuv
is a tensor equation
Guv and Tuv are rank 2 tensors
Therefore, mathematical logic requires
G(e*u) is a zero rank tensor
Maxwell showed
c^2 = 1/eu
However, that was not relativistic.
I have made it relativistic for both special and general relativity.
Matt Visser provided the relevant math for this.
Of course we must use wavelet type transformation of Einstein's field equation (at least in weak field limit) to describe spatially inhomogeneous time varying spectral (dispersion) EM properties of the meta-material (x,k) phase space. Resonances in e(x,k) and mu(x,k) permit low power warp drive. That is for a desired fixed warp field Guv(x,k) as e.g. e(x,k) increases the amount of Tuv(x,k) required decreases. This is what is observed in the flight of the Tic Tac.
Post by: meberbs on 04/08/2019 05:17 am
As to the anonymous trolls. Anyone who hides behind a false name loses credibility in technical discussions.Namecalling loses credibility in technical discussions (and can get you moderated or banned on this site.) Multiple members on this site know who I am, and any mod would have the info. There is one post in a restricted section on this site with my name signed to it. Anyone who knows me in real life should be able to identify me based on my user name. Reasons for maintaining some level of privacy from passerby who aren't necessarily even members of this site really shouldn't need to be stated.
I have physics degrees (PhD) from Cornell and University of California. David Kaiser (MIT physics) in his award-winning book "How the Hippies Saved Physics" credits me and Nick Herbert as the catalysts for the creation of the field of quantum information/scamgraphy.The great thing about math is that you don't need to name drop, just show your work and anyone who knows what they are doing will recognize it. I don't generally advertise my credentials here because my statements should be able to stand on their own.
Of course I consider dispersion - that's key. Starting fromI am not sure why you would decide to use a transform from quantum mechanics in this case rather than a standard Fourier transform. Anyway, the content of that post does not address any of the actual questions I brought up. It appears you are trying to address my comment about frequency dependence, but in doing so you miss the reason I mentioned it. My main point is much simpler than trying to address that part.
Guv(x) ~ G(epsilon(x)wlmu(x)^wl)^2Tuv(x)
Make a Wigner phase space type transform (Short time Fourier transform et-al)
I have not changed Einstein's field equation.If you have not changed Einstein's field equations, then you have done nothing and any result you claim different from standard GR is a mathematical error.
Guv ~ G(e*u)^2Tuv
is a tensor equation
Guv and Tuv are rank 2 tensors
Therefore, mathematical logic requires
G(e*u) is a zero rank tensor
In truth, you have changed the equation by taking the 8*pi*G/c^4 fundamental constant, and making it a function of both space and time, based on electrodynamic properties of materials.
Maxwell showedMaxwell's equations literally had special relativity built into them before special relativity was invented. Please don't waste anyone's time here with repeating such absurd claims. (See any good electrodynamics textbook.)
c^2 = 1/eu
However, that was not relativistic.
I have made it relativistic for both special and general relativity.For the case of light travelling through a medium (and assuming certain material properties such as linearity), using the material electric and dielectric constants avoids the need for detailed modelling of the charges inside the material. This does not change the fundamental constant of the speed of light, just provides a shortcut to calculate the fields produced by the charges in the material. For anisotropic materials, you can define this as a second rank tensor. You can perform relativistic transformations on tensors. This is not surprising or new, and unless done incorrectly, will result in the exactly equivalent predictions as in the rest frame. This is not the basis for anything new or interesting.
Hal Puthoff allegedly has the retrieved layered meta-material from Tic Tac type crashed AAVs.You seem to have made a mistake in your attachments, and included a bunch of UFO conspiracy theory fodder. The thread for that on this site got unsurprisingly got locked. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44496.0
There is a simple reason why it is obvious that your related statements are false: Leaking classified information at that level would rapidly get people in lots of trouble. I will say no more on the subject and suggest you do the same, because everything worthwhile to say on the subject seems to have been covered in the thread I just linked.
-----
Anyway, pretty much everything I just said in this post is basically irrelevant, I left out some details above just because they are irrelevant to more important and simple points. In my previous posts I asked for a couple specific things that have not been provided:
-A specific experiment that can be performed to test the claims that you have made. (One that is actually relevant to your claim, not something that is well known like the relationship between permittivity and refractive index.)
-Addressing the simple math I performed above. With the use of just a simple, common, dielectric material, using the material properties instead of the vacuum constants results in a large change to the "constant" in the general relativity equations, one that seems to obviously imply effects that would clearly have already been noticed. Basically either the gravitational attraction of materials, how much they are attracted by gravitational fields, or both would be strongly dependent on their dielectric constant in addition to their mass.
Please answer these last specific bullet points. And just to be clear, the claim I mention in the first bullet point is your use of the material properties in the Einstein field equations rather than the fundamental constant. Anything not related to that is a distraction.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/08/2019 05:51 pm
There's enough crap on the new physics section that raising the bar to pass some sniff tests is required here.
Post by: meberbs on 04/09/2019 06:58 am
Per people saying meberbs isn't being civil enough, think of him as a strict professor who's marking your work. At least that's how I see his posts.This is essentially my intent with my posts.
There's enough crap on the new physics section that raising the bar to pass some sniff tests is required here.
In this section I mostly post when I see something I believe is wrong and generally only if I have high confidence in what I am saying. I can see some people only looking at that seeing it as a negative attitude. It is never my intent to insult anyone, and if anyone thinks something I wrote is insulting, please let me know specifically, and I will edit and/or apologize as appropriate. (Straightforward statements that something is wrong and why are not insults though.)
Based on the existence of Chris's post there may have been some misunderstanding with my phrasing when I mentioned a rule of thumb related to a common behavior I have seen among people who either don't understand or refuse to deal with standard science (i.e. the scientific method). I mentioned it since it seems like it may be applicable to the work that was being discussed. This should not be taken to mean that the work necessarily falls into the categories I mentioned, and I apologize if it was taken that way. I was just noting a warning sign, and there are still a couple ways that what I said could become completely non-applicable. For example, a good explanation of exactly what special properties a material would have to have, why they are necessary, preferably accompanied by a plausible specific candidate material could negate it. Also, an acknowledgement of the way I pointed out that common materials should enable testing of the claim would completely negate the warning sign I mentioned. Since Jack Sarfatti has posted here, hopefully he can either do this, or explain exactly why my suggestion for testing would not work.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 04/09/2019 10:34 am
It is my understanding though (reading his various documents) that any experiment conducted to detect the anomalous effect predicted by his model would need a high-refractive metamaterial that is by definition very dispersive and extremely anisotropic or no effect could be detected at all. Water and its relative permittivity of about 80 (or any other mundane material), not exhibiting such properties, would not be appropriate.
Post by: Star One on 04/09/2019 10:59 am
Indeed, I would love Jack to take more time to expose his model on this forum and answer meberbs' questions, without necessarily asking for credentials or publishing unverifiable UFO stuff as per the forum rule. Apparently he's about to fly to London and I don't know if he'll post here again, being jet-lagged and quite busy there.
It is my understanding though (reading his various documents) that any experiment conducted to detect the anomalous effect predicted by his model would need a high-refractive metamaterial that is by definition very dispersive and extremely anisotropic or no effect could be detected at all. Water and its relative permittivity of about 80 (or any other mundane material), not exhibiting such properties, would not be appropriate.
Could I ask who he is, you speak as if he is well known and respected personage?
Post by: flux_capacitor on 04/09/2019 12:34 pm
Could I ask who he is, you speak as if he is well known and respected personage?
Sure. Jack Sarfatti began to present himself in a previous post, but I now see this post has been deleted by a mod (hence your legitimate question), surely because he was also asking for meberbs' credentials, publicly doubting them because of his anonymous pseudonym.
Early 1960, Sarfatti took his courses from Wolfgang Rindler at Cornell University, as well as with Hans Bethe, Phillip Morrison, Thomas Gold, etc. (a great era to learn GR with great minds admittedly) and then the University of California. This by no means implies all of their students are of the same calibre, but in his now deleted post he was saying that historian of science David Kaiser credits him in his book "How the Hippies saved Physics" for having basically laid the foundation (along Fred Alan Wolf (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Alan_Wolf)) in the "Fundamental Fysiks Group" in the 1970s, of quantum scamgraphy and quantum computing.
Major media cited him, so he is not exactly unknown, e.g. the NY Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/books/review/book-review-how-the-hippies-saved-physics-by-david-kaiser.html
or the web journal of the San Francisco Chronicle where he was interviewed:
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/SUNDAY-INTERVIEW-The-Universe-As-Seen-From-3774064.php
In the last decades, his main interest has shifted from initially (CIA-funded…) studies about quantum mechanics and its possible relation to consciousness, nonlocality, retrocausality and time travel; to warp drive physics and FTL travel.
As a side note, Sarfatti has been active on Jim Woodward's email list for years. Some of these messages have a direct connection with this thread and the Woodward one. Of course, as this email list is by definition sent to a limited number of registered persons (about 100-150) who are interested in the field of Mach effects and propellantless propulsion, few people may know who he really is. Maybe Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Sarfatti) could help a bit more.
As for the comment about the fact I would talk of him as if he was a "respectable personnage"… well, I don't know him personally, but I respect everyone who posts on these boards, whether he is famous or not. I hope the quick historical background I've just give in this post is able to answer your question and show more context about who he is.
Post by: Notsosureofit on 04/09/2019 12:35 pm
see also: Chapter 2, "Imaginary Weapons" by Sharon Weinberger
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/09/2019 08:03 pm
Maybe you haven't read all the documents in my two previous posts? First, please have a look at Low Power Warp Drive for Dummies (https://www.academia.edu/38649950/Low_Power_Warp_Drive_for_Dummies) where all is very briefly explained. I think Notsosureofit has read it and has understood.Maybe I wasn't clear enough: What is the supposed testable claim that is being made? This requires a specific replicable test description with actual predicted results.
SNIP
Lesson in spotting crackpots and con-artists in "new physics" research: They love proposing the need for fanciful materials without providing a solid reason why such would be needed. This lets them make all sorts of claims without anyone being able to run the experiment the suggest.
"Warp Drives for Dummies" cannot teach one how to make a warp drive, right? There's no such thing unless all those dummies warped themselves and their drives out of this galaxy, which is conveniently unfalsifiable. In short, I'm afraid I haven't read all the documents in your previous post. But the gist of the above remarks is that there must be a new "metamaterial" in order to have warp drive. There is no such drive unless there is this speculated "metamaterial" can be produced, using either old fashioned or innovative chemical/metallurgical manufactureing processes.
As to the later comments about UFO's and their aeronautical manuevering abilities, seemingly made possible by metamaterials along the lines proposed above: Maybe they are around and maybe they aren't. If they had an embassy in DC, maybe we could negotiate a technology transfer. Until that time, we will have to make the metamaterials that have been proposed.
Post by: Star One on 04/09/2019 08:05 pm
Could I ask who he is, you speak as if he is well known and respected personage?
Sure. Jack Sarfatti began to present himself in a previous post, but I now see this post has been deleted by a mod (hence your legitimate question), surely because he was also asking for meberbs' credentials, publicly doubting them because of his anonymous pseudonym.
Early 1960, Sarfatti took his courses from Wolfgang Rindler at Cornell University, as well as with Hans Bethe, Phillip Morrison, Thomas Gold, etc. (a great era to learn GR with great minds admittedly) and then the University of California. This by no means implies all of their students are of the same calibre, but in his now deleted post he was saying that historian of science David Kaiser credits him in his book "How the Hippies saved Physics" for having basically laid the foundation (along Fred Alan Wolf (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Alan_Wolf)) in the "Fundamental Fysiks Group" in the 1970s, of quantum scamgraphy and quantum computing.
Major media cited him, so he is not exactly unknown, e.g. the NY Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/books/review/book-review-how-the-hippies-saved-physics-by-david-kaiser.html
or the web journal of the San Francisco Chronicle where he was interviewed:
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/SUNDAY-INTERVIEW-The-Universe-As-Seen-From-3774064.php
In the last decades, his main interest has shifted from initially (CIA-funded…) studies about quantum mechanics and its possible relation to consciousness, nonlocality, retrocausality and time travel; to warp drive physics and FTL travel.
As a side note, Sarfatti has been active on Jim Woodward's email list for years. Some of these messages have a direct connection with this thread and the Woodward one. Of course, as this email list is by definition sent to a limited number of registered persons (about 100-150) who are interested in the field of Mach effects and propellantless propulsion, few people may know who he really is. Maybe Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Sarfatti) could help a bit more.
As for the comment about the fact I would talk of him as if he was a "respectable personnage"… well, I don't know him personally, but I respect everyone who posts on these boards, whether he is famous or not. I hope the quick historical background I've just give in this post is able to answer your question and show more context about who he is.
Thank you for that comprehensive response. So there was another post that’s now gone.
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/09/2019 08:46 pm
Quite off topic, but FYI, the original story you speak of:
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Light_of_Other_Days
Many thanks. As I read the synopsis you provided, the story came back to life for me in a rush.
Post by: Ricvil on 04/12/2019 01:31 pm
Appears some EMDrive cavity shapes are just nodal sites of electromagnetic fields under resonance with added noise.
It is like the recovery of the 3D object image from a piece of "hologram".
Would exist a "master" shape of EMDrive cavity?
I've searching for a cavity with a simultaneous spatial and momentum (reciprocal space) conformal symmetry, and to my surprise, it's cross section resembles the Mike McCulloch's fiber loop.
Post by: Ricvil on 04/12/2019 02:21 pm
Post by: X_RaY on 04/12/2019 09:34 pm
Beautiful Seeshell work.
Appears some EMDrive cavity shapes are just nodal sites of electromagnetic fields under resonance with added noise.
It is like the recovery of the 3D object image from a piece of "hologram".
Would exist a "master" shape of EMDrive cavity?
I've searching for a cavity with a simultaneous spatial and momentum (reciprocal space) conformal symmetry, and to my surprise, it's cross section resembles the Mike McCulloch's fiber loop.
Hi Ricvil,
there is no holographic projection related to this gif. As far as i understand the MEEP representations it shows a single vector component of ExH (in a x,y,z or r,φ,z coordinate system) plotted on a single plane across x-z (or y-z?). It shows either a changing phase angle or a frequency sweep...
Also thees simulations did not contain any kind of noise added to the model (please ask member "aero" for details on this sims, because he did it personally).
Based on SeeShell's work.
I am very sorry to notice this again, but your drawing may tell you something but it tells nothing to the public. Please speak & draw in terms the public can understand.
Also it seems you are using words without to understand the meaning of it (or you got another interpretation of it as most others have).
Most of your posts are confusing. So please explain in plain words what you are meaning rather than trying to use false interpreted technical terms.
Thanks.
EDIT:
To make the point clearer, no one wants you to be quiet or not to write. If you have ideas that might help to solve / explain the phenomenon in question, you are welcome. However please try to write your content in a way that other members can follow thees ideas, otherwise it is not really helpful. We want to able to discuss your points.
Suppose such a system generates a real thrust that can be observed in experiments:
In your opinion, what can produce a net thrust without mass output in the opposite direction? What do you think is the underlying principle?
Do you think that your proposed form should lead to a higher measurable thrust? If so, why?
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/13/2019 01:27 pm
Based on SeeShell's work.
Thanks, but your geometrical arrangements contribute little to the general understanding of the topic.
Post by: TheTraveller on 04/15/2019 01:43 pm
Quote
Hi Phil
...
I have just got the OK from our client to release some typical thrust data and have attached it for your interest. I think this is the first time SPR has put raw test data into the public domain, so feel free to share it around. I will get it put up on our website soon.
Best regards
Roger
For those not familiar with the Flight Thruster SPR designed for Boeing, check here. Other data on this forum.
http://www.emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html
Post by: TheTraveller on 04/15/2019 11:03 pm
Received from Roger Shawyer:QuoteHi Phil
...
I have just got the OK from our client to release some typical thrust data and have attached it for your interest. I think this is the first time SPR has put raw test data into the public domain, so feel free to share it around. I will get it put up on our website soon.
Best regards
Roger
For those not familiar with the Flight Thruster SPR designed for Boeing, check here. Other data on this forum.
http://www.emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html
Flight Thruster test data document now on http://www.emdrive.com
http://www.emdrive.com/fm2test101.pdf
Post by: Bob Woods on 04/16/2019 01:18 am
Thanks Phil, nice to see some data that we can review, but one test out of 300 is not going to convince me or most others.
Flight Thruster test data document now on http://www.emdrive.com (http://www.emdrive.com)
http://www.emdrive.com/fm2test101.pdf (http://www.emdrive.com/fm2test101.pdf)
How about posting all 300 in a spreadsheet?
Post by: TheTraveller on 04/16/2019 06:14 am
Thanks Phil, nice to see some data that we can review, but one test out of 300 is not going to convince me or most others.
Flight Thruster test data document now on http://www.emdrive.com (http://www.emdrive.com)
http://www.emdrive.com/fm2test101.pdf (http://www.emdrive.com/fm2test101.pdf)
How about posting all 300 in a spreadsheet?
Hi Bob,
19 more Flight Thruster results here:
http://www.emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html
Roger has stated SPR completed the Boeing/DARPA/USAF Flight Thruster contract and was paid in full. Plus Roger stated Boeing confirmed the test data.
Just my guess but maybe how that 10 years has passed, NDA's & contract limitations are expiring?
Post by: TheTraveller on 04/16/2019 01:53 pm
Best Ion Drive is approx 60mN/kWe. Approx 80x more energy to thrust efficiency plus no fuel mass.
Accelerated mass KE & momentum gain cause photon KE & momentum loss/wavelength increase. CofE/CofM/N3 compliant.
Runs from standard 28vdc satellite power bus plus 1553 control comms.
Post by: meberbs on 04/16/2019 02:36 pm
Our 5N/kWe EmDrive like thruster will be commercially available to the international space industry in 2020.You will always have something to show "next year" It has been "next year" every year since before I joined this forum. If there wasn't enough evidence of it already, your post here is breaking your word, again:
I'll not be posting on this forum until my rotary test rig build is completed and I have data, either way, to share.
If any post I have made has upset anybody, I apologise.
Accelerated mass KE & momentum gain cause photon KE & momentum loss/wavelength increase. CofE/CofM/N3 compliant.Literally mathematically impossible. Propellantless thrusters break both conservation of energy and momentum by definition. The only exception is for force per power no more than a photon rocket due to special relativity (which allows massless particles to have energy and momentum) To claim conservation of energy and momentum, you would need something external to balance the momentum, something that you have never even proposed. You have been shown the math on this countless times.
As to Shawyer's recent data, it does nothing to change the inconsistency of the previous data you shared from him. It shows force per power levels many orders of magnitude higher than any other experiment has approached, the dip at the beginning shows that claims about it needing an initial acceleration to get going are contrary to the data he has had (and therefore is just an excuse for why people who actually know how to eliminate major error sources from experiments have not found any significant thrust.) There simply is a lot of better data from better setups than Shawyer has ever shared and that data all clearly indicates that there is no signal down to orders of magnitude lower than his claims.
Post by: Notsosureofit on 04/16/2019 03:20 pm
QED
Post by: Star One on 04/16/2019 03:34 pm
Our 5N/kWe EmDrive like thruster will be commercially available to the international space industry in 2020.You will always have something to show "next year" It has been "next year" every year since before I joined this forum. If there wasn't enough evidence of it already, your post here is breaking your word, again:I'll not be posting on this forum until my rotary test rig build is completed and I have data, either way, to share.
If any post I have made has upset anybody, I apologise.Accelerated mass KE & momentum gain cause photon KE & momentum loss/wavelength increase. CofE/CofM/N3 compliant.Literally mathematically impossible. Propellantless thrusters break both conservation of energy and momentum by definition. The only exception is for force per power no more than a photon rocket due to special relativity (which allows massless particles to have energy and momentum) To claim conservation of energy and momentum, you would need something external to balance the momentum, something that you have never even proposed. You have been shown the math on this countless times.
As to Shawyer's recent data, it does nothing to change the inconsistency of the previous data you shared from him. It shows force per power levels many orders of magnitude higher than any other experiment has approached, the dip at the beginning shows that claims about it needing an initial acceleration to get going are contrary to the data he has had (and therefore is just an excuse for why people who actually know how to eliminate major error sources from experiments have not found any significant thrust.) There simply is a lot of better data from better setups than Shawyer has ever shared and that data all clearly indicates that there is no signal down to orders of magnitude lower than his claims.
Why do you have to post in such an aggressive way. It’s one of the reasons I’ve stopped looking on this thread. You seem to feel it’s your right to stamp on anyone on here who posts something you don’t agree with.
Post by: bad_astra on 04/16/2019 07:09 pm
Our 5N/kWe EmDrive like thruster will be commercially available to the international space industry in 2020.
Best Ion Drive is approx 60mN/kWe. Approx 80x more energy to thrust efficiency plus no fuel mass.
Accelerated mass KE & momentum gain cause photon KE & momentum loss/wavelength increase. CofE/CofM/N3 compliant.
Runs from standard 28vdc satellite power bus plus 1553 control comms.
I have engaged a process to stop DIYers building EmDrive that will not work, to provide a very clear build methodology and to explain why doing it that way is important.
After the videos of the KISS thruster going round and round are released, further more detailed theory as to why the EmDrive works inside existing physics will be engaged. Plus I'll be doing a series of public demos around the planet.
While an EmDrive with enough specific force to build a 1g spacecraft is some time in the future, current tech EmDrives can deliver 10x the specific force as can the best Ion Drives and do it with electricity (well actually photon momentum and energy) as the fuel.
I do appreciate your patience, especially during theory debates, as the future of space propulsion is revealed.
...
Post by: meberbs on 04/16/2019 07:27 pm
Why do you have to post in such an aggressive way. It’s one of the reasons I’ve stopped looking on this thread. You seem to feel it’s you jump to stamp on anyone on here who posts something you don’t like, and have a strong desire to get one up over them.What exactly are you considering aggressive? Pointing out that someone has broken promises repeatedly yet keeps making the same ones over and over? Pointing out that someone blindly keeps repeating claims that are provably false to the point that they are self-contradictory?
There is nothing in my posts about getting "one up over" anyone. This site is an otherwise excellent resource on spaceflight and related information. If someone posts complete misinformation* about the laws of physics, correcting it seems to be a reasonable thing to do.
*I said misinformation for brevity, but generally am referring to self-contradictory statements, misinterpretations of physical laws, abuse of terminology, claims contradicted by many good experiments, mathematical errors, statements that about data that contradict what the data says, other clear misinterpretations or misrepresentations of results, etc.
Post by: Star One on 04/16/2019 08:55 pm
Why do you have to post in such an aggressive way. It’s one of the reasons I’ve stopped looking on this thread. You seem to feel it’s you jump to stamp on anyone on here who posts something you don’t like, and have a strong desire to get one up over them.What exactly are you considering aggressive? Pointing out that someone has broken promises repeatedly yet keeps making the same ones over and over? Pointing out that someone blindly keeps repeating claims that are provably false to the point that they are self-contradictory?
There is nothing in my posts about getting "one up over" anyone. This site is an otherwise excellent resource on spaceflight and related information. If someone posts complete misinformation* about the laws of physics, correcting it seems to be a reasonable thing to do.
*I said misinformation for brevity, but generally am referring to self-contradictory statements, misinterpretations of physical laws, abuse of terminology, claims contradicted by many good experiments, mathematical errors, statements that about data that contradict what the data says, other clear misinterpretations or misrepresentations of results, etc.
You really can’t see how aggressive sounding your OP is can you. It’s not that I necessarily disagree with what you said but rather how you said it.
Post by: meberbs on 04/16/2019 09:27 pm
You really can’t see how aggressive sounding your OP is can you. It’s not that I necessarily disagree with what you said but rather how you said it.I have offered in the past for people to PM me with specific suggestions, I am open to advice related to improving my communication skills.
I am not sure how else you expect me to present the facts other than a quote of the most recent broken promise, and a list of the primary incorrect claims. The proof of my statements about those claims has been provided repeatedly. After a dozen times, there really isn't much fluff I can add.
This conversation is tangential to the actual topic, further meta-discussion of my wording can happen in PM, I won't reply to you again about this in the thread to keep things on topic.
Post by: TheTraveller on 04/17/2019 02:22 pm
Don't know how to tell you but your analysis of EmDrive is not correct.
You apply equations that do not model how EmDrive, when accelerating, creates assymetric radiation pressure.
Suggest you model what happens when a resonant cavity is accelerated small end forward by an external force. You might find the assymetric Doppler shifts & resultant assymetric radiation pressure of interest. Or not.
As for dates, when it happens it happens.
Post by: meberbs on 04/17/2019 02:42 pm
Meberbs,By don't know how to tell me do you mean that you are unable to provide a single bit of math to support your statement? Because that is true, there are multiple times you have been asked to do the math for a simple situation to support your points and your never answer those questions.
Don't know how to tell you but your analysis of EmDrive is not correct.
You apply equations that do not model how EmDrive, when accelerating, creates assymetric radiation pressure.False. I am using general statements based on the definition of conservation of momentum. Shawyer claims no new physics is needed to explain the emDrive, so therefore he (and you) cannot provide a consistent argument against these points. The equations of electrodynamics clearly say that a cavity accelerating under an external force would feel a very small force in the opposite of the direction of acceleration. This is not only not the direction claimed by Shawyer, but since it is just the equivalent of the cavity mass being increased by the total amount of electromagnetic energy contained inside of it according to the relation E = m*c^2, the net effect is negligibly small, and in no way generates useful propulsion.
You are the one who needs to go back, look at the history of past conversations and answer some of the simple questions you have ignored.
As for dates, when it happens it happens.A date that never gets any closer is one that is never going to happen. You have been working for years on a project that should have something to show (probably null results) within months. The complete lack of results says something.
Post by: Ricvil on 04/17/2019 02:54 pm
Meberbs,
Don't know how to tell you but your analysis of EmDrive is not correct.
You apply equations that do not model how EmDrive, when accelerating, creates assymetric radiation pressure.
Suggest you model what happens when a resonant cavity is accelerated small end forward by an external force. You might find the assymetric Doppler shifts & resultant assymetric radiation pressure of interest. Or not.
As for dates, when it happens it happens.
Dear The Traveller.
You must to invert cause and effect in your explanation.
But, do you already knows how to do that?
Post by: OnlyMe on 04/17/2019 04:19 pm
Meberbs,
Don't know how to tell you but your analysis of EmDrive is not correct.
You apply equations that do not model how EmDrive, when accelerating, creates assymetric radiation pressure.
Suggest you model what happens when a resonant cavity is accelerated small end forward by an external force. You might find the assymetric Doppler shifts & resultant assymetric radiation pressure of interest. Or not.
As for dates, when it happens it happens.
TT,
The radiation pressure model, whether based on bouncing photons or EM waves has been thoroughly addressed in the past. Even if the fundamental idea were not flawed it dies within the conservation of momentum, over unity and violations of other basic laws of physics, raised by extension.
It has seemed to me that Shawyer began with an engineering puzzle based on a fundamentally flawed theory. He may have stumbled on a mechanism that generates a “very small” anomalous force. That does not validate the flawed theory, or speculations of flying cars and potential relativistic velocities (over time). The only thing it should suggest is a need to reexamine the engineering for a more realistic underlying mechanism.
None of which can occur until a working device is made available for testing and study by multiple independent labs. What has been happening instead is that the design and theory have been evolving before indepent verification and and replication of Shawyer’s early claimed results.
Post by: OnlyMe on 04/17/2019 05:36 pm
…
False. I am using general statements based on the definition of conservation of momentum. Shawyer claims no new physics is needed to explain the emDrive, so therefore he (and you) cannot provide a consistent argument against these points. The equations of electrodynamics clearly say that a cavity accelerating under an external force would feel a very small force in the opposite of the direction of acceleration. This is not only not the direction claimed by Shawyer, but since it is just the equivalent of the cavity mass being increased by the total amount of electromagnetic energy contained inside of it according to the relation E = m*c^2, the net effect is negligibly small, and in no way generates useful propulsion.
…
meberbs,
Some while back in a PM exchange you asked me what tests/experiments I would like to see to address the issues I had raised. I did not answer at the time for a number of unimportant reasons. I quoted the above only for your comments about CoM and have a question, based loosely on the following.
The question: Does physics require that CoM involve an outside force or is that only a reflection of classical experience? Or as crudely described below could the interaction be between the resonant EM field inside the frustum and induced EM field in the frustum walls?
I am not yet fully convinced there is “nothing there”, nor that there “is”, but I believe that if there is, it is far more likely to be a fragile electromagnetic interaction between the resonant EM field and the induced electromagnetic properties in the frustum walls... This would switch the CoM issue to one of could the properties of the EM field induced in the frustum walls, be pushing off of the resonating EM field itself?
If so one could expect in the lab, on a test bed designed to measure force, an initial force as the EM field is introduced. A problem would be that when the device is held essentially stationary that initial “spike” would disappear as it turns into an undetectable GHz jitter overwhelmed by other noise.
Since this would also be an almost insignificant EM interaction isolating the affect may require the higher power levels of the earlier magnetron tests.
Whether it results in a useable force/acceleration would depend on how well the resonating EM field induces eddy currents in the frustum walls and whether the frequency/mode could be dynamically modified sufficiently to maintain (for lack of a better reference) a Lenz Law like interaction between two GHz frequency EM fields...
It would seem you could only test for the initial surge as the device is turned on with any in lab test equipment. The device would have to be free to move for the two fields to maintain an interaction resulting in a directional force. A device in orbit, or in a lab on a turntable with an inherent resistance to motion (both from friction and perhaps inertia), less than the very small expected anomalous force.
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/17/2019 07:07 pm
Why do you [meberbs] have to post in such an aggressive way. It’s one of the reasons I’ve stopped looking on this thread. You seem to feel it’s your right to stamp on anyone on here who posts something you don’t agree with.
There's a phrase used in the gaming community:
Get good.
In gaming context, it means quit complaining about losing. Get good.
In the context of this ongoing thread, "get good" would imply getting one's math skills up to meberb's at the least. At the most, float the device across the conference room table, and he will change his tune.
It's not about opinions and feewings.
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/17/2019 07:33 pm
Meberbs,
Don't know how to tell you but your analysis of EmDrive is not correct.
You know full well that he has asked over and over again for the math supporting your analysis.
The equations of electrodynamics clearly say that a cavity accelerating under an external force would feel a very small force in the opposite of the direction of acceleration. This is not only not the direction claimed by Shawyer, but since it is just the equivalent of the cavity mass being increased by the total amount of electromagnetic energy contained inside of it according to the relation E = m*c^2, the net effect is negligibly small, and in no way generates useful propulsion.
I myself am but an egg when it comes to QM and the math behind it. But the thing is, Shawyer puts the arrows indicating direction of acceleration and the application of force in the wrong direction. Were this a simple math error, he would have corrected it, but he has not.
Post by: oyzw on 04/18/2019 12:53 am
In the case where the electromagnetic field in the cavity is perturbed, the thrust direction of the cavity can be changed or even greatly reduced. Different cavity sizes, structures, modes, coupling methods, etc., can change the thrust response characteristics. Shawyer did not establish an accurate model to judge.Meberbs,
Don't know how to tell you but your analysis of EmDrive is not correct.
You know full well that he has asked over and over again for the math supporting your analysis.The equations of electrodynamics clearly say that a cavity accelerating under an external force would feel a very small force in the opposite of the direction of acceleration. This is not only not the direction claimed by Shawyer, but since it is just the equivalent of the cavity mass being increased by the total amount of electromagnetic energy contained inside of it according to the relation E = m*c^2, the net effect is negligibly small, and in no way generates useful propulsion.
I myself am but an egg when it comes to QM and the math behind it. But the thing is, Shawyer puts the arrows indicating direction of acceleration and the application of force in the wrong direction. Were this a simple math error, he would have corrected it, but he has not.
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/18/2019 03:16 pm
In the case where the electromagnetic field in the cavity is perturbed, the thrust direction of the cavity can be changed or even greatly reduced.
Thanks for this general observation, but the goal is conscious application of a significant accelerating force in a preferred direction, not random perturbations of those forces. However, "greatly reduced", does sound like an accurate depiction of the forces that may be at hand.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 04/20/2019 11:25 am
It seems like a very fundamental idea and design, that one can adapt in unlimited ways, limited only by your imagination.So this is not a superconductor. First of all, if it was its utility is killed by the fact that they have to keep vibrating it, and have it surrounded by a coil with a pulsed current running through it (Also, they have a pulsed current running through the supposed superconductor as well). This makes it an active device that consumes energy to run.
https://phys.org/news/2019-02-navy-patent-room-temperature-superconductor.amp
The claim that it would satisfy the perfect exclusion of magnetic fields because it is carrying a current and it is vibrating and would therefore exclude magnetic field lines from other magnets. This is a complete non-sequiter. It having its own magnetic field under its default state is not the same thing as reacting to the presence of an external magnetic field to generate a perfect exclusion of that field from its interior.
They also describe it as having a thickness of approximately the London penetration depth. They ignore that this depth is material dependent and use the depth for a different actual superconductor. Also, the London penetration depth is the thickness where about 60% of the external magnetic field is excluded (because you need some thickness of material, "perfect exclusion" has an asterisk on it in practice.) This means that their device is designed to be too thin to actually exhibit true superconducting properties.
Same US Navy scientist, Dr. Salvatore Cezar Pais:
Ph.D. Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR)/ Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD), NAS Patuxent River Maryland 20670,
filed two other patent applications that were previously been reported a few pages back by Freddled Gruntbuggly, but not discussed contrary to the 3rd patent. These two other patents are:
Unsure if this is on topic but the inventor of the above Room temp superconductor patent has a couple of others which appear to use microwave emitters and resonant cavities.NextBigFuture website briefly talked about them (https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/02/if-these-us-navy-patents-are-made-then-we-are-in-a-star-trek-technology-world.html) two months ago.
Gravity Wave Generator : https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180229864A1/en?inventor=Salvatore+Cezar+Pais
Craft using Inertial Mass Reduction Device : https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en?inventor=Salvatore+Cezar+Pais
Patents can be tricky to analyse, as they focus mainly on a list of claims, sketches and captions, but don't necessarily detail all fundamental hypotheses in a scientific point of view. Attached below, here are two papers from same Navy researcher, related to these patents. Perhaps it would be better to analyse these published papers instead of the patents.
• "The high energy electromagnetic field generator", Int. J. Space Science and Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 4, April 2016.
• "A hybrid craft using an inertial mass modification device", AIAA SPACE and Astronautics Forum and Exposition, Orlando, FL, September 2017.*
Your critical advice on these two papers is welcome.
* The 2017 AIAA SPACE Forum in Orlando was canceled at last minute due to hurricane Irma. However, paper were submitted and a similar document has been published a few days laters by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE International) as a technical paper (ref. 2017-01-2040) under the name "High Frequency Gravitational Waves - Induced Propulsion".
Post by: meberbs on 04/20/2019 06:39 pm
Patents can be tricky to analyse, as they focus mainly on a list of claims, sketches and captions, but don't necessarily detail all fundamental hypotheses in a scientific point of view. Attached below, here are two papers from same Navy researcher, related to these patents. Perhaps it would be better to analyse these published papers instead of the patents.Totally agree about trying to work backwards from patents, so I'll start looking at the papers:
• "The high energy electromagnetic field generator", Int. J. Space Science and Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 4, April 2016.
On of the first red flags I come across is this paragraph:
Quote
There are four known fundamental forces which control matter and therefore control energy, namely the strong and weak nuclear forces, the electromagnetic (EM) force and the gravitational force. In this hierarchy of forces, the EM force is perfectly positioned to be able to manipulate the other three.There is simply no basis for the statement about electromagnetism manipulating the other fundamental forces. Physicists are working on theories to unify the fundamental forces. They have succeeded with unifying EM with the weak force, but it would be incorrect to characterize that as EM "manipulating" the weak force.
Moving on, the paper talks about a plate with a charge density of 50000 Coulombs / m^2. This is an absolutely insane amount of charge. If you used a copper plate 0.0037 mm thick, this is equal to the total free charge in the plate. For the 2m radius plate he is discussing, putting that much charge on it is equivalent to draining all of the conduction electrons from roughly 0.4 kg of copper. Now for the forces involved (I am now going to pretend the charge is in a nice sphere for simplicity, which is completely fine for my first calculation.) The balancing charge for all of the charge on the plate must exist somewhere. Lets for a moment pretend that the balancing charge is on the moon. In that case, the force between the 2 collections of charge would be on the order of 24000 N. If you put the charges in the same building, about 10 m apart (here is where the spherical approximation I mentioned matters) the force would be on the order of 10^19 N, or about an order of magnitude below the force the Earth exerts on the entire mass of the Moon.
Now, to go back to the flat plate situation, lets calculate the energy involved assuming a parallel plate capacitor of just 1 mm separation. (Lower separation distance means less energy required to perform the separation.) That mean 1.7*10^18 J of energy. That is equivalent to over 28000 Hiroshima bombs, or roughly 8.5 of Tsar Bomba. I do not want anyone running this experiment anywhere closer than the moon. (To keep the voltage down to a level that has a chance of the charge not instantly jumping the gap, you need a much wider gap and proportionally more energy.)
The rest of the paper talks about how much high fields and radiated energy you can get (therefore Schwinger limit, etc), none of which is surprising when you pack more energy into a 2 m radius than the most powerful nuclear bomb ever. Also, none of which is practical for the same reason. I have my doubts about the validity of some of the equations (it seems to be assuming radius is equal to the edge of the disc, the radiated power per square meter does not specify at what distance from the disk, etc.), but none of that is relevant, because starting with a device that would rip itself apart, and saying "look how much power can be output from this after we pumped it full of energy" is simply useless.
I may get to the other paper later, but at best claims from this author should be regarded with a lot of suspicion. Just glancing through the other paper, is seems to start from the same device as the other paper, then it talks about some experiment about anti-gravity gyros, handwaves away multiple papers that do not replicate the original results, invents his own explanation for the effect based on an assumption about the original experiment, and goes on to claim a device that magically uses electromagnetism to generate anti-gravity.
Post by: meberbs on 04/20/2019 07:18 pm
The question: Does physics require that CoM involve an outside force or is that only a reflection of classical experience? Or as crudely described below could the interaction be between the resonant EM field inside the frustum and induced EM field in the frustum walls?The conservation laws I described are general in that you can take a closed device and its total momentum will not change without an external interaction, momentum can move between its different parts, but that is it. If there is an external interaction with something in the form of a force, then the equal and opposite reaction law balances things. Alternatively, depending on the initial definition of your system, it could change momentum by have mass (or energy/photons) leave the system, carrying away momentum. This generally covers any kind of interaction.
Noether's theorem is a fairly strong statement about conservation of momentum existing. GR starts to get into an exception, but even in GR, conservation of momentum holds locally. (locally being defined as interactions limited by the speed of light.) Globally, there are issues with even defining conservation laws, which is why I don't use this argument with the Mach effect. (I have doubts for related reasons, but am not sure if it is even possible to express those doubts mathematically.)
I am not yet fully convinced there is “nothing there”, nor that there “is”, but I believe that if there is, it is far more likely to be a fragile electromagnetic interaction between the resonant EM field and the induced electromagnetic properties in the frustum walls... This would switch the CoM issue to one of could the properties of the EM field induced in the frustum walls, be pushing off of the resonating EM field itself?The problem with that idea if I am understanding what you are saying correctly, is that the fields themselves have energy and momentum. The fields cannot net move to the right while the momentum is to the left. Other than the need to use relativistic equations to describe the momentum in the fields, this is identical to a cavity that contains bouncing balls, and the conclusion is the same, the outside of the cavity may vibrate, but the center of mass (center of energy in relativity) won't go anywhere.
Since this would also be an almost insignificant EM interaction isolating the affect may require the higher power levels of the earlier magnetron tests.I believe that sensitivity of tests should best be described in terms of what force/power ratio they can measure down to. Since this ratio is constant and linear in basically every proposal (including what you just described) this makes it a better metric. Tests with magnetrons improved sensitivity by increasing the total power, but usually induced other (thermal for example) problems, which increased the minimum force required to see a meaningful signal. Higher power would be unambiguously better if it is known to work, and the goal is to apply it, but sometimes lower power, but a significantly more sensitive force measurement can be better for showing if the force really exists.
It would seem you could only test for the initial surge as the device is turned on with any in lab test equipment. The device would have to be free to move for the two fields to maintain an interaction resulting in a directional force. A device in orbit, or in a lab on a turntable with an inherent resistance to motion (both from friction and perhaps inertia), less than the very small expected anomalous force.I am not sure how you are getting to that conclusion, and to the extent such a condition could even exist, the torsion pendulums in most experiments should satisfy it. It is similar to some claims from TT/Shawyer, but it makes no sense because the fields in the device cannot tell if the device is moving or not, physics is independent of reference frame, so sitting still and moving at constant velocity have the same results. The fields can tell if the device is accelerating, but the result is that the fields push (very slightly) against the direction of acceleration because they need to "accelerate" too.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 04/20/2019 07:34 pm
Patents can be tricky to analyse, as they focus mainly on a list of claims, sketches and captions, but don't necessarily detail all fundamental hypotheses in a scientific point of view. Attached below, here are two papers from same Navy researcher, related to these patents. Perhaps it would be better to analyse these published papers instead of the patents.Totally agree about trying to work backwards from patents, so I'll start looking at the papers:• "The high energy electromagnetic field generator", Int. J. Space Science and Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 4, April 2016.{…}
Thank you for taking time to read the first paper. The numbers given in Pais' example seem way too high indeed for practical use. But what about the claimed effect itself (not quantitatively but qualitatively, or taking other values a few orders of magnitude lower, so more in line with reality)? That is to say, the ability of an electrically charged body to considerably increase the electromagnetic field intensity due to its rotation under very high accelerations (hyper-frequency gyrational effect) on one hand, coupled to its vibration at high frequency (harmonic oscillations) on the other hand, as well as so-called "possible curvilinear translation"?
Dismissing the numbers, you don't seem to address the very substance of the claimed effect, which seems more interesting phenomenologically than the impracticable values given as a hypothetical example aimed to theoretically illustrate the effect.
For example, is the claimed effect backed by some theoretical grounds or data already known; or is is something peculiar that has never been measured yet/is not particularly predicted (as it describes some coupling between several effects), hence would need a dedicated experiment? Even simpler in this case, in four words: we do not know. This may be why you didn't judge the qualitative claims.
Post by: meberbs on 04/20/2019 08:34 pm
I am not seeing a claimed effect to compare to. The simple version of the claim is that his device generates high field strengths. If you take away the absurd charge densities then you get that much less field strength (Note that charge is squared in most of the equations.)Patents can be tricky to analyse, as they focus mainly on a list of claims, sketches and captions, but don't necessarily detail all fundamental hypotheses in a scientific point of view. Attached below, here are two papers from same Navy researcher, related to these patents. Perhaps it would be better to analyse these published papers instead of the patents.Totally agree about trying to work backwards from patents, so I'll start looking at the papers:• "The high energy electromagnetic field generator", Int. J. Space Science and Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 4, April 2016.{…}
Thank you for taking time to read the first paper. The numbers given in Pais' example seem way too high indeed for practical use. But what about the claimed effect itself (not quantitatively but qualitatively, or taking other values a few orders of magnitude lower, so more in line with reality)? That is to say, the ability of an electrically charged body to considerably increase the electromagnetic field intensity due to its rotation under very high accelerations (hyper-frequency gyrational effect) on one hand, coupled to its vibration at high frequency (harmonic oscillations) on the other hand, as well as so-called "possible curvilinear translation"?
There are 2 possibilities:
1. The equations used in the paper are correct, and would yield the answers consistent with standard electromagnetism. This means that it is just standard electrodynamics, nothing enhanced, and producing the expected charge fields from the charge distribution, and the expected radiation due to accelerating charges, same as any antenna, and therefore requiring power input to drive the motion at least equal to the radiated power. In this case there is nothing new.
2. The equations used are not consistent with electrodynamics. In this case there is no evidence provided in the paper that standard electrodynamics is wrong. Either (2a) the equations are wrong due to a math error, or (2b) due to an assumption of modified electrodynamics, which can't be properly considered since it hasn't been explicitly stated.
I lean towards option 2, because the equations don't look right to me due to missing factors such as anything to account for the fact that the charges closer to the center of the disk have different velocities and accelerations than those closer to the edge.
In both cases, the paper does not say anything interesting, because either it is stating nothing new, and nothing better than what is already known, or it is making a claim about something different in electromagnetism, without explicitly stating what is different (what is different possibly being just a math error). I could work out the fields for this case to determine whether the answer is option 1 or option 2 (whether it is either 2a or 2b only the author could say.) However, I do not have the time or the motivation to do so. If I ever feel like practicing multivariable calculus by solving a set of partial differential equations in cylindrical coordinates, I may come back to this, since it probably is solvable (possibly with Bessel functions.)
Post by: Bob Woods on 04/21/2019 04:15 am
It got my hopes up, but not for long.
Post by: RotoSequence on 04/24/2019 08:29 pm
https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en
Post by: FinalFrontier on 04/25/2019 02:03 am
IMHO EM drive is debunked. It does not work the desired effects were not reproducible at the stated/necessary level if at all.
Still alot of interesting things to debate and discuss regarding some of the effects seen in testing and modeling these devices but it sure looks dead as a doornail otherwise.
Post by: Mark7777777 on 04/25/2019 08:10 am
Spent a long time reading these threads in silence since the alleged effect was first discovered and it looked really promising at first. But as with many such "discoveries" in the past 20 years it once again turned out that actually there is nothing new under the sun.
IMHO EM drive is debunked. It does not work the desired effects were not reproducible at the stated/necessary level if at all.
Still alot of interesting things to debate and discuss regarding some of the effects seen in testing and modeling these devices but it sure looks dead as a doornail otherwise.
I was going to say that would mean I guess you wouldn’t think Mike McCulloch’s Quantized Inertia theory is valid since it predicts an emdrive could work. However I did a quick check on his site and see the’ve been working on a light based emdrive and said they have possibly found some thrust.
Here’s a snippet of his April 7 post on http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com:
“So much has happened over the last few months and thanks to my newly-funded collaborators, research into QI is now running on three cylinders instead of one: it was just theory, now the work includes models and experiments as well. My post doc, Dr Jesus Lucio is working very well. I asked him to write a matlab script that simulates wide binaries with ordinary Newtonian physics, and MoND and QI. His script has produced a very nice animation (see below) that shows that when you model a real wide binary, only quantised inertia (red) predicts the stars to be bound together (as they are in reality). Newton and MoND (blue and green) predict wrongly that the two stars should zoom off to infinity, and so they are falsified. He has extended this tool to also simulate the Solar system. It compares the predictions with the observed orbital trajectories. We are having fun simulating Oumuamua at the moment.
The other project I asked him to do is to develop a numerical COMSOL simulation of the asymmetric Casimir effect that underpins quantised inertia (reference 1). The process by which when you accelerate something to the right, say, relativity and the speed of light limit, implies there is a region of space to your left that you can no longer see and a horizon forms that damps the intensified (Unruh) quantum vacuum on the left side of the object leading to a net quantum force that resists the object's acceleration: inertia. Unfortunately COMSOL is having a hard time modelling a particle at the tiny Planck scale (10^-35 metres wide) moving within a cosmos approximately 8.8x10^26 metres wide. So, our first crude plan is to use a particle the size of a galaxy cluster, and then slightly smaller, and we will use the difference to extrapolate down to the Planck scale.
The two experimental teams I employed as part of my funded project are also getting started building light-emdrives. The Dresden team are building resonators, but the Madrid team are already experimenting and have seen some thrust of the hoped-for kind, that is over six sigma outside the noise. However, it will be a long struggle to show it is definitely The Big One. They are now slowly eliminating mundane effects that could also be causing it.
As well as thinking about thrust, I am trying to generalise and further extend QI to explain gravity. After reading a book by A. Unzicker (ref 2), it seems that Einstein may have been on a more QI-compatible course until 1911 when he was redirected into bent space by his geometer friend Marcel Grossman. The variable speed of light version of general relativity (VSL-GR) that Einstein published in 1911 had a flaw at the time, but that flaw was corrected by Dicke (1957) (ref 3) and this version is far simpler and agrees with all the predictions of standard general relativity. This VSL-GR is far more satisfactory to me than normal GR since it relies on a process (slowing photons) that can be measured directly, as opposed to standard GR which relies in bent space, which is an abstract thing that you cannot measure directly, except by virtue of the moving objects it was designed to predict anyway. I have had some success in building a mathematical bridge between quantised inertia and VSL-GR. I am still trying to decide whether the piles I built the bridge on (the assumptions) are solid or not. The best way to do this is to jump up and down on them a lot. I'll let you know if there is a splash.”
Post by: RERT on 04/25/2019 01:03 pm
If we hypothesize that the EM drive works due to some unexplained interaction with gravity, then it is only a very small step further to guess that any thrust will be related to the orientation of the device relative to the gravity field.
In other words, any force might be much larger if the device is oriented vertically rather than horizontally. Indeed, horizontal forces might be only 'edge effects'. However, all the measurements I can recall have been for horizontal forces, except maybe by Shawyer. I guess this is principally to avoid the worst impacts of thermal effects.
Is anyone aware of definitive (null?) measurements of vertical forces in EM-Drive tests?
Post by: dchill on 04/25/2019 01:23 pm
Back when this was in full swing, the Navy filed a patent on EM drive type devices as an inertial dampener. The intervening time has not been kind to the plausibility of microwave cavity resonant devices doing anything interesting.Maybe the Navy is willing to entertain the possibility that it might work for the same reason they're starting to fund a more systematic recording pilot's observations of unexplained phenomena :o:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2019/04/24/how-angry-pilots-got-navy-stop-dismissing-ufo-sightings/?utm_term=.5b1d59433e3e (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2019/04/24/how-angry-pilots-got-navy-stop-dismissing-ufo-sightings/?utm_term=.5b1d59433e3e)
"but these vehicles all had no air intake, no wind and no exhaust"
Interesting that this is in the WaPo no less.
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/25/2019 01:43 pm
[Editorial note: Mark7777777=MK Final Frontier=FF]
Spent a long time reading these threads in silence since the alleged effect was first discovered and it looked really promising at first. But as with many such "discoveries" in the past 20 years it once again turned out that actually there is nothing new under the sun.
IMHO EM drive is debunked. It does not work the desired effects were not reproducible at the stated/necessary level if at all.
Still alot of interesting things to debate and discuss regarding some of the effects seen in testing and modeling these devices but it sure looks dead as a doornail otherwise.
I was going to say that would mean I guess you wouldn’t think Mike McCulloch’s [MM] Quantized Inertia theory is valid since it predicts an emdrive could work. However I did a quick check on his site and see the’ve been working on a light based emdrive and said they have possibly found some thrust.
FF says pretty clearly that EM drive has been debunked in his view. A quick search of the site yields no results for FF and the terms Mike McCulloch, or Quantized Inertia [QI]. There are a few hits on FF and the term Inertia, mostly as "political inertia".
Quote from: MK
Here’s a snippet of his April 7 post on http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com:
“So much has happened over the last few months and thanks to my newly-funded collaborators, research into QI is now running on three cylinders instead of one: it was just theory, now the work includes models and experiments as well. My post doc, Dr Jesus Lucio is working very well. I asked him to write a matlab script that simulates wide binaries with ordinary Newtonian physics, and MoND and QI.
His script has produced a very nice animation (see below) that shows that when you model a real wide binary, only quantised inertia (red) predicts the stars to be bound together (as they are in reality). Newton and MoND (blue and green) predict wrongly that the two stars should zoom off to infinity, and so they are falsified. He has extended this tool to also simulate the Solar system. It compares the predictions with the observed orbital trajectories. We are having fun simulating Oumuamua at the moment.
MM's post doc is writing a Matlab script modeling stellar bodies in such a fashion as to confirm certain QI predictions, and they are also playing games. Without that script in hand, we cannot know if it is correctly modeling even the QI math. So this can be nothing more than a publicity statement, since it cannot be independently confirmed whether or not the model predicts only its assumptions.
Quote from: MM
The other project I asked him to do is to develop a numerical COMSOL simulation of the asymmetric Casimir effect that underpins quantised inertia (reference 1). The process by which when you accelerate something to the right, say, relativity and the speed of light limit, implies there is a region of space to your left that you can no longer see and a horizon forms that damps the intensified (Unruh) quantum vacuum on the left side of the object leading to a net quantum force that resists the object's acceleration: inertia. Unfortunately COMSOL is having a hard time modelling a particle at the tiny Planck scale (10^-35 metres wide) moving within a cosmos approximately 8.8x10^26 metres wide. So, our first crude plan is to use a particle the size of a galaxy cluster, and then slightly smaller, and we will use the difference to extrapolate down to the Planck scale.
MM will be using a galaxy cluster to model a Planck scale particle in a COMSOL routine. Does this not strike even the most casual of scientific observers as an approximation bound for failure because of scalar problems? Without the routine at hand, the scalar problems they are facing cannot be addressed independently. This does not seem to be a sound line of inquiry.
Quote from: MM
The two experimental teams I employed as part of my funded project are also getting started building light-emdrives. The Dresden team are building resonators, but the Madrid team are already experimenting and have seen some thrust of the hoped-for kind, that is over six sigma outside the noise. However, it will be a long struggle to show it is definitely The Big One. They are now slowly eliminating mundane effects that could also be causing it.
They're building "light-emdrives" without any understanding of how they might work? There's neither a valid Matlab script nor a valid COMSOL simulation per their own telling. And what are these "mundane effects which are causing it"? "It" being what, exactly? The noise? Does this passage strike the casual scientific observer as being evidence of nothing?
Quote from: MM
As well as thinking about thrust, I am trying to generalise and further extend QI to explain gravity. After reading a book by A. Unzicker (ref 2), it seems that Einstein may have been on a more QI-compatible course until 1911 when he was redirected into bent space by his geometer friend Marcel Grossman. The variable speed of light version of general relativity (VSL-GR) that Einstein published in 1911 had a flaw at the time, but that flaw was corrected by Dicke (1957) (ref 3) and this version is far simpler and agrees with all the predictions of standard general relativity. This VSL-GR is far more satisfactory to me than normal GR since it relies on a process (slowing photons) that can be measured directly, as opposed to standard GR which relies in bent space, which is an abstract thing that you cannot measure directly, except by virtue of the moving objects it was designed to predict anyway. I have had some success in building a mathematical bridge between quantised inertia and VSL-GR. I am still trying to decide whether the piles I built the bridge on (the assumptions) are solid or not. The best way to do this is to jump up and down on them a lot. I'll let you know if there is a splash.”
Sadly, this appears to be a word salad which references several famous people and their writings. The casual scientific observer will simply have to wait for the "splash", if ever.
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/25/2019 01:46 pm
Maybe the Navy is willing to entertain the possibility that it might work for the same reason they're starting to fund a more systematic recording pilot's observations of unexplained phenomena ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2019/04/24/how-angry-pilots-got-navy-stop-dismissing-ufo-sightings/?utm_term=.5b1d59433e3e (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2019/04/24/how-angry-pilots-got-navy-stop-dismissing-ufo-sightings/?utm_term=.5b1d59433e3e)
"but these vehicles all had no air intake, no wind and no exhaust"
Interesting that this is in the WaPo no less.
Just saw that article this morning. Clearly the observed vehicles do not have sails, since they have no "wind".
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/25/2019 01:48 pm
A thought...
If we hypothesize that the EM drive works due to some unexplained interaction with gravity, then it is only a very small step further to guess that any thrust will be related to the orientation of the device relative to the gravity field.
What? If we hypothesize that EM drives work, then why stretch that hypothesis further, with no cause to believe that the hypothesis itself is correct?
Post by: as58 on 04/25/2019 03:15 pm
Post by: meberbs on 04/25/2019 03:39 pm
I don't know what exactly McCulloch's animation is supposed to represent, but if it is a simulation of some kind of binary it's definitely weird. In Newtonian/GR gravity the objects don't seem to feel any gravitational pull, in (some unspecified variety of) MoND they have a very, very wide orbit and in QI the orbit is tighter with extreme apsidal precession.He is looking at wide binaries which supposedly have velocities that don't match up with the predictions of GR, however it is possible that there are unaccounted for errors in the original data this is based on.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.13397
Given the results in the paper I just linked, calling GR and MOND "falsified" based on his data is premature at the least. On the other hand, McCulloch has made predictions that if they are true predictions of his theory, mean that his theory is falsified. (for example he claims the Pioneer Anomaly is not due to asymetric thermal radiation, even though the best thermal models show that Pioneer should be accelerating due to asymmetric thermal radiation.)
Post by: FinalFrontier on 04/26/2019 02:35 am
You have to prove consistently a reproducible result. That is the problem with em drive, it has been entirely inconsistent and independent research groups that did very detailed very deep dive work trying to replicate what initially was proposed by folks like shawyer have been unsuccessful and have found reasons for possible contamination of results made by the initial supporters.
As far as MM is concerned I wish him and his group luck but John Fornaro said it better than I was going to. To be blunt building something without knowing how it works, not publishing your modeling parameters or how your model even works, and suggesting that you have successfully backed up your own theory with models that exist in the virtual world only, really doesn't inspire confidence.
Don't want to sound to harsh I really admire all the work so many people did trying to run this down, but I feel (in my opinion) based on the data that's out there these things don't work. They might still warrant further study due to some of the bizarre microwave field effects seen in the cavities but as research devices not as a potential future reactionless drives.
Post by: Notsosureofit on 04/26/2019 11:20 am
Micro-wormholes anyone?
Post by: RotoSequence on 04/26/2019 05:08 pm
I don't know what exactly McCulloch's animation is supposed to represent, but if it is a simulation of some kind of binary it's definitely weird. In Newtonian/GR gravity the objects don't seem to feel any gravitational pull, in (some unspecified variety of) MoND they have a very, very wide orbit and in QI the orbit is tighter with extreme apsidal precession.He is looking at wide binaries which supposedly have velocities that don't match up with the predictions of GR, however it is possible that there are unaccounted for errors in the original data this is based on.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.13397
Given the results in the paper I just linked, calling GR and MOND "falsified" based on his data is premature at the least. On the other hand, McCulloch has made predictions that if they are true predictions of his theory, mean that his theory is falsified. (for example he claims the Pioneer Anomaly is not due to asymetric thermal radiation, even though the best thermal models show that Pioneer should be accelerating due to asymmetric thermal radiation.)
I think there's room for at least one more missing piece in the physics puzzle:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.07603
Large Magellanic Cloud Cepheid Standards Provide a 1% Foundation for the Determination of the Hubble Constant and Stronger Evidence for Physics Beyond LambdaCDM
Quote from: Adam G. Riess, Stefano Casertano, Wenlong Yuan, Lucas M. Macri, Dan Scolnic
We present an improved determination of the Hubble constant (H0) from Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations of 70 long-period Cepheids in the Large Magellanic Cloud. These were obtained with the same WFC3 photometric system used to measure Cepheids in the hosts of Type Ia supernovae. Gyroscopic control of HST was employed to reduce overheads while collecting a large sample of widely-separated Cepheids. The Cepheid Period-Luminosity relation provides a zeropoint-free link with 0.4% precision between the new 1.2% geometric distance to the LMC from Detached Eclipsing Binaries (DEBs) measured by Pietrzynski et al (2019) and the luminosity of SNe Ia. Measurements and analysis of the LMC Cepheids were completed prior to knowledge of the new LMC distance. Combined with a refined calibration of the count-rate linearity of WFC3-IR with 0.1% precision (Riess et al 2019), these three improved elements together reduce the full uncertainty in the LMC geometric calibration of the Cepheid distance ladder from 2.5% to 1.3%. Using only the LMC DEBs to calibrate the ladder we find H0=74.22 +/- 1.82 km/s/Mpc including systematic uncertainties, 3% higher than before for this particular anchor. Combining the LMC DEBs, masers in NGC 4258 and Milky Way parallaxes yields our best estimate: H0 = 74.03 +/- 1.42 km/s/Mpc, including systematics, an uncertainty of 1.91%---15% lower than our best previous result. Removing any one of these anchors changes H0 by < 0.7%. The difference between H0 measured locally and the value inferred from Planck CMB+LCDM is 6.6+/-1.5 km/s/Mpc or 4.4 sigma (P=99.999% for Gaussian errors) in significance, raising the discrepancy beyond a plausible level of chance. We summarize independent tests which show this discrepancy is not readily attributable to an error in any one source or measurement, increasing the odds that it results from a cosmological feature beyond LambdaCDM.
Post by: mandrewa on 04/26/2019 07:00 pm
https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2019/04/models-experiments-theory.html
This is a prediction! He's not talking about an observed system.
He's saying that if his theory is true, we should be able to find wide binary systems that behave exactly like this. In fact if his Quantized Inertia theory is correct, then there should be a whole bunch of wide binaries right here in our galaxy showing this behavior. In fact they all should.
This is how real science is supposed to work. Theoretical physicists theorize. And then experimenters, or observers in this case, go out and show that they are wrong. Because that is what usually happens. Or we could say it's the universe that says "No!"
Of course, if people start observing wide binaries and they find out that they really are showing this behavior, well that's pretty good evidence for Quantized Inertia, but it is also evidence for an alternate explanation: Dark Matter.
The reason people believe in the Dark Matter hypothesis is that 99.99% of the galaxies in the universe have motions that don't make sense under Newtonian Physics. A simple explanation for that is invisible matter that we are not seeing.
Obviously the same can be done with wide binaries if they are manifesting this behavior that McCullough is predicting.
On the other hand, if observers don't find that wide binaries are behaving like this, then that's pretty strong evidence that the theory of Quantized Inertia as currently constituted is wrong.
Post by: meberbs on 04/26/2019 08:21 pm
I think there is a misunderstanding about what Mike McCulloch is doing in his April 7th post:Completely false.
https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2019/04/models-experiments-theory.html
This is a prediction! He's not talking about an observed system.
He says he is modelling a real system:
Quote
when you model a real wide binary,You can go do a search on "wide binaries" and you will see there are experimental results showing a conflict between the observed velocities and the expectations based on GR. I already provided a link to a paper which indicates that such conflicts may simply be due to not properly accounting for projection effects when comparing the relative velocities.
He's saying that if his theory is true, we should be able to find wide binary systems that behave exactly like this.No, he is stating (incorrectly) that he has falsified GR and MOND, which is something you can only even assert when you are comparing to experimental data.
Post by: meberbs on 04/26/2019 08:44 pm
We know that current theories of the universe aren't complete. Dark energy is basically a placeholder, and as the paper you referenced discusses, the Hubble constant does not seem to be as constant as it should be. (Actually it isn't a constant to begin with, but after taking out other things that make it vary such as accelerating expansion due to dark energy, things still aren't matching up.)He is looking at wide binaries which supposedly have velocities that don't match up with the predictions of GR, however it is possible that there are unaccounted for errors in the original data this is based on.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.13397
Given the results in the paper I just linked, calling GR and MOND "falsified" based on his data is premature at the least. On the other hand, McCulloch has made predictions that if they are true predictions of his theory, mean that his theory is falsified. (for example he claims the Pioneer Anomaly is not due to asymetric thermal radiation, even though the best thermal models show that Pioneer should be accelerating due to asymmetric thermal radiation.)
I think there's room for at least one more missing piece in the physics puzzle:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.07603
This is one of the places where there most likely actually is "new physics" needed, but there is a lot of uncertainty, making it hard to come up with a new consistent theory.
My post about McCulloch's results was just stating that the specific data he is looking at may be a non-problem, and that there are other predictions he has made that aren't supported by experiment. I didn't mean to imply that GR (and specifically, lambda-CDM) predicts everything perfectly, but that the regime that McCulloch was discussing is one where GR can still be fine.
Post by: mandrewa on 04/26/2019 09:38 pm
I think there is a misunderstanding about what Mike McCulloch is doing in his April 7th post:Completely false.
https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2019/04/models-experiments-theory.html
This is a prediction! He's not talking about an observed system.
He says he is modelling a real system:
You say this with such assurance. What do you mean "completely false?" Are you saying he is not making predictions about the behavior of wide binaries? Are you saying that a similar analysis can't be applied to every other wide binary?
Here's the relevant quote from the blog entry:
Quote
My post doc, Dr Jesus Lucio is working very well. I asked him to write a matlab script that simulates wide binaries with ordinary Newtonian physics, and MoND and QI. His script has produced a very nice animation (see below) that shows that when you model a real wide binary, only quantised inertia (red) predicts the stars to be bound together (as they are in reality).
If your point is that they didn't start by creating a completely imaginary wide binary, well then you may be right. Although I also think this is a lot to read into one adjective, "real," in a blog post, and that he may have intended a different meaning.
But if your claim, "completely false," is that they aren't making a prediction that can be applied to wide binaries in general, then I think you're mistaken.
And if you're thinking that these two have made a detailed study of the data from a particular binary and found that in detail the data supports Quantized Inertia, I think you're reading more into it than was intended. You might be right, but my guess would be that they discovered that, Aha!, the predictions of Newtonian Physics and Quantized Inertia for a wide binary system should diverge enough that we should be able to observe it.
Thus, I'll say it again. This is a prediction: a testable prediction.
Post by: meberbs on 04/26/2019 11:05 pm
Except it is not just "one adjective." He repeats this at the end of the paragraph "as they are in reality." And he also makes the claim that the result falsifies GR and MOND which is not a sensible statement unless he was the simulation was based off of measured experimental data.I think there is a misunderstanding about what Mike McCulloch is doing in his April 7th post:Completely false.
https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2019/04/models-experiments-theory.html
This is a prediction! He's not talking about an observed system.
He says he is modelling a real system:
You say this with such assurance. What do you mean "completely false?" Are you saying he is not making predictions about the behavior of wide binaries? Are you saying that a similar analysis can't be applied to every other wide binary?
Here's the relevant quote from the blog entry:QuoteMy post doc, Dr Jesus Lucio is working very well. I asked him to write a matlab script that simulates wide binaries with ordinary Newtonian physics, and MoND and QI. His script has produced a very nice animation (see below) that shows that when you model a real wide binary, only quantised inertia (red) predicts the stars to be bound together (as they are in reality).
If your point is that they didn't start by creating a completely imaginary wide binary, well then you may be right. Although I also think this is a lot to read into one adjective, "real," in a blog post, and that he may have intended a different meaning.
But if your claim, "completely false," is that they aren't making a prediction that can be applied to wide binaries in general, then I think you're mistaken.No, not what I was saying, though it is debatable if "prediction" is the correct term when the experimental data is taken first (which is a fine thing to do.)
And if you're thinking that these two have made a detailed study of the data from a particular binary and found that in detail the data supports Quantized Inertia, I think you're reading more into it than was intended.He says that he falsified both GR and MOND, while his theory matches "reality." That is an even stronger statement than the one you just made. I am not reading between the lines, he is stating this in plain English.
Thus, I'll say it again. This is a prediction: a testable prediction.He has made a number of supposedly "testable predictions" of his theory. It doesn't seem to bother him much that his predictions have been incorrect on things like the emDrive and the Pioneer anomaly.
Post by: mandrewa on 04/26/2019 11:35 pm
I also notice the odds are against him. Anyone that dares to come up with new ideas is likely to be wrong.
But I think this is what theoretical physicists should be doing. The odds are against them but this is the way we improve our understanding of the universe.
And by the way, he made another testable prediction, that was mentioned about a month ago on this forum that I'm not sure people caught.
From Mike McCulloch on twitter below. Would be interesting to see this 6.5 sigma data and the test rig.
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1114176825733914625
Mike McCulloch
Good news from Madrid: the #QI laser loop experiment is showing a thrust 6.5 sigma over the noise. Its size is as expected. We have 2b cautious still that it is not some spurious effect, but photon absorption & magnetic fields have been ruled out. #QI #theempiriciststrikesback
Mike McCulloch
Yes. The thrust is tiny (1 microNewton) but, if it is real, then it is scale-up-able.
So if I understand, his theory predicted that if you send light around a loop near to an information boundary you are going to get a force to the side. And because of that prediction, someone tried to do it. And so far or at least as of three weeks ago, they are seeing a force!
Amazing stuff if they haven't made a mistake. We might see a paper in a few years.
Post by: Monomorphic on 04/26/2019 11:50 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5I2Y05IF-kY
Post by: meberbs on 04/27/2019 12:10 am
To be honest, I interpret Mike McCulloch generously. I'm pretty sure some of the things he's said are wrong. He has this hammer, his Quantitative Inertia theory, and he is trying to apply it to everything. Even in the best case not all of his flights of fancy are going to be correct.He earned a LOT of credibility back with me with his response to a criticism of his paper back around December. That doesn't change that he has made predictions inconsistent with experiments. There is nothing wrong with coming up with an incorrect theory, but when data disagrees with you, you have to acknowledge that you have screws not nails, and put down your hammer. McCulloch seems to be missing this last step.
I also notice the odds are against him. Anyone that dares to come up with new ideas is likely to be wrong.
Making "new" predictions doesn't help much when you have already made failed predictions.
Post by: mandrewa on 04/27/2019 12:24 am
Quote
Except it is not just "one adjective." He repeats this at the end of the paragraph "as they are in reality." And he also makes the claim that the result falsifies GR and MOND which is not a sensible statement unless he was the simulation was based off of measured experimental data.
That phrase, "as they are in reality," is a bad sign, because it suggests he is fully committed to his theory. That may be humanly understandable, but it means he may not the right person to test these testable predictions.
I interpreted this as saying that their calculations showed you should be able to distinguish between Newtonian Physics, Quantitative Inertia, and MOND theory for wide binaries. I didn't think that he meant that they had actually tested it.
McCullough is theoretical not experimental. He only does experiments when he is forced to. As a theoretician he understands he needs to find testable predictions which someone whose talents lie in that direction can then run with.
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/27/2019 02:44 pm
I also notice the odds are against him. Anyone that dares to come up with new ideas is likely to be wrong.
I would like to observe that your language veers from the realm of the scientific into the realm of emotion. Mike is not "daring" to come up with a new idea. He has a new idea, QI, and has convinced himself that QI has predictive ability in the real world. He has convinced others to fund his research into QI, but so far, he has not disproven GR.
Post by: meberbs on 04/27/2019 11:36 pm
McCullough is theoretical not experimental. He only does experiments when he is forced to. As a theoretician he understands he needs to find testable predictions which someone whose talents lie in that direction can then run with.For cosmology, experiments often consist of just taking as much data as we can about other stars and galaxies and cataloging them. Theoreticians can then go take that data and show whether their model matches it. Most of his claims, such as the one about wide binaries are not ones that he needs other people to go run an experiment for. This is why it would be strange if he did not use real data for his simulation. (Though the paper I linked to points out errors typical in determining the velocity of the binary stars.)
This is stretching pretty far off topic though, so probably no more on this subject from me right now.
Post by: as58 on 04/28/2019 12:33 pm
To be honest, I interpret Mike McCulloch generously. I'm pretty sure some of the things he's said are wrong. He has this hammer, his Quantitative Inertia theory, and he is trying to apply it to everything. Even in the best case not all of his flights of fancy are going to be correct.
Indeed, he hurts his credibility when he tries to explain all sorts of "anomalies" with his theory, sometimes even those that almost nobody believes exist in the first place. IMO, it would be more valuable to show that his theory does not break in the huge number of cases where conventional physics work just fine. I think that would be quite a high hurdle, given how different predictions his theory seems to give in some cases, such as wide binaries.
Post by: dustinthewind on 04/28/2019 08:40 pm
To be honest, I interpret Mike McCulloch generously. I'm pretty sure some of the things he's said are wrong. He has this hammer, his Quantitative Inertia theory, and he is trying to apply it to everything. Even in the best case not all of his flights of fancy are going to be correct.
Indeed, he hurts his credibility when he tries to explain all sorts of "anomalies" with his theory, sometimes even those that almost nobody believes exist in the first place. IMO, it would be more valuable to show that his theory does not break in the huge number of cases where conventional physics work just fine. I think that would be quite a high hurdle, given how different predictions his theory seems to give in some cases, such as wide binaries.
I would look at it as though he's doing a service if he is forthright in the work he does. The fact that there's still exist unexplainable phenomena that may need yet to get the explained means we need a way to predict that behavior. If it turns out we can't predict behaviors and that's well confirmed then we may look to other methods to try and predict them. If someone's already done the work and can predict it then that may save us a lot of time trying to figure it out. Not everyone can do that kind of work.
You are right though in that it also needs to predict pre-existing phenomena.
Post by: Slangny on 04/29/2019 03:42 pm
Quote
The diametric drive involves an initial negative mass, it does not involve the continuous creation of negative mass.- by senior member "Rodal", 2016, Thread 6 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.2600)
The papers I have seen from Bondi and Forward involve an initial negative mass, they do not involve the continuous creation of negative mass.
Their discussion of conservation of momentum (that I have seen) is much simpler, giving the fact that they only involve an initial negative mass instead of a variable mass.
What is being examined here instead is the creation of negative mass, starting from zero negative mass, and arises as a necessity of conserving momentum in a closed-system self-accelerating (instead of involving two separate particles as in the diametric drive one of them having initial negative mass).
Have you examined any papers (*) that discuss the continuous creation of negative mass, starting from zero negative mass, and its consequences for conservation of momentum?
____
(*) except for Woodward's who does discuss the creation of negative mass through one type of Mach Effect. However, I am not familiar whether Woodward has discussed the conservation of momentum equations and analyzed it as I did. Woodward's hypothesis has always been on the table regarding the EM Drive, certainly Paul March thinks so.
My apologies to resurrect an old comment, but I noticed this older comment on Woodward's work with awe. Did you see the paper last year on negative mass creation? https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A%26A...620A..92F
It was widely covered in popular media and berated by some scientists:
https://www.techtimes.com/articles/236043/20181206/new-scientific-model-describing-dark-fluid-with-negative-mass-could-make-up-most-of-the-universe.htm
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2018/12/no-negative-masses-have-not.html
It also was broken down by the lead scientist for us commoners: http://theconversation.com/bizarre-dark-fluid-with-negative-mass-could-dominate-the-universe-what-my-research-suggests-107922
This seems to describe the continuous creation of negative mass, using full GR equations, which is precisely what is required in the EMdrive model of Woodward! Has anyone tried applying a creation tensor to the EMdrive?
Post by: RERT on 05/01/2019 08:52 am
A thought...
If we hypothesize that the EM drive works due to some unexplained interaction with gravity, then it is only a very small step further to guess that any thrust will be related to the orientation of the device relative to the gravity field.
What? If we hypothesize that EM drives work, then why stretch that hypothesis further, with no cause to believe that the hypothesis itself is correct?
Because (unless I'm mistaken) all of the experiments which have shown a null result for the EMdrive are measuring horizontal forces: that's the natural thing to do with a torsion balance. So if the force is mostly up or down, they may be missing something. I'd also comment that some theory of operation (resonance etc, for instance) is needed to even attempt a replication.
Post by: Star One on 05/01/2019 11:02 am
To be honest, I interpret Mike McCulloch generously. I'm pretty sure some of the things he's said are wrong. He has this hammer, his Quantitative Inertia theory, and he is trying to apply it to everything. Even in the best case not all of his flights of fancy are going to be correct.
Indeed, he hurts his credibility when he tries to explain all sorts of "anomalies" with his theory, sometimes even those that almost nobody believes exist in the first place. IMO, it would be more valuable to show that his theory does not break in the huge number of cases where conventional physics work just fine. I think that would be quite a high hurdle, given how different predictions his theory seems to give in some cases, such as wide binaries.
Other than the fact that it’s arguable that conventional physics is also broken until quantum and general relativity are reconcilable. There was an article recently in the New Scientist about all the numerous theories on how black holes are theorised to work because no one really knows what is beyond the event horizon. The concept of a singularity is in many ways just a place holder in theory because of all the infinities involved in describing it.
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/01/2019 12:13 pm
A thought...
If we hypothesize that the EM drive works due to some unexplained interaction with gravity, then it is only a very small step further to guess that any thrust will be related to the orientation of the device relative to the gravity field.
What? If we hypothesize that EM drives work, then why stretch that hypothesis further, with no cause to believe that the hypothesis itself is correct?
Because (unless I'm mistaken) all of the experiments which have shown a null result for the EMdrive are measuring horizontal forces: that's the natural thing to do with a torsion balance. So if the force is mostly up or down, they may be missing something. I'd also comment that some theory of operation (resonance etc, for instance) is needed to even attempt a replication.
Perhaps the universe has a horizontal and a vertical axis. If one chooses a merry-go-round as a thought model of that universe, there would be distinctly different forces at hand depending on the choice of a vertical or horizontal frame of reference. To my knowledge, this is not the case with this universe.
On the surface of the Earth, which dominates the local gravitational frame of reference, we find that it takes far more energy to move away from the Earth's COG than it takes to move parallel to the Earth's surface.
From a pragmatic standpoint, when attempting to detect tiny forces in a frame of reference where gravitational effects are dominant on the macro scale of the detection experiment, a horizontal torsion balance aids greatly in that detection. Still, there is nothing in physics which supports the notion that while one can walk along the highway using energy, that one cannot scale a cliff using energy.
In fact, the better experimenters who have reported on this thread have tested their "devices" in a variety of orientations in an effort to rule out unknown gravitational influences on the forces they are interested in finding.
Post by: RERT on 05/02/2019 11:24 am
...In fact, the better experimenters who have reported on this thread have tested their "devices" in a variety of orientations in an effort to rule out unknown gravitational influences on the forces they are interested in finding.
Monomorphic, Tajmar, and NRL have all used EMdrive devices on a torsion balance, with the device orientated horizontally, at a variety of angles to the beam, usually +-90, 0 and 180 degrees. The original NASA paper also fits in that category. Again, that's unless I'm mistaken.
Does anyone know if there has been a high-quality thrust measurement of a vertical EMDrive?
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/02/2019 12:03 pm
Does anyone know if there has been a high-quality thrust measurement of a vertical EMDrive?
Do you have a scientific basis for supporting your apparent contention that there is a preferential direction for measuring force or thrust?
Post by: RERT on 05/03/2019 10:40 am
Does anyone know if there has been a high-quality thrust measurement of a vertical EMDrive?
Do you have a scientific basis for supporting your apparent contention that there is a preferential direction for measuring force or thrust?
My contention is that space is not isotropic at the earth's surface. Gravity determines a preferred direction. Only measuring perpendicular to that direction is an experimental weakness. We know that the EMDrive must break physical laws to operate as described. If the EMDrive has *any* unexpected interaction with gravity, the direction of the local field may be relevant. That is a very general and plausible enough hypothesis to seek data to falsify it, and to ask if there have been any high-quality measurements of vertically oriented EMDrives.
Post by: kenny008 on 05/03/2019 11:44 am
If we continue to find no evidence for the initial claim, but we instead continue to shift our focus to other never-observed-before effects, we'll eventually end up on Thread 42 and still be saying, "Yeah, but what about...?".
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/03/2019 02:49 pm
My contention is that space is not isotropic at the earth's surface.
Neither is space "isotropic" in this sense near the "surface" of a black hole, near the sun, nor out in the middle of nowhere, say Iowa. In fact, if one is looking for a small force, then one would be well advised to set one's measuring device such that any nearby planets under one's feet, would NOT dilute the force measurement completely.
Perhaps re-read the oracle on Isotropy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotropy
"The Big Bang theory of the evolution of the observable universe assumes that space is isotropic."
Your "contention is that space is not isotropic at the earth's surface." This is one of those extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence.
... we'll eventually end up on Thread 42 and still be saying, "Yeah, but what about...?
Precisely.
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 05/03/2019 03:16 pm
Others replied him that NSF was not related to NASA; also the denial was not caused by the Great Fire Wall.
Post by: RERT on 05/05/2019 01:12 pm
Somewhat dumbfounded that people would be more convinced by an attempt to re-write the laws of physics in a blog post, than by simply accepting that a gravitational interaction might involve the local field.
Post by: oyzw on 05/05/2019 01:46 pm
Post by: oyzw on 05/05/2019 01:48 pm
Post by: oyzw on 05/05/2019 01:56 pm
Post by: OnlyMe on 05/05/2019 02:57 pm
The result of vertical measurements will be different from horizontal testing, which I have discussed many times with professor Yang, and she seems to agree with me. I'm going to redesign the cavity and no longer stick to a cone.
It seem understandable that there could/would be difference between vertical and horizontal measurements... for a variety of reasons. The different test beds have their own strengths and weaknesses.
What is not clear is why that leads to changing the basic conical design, without an explanation for how that might improve the expected results. So far it seems there has been no publicly shared conclusive experimental results confirming a generated useable force, using the basic conical design. Do you have access to additional data?
Post by: Notsosureofit on 05/06/2019 11:29 am
Just an interesting reference in my bumbling after entropy arguments. Looks somewhat circular...opinions ?
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/06/2019 12:34 pm
I guess it's clear that no-one can reference a high-quality force measurement on a vertically oriented EMdrive. That's cool.
Whaddaya mean by "reference"? There doesn't appear to be anything to "refer" to.
Quote from: RERT
A teensy bit of anti-gravity isn't be nearly as interesting as a teensy bit of propellant-less thrust, though I confess interesting enough for me.
That's nice to hear of your interests, but we've all read a good bit of the sci-fi section at the public library, and are broadly familiar with the concept of "anti-gravity".
Quote from: RERT
Somewhat dumbfounded that people would be more convinced by an attempt to re-write the laws of physics in a blog post, than by simply accepting that a gravitational interaction might involve the local field.
Not sure how many "people" you refer to, but the more credible people here are simply not "convinced by an attempt to rewrite the laws of physics in a blog post". Perhaps you could elaborate?
Also, what do you mean by "simply accept"? Every experimenter here is careful to account for gravity and a host of other forces which dampen what they think is their signal. They all already "simply accept" that we have a large planet under foot. Perhaps you could demonstrate a rational line of argumentation of why these experimental devices wrongly account for the gravitational interaction from the local field.
So far, all you appear to be saying is 'point that thing up' or 'point that thing down'.
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/06/2019 12:37 pm
The result of vertical measurements will be different from horizontal testing, which I have discussed many times with professor Yang, and she seems to agree with me. I'm going to redesign the cavity and no longer stick to a cone.
You seem to be conflating the angle of testing with the design of the device.
Post by: bad_astra on 05/06/2019 03:32 pm
Does anyone know if there has been a high-quality thrust measurement of a vertical EMDrive?
I'm not going to qualify if it was high quality, but Berca Iulian had some of the most interesting results early on, when he went from pendulum test to vertical. I'm not suer if Iluian continued his tests or stopped for some reason.
I recall seeing one other vertical mass test which also showed results but did not show results in the horizontal. I do not remember who it was, though.
Post by: RERT on 05/06/2019 04:47 pm
RE: JohnFornano - my hypothesis is that the EMdrive interacts in an unknown way with gravity. I can't spell that out more clearly, because I would be foolishly re-writing the laws of physics in a blog post, and in any case I don't have a specific theory. I don't need one. The hypothesis as stands has a very likely consequence that any force generated by the EM drive will depend on its orientation relative to the local field. Hence it asks the question as to whether we have seen null results with the truncated cone pointing up and down, as well has horizontally. I don't believe we have.
If the hypothesis turns out to be correct, we would have something not as useful as a thruster which can point in any direction, but something which might counteract (or with our luck reinforce) gravity. Which is interesting. Hence my somewhat frivolously worded remarks about anti-gravity.
I'm not stating anything about, or casting any aspersions on, any work anyone has done to test the EMdrive. In fact I'm implicitly accepting the now conventional wisdom that we have credible null results for horizontally oriented EM drives. If you wanted you could boil my thought down to the observation that we don't have credible null results for vertically oriented EMdrives, and I'm pointing out that that just conceivably could matter.
Post by: kenny008 on 05/06/2019 05:51 pm
RE: JohnFornano - my hypothesis is that the EMdrive interacts in an unknown way with gravity. I can't spell that out more clearly, because I would be foolishly re-writing the laws of physics in a blog post, and in any case I don't have a specific theory. I don't need one. The hypothesis as stands has a very likely consequence that any force generated by the EM drive will depend on its orientation relative to the local field. Hence it asks the question as to whether we have seen null results with the truncated cone pointing up and down, as well has horizontally. I don't believe we have.
If the hypothesis turns out to be correct, we would have something not as useful as a thruster which can point in any direction, but something which might counteract (or with our luck reinforce) gravity. Which is interesting. Hence my somewhat frivolously worded remarks about anti-gravity.
But why would you think there is a vertical component? What would lead you to offer this hypothesis? The entire set of EM Drive threads are being discussed because there were some possible force measurements in the horizontal plane. As we continue to refine measurements and eliminate sources of error, those initial measurements have been most likely due to measurement errors. If it turns out the initial measurements were noise, why would we then start looking for a vertical component, when there's no scientific basis for either the horizontal or vertical thrust?
Once we are reasonably convinced that there are no horizontal forces, I don't see any reason to continue to look for additional random forces that have no theory requiring them. If we are finally (reasonably) convinced that there ARE horizontal forces, only then would it make sense to check for additional off-axis forces.
Post by: Bob Woods on 05/07/2019 05:35 am
Consensus was: 1) Excitement, 2) A recognition that a more sophisticated apparatus was necessary.
I don't remember if Monomorphic changed his orientation of the frustum in any of his tests on a far more sophisticated measurement device, but he showed that false positives were clearly possible, and even likely.
If you think a vertical device will work, build a test bed at least as sophisticated as Mono did and post your results.
Post by: RERT on 05/07/2019 12:05 pm
I've pointed out that all the null results so far have been horizontal measurements. The lack of good vertical measurements is a tiny gap in the data which maybe someone might be in a position to fill in one day.
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/07/2019 01:49 pm
RE: JohnFornano - my hypothesis is that the EMdrive interacts in an unknown way with gravity. I can't spell that out more clearly, because I would be foolishly re-writing the laws of physics in a blog post, and in any case I don't have a specific theory. I don't need one. The hypothesis as stands has a very likely consequence that any force generated by the EM drive will depend on its orientation relative to the local field. Hence it asks the question as to whether we have seen null results with the truncated cone pointing up and down, as well has horizontally. I don't believe we have.
First, the Quote function here works pretty well. Try it, you'll like it.
Second: Hate to be harsh, but may I have French dressing with that word salad? Again, it sounds like the gist of your "hypothesis" is to point the cone up or down, expecting a different result, because... well, because you think that space is not isotropic on the Earth's surface.
Quote from: RERT
If the hypothesis turns out to be correct, we would have something not as useful as a thruster which can point in any direction, but something which might counteract (or with our luck reinforce) gravity. Which is interesting. Hence my somewhat frivolously worded remarks about anti-gravity.
Just no. Sorry.
Quote from: RERT
I'm not stating anything about, or casting any aspersions on, any work anyone has done to test the EMdrive.
No worries on that point.
Quote from: RERT
In fact I'm implicitly accepting the now conventional wisdom that we have credible null results for horizontally oriented EM drives. If you wanted you could boil my thought down to the observation that we don't have credible null results for vertically oriented EMdrives, and I'm pointing out that that just conceivably could matter.
Space is isotropic.
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/07/2019 01:52 pm
Way back in the EM Drive stone age, around 2015, RFMWGUY ran his test on a teeter-totter setup with his frustum small end up and small end down in tests.
That's right! I had forgotten that. Weren't there thermal issues also involved?
Post by: Bob Woods on 05/07/2019 06:49 pm
Dave's frustum was not a sealed unit, it was shaped using wire mesh. I think part of that was to reduce ballooning and because it was easier/cheaper for him to fabricate. Nevertheless, the solid end-plates in a vertical orientation would still present a possible convection trapping sail. He did use liquid metal contacts, but I think they didn't work too well due to surface resistance and that fact it was a teeter-totter setup.Way back in the EM Drive stone age, around 2015, RFMWGUY ran his test on a teeter-totter setup with his frustum small end up and small end down in tests.
That's right! I had forgotten that. Weren't there thermal issues also involved?
It WAS exciting to see the videos, and a whole lot of people around the world tuned in.
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 05/08/2019 02:54 am
Dave's frustum was not a sealed unit, it was shaped using wire mesh. I think part of that was to reduce ballooning and because it was easier/cheaper for him to fabricate. Nevertheless, the solid end-plates in a vertical orientation would still present a possible convection trapping sail. He did use liquid metal contacts, but I think they didn't work too well due to surface resistance and that fact it was a teeter-totter setup.
It WAS exciting to see the videos, and a whole lot of people around the world tuned in.
He later abandoned liquid metal contacts. His final results were without liquid metal contacts.
Post by: RERT on 05/08/2019 10:48 am
...Again, it sounds like the gist of your "hypothesis" is to point the cone up or down, expecting a different result, because... well, because you think that space is not isotropic on the Earth's surface.
...Space is isotropic.
Well, no, it isn't. There is a gravity field, which picks out a particular direction. In order to think this might affect the EMdrive results, you have to postulate a hitherto unknown interaction between the EM fields and gravity, which I did. In that case the anisotropy due to gravity might matter, and therefore the direction of measurement.
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/08/2019 12:49 pm
... you have to postulate a hitherto unknown interaction between the EM fields and gravity...
Thank you and have a nice day.
Post by: dustinthewind on 05/08/2019 01:14 pm
Way back in the EM Drive stone age, around 2015, RFMWGUY ran his test on a teeter-totter setup with his frustum small end up and small end down in tests.
That's right! I had forgotten that. Weren't there thermal issues also involved?
Thermal ballooning would always cause a rise so it was supposed that flipping the frustum over one could get the offset and that would be thrust.
Other problems pointed out I think we're thermal expansion of cables and support arms. Thermal convection if one side of the frustum were hotter than the other side. This might have been possible because electric fields on one side were generally larger at the small end where as the larger end had more surface area. I suggested putting it in a bubble to keep it from having an open system to trap air flow so momentum should remain zero. I think there were some other suggestions.
Ultimately improving the thrust to significant levels could have solved a lot of issues if thrust was there.
One thought was that the dielectric insert in the EM drive was replicating a mach effect via some response of the material to the electric fields. I think they were supposing this would be a 2f response of the material to the 1f electric signal in the cavity.
Quote from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5681540/
The top half is an illustration of the relationship between driving frequency and fibre response frequency for an electrostrictive material, showing the characteristic frequency-doubling effect that can distinguish electrostriction from other forms of electromechanical transduction, such as piezoelectricity
The frequencies would have been much higher at microwave frequencies. Not sure the material could have responded that quickly at those frequencies.The em cavity would be the anchor and the dielectric would be the accelerated mass.
f being frequency. Mixing the frequencies in the proper phase creates asymmetric acceleration on the material.
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1485591;image)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1806976#msg1806976
Post by: meberbs on 05/09/2019 05:46 am
In order to think this might affect the EMdrive results, you have to postulate a hitherto unknown interaction between the EM fields and gravity, which I did.You have yet to provide an actually falsifiable hypothesis.
"There might be some unknown relationship between EM fields and gravity" does not meet that condition. Even if you did come up with a version that has enough specifics to be falsifiable, you still haven't even attempted to answer the question you have been asked repeatedly which is: What logical reason do you have to propose such a relationship? So far the only reason implied by your posts is pure wishful thinking on your part which is not a good reason for anyone to spend time investigating what would certainly end up being a dead end.
Post by: meberbs on 05/09/2019 06:05 am
One thought was that the dielectric insert in the EM drive was replicating a mach effect via some response of the material to the electric fields. I think they were supposing this would be a 2f response of the material to the 1f electric signal in the cavity.No, harmonics are a thing that comes up in non-linear media, not linear media like dielectrics.
And as I stated in the Woodward thread, your graphs are not based on anything physical, so they don't show "asymmetric acceleration" because they are not graphs of acceleration. Even if they were, there is still an equal up slope for every down slope, and if you average over a period, you would get a result of exactly 0, so the graphs are not even as asymmetric as you think, so there is not a plausible way to get from them to "asymmetric acceleration" anyway.
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/09/2019 11:43 am
So far the only reason implied by your posts is pure wishful thinking on your part which is not a good reason for anyone to spend time investigating what would certainly end up being a dead end.
Well, at least we tried.
Post by: RERT on 05/09/2019 01:13 pm
You have yet to provide an actually falsifiable hypothesis.
..."There might be some unknown relationship between EM fields and gravity" does not meet that condition.
...What logical reason do you have to propose such a relationship?
The falsifiable hypothesis is implicitly that is you measure an EMdrive pointing up or down, you might measure different thrust to if it is pointing in a horizontal direction. It is hard to think of anything more directly falsifiable.
A postulate of 'some unknown relationship with gravity' is not sufficient for much, but it is sufficient to indicate that orientation of the EMdrive *might* be significant. Details are not always necessary.
As regards logical reasons to propose this, if EMdrive works it breaks physical laws. If it operates at all, some as yet unknown or unexpected interaction with gravity is one of the most incremental proposals one can make.
I said earlier that I think this is a tiny hole in the null data for the EMdrive, and I stand by that. Note the adjective.
Post by: meberbs on 05/09/2019 01:55 pm
The falsifiable hypothesis is implicitly that is you measure an EMdrive pointing up or down, you might measure different thrust to if it is pointing in a horizontal direction. It is hard to think of anything more directly falsifiable.No, it is completely unfalsifiable because it does not even involve numbers. No matter what measurements are done, it would always be unfalsifiable, because it could always be said "but maybe the force is smaller than the measurement sensitivity" or "maybe it was the wrong mode shape to trigger the magic interaction." Your statements are about as unfalsifiable as they get.
A postulate of 'some unknown relationship with gravity' is not sufficient for much, but it is sufficient to indicate that orientation of the EMdrive *might* be significant. Details are not always necessary.No, it is not sufficient for anything. We are talking about science here, details are absolutely necessary.
As regards logical reasons to propose this, if EMdrive works it breaks physical laws. If it operates at all, some as yet unknown or unexpected interaction with gravity is one of the most incremental proposals one can make.It has effectively been shown that the emDrive does not work. It does not matter how "incremental" your proposal is, there is always a next assumption someone can make up to send others down a wild goose chase. What you have provided here does not constitute a "logical reason." The reasoning you provided here equally works for "maybe it needs to be in no more than a lunar gravity field equivalent" "maybe it needs higher order mode shapes" "maybe it only works with higher/lower frequencies than have been tested" "maybe it needs to be an asymmetric hourglass shape" etc.
For a while I have been poking at statements like this, because because this is the trap pseudoscience concepts always get stuck in. With poor definitions and lack of logical reasons for an effect to exist, there is always another "what-if" and it is even worse when the person proposing them is not even willing to put their money where their mouth is.
I said earlier that I think this is a tiny hole in the null data for the EMdrive, and I stand by that. Note the adjective.Nope, your adjective is wrong, the hole you are pointing to is either infinite in size (inherent to it not being falsifiable) or nonexistent (due to the fact that it is simply unscientific due to its unfalsifiability, and should be ignored.)
Post by: dustinthewind on 05/10/2019 06:59 am
One thought was that the dielectric insert in the EM drive was replicating a mach effect via some response of the material to the electric fields. I think they were supposing this would be a 2f response of the material to the 1f electric signal in the cavity.No, harmonics are a thing that comes up in non-linear media, not linear media like dielectrics.
And as I stated in the Woodward thread, your graphs are not based on anything physical, so they don't show "asymmetric acceleration" because they are not graphs of acceleration. Even if they were, there is still an equal up slope for every down slope, and if you average over a period, you would get a result of exactly 0, so the graphs are not even as asymmetric as you think, so there is not a plausible way to get from them to "asymmetric acceleration" anyway.
Well its been a long time but I thought Dr Rodal thought one of the materials they used had an electrostrictive response. Looking it up. Here is something.
Quote from: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1603551#msg1603551
...Regarding electrostriction and gravitation, the Mach Effect theory of Woodward and Fearn is based on the theory of gravitation of Hoyle and Narlikar, or actually just based on general relavitivity plus advanced waves, where electrostriction is used in present experiments to give a 2 omega excitation in addition to the excitation at frequency omega that can be provided by a piezoelectric effect or independently by other means. In the case of the EM Drive, one could conceive of an excitation at frequency omega of the electromagnetic fields and a separate excitation at 2 omega resulting from the electrostriction effect in the HDPE or PTFE polymer insert, or just the electrostiction in the copper material skin depth.
Quote from: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1604252#msg1604252
...Yes, the energy density, and the Maxwell stress, and the Poynting vector are all oscillating at 2 omega where omega is the frequency of the electromagnetic fields. The E field at omega produces an electrostrictive strain (and hence an elastic stress) on the HDPE or the PTFE also at frequency 2 omega.
Both the electromagnetic forces (Maxwell stress and Poynting vector) and the electrostrictive forces are all acting at the same frequency 2 omega.
The electrostrictive force is out of phase with the electromagnetic force (due to tan delta) a very small amount (delta), which does give a small effect
Tan delta
PTFE ("Teflon") 0.00028 @ 3 GHz
HDPE 0.00031 @ 3 GHz
So delta is only 0.016 degrees (1/62 of a degree), 0.018% of 90 degrees...
Post by: RERT on 05/10/2019 09:37 am
I've never sent anybody on a wild goose chase. I think the right response to this is that if someone was already committed to starting a test campaign for an EMdrive in a vacuum chamber, they should consider measuring on three axes just to be very thorough. That's the nature of the tiny hole.
I suspect the pushback I'm getting on this is due to the judgement, which I share, that there is a low probability of this idea leading to anything. But nonetheless it is a correct idea, especially in the context of the title of the forum 'New Physics for Space Technology'.
I don't propose to respond to your other comments, though I disagree with most: I accept that constant addition of bells/whistles to keep a theory alive is generally negative. However, the impact of what I said in para 1 above is not great.
I'm done on this.
Post by: Ricvil on 05/10/2019 09:53 am
One thought was that the dielectric insert in the EM drive was replicating a mach effect via some response of the material to the electric fields. I think they were supposing this would be a 2f response of the material to the 1f electric signal in the cavity.No, harmonics are a thing that comes up in non-linear media, not linear media like dielectrics.
And as I stated in the Woodward thread, your graphs are not based on anything physical, so they don't show "asymmetric acceleration" because they are not graphs of acceleration. Even if they were, there is still an equal up slope for every down slope, and if you average over a period, you would get a result of exactly 0, so the graphs are not even as asymmetric as you think, so there is not a plausible way to get from them to "asymmetric acceleration" anyway.
Well its been a long time but I thought Dr Rodal thought one of the materials they used had an electrostrictive response. Looking it up. Here is something.Quote from: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1603551#msg1603551...Regarding electrostriction and gravitation, the Mach Effect theory of Woodward and Fearn is based on the theory of gravitation of Hoyle and Narlikar, or actually just based on general relavitivity plus advanced waves, where electrostriction is used in present experiments to give a 2 omega excitation in addition to the excitation at frequency omega that can be provided by a piezoelectric effect or independently by other means. In the case of the EM Drive, one could conceive of an excitation at frequency omega of the electromagnetic fields and a separate excitation at 2 omega resulting from the electrostriction effect in the HDPE or PTFE polymer insert, or just the electrostiction in the copper material skin depth.Quote from: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1604252#msg1604252...Yes, the energy density, and the Maxwell stress, and the Poynting vector are all oscillating at 2 omega where omega is the frequency of the electromagnetic fields. The E field at omega produces an electrostrictive strain (and hence an elastic stress) on the HDPE or the PTFE also at frequency 2 omega.
Both the electromagnetic forces (Maxwell stress and Poynting vector) and the electrostrictive forces are all acting at the same frequency 2 omega.
The electrostrictive force is out of phase with the electromagnetic force (due to tan delta) a very small amount (delta), which does give a small effect
Tan delta
PTFE ("Teflon") 0.00028 @ 3 GHz
HDPE 0.00031 @ 3 GHz
So delta is only 0.016 degrees (1/62 of a degree), 0.018% of 90 degrees...
At some point, aero was oriented to use rubber teflon gaskets.
I think it has a nonlinear Kerr response.
Then fractal patterns appears on the simulations.
And...no one want to proceed with "noisy" simulations.
End of history.
Post by: vi4apaev on 05/10/2019 10:49 am
"EMdrive technology on the Space Apps Challenge Dnipro 2018"
https://2018.spaceappschallenge.org/locations/dnipro-dnipropetrovsk-region
Firefly Aerospace owner and founder of the Noosphere Ventures foundation Max Polyakov
https://2018.spaceappschallenge.org/challenges/can-you-build/design-based-nature-fusion/teams/fulygan/project
special attention should be paid to page 9 of the document http://www.emdrive.com/shrivenhampresentation2019.pdf
from the website http://emdrive.com/
Video in Russian - translation required!
watch from 1.38.40 to 1.44.40 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fngnNJmqeHQ&feature=youtu.be
short phrases:
1 design of Roger J. SHAWYER made with big mistakes
2 calculation propulsion done with errors
3 was proposed a completely different design
4 proposed a completely different way of calculating propulsion
5 as announced in the speech - today you can make an EMdrive with propulsion up to 100 Newton
6 the problem is that all physicists recognize EMdrive's normal work - that it denies Newton's law
and thereby lifts the ban on creating the "perpetuum mobile" - and this is a direct path to the price of oil at $ 4 per barrel ..
- article title page 60
https://www.aiaa.org/docs/default-source/uploadedfiles/publications/aerospace-america-december-20177b4a740da6f546799257dc19946c49e6.pdf?sfvrsn=96f66d49_2
(The translation was done using Google-translator, possible errors in the text)
Post by: TheTraveller on 05/11/2019 07:48 am
Roger is presenting a new EmDrive paper at IAC 2019
EMDRIVE THRUST/LOAD CHARACTERISTICS. THEORY, EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND A MOON MISSION.
https://iafastro.directory/iac/paper/id/48783/summary/
Slide 11 forward has some of the information, which is based on very recent testing of the recovered Flight Thruster.
http://www.emdrive.com/shrivenhampresentation2019.pdf
Other exciting news is in the works as per the statement in the abstract:
Quote
With the technology now maturing, it is time for EmDrive to come out of the shadows
Post by: RonM on 05/11/2019 05:47 pm
Quote from: TheTraveller
It will be interesting reading the comments after everybody sees the KISS thruster going round and round on the KISS rotary test rig.
Until then no more comments on theory from me. Time now to get ready to fabricate the frustum. Lots of photos will be posted of the process.
Frustum fab is currently on hold awaiting the delivery of the Silver Epoxy and the 2 Cu sheets.
Next in the delivery Q is the miniVNA tiny+ that is needed to tune the coupler.
Then need the delivery of the 100W Rf amp and 22650 Lithium Ion rechargeable batteries and battery holders.
After which the demo system can be put together and it gets interesting.
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows and For EmDrive DIYers To Stop Wasting Time and Money On Builds and Test Rigs That WILL NOT Generate Significate Force
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1829061#msg1829061
Whatever happened to the KISS thruster? We're still waiting for the photos and posts of the progress you promised.
You've promised this KISS thruster for years and have never delivered. My guess is either you never built it or it didn't work. Prove me wrong with a video of your KISS thruster in action and show the test data.
Post by: TheTraveller on 05/12/2019 08:35 am
Whatever happened to the KISS thruster? We're still waiting for the photos and posts of the progress you promised.
You've promised this KISS thruster for years and have never delivered. My guess is either you never built it or it didn't work. Prove me wrong with a video of your KISS thruster in action and show the test data.
Hi RonM,
Understand your frustration, which I share. Building EmDrives is not simple, easy, quick nor low cost no matter what the approach. I was wrong to believe it could be done. Please accept my apology for not delivering what I tried to achieve. Current plans are to demo the commercial thruster we are working on once we have orbital test data and have done a commercial release.
I can share that Roger never made a dual flat end plate cavity. Every cavity he ever made, to my knowledge, had some form of shaped end plates. Which says the EW cavity and all those that followed are not good designs due to the massive phase distortion of the travelling waves introduced by flat end plates. It appears that FEKO is not good at modelling what happens inside a cavity where the travelling waves reflect between the end plates 10,000s of times and path length variations generate large phase alterations that effectively destroy the standing waves FEKO models.
Additionally the interior surface needs to be mirror like, with no dips, pits, peaks, scratches, etc. This is so highly critical a requirement as to dominate the need for very low phase distortion in the travelling wave end plate reflections. Antioxidation surface coating are bad news. Our cavity needs to operate at LEO vacuum levels and be filled with a noble gas during storage and transport to stop Cu oxidation. None of this is easy, nor low cost. So no KISS thruster.
Solid data is coming as are commercial products.
Plus Roger told me his IAC 2019 paper will share new test data, plus photos of his test rig.
Post by: meberbs on 05/12/2019 03:07 pm
Understand your frustration, which I share. Building EmDrives is not simple, easy, quick nor low cost no matter what the approach. I was wrong to believe it could be done. Please accept my apology for not delivering what I tried to achieve. Current plans are to demo the commercial thruster we are working on once we have orbital test data and have done a commercial release.Since you have for the countless time not provided pictures, it can only be concluded that you did not in fact bother actually building anything. An orbital demo is pointless, just being able to counteract drag in LEO means enough force to measure on the ground with good setups like other experimenters have used. The uncertainties involved in drag calculations in space means that without forces that should easily be demonstrable on the ground you won't prove anything in space.
I can share that Roger never made a dual flat end plate cavity. Every cavity he ever made, to my knowledge, had some form of shaped end plates.See attached picture from Shawyer's website. Your statement is so blatantly false it is absurd. Shawyer would have had to actively lie to people that he originally advised on the design of the emdrive for your statement to be true, even if your statement was not contradicted by actual pictures.
It appears that FEKO is not good at modelling what happens inside a cavity where the travelling waves reflect between the end plates 10,000s of times and path length variations generate large phase alterations that effectively destroy the standing waves FEKO models.As usual, you have yet to provide a single example of a case where FEKO and other tools fail to accurately describe what happens in a cavity. Models have accurately predicted resonance frequencies, mode shapes, and Q factors for every cavity that has been tested to date to within the mechanical tolerance of the builds. You have been repeatedly asked to provide a single example where such models fail and have not done so.
Additionally the interior surface needs to be mirror like, with no dips, pits, peaks, scratches, etc. This is so highly critical a requirement as to dominate the need for very low phase distortion in the travelling wave end plate reflections. Antioxidation surface coating are bad news. Our cavity needs to operate at LEO vacuum levels and be filled with a noble gas during storage and transport to stop Cu oxidation. None of this is easy, nor low cost. So no KISS thruster.Nonsense. While oxidation can have some small impact on the reflectivity, experimenters have demonstrated more than sufficient performance for the conductivity needs based on any criteria provided to date. You are exaggerating the sensitivity of the low RF frequencies used in experiments to minor imperfections. RF performance would not be significantly affected by anything short of gross mishandling.
Post by: oyzw on 05/13/2019 09:17 am
Post by: oyzw on 05/13/2019 09:25 am
Post by: meberbs on 05/14/2019 01:01 am
I think the shape of resonant electromagnetic field directly affects the thrust size and direction, which is a very sensitive factor. At the same time, I think the conical cavity of TE01X is not enough to form a significant difference in electromagnetic field gradient, and the cavity design is misguided.In what manner do you claim the shape affects the thrust?
Why would this happen?
What cavity design do you propose?
Why should this design work any different than all of the other tests that have produced a null result?
All of those questions need to be answered, in detail with actual numbers to describe the expected forces, before it would make sense for anyone to spend any time experimenting based on your claim.
This is just the latest in the pile of suggestions that have come from multiple sources, but never seem to answer the equivalent of the questions I just asked. We are well past the point where random speculation is useful. Any further investigation should be backed by a falsifiable hypothesis with specific enough predictions to truly be testable, and preferably a decent explanation for why the effect is plausible and how it can be consistent with the countless accurate predictions of standard physics.
Post by: meberbs on 05/14/2019 07:00 am
meberbsWhat in the world are you referring to?
You acknowledge that you do not have sufficient knowledge to perform these calculations.
How much are you willing to pay for tuition ???
I know how to do just about any math that could possibly be required, but when people make random assertions that are not supported by any theory, there are simply no calculations to do. They have to first provide a complete hypothesis or their suggestions are useless.
Post by: OnlyMe on 05/14/2019 03:40 pm
meberbs
You acknowledge that you do not have sufficient knowledge to perform these calculations.
How much are you willing to pay for tuition ?
I have no idea how you came to the above conclusion.
I don’t know meberbs personally. I don’t always agree with his (theoretical) conclusions. But he has been contributing to these discussions for longer than the 3-4 years I have followed them and in that time he has proven repeatedly that he is well qualified in the mathematics and fundamental physics.
Post by: Bryan_Kelly on 05/14/2019 04:10 pm
Post by: OnlyMe on 05/14/2019 04:11 pm
I apologize, the way I referenced/incorporated the EMDrive into my attempt to explain my question, muddied the underlying question. Briefly: The question I struggle with, is whether the interaction between two GHz electromagnetic fields, where one is a resonant field with no massive component and the other a field induced in the conductive walls of the frustum, can be explained within our classical understanding and experience of CoM and closed systems. This is completely aside from any question of whether any force could be extracted from the interaction.
The question: Does physics require that CoM involve an outside force or is that only a reflection of classical experience? Or as crudely described below could the interaction be between the resonant EM field inside the frustum and induced EM field in the frustum walls?The conservation laws I described are general in that you can take a closed device and its total momentum will not change without an external interaction, momentum can move between its different parts, but that is it. If there is an external interaction with something in the form of a force, then the equal and opposite reaction law balances things. Alternatively, depending on the initial definition of your system, it could change momentum by have mass (or energy/photons) leave the system, carrying away momentum. This generally covers any kind of interaction.
Noether's theorem is a fairly strong statement about conservation of momentum existing. GR starts to get into an exception, but even in GR, conservation of momentum holds locally. (locally being defined as interactions limited by the speed of light.) Globally, there are issues with even defining conservation laws, which is why I don't use this argument with the Mach effect. (I have doubts for related reasons, but am not sure if it is even possible to express those doubts mathematically.)
I don’t have any issue with your description of CoM, as it relates to what I attempted to reference as “classical experience” above. To be clear, what I mean by “classical experience” is direct and/or practical experience. Where the interaction involves two EM fields, classically the EM (or in some cases magnetic) field acts as a conduit for the transfer of momentum between two massive components, rather than the source of the momentum transferred. Simple everyday examples being electric motors, generators, alternators and solenoids.., etc..
The resonating EM field within a frustum has no similar massive “core” or counterpart, as in the above examples. Still the field does have both electric and magnetic properties and interacts with the corresponding EM field(s) induced in the conductive walls of the frustum. Two interacting fields, but only one massive component, the frustum.
meberbs, I am really split or torn, uncertain about the implications, of which there could be many possibilities. However my initial point was whether the system as a whole really represents a “classical” closed system, where an external interaction is required? Or could the electromagnetic interaction between the resonating EM field and the corresponding field induced in the frustum walls, even should they result only in a GHz jitter, dominate a transfer of momentum, that has no external massive counterpart? No classical analog.
Classically the frustum should represent a closed system, but the EM radiation that the resonant field is composed of is introduced from outside the frustum, through a wave guide or by an antenna. Either way if the interacting fields generate even a jitter, momentum is transferred to the mass of the frustum through an interaction between the two fields.
This should not represent a classical closed system since the inherent momentum within the resonant EM field is introduce from outside the frustum. Similarly a classical interpretation of CoM of momentum should not be an issue.
I am not yet fully convinced there is “nothing there”, nor that there “is”, but I believe that if there is, it is far more likely to be a fragile electromagnetic interaction between the resonant EM field and the induced electromagnetic properties in the frustum walls... This would switch the CoM issue to one of could the properties of the EM field induced in the frustum walls, be pushing off of the resonating EM field itself?The problem with that idea if I am understanding what you are saying correctly, is that the fields themselves have energy and momentum. The fields cannot net move to the right while the momentum is to the left. Other than the need to use relativistic equations to describe the momentum in the fields, this is identical to a cavity that contains bouncing balls, and the conclusion is the same, the outside of the cavity may vibrate, but the center of mass (center of energy in relativity) won't go anywhere.
Your response above raised another question. I began with an assumption that the momentum potential of a resonant EM field (with no massive core) was limited to the inherent momentum potential of the radiating EM energy it is composed of... Even while we know from experience that an EM field has the potential to transfer momentum between massive components, far in excess of “that” relatively insignificant inherent momentum. So an additional question — Does an EM field have an inherent momentum potential greater than that of the radiating photons/waves, it is composed of? If not even imagining an ideal total transfer of momentum between the two fields, the results should not be greater than expected from a perfect photon rocket. If an EM field has an inherent momentum potential greater than that of the fundamental EM radiation, the potential might exceed that of a perfect photon rocket.., and it would then seem new physics or some significant re-evaluation of existing physics would be needed. But this could only be a question, explored after confirming some measurable anomalous force, to begin with. While a few of the early DIY experiments left some question on the issue, those early devices have never been re-examined with better test equipment and experimental control... (at least publicly shared).
Since this would also be an almost insignificant EM interaction isolating the affect may require the higher power levels of the earlier magnetron tests.I believe that sensitivity of tests should best be described in terms of what force/power ratio they can measure down to. Since this ratio is constant and linear in basically every proposal (including what you just described) this makes it a better metric. Tests with magnetrons improved sensitivity by increasing the total power, but usually induced other (thermal for example) problems, which increased the minimum force required to see a meaningful signal. Higher power would be unambiguously better if it is known to work, and the goal is to apply it, but sometimes lower power, but a significantly more sensitive force measurement can be better for showing if the force really exists.It would seem you could only test for the initial surge as the device is turned on with any in lab test equipment. The device would have to be free to move for the two fields to maintain an interaction resulting in a directional force. A device in orbit, or in a lab on a turntable with an inherent resistance to motion (both from friction and perhaps inertia), less than the very small expected anomalous force.I am not sure how you are getting to that conclusion, and to the extent such a condition could even exist, the torsion pendulums in most experiments should satisfy it. It is similar to some claims from TT/Shawyer, but it makes no sense because the fields in the device cannot tell if the device is moving or not, physics is independent of reference frame, so sitting still and moving at constant velocity have the same results. The fields can tell if the device is accelerating, but the result is that the fields push (very slightly) against the direction of acceleration because they need to "accelerate" too.
This last bit was basically me rambling into “what ifs” and imagining that if one could somehow manage/control the interaction between the two fields, an anomalous force might be realized.
Should it be that any momentum is transferred through an interaction between the two EM fields, there then is the potential that the resonant field might be manipulated such that the momentum that is transferred, might be transferred asymmetrically. At least for short periods of time. But that is speculation which goes beyond my original intent
My focus on a need for higher power tests and even reverting to testing earlier frustum designs with the improved test beds, of the day, is grounded on two questions, I don’t feel have been resolved.
One is that, should the potential momentum available for transfer be limited to the inherent momentum associated with any EM photons/waves contributing to the internal resonant EM field, there is a possibility that the there would be insufficient total momentum potential available, from low power systems to overcome the inherent inertial resistance of the device’s mass and inherent initial resistance of the test bed. Think of it like this were we dealing with a photon rocket what would be the minimum power/force required to overcome the inherent inertia of the mass of the device itself? Higher power tests provide a greater possible momentum potential to begin with.
The other, if a transfer of momentum were the result of an interaction between the two EM fields described above, the design of the device should be focused on generating, likely a specific asymmetrical interaction.., not just resonance. Build to creat the greatest potential eddy currents and EM fields in the frustum walls possible. Some resonant modes have different potentials for just how they interact with the frustum walls.
But again this last was really rambling beyond the original question...
It has seemed to me that lacking any credible theory of operation, there has been a great deal of design modification, that should only have followed after validating or refuting the results of early designs and claims.
It does not matter how sensitive your test equipment is, if the device you are testing does not or cannot generate sufficient force to overcome the involved inertial mass and inherent baseline resistance of the test equipment.
Higher powered tests have a greater potential of producing a more significant interaction, with little or no change in the total inertial mass of the device.
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/14/2019 05:22 pm
McCulloch from yesterday...
A super mirror? One of these?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_supermirror
Post by: Notsosureofit on 05/14/2019 06:54 pm
McCulloch from yesterday...
A super mirror? One of these?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_supermirror
...................manufactured by yours truly many moons ago in large quantities.
I don't think that is what he is referring to. Maby just the optical equivalent...wide band, very low loss multilayer mirrors. Have to check it out.....
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/14/2019 07:56 pm
A super mirror? One of these?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_supermirror
...................manufactured by yours truly many moons ago in large quantities.
I don't think that is what he is referring to. Maby just the optical equivalent...wide band, very low loss multilayer mirrors. Have to check it out.....
Hah. They're all over ebay I hear.
But still, terminology is important, because clearly a super-duper mirror is mucho betterro than a plain old super mirror.
Post by: meberbs on 05/14/2019 08:25 pm
Numerical answers can't be given when no inputs have been provided. This is true for both the people who keep posting suggestions like "change the shape" and for your question about lightning, where you need to state the initial charge distributions and some other information before you can apply the laws of electrodynamics to determine what happens. (This particular case would most likely require a massive amount of raw input data to fully describe.)I know how to do just about any math that could possibly be required, but when people make random assertions that are not supported by any theory, there are simply no calculations to do. They have to first provide a complete hypothesis or their suggestions are useless.fine!
can you calculate the trajectory of electrons during a lightning strike between clouds?
or do you need to know the physical processes in the atmosphere besides mathematics?
However your question about lightning is completely off topic, so nothing further on that.
My original post was stating basic information that anyone who wants their suggestions taken seriously should provide. If they don't provide this information, they are not posting meaningful suggestions, and should not waste anyone's time.
Post by: vi4apaev on 05/14/2019 08:51 pm
this is where the problem arises - the author’s knowledge (not mine) of physics and mechanics, which is at the level of “know-how” or invention for which the author wants to receive a patent ...Numerical answers can't be given when no inputs have been provided. This is true for both the people who keep posting suggestions like "change the shape" and for your question about lightning, where you need to state the initial charge distributions and some other information before you can apply the laws of electrodynamics to determine what happens. (This particular case would most likely require a massive amount of raw input data to fully describe.)I know how to do just about any math that could possibly be required, but when people make random assertions that are not supported by any theory, there are simply no calculations to do. They have to first provide a complete hypothesis or their suggestions are useless.fine!
can you calculate the trajectory of electrons during a lightning strike between clouds?
or do you need to know the physical processes in the atmosphere besides mathematics?
However your question about lightning is completely off topic, so nothing further on that.
My original post was stating basic information that anyone who wants their suggestions taken seriously should provide. If they don't provide this information, they are not posting meaningful suggestions, and should not waste anyone's time.
and you want to get this information for free - this will not happen.
Try to follow the links and contact the inventor personally.
or ask Mike McCulloch from Plymouth to share detailed information about the research, for which DARPA paid 1,300,000 dollars - everyone will be interested in what he will tell you ... ;-)
Post by: meberbs on 05/14/2019 09:37 pm
this is where the problem arises - the author’s knowledge (not mine) of physics and mechanics, which is at the level of “know-how” or invention for which the author wants to receive a patent ...Again, what in the world are you talking about?
and you want to get this information for free - this will not happen.
Try to follow the links and contact the inventor personally.
or ask Mike McCulloch from Plymouth to share detailed information about the research, for which DARPA paid 1,300,000 dollars - everyone will be interested in what he will tell you ... ;-)
This particular chain of conversation started with oyzw telling people on this site additional experiments that should be run, but without enough data for anyone to follow through. Others have done similar. This has nothing to do with patents.
McCulloch has a particular physics theory that he is pushing (which is non-patentable) and the devices he is having people test would be to support his theory (which seems pointless, since he has already made predictions that have been disproven.) Of course the recent message from McCulloch that was posted above does not include predicted results to compare his theory with experiment. In the same thread he claims it will be good for his theory if either device produces thrust. However in reality if only 1 does, but his theory predicts that both should it is not good for his theory. His shotgun approach while claiming success if anything hits is a form of cherry picking and is not consistent with the scientific method.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 05/16/2019 11:54 am
Congratulations, José!
Link to the paper and some comments in the appropriate thread Woodward's effect (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1946722#msg1946722).
Post by: mandrewa on 05/18/2019 03:25 pm
I'm not sure I understand this graphic, but it's a plot from an upcoming paper by Mike McCulloch et al. about wide binaries. This means by the way that I was wrong in my earlier belief that Mike McCulloch et al. were not going to be analyzing the wide binaries in detail.
I'm not quite certain I understand the graph. On the vertical axis delta-v is plotted, which in this case is the difference in velocities of two binaries. On the horizontal axis the units are parsecs, which I assume is the distance between the binaries at different points as they move around their elliptical orbits.
If I understand this correctly, the expected difference in velocity versus distance is plotted for three binary systems for each of the three theories being compared.
And then there are five actual observations, none of which on the face of it match any of the three theories being compared: Newtonian Physics, MoND, and Quantitative Inertia. But then there is the area in gray which is a plot of the uncertainty of these observations, and the significant part of that is that in one quadrant of the plot both MoND and Newtonian Physics are making predictions far from what is being observed.
My initial reaction, assuming I'm understanding this is that they need more than five data points. That may be all that there is right now, but surely there are a huge number of wide binaries in the Milky Way that could be examined. Of course getting that data will take a lot of time, and other researchers have to do it.
Post by: meberbs on 05/19/2019 07:33 pm
... My initial reaction, assuming I'm understanding this is that they need more than five data points. That may be all that there is right now, but surely there are a huge number of wide binaries in the Milky Way that could be examined. Of course getting that data will take a lot of time, and other researchers have to do it.I have no idea how anyone could claim that GR is falsified based on the results of that plot. None of the lines fit the data, and there are so many other things that need to be considered (such as the fact that the plotted real binaries might have just been mistakenly classified.)
I addressed this in a previous post, where I provided a link to a paper pointing out that the entire issue may just be projection errors. The paper I linked in that post mentions a catalogue of 83 wide binary candidates, and interestingly also plots 5 specific points which show the experimental data actually matches up well with a simulation of GR, well within the error bars.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1940037#msg1940037
Post by: mandrewa on 05/19/2019 10:34 pm
In the El-Badry paper the stars separated by 0.09 parsecs have a significantly lower delta-V than in McCulloch's figure and there's also a discrepancy for the stars separated by 0.3 parsecs. I don't know what that's about.
I like the general approach of the El-Badry paper, but there is one part of it that I'm very confused about.
If you go to figure 3 in the El-Badry paper four different plots of simulated binary motion are presented with different assumed radial velocity distributions. Now radial velocities are what we cannot see, so yes, it makes sense to try to estimate the impact of this unseen factor. But as figure 3 shows you get very different results depending on what motion in and out of the plane is present.
If I understand correctly, El-Badry chooses to assume that there is no radial velocity component from our perspective. That would minimize the discrepancy between observation and prediction for Newtonian Physics. But it is statistically unlikely. More data would definitely help to resolve this.
There is one more disagreement I see between the papers. The McCulloch figure shows all three wide binaries approaching a delta-v of zero as the distance between the stars approaches one parsec. That matches my intuition of what would happen. I mean isn't that what Kepler's law says?
But ignoring my intuition, in none of the simulated cases that El-Badry presents does the delta-v head towards zero. I feel like there must be more to the simulations that El-Badry is using than is discussed in his paper.
Is he assuming the presence of other stars that are accelerating these binary pairs as they get far from each other?
Post by: mandrewa on 05/20/2019 12:00 am
Okay I missed on my first read that all of his analysis depends upon the wide binary being relatively close to us. For instance the "projection effect" only matters if the apparent separation between the stars is at least 10 arcminutes.
So the bulk of the El-Badry paper only applies to wide binaries that are quite close to us.
Second, even for the wide binaries that fall into this category, that is they are nearby, the whole analysis heavily depends upon the simulation and the assumptions that went into it. If he doesn't describe the simulation well enough for other people to duplicate it then nobody can check him.
I'm getting very curious about those assumptions, because it doesn't seem to make sense that the apparent relative velocity of the binaries would increase as they get further apart.
So end of the paper. I just don't know. There's no footnote that gives us a more detailed description of his simulation. I don't know whether there's enough information in his description of the simulation for someone else to duplicate it. And I don't know whether all of his assumptions were stated.
Oh, and all the observations I said before are still valid, particularly the part about his assumption of no radial velocity.
Post by: as58 on 05/20/2019 05:35 am
I think his description of simulations is easily good enough to understand his methods. He creates a sample of wide binaries matching the observed catalogue. The orbits are calculated with just normal gravity and the orientations are random (isotropically distributed). This is all discussed in quite some detail at the beginning of section 2. I don't know where you get the assumption that there is no (intrinsic) radial velocity component.
However, we don't have (good) observations of radial velocity for some of the stars, which obviously makes things more difficult (indeed, impossible for an single system, but still possible to analyse statistically in case of a larger sample). Figure 3 shows how the available radial velocity information changes the inferred velocity difference distribution. As I understand it, the upturn at the end is because observational errors in proper motion and radial velocity (or complete lack of information about it) start polluting the 'true' velocity distribution. Obviously, the more and better information about the radial component of the velocity, the better it is possible to infer the true velocity difference, but eventually the observational errors blur the distribution.
Also, we can only measure the velocity difference for relatively nearby systems. The measurement of plane-of-sky component of velocity from proper motion becomes less and less accurate with distance, so after a couple of hundred parsec or so errors in proper motion measurements make the determination of velocity difference impossible.
Post by: mandrewa on 05/20/2019 11:42 am
Right there we may have already lost reproducibility. How many different ways are there to construct a sample that would have this same goal? What aspects of the sample studied by Herandez et al. (2018) (I haven't read this paper yet, but I'm guessing this is the five data points, the five actual systems, that are plotted both in Figure 2 of the El-Bardy paper and the figure supplied by McCulloch) are going to be held the same for the systems invented for the simulation?
It's not hard to imagine generating a reasonable set of random variations on the actual systems studied but even if I alone were the judge of what is reasonable I suspect there are a huge number of possible ways to do that, let alone my trying to guess the impact of a slightly different idea of what is reasonable that El-Bardy might have.
The next two sentences of section 2: "I first sample positions for the center of mass of each binary assuming a uniform spatial distribution. I then reject a random subset of the simulated binaries such that their distribution of heliocentric distance is similar to the observed sample."
My only hope of understanding why El-Bardy is doing this would be to try to construct a random simulated population of binary systems (yet that are similar to the ones observed) myself. As with the first sentence, it looks like there might be a very large number of different reasonable ways to do this that would match the procedure as described so far. But the business about rejecting a random subset is difficult to follow. I can guess that the purpose is to make the randomly generated simulated binaries more like the five real observed data points, but what exactly are the criteria being used to discard some of the generated simulated binaries?
The fourth sentence of section 2: "Center-of-mass velocities for each simulated binary are drawn from a 3D Guassian {variance}{subscript 1D} = 25 km s^-1." (I put in brackets the parts I had trouble duplicating here, but {variance} corresponds to the Greek letter usually used for variance. But this aspect of the description of the procedure seems sufficiently specific. If I've understood correctly it describes the random generation of systems that are randomly directed in orientation and speed with a variance of 25 km/s. The 25 km/s tells us which of the many reasonable numbers that could have been used was actually used for this aspect of the simulation. The random direction of the velocity matches with my intuition about what should vary in our simulated binaries.
But stop right there. Somehow in subsequent modifications to the simulated binaries the random orientation of the simulated binaries at this stage is completely lost. In figure 2 where observed versus simulated properties are compared all of the simulated binaries are either pointed directly at or away from us. Why? Well as figure 3 shows it's only this orientation that allows us to minimize the discrepancy between observed versus predicted properties.
Now it may be that by chance the real observed systems actually are oriented directly at or away from us given we don't know the actual orientations. But still the odds for that being the case seem quite low. And that raises another issue. If I were doing this procedure, wouldn't I try to calculate the odds for that being the orientation? It seems an obvious thing that is missing. Now I realize this is not totally straightforward. To make this calculation we have to make assumptions about what is practically speaking the same, with there being many different ways of reasonably doing that.
In any case, there are many more sentences describing the process of making the simulated binary systems, but for the most part it raises more questions as to how exactly it was done. We are left, I think, trusting that El-Badry has done it correctly.
Post by: as58 on 05/20/2019 12:06 pm
Also, the five crosses are not five different systems. Instead, a total of 81 binaries has been grouped into five bins and the crosses show the data for each bin.
Post by: mandrewa on 05/20/2019 12:17 pm
As I understand it, the upturn at the end is because observational errors in proper motion and radial velocity (or complete lack of information about it) start polluting the 'true' velocity distribution.
I have a different understanding. Of course I could be mistaken, but the problem is that if the binaries are close enough to us that they occupy a significant part of our field of view then this can make it appear that the binaries are closer together than they actually are.
How close do they have to be for this to be a significant effect? Well the paper said 10 arc minutes. The full moon is 30 arc minutes across. So if the binaries are close enough to us that they appear to be separated by a distance greater than one-third of the distance across the moon then the "projection effect" which is how El-Badry refers to this will make it seem that the differences in velocities of the binaries are greater than they actually are.
Post by: mandrewa on 05/20/2019 12:23 pm
Also, the five crosses are not five different systems. Instead, a total of 81 binaries has been grouped into five bins and the crosses show the data for each bin.
Wow! That makes a big difference.
Post by: mandrewa on 05/20/2019 07:09 pm
This is the paper upon which both Mike McCulloch and Kareem El-Badry depend. This is
where the data is coming from.
The Hernandez paper is based on data coming from both the Gaia and Hipparcos satellites.
As they say, "we see two consistent results coming from data obtained by two completely
independent satellites."
The Hernandez group only looked at wide binaries where the stars mass about half a solar
mass and that are fairly close to us. That found 840 of these. They then cut that down
to 81 systems with a variety of criteria whose net effect is to assert that they are pretty confident
about the data.
Their selection criteria is somewhat biased against systems that seem to be showing non-Newtonian
behavior, so a number of interesting systems were excluded. Or as they say, "Given the
construction of the SO11 sample, binaries with small velocity differences would appear as
stronger local over-densities in phase space, and hence, selection criteria, if anything,
are biased against binaries with large velocity differences"
Hernandez et al were well aware of the "projection effect" and other confounding factors
and like El-Badry dealt with it by constructing simulated binary systems. Or as they say,
"These binaries were then compared to Newtonian predictions for the expected one
dimensional rms. relative velocity between the components of each binary and their
projected separations, including modeling orientation effects, a number of plausible
distributions of ellipticities and, crucially, the effects of Galactic tides and stellar and stellar
remnant perturbers over a 10 Gyr period, by Jiang & Tremaine (2010)."
Unlike El-Badry they spend almost no words discussing all of the assumptions that went into
their simulated binary samples, but then it may be that this was spelled out in another paper.
And then it turns out that for 71 of the 81 systems that constitute the data, the Gaia satellite
has measured radial velocities for the stars in question! This raises the question of what is the
purpose of the El-Badry paper since if we know the radial velocities then there is no "projection
effect."
The Hernandez et al. paper discusses it because it is an issue for the ten systems where Gaia
did not supply this data, and it's also an issue for a great many systems that were not included
in the study. By the way, the Hernandez study excluded any binary where Gaia measured a radial
velocity of over 4 km per second for one of the stars.
I'm wondering if an implicit assumption of the El-Badry paper is that the Gaia data on radial
velocities is wrong. If that is the case, then that assumption should have been explicity stated.
The bottom-line is that the Hernandez et al. study (March 8, 2019) shows a consistent gap
between what Newtonian Physics would predict for wide binaries in our near neighborhood that
mass about half a solar mass and that are currently more than 7600 au apart. The gap is greater
than the uncertainties in the data. Or as they said, ""This result for the binary sample presented
is extremely challenging to a Newtonian point of view, where the relative velocities are
expected to be much lower than observed."
The purpose of putting the 81 binary systems into the five bins was to reduce the overall
uncertainty as the small number of systems is the main factor increasing the calculated uncertainties.
Post by: meberbs on 05/20/2019 08:08 pm
First sentence of section 2: "I construct a sample of simulated binaries with the goal of comparing to the sample studied by Hernandez et al. (2018)."If you have come to that conclusion based solely on that sentence, then you are clearly too biased to have a valid opinion on anything related to this.* Your conclusion that reproducibility is "lost" would only be true if there was no further detail about how the sample was constructed, but there is plenty of detail for example:
Right there we may have already lost reproducibility. How many different ways are there to construct a sample that would have this same goal?
Quote
I first sample positions for the center of mass of each binary assuming a uniform spatial distribution. I then reject a random subset of the simulated binaries such that their distribution of heliocentric distance is similar to that of the observed sample. Center-of-mass velocities for each simulated binary are drawn from a 3D Gaussian with σ1D = 25 km s−1This, along with the rest of the details in the paper is sufficient to reproduce the results for anyone with a relevant background.
Also, note that the Greek letter used there is called sigma, as everyone who has the relevant background to understand this paper should know. The first post in this thread should have a link to a site that helps with typing such symbols, though I just copy-pasted from the paper.
*Your conclusion is so blatantly contradictory to the facts in the paper, I can think of just 3 possibilities: you do not have the qualifications to assess this paper, you otherwise have the qualifications to understand this paper but have been blinded by bias, or you are deliberately misrepresenting the results in the paper. Until demonstrated otherwise, I work with what I consider the most favorable assumption.
Hernandez et al were well aware of the "projection effect" and other confounding factorsThere is more than 1 kind of projection effect, and it seems to me that El-Brady is describing a less obvious one. The Hernandez paper does not go into as much detail on exactly what they are correcting, and their final plots only show 1D velocities, not 3D, so it seems likely the data is susceptible to the errors the El-Brady paper shows. Note that the final conclusion is just that the data is still potentially consistent with GR. Also, the El-Brady paper ends with a final note of some other uncertainties and effects that need to be considered.
and like El-Badry dealt with it by constructing simulated binary systems. Or as they say,
"These binaries were then compared to Newtonian predictions for the expected one
dimensional rms. relative velocity between the components of each binary and their
projected separations, including modeling orientation effects, a number of plausible
distributions of ellipticities and, crucially, the effects of Galactic tides and stellar and stellar
remnant perturbers over a 10 Gyr period, by Jiang & Tremaine (2010)."
...
I'm wondering if an implicit assumption of the El-Badry paper is that the Gaia data on radial
velocities is wrong. If that is the case, then that assumption should have been explicity stated.
To the extent that this has any relevance to this thread, the main takeaway is that McCulloch's claim that GR is "falsified" by this data is an absolutely absurd claim to make at this point. Such biased conclusion jumping is simply unscientific.
Post by: mandrewa on 05/20/2019 09:44 pm
Which paper are you asserting says that? The Hernandez paper says the data is inconsistent with the Newtonian physics. The El-Badry paper says in effect that it may be that the data is consistent with Newtonian physics (or GR).
But I think that many people reading the El-Badry paper get confused, and think that it is actually a demonstration that the data is consistent with Newtonian physics. As you probably intended to point out, the verbal conclusion is much more tentative.
But given that figure 2 in the El-Badry paper seems such strong evidence that the data is consistent with GR, why would El-Badry say it's tentative?
Well I think the answer is that figure 2 is a special case. The data could have equally well have been plotted against the other plottings of simulated binary data presented in figure 3. Or actually there's greater justification for plotting against the others given that for 71 out of the 81 systems we have radial velocity data.
If there had been other figures plotting the data against these other simulated data sets, it would have made it much clearer that there was an issue.
I'm not an expert on this. But I think it's a shame that most scientific papers are never really read. There's an art to it and the heart of it is to think critically and look for problems. Because I did that my understanding of all this has jumped radically. There's still stuff I'm confused about, as I've repeatedly stated, but more and more this subject is becoming clearer to me.
I could explain in greater depth why I don't think there is enough detail in the description of the process in the paper to replicate the creation of the simulated binaries. But I already did that for a couple of paragraphs and from all I can tell you couldn't even be bothered to read it.
And when you assert that an expert can do this, are you claiming to be that expert?
And by the way don't misconstrue what I'm saying. I'm not saying that another person trying to do roughly what El-Badry did is going to come up with significantly different results. El-Badry definitely gave enough information in the paper that unless he made some significant mistake that another person coming along and making their own reasonable assumptions and following El-Badry when he did specifically say something, won't come up with similar results.
But that's not what I meant by replication.
But it's interesting to note that in figure 5 of the Hernandez paper, they present the results of their calculations on a population of simulated binaries, and they came up with a completely different result than the El-Badry paper. Or at least so it appears.
But I have a question for you. What do you mean that there is more than one kind of "projection effect"?
El-Badry did describe the projection effect. Well enough that I was able out to figure out what he was talking about. He doesn't mention different kinds. The Hernandez paper also mentions the projection effect. They don't describe it but they refer to it in the singular. What are you thinking of?
Post by: meberbs on 05/21/2019 06:44 am
meberbs said, "Note that the final conclusion is just that the data is still potentially consistent with GR."I am confused by your question. One of the 2 descriptions you just provided is essentially identical to what I just said, and one is the exact opposite. I didn't clarify the subject in my original sentence because it should be obvious which one I was referring to.
Which paper are you asserting says that? The Hernandez paper says the data is inconsistent with the Newtonian physics. The El-Badry paper says in effect that it may be that the data is consistent with Newtonian physics (or GR).
But I think that many people reading the El-Badry paper get confused, and think that it is actually a demonstration that the data is consistent with Newtonian physics. As you probably intended to point out, the verbal conclusion is much more tentative.You seem to be having the opposite confusion. The paper shows that it is consistent to the extent the data was analyzed there, but what was analyzed in the paper is lacking in sufficient information to separate out the full 3D velocities as needed to determine full consistency.
But given that figure 2 in the El-Badry paper seems such strong evidence that the data is consistent with GR, why would El-Badry say it's tentative?
I could explain in greater depth why I don't think there is enough detail in the description of the process in the paper to replicate the creation of the simulated binaries. But I already did that for a couple of paragraphs and from all I can tell you couldn't even be bothered to read it.As I stated before, you made up your mind that there wasn't enough information based on a single introductory sentence before any of the detailed description got started. There is no point in me giving a detailed response about why you are wrong if you made up your mind before looking at any of the facts.
And when you assert that an expert can do this, are you claiming to be that expert?Astronomy is not exactly my field of expertise, but I know a few things about coordinate transforms, and nothing here seems particularly difficult to replicate. All of the needed inputs seem to be listed in the paper.
And by the way don't misconstrue what I'm saying. I'm not saying that another person trying to do roughly what El-Badry did is going to come up with significantly different results. El-Badry definitely gave enough information in the paper that unless he made some significant mistake that another person coming along and making their own reasonable assumptions and following El-Badry when he did specifically say something, won't come up with similar results.I fail to see any assumptions needed, if there is anything it would be minor with low likelihood of affecting the results.
But that's not what I meant by replication.
Whatever you mean by replication does not appear to be consistent with what the word means in this context.
But it's interesting to note that in figure 5 of the Hernandez paper, they present the results of their calculations on a population of simulated binaries, and they came up with a completely different result than the El-Badry paper. Or at least so it appears.No, they showed the curve for the naive theoretical plot, rather than the a simulation like in the El-Badry paper that accounts for all of the variables.
But I have a question for you. What do you mean that there is more than one kind of "projection effect"?Hernandez talks about the small angle approximation and instead using the full spherical coordinate transforms. While locations of the stars may have been projected with as much detail as needed for their 1D separation distances, nothing in that paper addresses that due to projection effects the velocity components of the stars easily measured from Earth are in slightly different directions as shown in the El-Brady paper, so a 1D velocity comparison won't match up with the simple version of the theory that Hernandez compares to.
Since neither paper resolves this issue by using the full 3D velocities, I am assuming that increases the error bars by too much to actually conclude anything.
The more I think about it, the less likely it seems to me that this data could ever be used to falsify GR. If the true velocities really are too fast to be bound in GR, then that just implies it was a mistake to classify them as a bound pair to begin with. Wide binaries would orbit each other on timescales such that we simply can't just watch them orbit each other to see that they are truly bound.
Post by: RonM on 05/21/2019 03:39 pm
The more I think about it, the less likely it seems to me that this data could ever be used to falsify GR. If the true velocities really are too fast to be bound in GR, then that just implies it was a mistake to classify them as a bound pair to begin with. Wide binaries would orbit each other on timescales such that we simply can't just watch them orbit each other to see that they are truly bound.
Bingo. The most likely explanation is that these stars are not actually bound.
It's difficult to get definitive measurements in astronomy due to the distance and time scales. Best bet for exploring GR with astronomical measurements is improving the results of the Event Horizon Telescope. Supermassive black holes provide an extreme environment with rapid changes. That should sort out between GR and competing theories.
Post by: mandrewa on 05/21/2019 03:47 pm
But I have a question for you. What do you mean that there is more than one kind of "projection effect"?Hernandez talks about the small angle approximation and instead using the full spherical coordinate transforms. While locations of the stars may have been projected with as much detail as needed for their 1D separation distances, nothing in that paper addresses that due to projection effects the velocity components of the stars easily measured from Earth are in slightly different directions as shown in the El-Brady paper, so a 1D velocity comparison won't match up with the simple version of the theory that Hernandez compares to.
Since neither paper resolves this issue by using the full 3D velocities, I am assuming that increases the error bars by too much to actually conclude anything.
The more I think about it, the less likely it seems to me that this data could ever be used to falsify GR. If the true velocities really are too fast to be bound in GR, then that just implies it was a mistake to classify them as a bound pair to begin with. Wide binaries would orbit each other on timescales such that we simply can't just watch them orbit each other to see that they are truly bound.
I have a picture in my head of two lines going out from the earth and going through two binary stars. Without depth data, the two stars are going to appear to be the same distance away. I can represent that in my mental image with an arc passing through one of the stars at its actual position and passing through the line going from earth to the second star. That intersection is the apparent position of the second star with respect to the earth. If we draw a line from the first star to the apparent position of the second, that's the apparent distance between the two stars, except that we have to know how far away the stars are to measure the apparent distance.
But in fact the second star is not at the apparent position, it is really somewhere else along the line going out from earth. In my mental image the second star is back behind the apparent position of the star. It is in a plane defined by the elliptical orbits of the two binaries around each other. The real distance between the two binary stars can be substantially different than their apparent distance because the plane of their motion could be tilted far enough so that the apparent distance is only a small fraction of the real distance.
This difference between the apparent distance and real distance between the two binaries is not the projection effect. I'll repeat that, this is NOT the projection effect. We don't even care for this purpose what the real distance is between the two binaries.
Why is that? It's because x, y, and z are independent of each other. We can put a coordinate frame on the binaries. For our convenience we make x and y tangent to a sphere around the earth. And z is along a line coming from the earth. We can measure x and y and dx and dy in radians very precisely. In this context we want to plot dx versus the distance in x between the two binaries and we want to plot dy versus the distance in y. Note that we can see what the distance (radians) in x is between the two binaries and we can see what the distance (radians) in y is. We may have no idea what the distance in z is, but we don't need to know that.
Now I thought projection effect was the difference between the apparent distance between two points on a sphere versus two points on a plane tangent to the sphere, where what we care about is the distance between the two points in the tangent plane. (This is based on that mental image that I started this comment with.) But now it's dawned on me that this is a trivial calculation. Gaia gives us x, y, dx, and dz in radians very precisely. The only thing that is possibly unknown is the distance from the earth to the center of mass of the binary. We need that distance to convert from radians to km and km/s.
So we can reframe the whole issue into the uncertainty about one measure: the distance from the earth.
I began this comment with the hope that if I wrote my understanding down an idea would pop into my head that would explain what meberbs is talking about when he says "projection effects of the velocity components." Well I'm still drawing a blank. But I'm so glad I did this because I think my understanding has jumped another level.
Post by: mandrewa on 05/21/2019 04:08 pm
And that's interesting because do we need to know dz to figure out the position of the binary? Wouldn't just knowing x, y, and z for each star be enough to give the location of the binary to a reasonable and good enough approximation for this context?
Post by: mandrewa on 05/21/2019 04:26 pm
The more I think about it, the less likely it seems to me that this data could ever be used to falsify GR. If the true velocities really are too fast to be bound in GR, then that just implies it was a mistake to classify them as a bound pair to begin with. Wide binaries would orbit each other on timescales such that we simply can't just watch them orbit each other to see that they are truly bound.
Bingo. The most likely explanation is that these stars are not actually bound.
It's difficult to get definitive measurements in astronomy due to the distance and time scales. Best bet for exploring GR with astronomical measurements is improving the results of the Event Horizon Telescope. Supermassive black holes provide an extreme environment with rapid changes. That should sort out between GR and competing theories.
Hernandez et al. (March 8, 2019) talk about this issue in their paper. We are only seeing a snapshot in time. Therefore it is not so easy to definitely state that they really are wide binaries. They have identified 840 systems in our near vicinity where the stars mass about half that of our sun, and that appear to be wide binaries. That included trying to look for every conceivable situation where some other star is perturbing things.
The 840 original systems have been whittled down to the 81, with a variety of criteria, but one of them I think is that they are well-separated from the other stars in our local neighborhood.
Hernandez et al. calculate that for each of these 81 systems the odds are less than 10% that they are not what they appear to be.
Post by: mandrewa on 05/21/2019 04:55 pm
But it's interesting to note that in figure 5 of the Hernandez paper, they present the results of their calculations on a population of simulated binaries, and they came up with a completely different result than the El-Badry paper. Or at least so it appears.No, they showed the curve for the naive theoretical plot, rather than the a simulation like in the El-Badry paper that accounts for all of the variables.
Hernandez et al. claim in their paper that this is based on simulated binaries. Quote: "Also shown in Figure 5 are the Newtonian predictions for this same quantity from Ref. 11, where large collections of 50,000 simulated binaries are modelled for a range of plausible distributions of ellipticities, and followed dynamically under Newtonian expectations within the local Galactic tidal field. These are also subject to the effects of field star and field stellar remnant bombardment for a 10 Gyr period."
Since I haven't read Ref. 11, I don't know what they actually did.
Post by: meberbs on 05/21/2019 05:18 pm
This difference between the apparent distance and real distance between the two binaries is not the projection effect. I'll repeat that, this is NOT the projection effect. We don't even care for this purpose what the real distance is between the two binaries.That actually is a projection effect, and when determining the gravitational force between 2 bodies, knowing the true distance is relevant.
Why is that? It's because x, y, and z are independent of each other.What x,y,and z? Measurements are all done in spherical coordinates, r, theta (θ), and phi (φ) and the directions of the coordinate axes are not independent of each other.
We can put a coordinate frame on the binaries. For our convenience we make x and y tangent to a sphere around the earth. And z is along a line coming from the earth. We can measure x and y and dx and dy in radians very precisely. In this context we want to plot dx versus the distance in x between the two binaries and we want to plot dy versus the distance in y. Note that we can see what the distance (radians) in x is between the two binaries and we can see what the distance (radians) in y is. We may have no idea what the distance in z is, but we don't need to know that.What you are describing here is spherical coordinates, but with non-standard terminology. Please do some research on spherical coordinates. For 2 stars with significant separation, the local coordinate axes are oriented differently, this means the plane that good velocity measurements are made in is different for the 2stars, so a direct comparison of those measured velocities gives inaccurate results. This cannot be properly corrected for without knowledge of the full 3D velocity, but radial velocity knowledge is significantly more uncertain in the available data sets.
You previously said that you understood the projection effect described by El-Brady, but it is clear now that you did not understand the description. Please find a resource on spherical coordiantes and then try reading the paper again.
And that's interesting because do we need to know dz to figure out the position of the binary? Wouldn't just knowing x, y, and z for each star be enough to give the location of the binary to a reasonable and good enough approximation for this context?I will use the standard terminology here for clarity:
Assuming that we know θ, φ, and r accurately, and that we know velocities in the dθ and dφ directions accurately, we cannot transform the θ and φ velocities to be represented in the same plane for both stars without knowledge of the radial velocity. The entire point of the El-Brady paper is to show this fact. At the end he assesses how the expected errors change given different amounts of knowledge of the radial velocity information.
Hernandez et al. calculate that for each of these 81 systems the odds are less than 10% that they are not what they appear to be.This implies that possibly around 8 of them are not bound and should show "discrepant velocities." However, it is also possible that the models used to calculate that probability are in error, possibly due to one assumption or another (El-Brady gives multiple specific examples). If better radial velocity measurements were available and show velocities not consistent with GR, the simplest conclusion is just that they are not actually bound and that it was a mistake to classify them as such. There would be no way to exclude that possibility since we can't simply wait for the stars to orbit each other, and measurements are simply not accurate enough to measure the orbital motion on a reasonable time scale.
Post by: meberbs on 05/21/2019 05:38 pm
Hernandez et al. claim in their paper that this is based on simulated binaries. Quote: "Also shown in Figure 5 are the Newtonian predictions for this same quantity from Ref. 11, where large collections of 50,000 simulated binaries are modelled for a range of plausible distributions of ellipticities, and followed dynamically under Newtonian expectations within the local Galactic tidal field. These are also subject to the effects of field star and field stellar remnant bombardment for a 10 Gyr period."Skimming that paper, it seems that it calculated velocities based on a projection to center of mass or similar, and therefore represents a model that does not include the projection effect pointed out by El-Brady. They would be calculating the true velocity difference in a plane normal to the projection to the center of mass, not accounting for real measurement differences, where the velocities of the stars are measured in separate planes with slightly different orientations.
Since I haven't read Ref. 11, I don't know what they actually did.
That paper was doing an entirely different type of simulation of evolution of wide binaries over time, which has an entirely different purpose than El-Brady's paper that simulated measurement effects.
Post by: mandrewa on 05/21/2019 05:44 pm
This difference between the apparent distance and real distance between the two binaries is not the projection effect. I'll repeat that, this is NOT the projection effect. We don't even care for this purpose what the real distance is between the two binaries.That actually is a projection effect, and when determining the gravitational force between 2 bodies, knowing the true distance is relevant.Why is that? It's because x, y, and z are independent of each other.What x,y,and z? Measurements are all done in spherical coordinates, r, theta (θ), and phi (φ) and the directions of the coordinate axes are not independent of each other.We can put a coordinate frame on the binaries. For our convenience we make x and y tangent to a sphere around the earth. And z is along a line coming from the earth. We can measure x and y and dx and dy in radians very precisely. In this context we want to plot dx versus the distance in x between the two binaries and we want to plot dy versus the distance in y. Note that we can see what the distance (radians) in x is between the two binaries and we can see what the distance (radians) in y is. We may have no idea what the distance in z is, but we don't need to know that.What you are describing here is spherical coordinates, but with non-standard terminology. Please do some research on spherical coordinates. For 2 stars with significant separation, the local coordinate axes are oriented differently, this means the plane that good velocity measurements are made in is different for the 2stars, so a direct comparison of those measured velocities gives inaccurate results. This cannot be properly corrected for without knowledge of the full 3D velocity, but radial velocity knowledge is significantly more uncertain in the available data sets.
You previously said that you understood the projection effect described by El-Brady, but it is clear now that you did not understand the description. Please find a resource on spherical coordiantes and then try reading the paper again.And that's interesting because do we need to know dz to figure out the position of the binary? Wouldn't just knowing x, y, and z for each star be enough to give the location of the binary to a reasonable and good enough approximation for this context?I will use the standard terminology here for clarity:
Assuming that we know θ, φ, and r accurately, and that we know velocities in the dθ and dφ directions accurately, we cannot transform the θ and φ velocities to be represented in the same plane for both stars without knowledge of the radial velocity. The entire point of the El-Brady paper is to show this fact. At the end he assesses how the expected errors change given different amounts of knowledge of the radial velocity information.Hernandez et al. calculate that for each of these 81 systems the odds are less than 10% that they are not what they appear to be.This implies that possibly around 8 of them are not bound and should show "discrepant velocities." However, it is also possible that the models used to calculate that probability are in error, possibly due to one assumption or another (El-Brady gives multiple specific examples). If better radial velocity measurements were available and show velocities not consistent with GR, the simplest conclusion is just that they are not actually bound and that it was a mistake to classify them as such. There would be no way to exclude that possibility since we can't simply wait for the stars to orbit each other, and measurements are simply not accurate enough to measure the orbital motion on a reasonable time scale.
There is nothing wrong with the way I stated it. I'm describing an idea. And we can flip from x, y, z coordinates to r, theta, phi at will.
The reason why I chose to look at it from an x, y, z perspective (Cartesian) is that it simplifies the problem. You are correct that I'm actually defining two different Cartesian coordinate frameworks: one for each star.
But that's not a practical problem because when it comes time to calculate the distance between the two in theta, or the differences in velocity in theta, then since we know the angles we can transform the two Cartesian frameworks into one common spherical framework for the purpose of doing those calculations. And the same with respect to phi.
Now it may be standard practice for astronomers to think in terms of r, theta, and phi, but for this problem it makes it more complicated.
Post by: meberbs on 05/21/2019 06:06 pm
There is nothing wrong with the way I stated it. I'm describing an idea. And we can flip from x, y, z coordinates to r, theta, phi at will.No we can't. The data is measured in spherical coordinates, and the uncertainties are tied to that.
The reason why I chose to look at it from an x, y, z perspective (Cartesian) is that it simplifies the problem. You are correct that I'm actually defining two different Cartesian coordinate frameworks: one for each star.A different coordinate system for each star is formed by the nature of the measurements.
But that's not a practical problem because when it comes time to calculate the distance between the two in theta, or the differences in velocity in theta, then since we know the angles we can transform the two Cartesian frameworks into one common spherical framework for the purpose of doing those calculations. And the same with respect to phi.None of what you just said makes sense. The entire point of the El-Brady paper is that you cannot do that, the θ, φ plane is oriented differently at each star. To put these in the same plane requires sufficiently accurate knowledge of the radial velocities.
It appears that you did not take my advice and do any research on spherical coordinates. Please stop trying to discuss this subject until you do, you are otherwise just wasting everyone's time including your own.
Now it may be standard practice for astronomers to think in terms of r, theta, and phi, but for this problem it makes it more complicated.It doesn't "make it more complicated." Spherical coordinates are inherent to the measurements that are taken. They are necessary to doing any calculations correctly.
Post by: mandrewa on 05/21/2019 06:07 pm
This difference between the apparent distance and real distance between the two binaries is not the projection effect. I'll repeat that, this is NOT the projection effect. We don't even care for this purpose what the real distance is between the two binaries.That actually is a projection effect, and when determining the gravitational force between 2 bodies, knowing the true distance is relevant.
You are right about this. dx and dy are plotted versus the absolute distance between the stars. I thought I had a breakthrough an hour ago where we could separate out distance in x and distance in y. I should have know it was too good to be true. This would have greatly simplified the problem if it were the case but it is not.
We are left with needing to know the orientation of the binary systems. Or if we don't have that, then for every binary system where we don't know the orientation there are a large range of possible absolute distances.
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/22/2019 01:06 pm
A different coordinate system for each star is formed by the nature of the measurements.
Well, when I read that the McCullogh graph above invalidated GR, my baloney detector went off.
Still, following this interchange as best as I can, I have to ask the obvious: What does the graph show? Not purport to show, but simply, what does the graph show?
I understand that each binary system can be considered in its own coordinate system. This is like taking a box with an xyz setup, and putting the binary system in it. Then the different binary pairs can be compared and analyzed. Here in this solar system, that is relatively easy. There is, broadly speaking, a North Pole of the solar system, and most of the planets rotate on their own axes and around the Sun in a counterclockwize motion. This site is a good basic intro:
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/solarspin.htm
What is so different about the binary systems in the graph?
So maybe you could offer a slightly dumbed down version for those of us who are having some trouble following the argument above?
Post by: meberbs on 05/23/2019 03:09 am
McCulloch's graph? I don't think it really shows much of anything. It is semi-log instead of log-log like the plots that others show. log-log is used for a reason in this circumstance by the other papers being discussed, the "expected" result would be much clearer as it represents a line with constant slope. (until other effects appear.) None of the models remain within the error zones which suggest either all of the models are wrong or that there is an error in the data.A different coordinate system for each star is formed by the nature of the measurements.
Well, when I read that the McCullogh graph above invalidated GR, my baloney detector went off.
Still, following this interchange as best as I can, I have to ask the obvious: What does the graph show? Not purport to show, but simply, what does the graph show?
The El-Brady paper I referenced points out an error source related to projection that is not accounted for, which essentially amounts to an error in the data. It is subject to ambiguity (because uncertainties apparently don't allow for actual correction), but the apparent issues in the data can be explained by correcting for this effect.
I understand that each binary system can be considered in its own coordinate system. This is like taking a box with an xyz setup, and putting the binary system in it. Then the different binary pairs can be compared and analyzed.This statement is representative of the error pointed out by the El-Brady paper. The assumptions that lead to a straight line in the log-log plot for Newtonian gravity including doing what you say, setting up local basis vectors for each binary system. In reality, the stars in the systems are measured independently, with a coordinate system that is effectively spherical centered on Sol, the sun in our solar system. This means that each star in the pair has a different set of local basis vectors that the velocity measurements are relative to.
For sufficiently separated binaries this causes the measured data to no longer accurately provide the correct point of comparison. The theoretical model with the nice, straight line wants measurements of the difference in the components of the velocity of the stars that lie with in a plane normal to the line between the solar system and the center of the mass of the binaries. Instead, what is available is the velocities in the plane normal to the line between the solar system and each individual star. El-Brady shows that at a sufficient separation, this corrupts the data, and you start comparing apples and oranges.
So maybe you could offer a slightly dumbed down version for those of us who are having some trouble following the argument above?I rephrased things, but I am not sure I really dumbed it down, I used a bunch of technical terms. Please ask if further definitions or clarifications are needed.
Post by: Bob Woods on 05/23/2019 05:36 am
I rephrased things, but I am not sure I really dumbed it down, I used a bunch of technical terms. Please ask if further definitions or clarifications are needed.He's asking you TO dumb it down for the rest of us. I greatly admire your grasp, but I don't have anywhere near your abilities.
Nevertheless, keep it up, I usually learn something new. ;D
Post by: meberbs on 05/23/2019 06:41 am
Simplifying things can be done by writing something short or by starting from simple terms and defining any complicated terms needed. I am not skilled enough to do both at once, so I went for relatively short, with an offer to expand on any specific terms that anyone asks about. I don't have the time to write a full glossary, and for some things such as spherical coordinates, unless it was a very specific question, I'd probably just provide links to some resources.I rephrased things, but I am not sure I really dumbed it down, I used a bunch of technical terms. Please ask if further definitions or clarifications are needed.He's asking you TO dumb it down for the rest of us. I greatly admire your grasp, but I don't have anywhere near your abilities.
Nevertheless, keep it up, I usually learn something new. ;D
(Part of the reason I allow myself to spend the time posting that I do is the challenge of writing clear and accurate explanations. The process sometimes results in me learning a thing or 2 myself.)
Post by: OnlyMe on 05/23/2019 03:47 pm
Earlier I asked a question about the application of our classical understanding of CoM and the situation encountered when a resonant EM field is introduced into and interacts with a frustum constructed of EM conductive materials... the long winded post
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1945934#msg1945934
likely again muddied the initial fundamental issues... Momentum is transferred between the resonant field and the induced field(s) in the frustum walls. This seems clear since the EM fields associated with the frustum walls is induced by an interaction with the resonating EM field within the frustum. However, unlike classical systems, only one massive object is involved, the frustum itself.
Since the EM radiation that ultimately generates the resonant field is introduced from outside the frustum, it does not seem to be a closed system in the classical since we expect when speaking of CoM. Instead it seems more appropriate to evaluate the system as a whole within the context of conservation of energy (CoE), which would include the external EM source, and any transfer of momentum would be included as one component, of CoE.
A second question raised in the linked post, was whether an EM field has any “inherent” momentum potential greater than that associated with the momentum of the individual photons/EM waves that the field is generated/composed from/of? My initial thought is that the momentum potential within the resonant field is limited to that basic momentum, just mentioned.
Obviously, depending on resolution of the basic issues raised above, there may be a variety of further speculations specific to the design and testing of an EMDrive, whether those speculations represent any potential for the generation of any useable anomalous force, extracted from the interact between the two EM fields. But those are speculations are of little to no value, without a better understanding of the basic questions above.
Post by: Star One on 05/23/2019 03:54 pm
The more I think about it, the less likely it seems to me that this data could ever be used to falsify GR. If the true velocities really are too fast to be bound in GR, then that just implies it was a mistake to classify them as a bound pair to begin with. Wide binaries would orbit each other on timescales such that we simply can't just watch them orbit each other to see that they are truly bound.
Bingo. The most likely explanation is that these stars are not actually bound.
It's difficult to get definitive measurements in astronomy due to the distance and time scales. Best bet for exploring GR with astronomical measurements is improving the results of the Event Horizon Telescope. Supermassive black holes provide an extreme environment with rapid changes. That should sort out between GR and competing theories.
You talk as if improving the results of the Event Horizon Telescope for this kind of definitive answer was easily done. When in fact this likely to be order of years if not decades, if we are talking about the addition of orbital radio telescopes.
Post by: RonM on 05/23/2019 04:55 pm
The more I think about it, the less likely it seems to me that this data could ever be used to falsify GR. If the true velocities really are too fast to be bound in GR, then that just implies it was a mistake to classify them as a bound pair to begin with. Wide binaries would orbit each other on timescales such that we simply can't just watch them orbit each other to see that they are truly bound.
Bingo. The most likely explanation is that these stars are not actually bound.
It's difficult to get definitive measurements in astronomy due to the distance and time scales. Best bet for exploring GR with astronomical measurements is improving the results of the Event Horizon Telescope. Supermassive black holes provide an extreme environment with rapid changes. That should sort out between GR and competing theories.
You talk as if improving the results of the Event Horizon Telescope for this kind of definitive answer was easily done. When in fact this likely to be order of years if not decades, if we are talking about the addition of orbital radio telescopes.
I didn't say it would be easy. It could take a decade with funding. But it would take less time than observing wide binaries for decades only to discover they're not really wide binaries (not a test of GR).
Anyway, what does all this have to do with Shawyer EM drives? Looks to me like people are grasping at straws to find a theory that justifies EM drives. More experimental data based on Shawyer's design is what people need. If it works, that's great. If it doesn't work, then it's time to move on.
Post by: meberbs on 05/23/2019 06:40 pm
likely again muddied the initial fundamental issues... Momentum is transferred between the resonant field and the induced field(s) in the frustum walls. This seems clear since the EM fields associated with the frustum walls is induced by an interaction with the resonating EM field within the frustum. However, unlike classical systems, only one massive object is involved, the frustum itself.When discussing conservation and the emDrive, it it best to define your system such that the device is powered by a battery and that the battery and RF generator are both strapped to the frustum this way nothing is coming in from "outside" the system. The fields within the cavity also count as part of the system. You can use these definitions of "system" for both conservation of momentum and conservation of energy.
Since the EM radiation that ultimately generates the resonant field is introduced from outside the frustum, it does not seem to be a closed system in the classical since we expect when speaking of CoM. Instead it seems more appropriate to evaluate the system as a whole within the context of conservation of energy (CoE), which would include the external EM source, and any transfer of momentum would be included as one component, of CoE.
A second question raised in the linked post, was whether an EM field has any “inherent” momentum potential greater than that associated with the momentum of the individual photons/EM waves that the field is generated/composed from/of? My initial thought is that the momentum potential within the resonant field is limited to that basic momentum, just mentioned.It is limited in that way. You can setup a system where there is energy and momentum in the fields (as determined by the Poynting vector), but all of the fields involved are static. An example is a ring of wire with a current in it generating a magnetic field, and immersed in a uniform electric field. Current is the same everywhere in the wire, but parts of the wire have fewer charge carriers moving faster, which yields a different momentum due to relativity. The momentum in the fields precisely cancels that. You can view this situation as radiation being emitted by part of the system and absorbed by the other part to keep everything balanced. Even in this case where the interactions are basically local, and the fields are steady state, the energy and momentum relationships in the fields still work.
To answer one other point from your previous post (a few paragraphs skipped for brevity)
My focus on a need for higher power tests and even reverting to testing earlier frustum designs with the improved test beds, of the day, is grounded on two questions, I don’t feel have been resolved.First of all you keep talking about the "inertial mass of the device" determining a limiting force required. There is no such restriction in the better tests that have been performed. Torsion balances do not have static friction, and the force measurement will yield the same result and sensitivity even if you change the mass. The force measurement is done by comparison to the torque generated by the torsion wire, which shows up as displacement. Mass would only limit sensitivity if the measurement was based on direct measurement of acceleration. For the experiments performed, the mass only comes into play as a second order effect by changing the period of oscillation, settling time and other properties of the setup, that do not directly factor into sensitivity.
One is that, should the potential momentum available for transfer be limited to the inherent momentum associated with any EM photons/waves contributing to the internal resonant EM field, there is a possibility that the there would be insufficient total momentum potential available, from low power systems to overcome the inherent inertial resistance of the device’s mass and inherent initial resistance of the test bed. Think of it like this were we dealing with a photon rocket what would be the minimum power/force required to overcome the inherent inertia of the mass of the device itself? Higher power tests provide a greater possible momentum potential to begin with.
...
It does not matter how sensitive your test equipment is, if the device you are testing does not or cannot generate sufficient force to overcome the involved inertial mass and inherent baseline resistance of the test equipment.
Higher powered tests have a greater potential of producing a more significant interaction, with little or no change in the total inertial mass of the device.
Since that is a non-factor, the only actual question is the sensitivity of the device in terms of force/power. Higher power tests increase error sources and also make it more difficult to eliminate errors from attached cables by using a self-contained system with battery power. The most recent experiments have done very well on this metric, easily enough to show that the original claims such as those from Shawyer were inaccurate.
Post by: mandrewa on 05/23/2019 06:52 pm
The more I think about it, the less likely it seems to me that this data could ever be used to falsify GR. If the true velocities really are too fast to be bound in GR, then that just implies it was a mistake to classify them as a bound pair to begin with. Wide binaries would orbit each other on timescales such that we simply can't just watch them orbit each other to see that they are truly bound.
Bingo. The most likely explanation is that these stars are not actually bound.
It's difficult to get definitive measurements in astronomy due to the distance and time scales. Best bet for exploring GR with astronomical measurements is improving the results of the Event Horizon Telescope. Supermassive black holes provide an extreme environment with rapid changes. That should sort out between GR and competing theories.
You talk as if improving the results of the Event Horizon Telescope for this kind of definitive answer was easily done. When in fact this likely to be order of years if not decades, if we are talking about the addition of orbital radio telescopes.
I didn't say it would be easy. It could take a decade with funding. But it would take less time than observing wide binaries for decades only to discover they're not really wide binaries (not a test of GR).
We have 71 'binaries', where we know the position of all 142 stars, and their velocities. For these 71 'binaries,' and I've put the word binary in quotes, not because I think there is any reason to doubt that they are binaries, but because it doesn't matter whether actually are or not. They are still a test of our theory of gravity, even if they are somehow not really binaries.
We still have to explain why they are moving as they are moving.
For all 71 of these instances the stars in question are well separated from anything else. We know they are exerting a gravitational force on each other. Unless there is some mass we cannot see, everything else is far enough away that their gravitational impact on the motions of each of these instances should be minor.
Out of the 71 instances, or actually it's 81 instances because Hernandez et al. have added an additional 10 instances where we don't know the radial velocities of the stars. I'll assume that there is good reason for this and that they know what they are doing, for now.
But out of the 81 instances, 44 are behaving like Newtonian physics (or GR) would predict. But for all of these 44, the real or apparent distance between the pairs is less than 7000 AU.
All 37 pairs whose real or apparent distance is more than 7000 AU apart are diverging from what Newtonian physics (or GR) would predict. And they are diverging in a consistent way.
Something seems to be going on. As Gaia continues to take measurements we will likely get even more 'binaries' that can be compared.
Post by: meberbs on 05/23/2019 08:25 pm
We have 71 'binaries', where we know the position of all 142 stars, and their velocities. For these 71 'binaries,' and I've put the word binary in quotes, not because I think there is any reason to doubt that they are binaries, but because it doesn't matter whether actually are or not. They are still a test of our theory of gravity, even if they are somehow not really binaries.We only know the locations and velocities of the stars (some components of the velocities at least). There is only a meaningful relationship between velocity and separation if the stars are bound. Otherwise, gravitational theory can only predict acceleration which is not within our capability to meaningfully measure on any practical time scale. The separations between the stars being considered are measured in light years, such that the separation between the sun and the Alpha Centauri system would fit into the relevant section of the plots (around 1.3 parsecs) Other gravitational influences certainly need to be considered at that scale.
We still have to explain why they are moving as they are moving.
For all 71 of these instances the stars in question are well separated from anything else. We know they are exerting a gravitational force on each other. Unless there is some mass we cannot see, everything else is far enough away that their gravitational impact on the motions of each of these instances should be minor.
But out of the 81 instances, 44 are behaving like Newtonian physics (or GR) would predict. But for all of these 44, the real or apparent distance between the pairs is less than 7000 AU.El-Brady showed that GR does in fact predict something different to happen as the separation increases, because components of the velocity that can be measured accurately enough are measured in different planes for each star, breaking naive assumptions that the velocities are measured in the same plane. Corrections for this can only be done with sufficiently accurate measurements of the 3rd velocity component, but El-Brady showed that at a minimum the measured values are consistent with a GR based model that accounts for the actual way measurements are performed.
All 37 pairs whose real or apparent distance is more than 7000 AU apart are diverging from what Newtonian physics (or GR) would predict. And they are diverging in a consistent way.
Something seems to be going on. As Gaia continues to take measurements we will likely get even more 'binaries' that can be compared.
Post by: mandrewa on 05/23/2019 11:08 pm
We have 71 'binaries', where we know the position of all 142 stars, and their velocities. For these 71 'binaries,' and I've put the word binary in quotes, not because I think there is any reason to doubt that they are binaries, but because it doesn't matter whether actually are or not. They are still a test of our theory of gravity, even if they are somehow not really binaries.
We still have to explain why they are moving as they are moving.
For all 71 of these instances the stars in question are well separated from anything else. We know they are exerting a gravitational force on each other. Unless there is some mass we cannot see, everything else is far enough away that their gravitational impact on the motions of each of these instances should be minor.
We only know the locations and velocities of the stars (some components of the velocities at least). There is only a meaningful relationship between velocity and separation if the stars are bound. Otherwise, gravitational theory can only predict acceleration which is not within our capability to meaningfully measure on any practical time scale. The separations between the stars being considered are measured in light years, such that the separation between the sun and the Alpha Centauri system would fit into the relevant section of the plots (around 1.3 parsecs) Other gravitational influences certainly need to be considered at that scale.
I've overstated the case. If we imagine the stars didn't exist one hundred years ago, and then ninety-nine years ago, we put them in their current locations with their current velocities, then in that context the arrangement wouldn't reveal much about gravity.
But if the stars have been in existence for millions of years, and they've been experiencing gravity over that span of time, then it's a struggle to imagine how they can be in these locations and with these velocities at this point in time without being binaries. It seems intuitively spectacularly unlikely.
But the trouble is that saying you can't imagine how something can occur isn't proof that it isn't possible.
But out of the 81 instances, 44 are behaving like Newtonian physics (or GR) would predict. But for all of these 44, the real or apparent distance between the pairs is less than 7000 AU.El-Brady showed that GR does in fact predict something different to happen as the separation increases, because components of the velocity that can be measured accurately enough are measured in different planes for each star, breaking naive assumptions that the velocities are measured in the same plane. Corrections for this can only be done with sufficiently accurate measurements of the 3rd velocity component, but El-Brady showed that at a minimum the measured values are consistent with a GR based model that accounts for the actual way measurements are performed.
All 37 pairs whose real or apparent distance is more than 7000 AU apart are diverging from what Newtonian physics (or GR) would predict. And they are diverging in a consistent way.
Something seems to be going on. As Gaia continues to take measurements we will likely get even more 'binaries' that can be compared.
This is the Kareem Al-Badry paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.13397.pdf
This is the Hernandez et al. paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.08696.pdf
If we look at figure 3 in the Al-Badry paper, four different panels are shown for different scenarios that were modeled. Now I have a lot of questions about the wide binary simulation in the Al-Badry paper, but I'm pretty confident that at least in this much I've got it right, that these four panels in figure 3 show the results of four different runs of the simulation under four different assumed states of knowledge about the stars.
In the bottom panel we see a simulated binary run where it's assumed the viewer from earth has no information on the radial velocity of these stars. From Hernandez et al. paper (2019), we know only 10 of the systems might fit this condition (I need to verify that they truly have no radial information on these stars, or if they just meant that the radial information was incomplete.) But in any event the bottom panel would only apply to at most 10 of the 81 systems the Hernandez et al. have chosen to focus on.
In figure 2 of Al-Badry paper they superimpose the data from the 81 systems from the Hernandez et al. paper (2019) on the simulated binary run which assumed no radial data. It fits quite well. That seems quite impressive, and if they have done the simulation correctly it explains the data from 10 of the 81 systems. (Or actually really I do have questions even then, but for now I'll skip all of that.)
But it leaves the question of why the Al-Badry paper didn't superimpose the data from the Hernandez paper on the other three simulated binary runs revealed in figure 3. The top panel in figure 3 is a simulated binary run where we know the radial velocities and the radial velocity data has a standard deviation of 0.2 km/s. This would likely apply to some subset of the Hernandez data. Why isn't it plotted?
The second panel down from the top in figure 3 is a simulated binary run where we know the radial velocities and the radial velocity data has a standard deviation of 2.0 km/s. This would likely apply to a signficant subset of the Hernandez data. Why isn't it plotted?
The third panel down from the top of figure 3 is a simulated binary run where radial velocity is known for one of the stars but not the other. I don't know how many systems out of the 81 this applies to, if any, but it surely applies to some of the other suspected 760 binaries that Hernandez et al. currently have data on.
Post by: meberbs on 05/24/2019 12:42 am
I've overstated the case. If we imagine the stars didn't exist one hundred years ago, and then ninety-nine years ago, we put them in their current locations with their current velocities, then in that context the arrangement wouldn't reveal much about gravity.What are you trying to say here? The last sentence here that you stated is a great counterargument to the paragraph immediately preceding it. Intuition is completely useless when determining the expected distribution of stars with some given relative proximity. There are models that predict it, but also lists of reasons why they could be wrong. The El-Badry paper lists reasons that there can be stars near each other with not particularly different velocities even if unbound.
But if the stars have been in existence for millions of years, and they've been experiencing gravity over that span of time, then it's a struggle to imagine how they can be in these locations and with these velocities at this point in time without being binaries. It seems intuitively spectacularly unlikely.
But the trouble is that saying you can't imagine how something can occur isn't proof that it isn't possible.
If you want to claim that there is a way to use this data to invalidate GR, you are going to have to show what it is, and so far you have failed to do so. You have swung from the previous post where you claimed even if the stars aren't bound there would be a way to use the data to disprove GR, to your current post where you now insist the stars must be bound because "intuition" despite the fact that based on the stated probability cutoff of the models used to pick out these pairs, it is expected that several of them would actually not be bound pairs.
If we look at figure 3 in the Al-Badry paper, four different panels are shown for different scenarios that were modeled. Now I have a lot of questions about the wide binary simulation in the Al-Badry paper, but I'm pretty confident that at least in this much I've got it right, that these four panels in figure 3 show the results of four different runs of the simulation under four different assumed states of knowledge about the stars.The Hernandez paper uses 1D velocity in its plots, its results are based on comparing to a model that makes an incorrect assumption about the velocities that are used. Since no correction was made in the Hernandez paper for this effect, and it is easy to simply not do the correction, then there is no problem just comparing the data in that way. It at least shows that there is no obvious inconsistency in the more accurate part of the velocity data with GR, when using a model that correctly represents how the data was measured.
In the bottom panel we see a simulated binary run where it's assumed the viewer from earth has no information on the radial velocity of these stars. From Hernandez et al. paper (2019), we know only 10 of the systems might fit this condition (I need to verify that they truly have no radial information on these stars, or if they just meant that the radial information was incomplete.) But in any event the bottom panel would only apply to at most 10 of the 81 systems the Hernandez et al. have chosen to focus on.
In figure 2 of Al-Badry paper they superimpose the data from the 81 systems from the Hernandez et al. paper (2019) on the simulated binary run which assumed no radial data. It fits quite well. That seems quite impressive, and if they have done the simulation correctly it explains the data from 10 of the 81 systems. (Or actually really I do have questions even then, but for now I'll skip all of that.)No, it explains the data of all of them, because they are all plotted with the same assumption, which is the same for both the actual data and the model, unlike the Hernandez paper.
But it leaves the question of why the Al-Badry paper didn't superimpose the data from the Hernandez paper on the other three simulated binary runs revealed in figure 3. The top panel in figure 3 is a simulated binary run where we know the radial velocities and the radial velocity data has a standard deviation of 0.2 km/s. This would likely apply to some subset of the Hernandez data. Why isn't it plotted?As the various plots show, the expected shape changes with error magnitude, so each star would need to be compared to a different curve. Given the size of the distributions, this does not seem like it would provide much insight, the other plots are based on binning a bunch of stars together so that a meaningful plot can result in part by hiding the noisy errors on individual measurements.
Post by: mandrewa on 05/24/2019 01:34 am
I've overstated the case. If we imagine the stars didn't exist one hundred years ago, and then ninety-nine years ago, we put them in their current locations with their current velocities, then in that context the arrangement wouldn't reveal much about gravity.What are you trying to say here? The last sentence here that you stated is a great counterargument to the paragraph immediately preceding it. Intuition is completely useless when determining the expected distribution of stars with some given relative proximity. There are models that predict it, but also lists of reasons why they could be wrong. The El-Badry paper lists reasons that there can be stars near each other with not particularly different velocities even if unbound.
But if the stars have been in existence for millions of years, and they've been experiencing gravity over that span of time, then it's a struggle to imagine how they can be in these locations and with these velocities at this point in time without being binaries. It seems intuitively spectacularly unlikely.
But the trouble is that saying you can't imagine how something can occur isn't proof that it isn't possible.
I know intuition is an unsatisfactory argument, but think about what is implied if in fact the stars are not bound. That means that two stars have wandered relatively close together with rather similar speeds.
That's not particularly unlikely but then it goes further. For the systems where we have the full velocity data, not only do we have similar speeds but both velocities are in the same plane. Now that's getting unlikely. And it's especially unlikely to find this in 30 or so systems that are all relatively nearby at the same time.
But then it gets worse, it's not just pairs of stars that all have similar speeds, velocities in the same plane, and are near to us, but on top of that and most unlikely of all, their masses, directions, and speeds all add up to systems that are all almost but not quite doing what a pair of bound stars would be doing under GR.
Intuitively that sounds spectacularly unlikely. But trying to quantify the odds of this occurring is probably quite difficult, so I think the reference to less than 10% chance for each not being bound in the Hernandez paper is not an assessment of the actual odds, but instead an assertion that they have proved it's less than a 10% chance, although in fact they believe the odds are far, far less than that.
Post by: mandrewa on 05/24/2019 01:53 am
If we look at figure 3 in the Al-Badry paper, four different panels are shown for different scenarios that were modeled. Now I have a lot of questions about the wide binary simulation in the Al-Badry paper, but I'm pretty confident that at least in this much I've got it right, that these four panels in figure 3 show the results of four different runs of the simulation under four different assumed states of knowledge about the stars.The Hernandez paper uses 1D velocity in its plots, its results are based on comparing to a model that makes an incorrect assumption about the velocities that are used. Since no correction was made in the Hernandez paper for this effect, and it is easy to simply not do the correction, then there is no problem just comparing the data in that way. It at least shows that there is no obvious inconsistency in the more accurate part of the velocity data with GR, when using a model that correctly represents how the data was measured.
In the bottom panel we see a simulated binary run where it's assumed the viewer from earth has no information on the radial velocity of these stars. From Hernandez et al. paper (2019), we know only 10 of the systems might fit this condition (I need to verify that they truly have no radial information on these stars, or if they just meant that the radial information was incomplete.) But in any event the bottom panel would only apply to at most 10 of the 81 systems the Hernandez et al. have chosen to focus on.
I do not understand this assertion. Figure 2 is the same as the bottom panel in figure 3, except Figure 2 has the data from the Hernandez et al. paper superimposed.
The bottom panel of the four panels in figure 3 is labeled "no RVs", where RV means 'radial velocity' and therefore this is a simulation run under the assumption that we are only seeing the apparent motions and don't know the real velocity or real distance between the stars.
Do you disagree with that? Or do you mean that if we just ignore the radial data on the grounds that the radial data is not nearly as good as the other data, then it reconciles with GR?
If it's the latter case, remember that I wondered awhile ago if that was going on, and asserted that if El-Badry was implicitly assuming the radial data was bad, then he needed to explicitly state that he was doing that.
Post by: meberbs on 05/24/2019 06:07 am
I know intuition is an unsatisfactory argument, but think about what is implied if in fact the stars are not bound. That means that two stars have wandered relatively close together with rather similar speeds.Your post after this is distinctly lacking in actual supporting numbers or anything to indicate that you have any comprehension of things like what the density of stars is in the galaxy and what this implies about the likelihoods involved. It also lacks any indication that you have actually read the discussion section of the El-Brady paper that I have referenced multiple times because it gives actual reasons that unbound stars with similar velocities could be near each other.
For the systems where we have the full velocity data, not only do we have similar speeds but both velocities are in the same plane.In the same plane to what accuracy? given the uncertainties in the radial data, this assertion is just unsupportable.
But trying to quantify the odds of this occurring is probably quite difficult, so I think the reference to less than 10% chance for each not being bound in the Hernandez paper is not an assessment of the actual odds, but instead an assertion that they have proved it's less than a 10% chance, although in fact they believe the odds are far, far less than that.No, the 10% is calculated by a model that could be wrong in either direction, and again, El-Badry provides reasons that the odds of being unbound could be significantly higher.
Have you just not read any of my posts? I don't know how to respond to this, because I have already explained this using every variation of phrasing I could think of. The data matches with expectations of GR based on these results, but there is not enough high quality information to eliminate any possibility that it also matches an alternative theory.The Hernandez paper uses 1D velocity in its plots, its results are based on comparing to a model that makes an incorrect assumption about the velocities that are used. Since no correction was made in the Hernandez paper for this effect, and it is easy to simply not do the correction, then there is no problem just comparing the data in that way. It at least shows that there is no obvious inconsistency in the more accurate part of the velocity data with GR, when using a model that correctly represents how the data was measured.I do not understand this assertion. Figure 2 is the same as the bottom panel in figure 3, except Figure 2 has the data from the Hernandez et al. paper superimposed.
The bottom panel of the four panels in figure 3 is labeled "no RVs", where RV means 'radial velocity' and therefore this is a simulation run under the assumption that we are only seeing the apparent motions and don't know the real velocity or real distance between the stars.
Do you disagree with that? Or do you mean that if we just ignore the radial data on the grounds that the radial data is not nearly as good as the other data, then it reconciles with GR?
You can look at the Hernandez paper and see what the uncertainties are on the raw data. They clearly preclude comparisons of the full 3D velocities because just the error in that one component would cause problems. El-Badry shows that the added error is smaller if you just use it as a correction factor to put the velocities in the same plane, however even for the best case of both components < 0.2 km/s this mostly, but not completely removes the projection errors. Many of the data points from the Hernandez paper clearly do not meet this condition, so it is not clear a statistically meaningful comparison can be done.
If it's the latter case, remember that I wondered awhile ago if that was going on, and asserted that if El-Badry was implicitly assuming the radial data was bad, then he needed to explicitly state that he was doing that.I have to wonder whether you have actually read the paper at all, or if you are just making things up as you go. This is not the first time you have requested more information on something that is already stated in the paper (Try reading section 2.2 again.) Although, he doesn't refer to it as an assumption for the simple reason that it is a fact.
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/28/2019 01:10 am
I have to admit, this has been a fun side project over the last couple of weeks. My old hanging-wire torsional pendulum was enormous and took up a large portion of my basement. In preparation for moving to our new home in a few months, I disassembled the old torsional pendulum. At that time, I also began designing a "Fullerton style" torsional pendulum that wouldn't take up nearly as much space and I can keep on a shelf.
I use the same brand C-Flex bearings Fullerton uses, as well as a magnetic damping system, and liquid metal contacts. I even replicated the vibration damping bracket Woodward uses to hold the MET with all the neoprene washers. All parts are 3D printed except the extruded aluminum square tube, flexure bearings, nuts and screws, and magnets.
Next steps are to get the laser displacement sensor working and build the new draft enclosure...
Post by: Bob Woods on 05/28/2019 07:31 pm
Maybe you can sell them on E-bay.
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/02/2019 10:35 am
Wonder what automobile company makes fuel cell powered vehicles?
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/02/2019 02:48 pm
Late 3rd week in July 2019 could be an interesting date in EmDrive history.
Wonder what automobile company makes fuel cell powered vehicles?
If you have them I would be posting data, experimental specs, diagrams, proof that it works, so that a working hypothesis could be worked out to understand why there is thrust if there is any. Ignorance isn't bliss.
Post by: OnlyMe on 06/02/2019 07:58 pm
Late 3rd week in July 2019 could be an interesting date in EmDrive history.
Wonder what automobile company makes fuel cell powered vehicles?
There has been far too many claims of the sort represented in that diagram, with no credible supporting data/documentation.
It is almost as if some, are posting, even sometimes boasting, based on the psychological model, that if you say a thing often enough and loud enough, it must be true... or at least that you can convince others that it is true.
Let us see some repeatable experimental data confirming even a single newton of useable thrust... Without even that it is as if we are discussing science fiction, rather than anything remotely associated with science.
Post by: Bob Woods on 06/03/2019 05:44 am
Late 3rd week in July 2019 could be an interesting date in EmDrive history.Phil, you've had plenty of opportunity to provide data; to provide proof. You haven't done so.
No matter what anyone's personal "beliefs" are, science relies on data to define a proof. Belief without data is more akin to religion than science.
This is a place for science.
Post by: Star One on 06/03/2019 07:44 am
Late 3rd week in July 2019 could be an interesting date in EmDrive history.Phil, you've had plenty of opportunity to provide data; to provide proof. You haven't done so.
No matter what anyone's personal "beliefs" are, science relies on data to define a proof. Belief without data is more akin to religion than science.
This is a place for science.
It comes to something when recently we’ve seen more info and data on UFO sightings than the EM drive from this poster.
Post by: bad_astra on 06/03/2019 04:20 pm
Late 3rd week in July 2019 could be an interesting date in EmDrive history.please leave the crackpot stuff for other forums. I have found these Em drive threads interesting, but this kind of thing is something else. It has a place, just not here. Unless there is something veritable to show at that time. If not, these teasers are for your own ego.
Wonder what automobile company makes fuel cell powered vehicles?
Weren't you going to publish the results of your own experiment? You were quite adamant about that and not all that long ago.
Post by: The_Optimist on 06/05/2019 11:59 am
https://aetux.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Non-rocket-non-reactive-quantum-engine.pdf (https://aetux.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Non-rocket-non-reactive-quantum-engine.pdf)
Post by: Notsosureofit on 06/05/2019 01:23 pm
Interesting article....
https://aetux.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Non-rocket-non-reactive-quantum-engine.pdf (https://aetux.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Non-rocket-non-reactive-quantum-engine.pdf)
For what it's worth....
http://leonov-leonovstheories.blogspot.com/
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/05/2019 06:29 pm
Interesting article....
https://aetux.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Non-rocket-non-reactive-quantum-engine.pdf (https://aetux.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Non-rocket-non-reactive-quantum-engine.pdf)
This is a pretty strange measurement setup. Sounds to me like a large spinning anharmonic oscillator. This would show a false-positive force on a dynamometer attached in that location. The device vibrates a lot and we all know how that can affect these kinds of measurements.
Looks like another Dean drive variant. If you have a scale at home, next time you are on it wave your arms around and watch the weight amount change. Are you creating anti-gravity and a space engine? Of course not.
Google translated from the video comments:
Gennadii polubesovNovember 4, 2013, 05:29
"And when you brake sharply, the boat will return to its original state" - this is not true.
While you are running away, the boat WILL GO, and when you stop at the bow of the boat, it will stop, but in a different place, so that the common center of mass remains motionless. But Denis correctly reminds that there is also friction. Moreover, it depends on the speed. Therefore, combining the slow movement along the bottom with the “instantaneous” braking, there is a chance to play on the difference of the total effect of friction forces.
This chance is especially great on Leonov’s land devices. And it is really necessary to include both hemispheres in order not to claim that the boat will return to its original state, when its cargo has clearly shifted relative to the initial position.
These tricks with carts - from the arsenal of gadgets.
If you were interested in the truth, and not in the next patent, you would not hide the principle of work under the casing of the cart. This would bring worldwide fame and recognition of the superior benefits of patent patents, but only on the condition that it is not empty.
Put an unbalanced motor with a battery on the brush with an inclined bristle, cover with a casing - and it will go up the hill like a centipede."
Post by: RotoSequence on 06/06/2019 02:13 am
"To catch and reverse a quantum jump mid-flight"
Z.K. Minev, S.O. Mundhada, S. Shankar, P. Reinhold, R. Gutierrez-Jauregui, R.J. Schoelkopf, M. Mirrahimi, H.J. Carmichael, M.H. Devoret
Quote
Quantum physics was invented to account for two fundamental features of measurement results -- their discreetness and randomness. Emblematic of these features is Bohr's idea of quantum jumps between two discrete energy levels of an atom. Experimentally, quantum jumps were first observed in an atomic ion driven by a weak deterministic force while under strong continuous energy measurement. The times at which the discontinuous jump transitions occur are reputed to be fundamentally unpredictable. Can there be, despite the indeterminism of quantum physics, a possibility to know if a quantum jump is about to occur or not? Here, we answer this question affirmatively by experimentally demonstrating that the jump from the ground to an excited state of a superconducting artificial three-level atom can be tracked as it follows a predictable "flight," by monitoring the population of an auxiliary energy level coupled to the ground state. The experimental results demonstrate that the jump evolution when completed is continuous, coherent, and deterministic. Furthermore, exploiting these features and using real-time monitoring and feedback, we catch and reverse a quantum jump mid-flight, thus deterministically preventing its completion. Our results, which agree with theoretical predictions essentially without adjustable parameters, support the modern quantum trajectory theory and provide new ground for the exploration of real-time intervention techniques in the control of quantum systems, such as early detection of error syndromes.
The Nature summary blurb of the paper was interesting as well:
Quote
Experiment overturns Bohr’s view of quantum jumps, demonstrating that they possess a degree of predictability and when completed are continuous, coherent and even deterministic.
Post by: zen-in on 06/06/2019 04:11 am
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/06/2019 03:06 pm
Spr / Roger Shawyer NEVER built a cavity with both end plates as flat surfaces.
Those that doubt that have never analyser the experimental data Roger shared.
How to say this?
The EW cavity is not an EmDrive cavity nor or are any replicants.
Roger has told EW & all the EW repliants their cavity design is BS.
As far as I know EW & all the replicants have rejected Rogers advise.
Go figure.
Here is a cavity design Roger & I shared with EW.
We have no feedback EW replicated this design.
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/06/2019 03:32 pm
CofE and CofM are conserved as trapped photon energy & momentum decreases, while wavelength increases, as accelerated mass KE & momentum increases.
EmDrive is just an electrical machine, converting input Rf joules into KE Joules.
No Ou.
Orbital data is to follow.
Your opinion, math based or not, as to if EmDrive work or not is not relevant.
It works, experimental data rules, no matter any math based denial, no matter what your opinion or belief.
Accept that and move on.
July 20, 2019 approaches.
Post by: Star One on 06/06/2019 05:17 pm
https://futurism.com/test-emdrive-breaks-laws-physics
This is the source article which at least uses a correct picture.
https://www.wired.com/story/a-mythical-form-of-space-propulsion-finally-gets-a-real-test/
Tajmar appears to be determined to do what it takes to end this debate.
Post by: birdman on 06/06/2019 05:25 pm
Has anyone told these people that is not an EM drive in the picture accompanying this article.
https://futurism.com/test-emdrive-breaks-laws-physics
This is the source article which at least uses a correct picture.
https://www.wired.com/story/a-mythical-form-of-space-propulsion-finally-gets-a-real-test/
Tajmar appears to be determined to do what it takes to end this debate.
I would think that most people reading the article there wouldn't know an EM drive from a fancy toaster with blue light coming out of it.
Post by: RonM on 06/06/2019 05:42 pm
In my most recent meeting with Roger, we agreed the experimental data showed trapped cavity photon wavelength increased as accelerated EmDrive + mass KE & momentum increased, Photon energy & momentum loss matches EmDrive increased KE & momentum.
CofE and CofM are conserved as trapped photon energy & momentum decreases, while wavelength increases, as accelerated mass KE & momentum increases.
EmDrive is just an electrical machine, converting input Rf joules into KE Joules.
No Ou.
Orbital data is to follow.
Your opinion, math based or not, as to if EmDrive work or not is not relevant.
It works, experimental data rules, no matter any math based denial, no matter what your opinion or belief.
Accept that and move on.
July 20, 2019 approaches.
More talk and empty promises. Four years of this foolishness.
Post by: Star One on 06/06/2019 05:59 pm
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/06/2019 06:47 pm
Hopefully by the end of the year with the help of Tajmar’s experiments it should see the end of the EM drive nonsense.
You do understand Roger visited Tajmar & team. Explained to them why they have null results & showed them how to get good results?
They ignored Roger's advise.
You should note Tajmar's team doesn't have an microwave engineer. Probably why they reported cavity Q geq 50k, which is impossible with flat end plates but is possible from RF system self resonances. In fact Tajmar reported Q of 300k, which is clearly self resonances.
When they obtain proper staff and report Q of around 5k, with flat end plates, I might take their results seriously.
Post by: Star One on 06/06/2019 07:38 pm
Hopefully by the end of the year with the help of Tajmar’s experiments it should see the end of the EM drive nonsense.
You do understand Roger visited Tajmar & team. Explained to them why they have null results & showed them how to get good results?
They ignored Roger's advise.
You should note Tajmar's team doesn't have an microwave engineer. Probably why they reported cavity Q geq 50k, which is impossible with flat end plates but is possible from RF system self resonances. In fact Tajmar reported Q of 300k, which is clearly self resonances.
When they obtain proper staff and report Q of around 5k, with flat end plates, I might take their results seriously.
I imagine there will be more than a few more knowledgable than me posting on here who will disagree with you.
Post by: X_RaY on 06/06/2019 09:29 pm
He's right about the expected Q factor of a non superconducting low order mode (TE01p for excample) resonant cavity with flat end plates around 2.4 GHz.Hopefully by the end of the year with the help of Tajmar’s experiments it should see the end of the EM drive nonsense.
You do understand Roger visited Tajmar & team. Explained to them why they have null results & showed them how to get good results?
They ignored Roger's advise.
You should note Tajmar's team doesn't have an microwave engineer. Probably why they reported cavity Q geq 50k, which is impossible with flat end plates but is possible from RF system self resonances. In fact Tajmar reported Q of 300k, which is clearly self resonances.
When they obtain proper staff and report Q of around 5k, with flat end plates, I might take their results seriously.
I imagine there will be more than a few more knowledgable than me posting on here who will disagree with you.
However, hardly anybody will want to answer TT's confused postings as long as there is no data supporting his claims.
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/07/2019 08:48 pm
Late 3rd week in July 2019 could be an interesting date in EmDrive history.Phil, you've had plenty of opportunity to provide data; to provide proof. You haven't done so.
No matter what anyone's personal "beliefs" are, science relies on data to define a proof. Belief without data is more akin to religion than science.
This is a place for science.
It comes to something when recently we’ve seen more info and data on UFO sightings than the EM drive from this poster.
That's not to say there's anything wrong with research into UFOs as long as it's done in a scientific manner. one interesting book I read that was like that was written by Harley Rutledge about Piedmont Missouri. UFO phenomena is actually partly responsible for the interest in propellantless propulsion.
Other factors that affect interest are science fiction. Star trek not only predicted cell phones but it hit pretty close to home as far as manipulation of space-time with warp drives.
Another factor as its recent actual observation of space-time predicted by general relativity. In fact going beyond observation once you have an object that is capable of observing space-time you might have the option of manipulating that object to affect space time. There was a paper about that where they were proposing that Ligo might even be able to generate very small gravitational waves just because it's able to observe them via coupling of the laser mirror system to space time. There are lots of systems like this one example being electric motors which are also generators.
if the Mach effect works I think it probably has something to do with that also. If you look at how a gravitational field can slow down time and Lorentz contract objects by inducing acceleration or effective relative velocity then maybe inducing asymmetric relative accelerations on an object could induce curvature of space time. we know that from black holes the larger their velocity when merging and their accelerations seems to increase the rate at which they lose energy to space time.
My thoughts were that if we could make a cavity which induces these asymmetric accelerations at large enough energy, velocity, and accelerations maybe you wouldn't have to modulate extremely large amounts of mass to induce the curvature of space-time.
I think meberbs was getting at with black holes merging is that there's a lot of stored energy between two black holes as potential energy. That potential energy probably has effective Mass via the curvature of space-time between them. And merging they go to a lower energy state can accumulate velocity and effective Mass but that effective mass is thrown off as space-time waves so that they can merge.
Edit (another paper was proposing that asymmetric acceleration of black holes could induce asymmetric emission of gravitational waves and propel the black hole system out of its host Galaxy up to some percentage of the speed of light which I don't remember the exact %. they were even proposing looking for Galaxy systems missing their black holes. )
my personal thoughts are that if there is anything to the Mach effect in these emdrive cavities it's probably a transverse magnetic mode where are the charges are accelerated forward and back.
superconductors inside might be optimal because then the electrons achieve much larger velocities and accelerations.
Learning to manipulate space-time is the beginning of implementing ideas such as the alcubierre warp bubble or other more manageable warp techniques.
Post by: Mark7777777 on 06/08/2019 03:15 am
Hopefully by the end of the year with the help of Tajmar’s experiments it should see the end of the EM drive nonsense.
You do understand Roger visited Tajmar & team. Explained to them why they have null results & showed them how to get good results?
They ignored Roger's advise.
You should note Tajmar's team doesn't have an microwave engineer. Probably why they reported cavity Q geq 50k, which is impossible with flat end plates but is possible from RF system self resonances. In fact Tajmar reported Q of 300k, which is clearly self resonances.
When they obtain proper staff and report Q of around 5k, with flat end plates, I might take their results seriously.
"They ignored Roger's advice."
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/advise-advice/
Post by: The_Optimist on 06/08/2019 06:59 am
July 20, 2019 approaches.
What’s happening on the 20th of July?
Post by: RotoSequence on 06/08/2019 07:54 am
July 20, 2019 approaches.
What’s happening on the 20th of July?
Other than the 50th anniversary of the first moonwalk by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin? Probably nothing to do with propellant-less propulsion.
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/08/2019 01:44 pm
"They ignored Roger's advice."
They did not ignore his advice. The advice came with a very large and unethical string attached to it. Shawyer demanded that Tajmar announce to the world that the Emdrive worked before he would help them with any technical details.
Post by: The_Optimist on 06/08/2019 03:13 pm
Post by: Star One on 06/08/2019 03:33 pm
Who told you that Mono? What a strange thing to do....
Yeah I’d like to see what their proof is of that claim.
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/08/2019 04:11 pm
Who told you that Mono? What a strange thing to do....
Yeah I’d like to see what their proof is of that claim.
This is what I was told at the Estes Park Workshop. TheTraveler confirmed it here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1855127#msg1855127
Post by: Star One on 06/09/2019 07:38 am
Who told you that Mono? What a strange thing to do....
Yeah I’d like to see what their proof is of that claim.
This is what I was told at the Estes Park Workshop. TheTraveler confirmed it here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1855127#msg1855127
Thank you. That’s an interesting choice of wording...
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/09/2019 06:18 pm
EmDrive is just an electrical machine, converting input Rf joules into KE Joules.
As I put it, it is the transformation of electricity into forward momentum.
Post by: Notsosureofit on 06/11/2019 03:46 pm
Researchers at Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden, have discovered a completely new way of capturing, amplifying and linking light to matter at the nanolevel. Using a tiny box, built from stacked atomically thin material, they have succeeded in creating a type of feedback loop in which light and matter become one. The discovery, which was recently published in Nature Nanotechnology, opens up new possibilities in the world of nanophotonics.
Someone out there wants a nanosized EM Drive.....
Post by: Bob Woods on 06/11/2019 08:27 pm
FYI: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-06/cuot-tlb061019.php (https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-06/cuot-tlb061019.php)If it could create Z Bosons.... a momentum transfer drive.
Researchers at Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden, have discovered a completely new way of capturing, amplifying and linking light to matter at the nanolevel. Using a tiny box, built from stacked atomically thin material, they have succeeded in creating a type of feedback loop in which light and matter become one. The discovery, which was recently published in Nature Nanotechnology, opens up new possibilities in the world of nanophotonics.
Someone out there wants a nanosized EM Drive.....
Post by: bad_astra on 06/13/2019 04:58 pm
FYI: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-06/cuot-tlb061019.phpOr get them enough of them to undergo phase state change at the same time and have a photon torpedo.
Researchers at Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden, have discovered a completely new way of capturing, amplifying and linking light to matter at the nanolevel. Using a tiny box, built from stacked atomically thin material, they have succeeded in creating a type of feedback loop in which light and matter become one. The discovery, which was recently published in Nature Nanotechnology, opens up new possibilities in the world of nanophotonics.
Someone out there wants a nanosized EM Drive.....
Post by: Ricvil on 06/13/2019 05:14 pm
At this point,the only (GR) wrinkle left would require the inclusion of local time-reversal to invoke a balancing negative momentum change. (QM anti-symmetric operator ?) Everything else would appear to be experimentally debunked. (Assuming my old brain is remembering properly...it would still require a demonstration of entropy increase w/ the frame change, but I haven't checked that w/ time-reversal included)
Micro-wormholes anyone?
Perhaps entanglement, induced by mixing of TE and TM states at impulsive intrinsic curvature ( 2D Ricci curvature of cavity surface) of junctions of flat end plates and conical section of EMdrive cavity.
There is a close relation between entanglement and wormholes under quantum information point of view.
Below is a link about an interesting reversal of thermodynamical flow of heat linked to quantum mutual information initial conditions.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.03323
Post by: Notsosureofit on 06/13/2019 05:47 pm
At this point,the only (GR) wrinkle left would require the inclusion of local time-reversal to invoke a balancing negative momentum change. (QM anti-symmetric operator ?) Everything else would appear to be experimentally debunked. (Assuming my old brain is remembering properly...it would still require a demonstration of entropy increase w/ the frame change, but I haven't checked that w/ time-reversal included)
Micro-wormholes anyone?
Perhaps entanglement, induced by mixing of TE and TM states at impulsive intrinsic curvature ( 2D Ricci curvature of cavity surface) of junctions of flat end plates and conical section of EMdrive cavity.
There is a close relation between entanglement and wormholes under quantum information point of view.
Below is a link about an interesting reversal of thermodynamical flow of heat linked to quantum mutual information initial conditions.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.03323
Well, it's easy enough to see how the mode interactions change under boost, but then the question would be how reversible is that. You get the same problem as with the EM Drive under dispersion. "c" is not really the variable here, it's still a constant.
Post by: cvbn on 06/16/2019 11:47 pm
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D88Y6eyXsAIVYHc.jpg
Tajmar offered to test Perez-Diaz' laser loop (based on LEMdrive idea: http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2016/07/lemdrive.html )
McCulloch said:
"My impression was that both Tajmar & Perez-Diaz are intrigued by #QI as the explanation for galaxy rotation (the evidence is now v strong there) but Tajmar especially is worried that the translation of #Qi from the astrophysical realm to the lab is v problematic (but possible)."
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1139159628548321281
Post by: Star One on 06/17/2019 06:42 am
Post by: cvbn on 06/17/2019 02:32 pm
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1140556514278748160
Post by: Star One on 06/17/2019 03:11 pm
I don't know. :( But this one is also interesting:
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1140556514278748160
Is he claiming that Tajmar is saying that others have been getting zero thrust because of poor experimental technique? Or that he’s been getting zero thrust and others are only getting a thrust because of poor experiments? Because if he is that’s a heck of a claim to make.
Post by: cvbn on 06/17/2019 03:53 pm
Post by: Star One on 06/17/2019 04:05 pm
Your guess is as good as mine. Perhaps ask him on twitter?
It’s certainly an odd piece of wording in my view.
Post by: Cryogenic on 06/18/2019 10:38 am
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1140927680315101184
Any thoughts on this design? I imagine it's particularly hard to simulate.
Post by: cvbn on 06/18/2019 10:57 am
interesting new experiment. I don't think anyone tried this approach before.
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1140927680315101184
Any thoughts on this design? I imagine it's particularly hard to simulate.
This is based on this paper:
http://www.jbis.org.uk/paper.php?p=2017.70.238
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323278529_Propulsive_forces_using_high-Q_asymmetric_high_energy_laser_resonators
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/18/2019 12:26 pm
interesting new experiment. I don't think anyone tried this approach before.
Any thoughts on this design? I imagine it's particularly hard to simulate.
We could fairly easily simulate this cavity, as the geometry would be easy enough to model. The hardest part is the concentric spiral in the center, but I could have that modeled in 30 minutes if I knew the dimensions.
I would like to point out that the copper cavity clearly does not have a mirror finish. In fact, this cavity looks nothing like the cavity recommended by Taylor.
I would wager that the "Zero Thrust" comment is in regards to the experiments conducted by Tajmar on Quantized Inertia.
Post by: Star One on 06/18/2019 01:19 pm
interesting new experiment. I don't think anyone tried this approach before.
Any thoughts on this design? I imagine it's particularly hard to simulate.
We could fairly easily simulate this cavity, as the geometry would be easy enough to model. The hardest part is the concentric spiral in the center, but I could have that modeled in 30 minutes if I knew the dimensions.
I would like to point out that the copper cavity clearly does not have a mirror finish. In fact, this cavity looks nothing like the cavity recommended by Taylor.
I would wager that the "Zero Thrust" comment is in regards to the experiments conducted by Tajmar on Quantized Inertia.
I don’t see how you can possibly assume that from such an unclear piece of wording in that tweet.
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/18/2019 02:52 pm
I don’t see how you can possibly assume that from such an unclear piece of wording in that tweet.
In this field of research, the safest bet is Zero Thrust. I've also discussed QI with Tajmar previously. He does not mince words. If there is Zero Thrust for his experiments, the Emdrive and the mach effect, then QI is falsified.
Post by: Star One on 06/18/2019 03:19 pm
I don’t see how you can possibly assume that from such an unclear piece of wording in that tweet.
In this field of research, the safest bet is Zero Thrust. I've also discussed QI with Tajmar previously. He does not mince words. If there is Zero Thrust for his experiments, the Emdrive and the mach effect, then QI is falsified.
Again unless you were involved in the particular discussion, which I am guessing from the post above you weren’t, then you can’t be certain.
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/18/2019 04:06 pm
Again unless you were involved in the particular discussion, which I am guessing from the post above you weren’t, then you can’t be certain.
I didn't say I was certain. I said I would wager. ::)
Post by: cvbn on 06/18/2019 10:18 pm
Is he claiming that Tajmar is saying that others have been getting zero thrust because of poor experimental technique? Or that he’s been getting zero thrust and others are only getting a thrust because of poor experiments? Because if he is that’s a heck of a claim to make.
Some clarification:
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1141069459274252291
Post by: Star One on 06/19/2019 09:17 am
Is he claiming that Tajmar is saying that others have been getting zero thrust because of poor experimental technique? Or that he’s been getting zero thrust and others are only getting a thrust because of poor experiments? Because if he is that’s a heck of a claim to make.
Some clarification:
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1141069459274252291
Thank you for that.
Post by: Star One on 06/19/2019 10:25 am
Again unless you were involved in the particular discussion, which I am guessing from the post above you weren’t, then you can’t be certain.
I didn't say I was certain. I said I would wager. ::)
Now you no doubt feel vindicated with Tamjar’s latest reported statement.
Have to wonder if both these threads should now be closed for good.
No one has bothered posting this tweet so I shall.
https://mobile.twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1141089273535434753
Quote
He likes the Unruh shield. #QI is certainty well tested in space (galaxy rotation) and I'm sure it's right there. The difficulty is bringing it down to Earth, which will be difficult since my experimental expertise is limited. Hence my link to Tajmar.
Post by: Ricvil on 06/19/2019 12:19 pm
Again unless you were involved in the particular discussion, which I am guessing from the post above you weren’t, then you can’t be certain.
I didn't say I was certain. I said I would wager. ::)
Now you no doubt feel vindicated with Tamjar’s latest reported statement.
Have to wonder if both these threads should now be closed for good.
No one has bothered posting this tweet so I shall.
https://mobile.twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1141089273535434753QuoteHe likes the Unruh shield. #QI is certainty well tested in space (galaxy rotation) and I'm sure it's right there. The difficulty is bringing it down to Earth, which will be difficult since my experimental expertise is limited. Hence my link to Tajmar.
Well, at this moment MM has put his curiosity into Dynamical Casimir Effect, and this particular effect is strong related to entanglement.
I'm curious about the inevitable mixing description of entanglement and spatial/temporal causality constraints under action of Lorentz transformations.
Answers to these questions are not forum dependent.
Post by: cvbn on 06/19/2019 02:21 pm
Have to wonder if both these threads should now be closed for good.
Much too early for that. Reports about Emdrive testing will still be popping out for quite a while. Besides, this thread can be used also for discussing Taylor's version of Emdrive, and this experiment has not begun, yet (should begin soon, though).
Post by: Ricvil on 06/21/2019 01:25 am
Toroidal Electrodynamics.
Anapoles.
https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/380437/1/accepted_version.pdf
Post by: meberbs on 06/21/2019 06:47 am
Very interesting.This paper has no relevance whatsoever to this thread.
Toroidal Electrodynamics.
Anapoles.
https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/380437/1/accepted_version.pdf
Post by: cvbn on 06/21/2019 11:36 pm
Post by: Star One on 06/22/2019 07:21 am
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1142147733861621761
This now seems to have moved away from the EM drive with them looking for alternatives to Dark Matter theory.
Post by: RotoSequence on 06/22/2019 10:40 am
This now seems to have moved away from the EM drive with them to looking for alternatives to Dark Matter theory.
These are not necessarily mutually exclusive pursuits.
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/23/2019 11:48 am
https://cargalactic.wixsite.com/luna-enterprises
Note the modes of the cavities.
As to those that believe recent EW cavity replicant failures are a definitive guide, remember Edison found many thousand of ways to not build a light bulb.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/23/2019 12:20 pm
Cheesy!
Luna Enterprises
A business company re-using NASA's 1975 modernist "worm" font from Richard Danne and Bruce Blackburn (https://www.designweek.co.uk/inspiration/nasa-graphics-standards-manual-by-danne-blackburn/).
With a pictogram of a flying saucer, electrically polarized like Thomas Townsend-Brown's discs according to Paul LaViolette's books on electrogravitics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrogravitics).
Plus a drawing of a yellow canary.
And a picture of the moon.
Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.
But that's not all, folks!
Luna Enterprises is a subsidiary of CAR Galactics, a program of Tess space enterprises.
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/e4961a_4639d68aed7b48d1874776f4a3ff64fa~mv2_d_1332_1768_s_2.jpg/v1/fill/w_1200,h_1592,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/95ad08_adb19dfe62154026baaecefa47b7fcd1-.jpg)
Defined by themselves as "storytellers".
LOL
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/23/2019 12:34 pm
...Openness in science vs using proprietary as a facade for potential scams. If it works then demonstrate it.
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/23/2019 12:36 pm
Cheesy!
My 1st reaction as well. When Roger & I had our recent lunch discussion, he confirmed his involvement for several years, so let's see what develops.
Will be at KSC 20-21 July 2019 & will report anything of interest.
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/23/2019 01:25 pm
Note the modes of the cavities.
The mode is TE211. Hopefully Shawyer is using the same naming convention for the modes as NASA. If so, then this is the mode below.
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/23/2019 02:38 pm
The 3G EmDrive lift thrusters seem to be based on Roger's recent patent as per the 2nd attachment.
To obtain 2G resonance in TE211 mode and at 2.45GHz, my design calc suggests:
Big dia: 240mm, radius: 219.6mm
Small dia: 120mm, radius: 109.8mm, cutoff dia: 118.9mm
Frustum height: 92mm (this is not the end plate to end plate spacing)
DF: 0.83
This generates a 1/2 guidewave spacing between the curved end plates, which generates the max number of travelling wave transits of the cavity and max number of end plate bounches.
Post by: gparker on 06/23/2019 06:12 pm
As to those that believe recent EW cavity replicant failures are a definitive guide, remember Edison found many thousand of ways to not build a light bulb.
Most of Edison's rejects were working light bulbs; incandescent bulbs had been publicly demonstrated for decades. Edison's experiments were intended to improve the design for commercial production and to avoid other inventors' patents.
Post by: zen-in on 06/24/2019 10:47 pm
Post by: cvbn on 06/25/2019 12:40 am
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1143181254151610370
https://twitter.com/AnalyticD/status/1143213169290240000
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1143216707181395968
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1143216466973614080
Post by: Tcarey on 06/25/2019 05:48 am
Post by: Star One on 06/25/2019 06:49 am
Has Seeshell abandoned her work on EM drive?
I believe so. There’s a post from her explaining why that I read sometime back.
Post by: Mark7777777 on 06/25/2019 10:50 am
Has Seeshell abandoned her work on EM drive?
I believe so. There’s a post from her explaining why that I read sometime back.
I just messaged her inviting her to reply to the post.
Post by: SeeShells on 06/25/2019 02:47 pm
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1856625#msg1856625Has Seeshell abandoned her work on EM drive?
I believe so. There’s a post from her explaining why that I read sometime back.
I just messaged her inviting her to reply to the post.
Mark Twain wrote: “The report of my death was an exaggeration”.
My work continues and I've not given up or thrown in the towel. Slower and more focused, time and money make sure I need to get it right and prove or disapprove.
Monomorphic, NRL, Tajmar's team and even EagleWorks saw exactly what I suspected they would if the testing and test beds were built to a high standard. And that was a null report of thrust or thermal noise. I was convinced a couple years back that a steady state RF pumped into a enclosed device running at any mode would not produce anything resembling thrust other than artifact errors.
This is where I am, alive, slower and more focused.
All my best to all here...
Shell
Post by: RERT on 06/25/2019 03:36 pm
My work continues and I've not given up or thrown in the towel....
Monomorphic, NRL, Tajmar's team and even EagleWorks saw exactly what I suspected they would if the testing and test beds were built to a high standard. And that was a null report of thrust or thermal noise. I was convinced a couple years back that a steady state RF pumped into a enclosed device running at any mode would not produce anything resembling thrust other than artifact errors.
...
SeeShells - Hi! It seems reasonable to ask what it is that you *are* focusing on, if not such an RF cavity?
Post by: SeeShells on 06/25/2019 04:37 pm
If I go back into time in the Wayback Machine and review some of my past posts you'll see that I backed away from the steady state emdrive cavity.My work continues and I've not given up or thrown in the towel....
Monomorphic, NRL, Tajmar's team and even EagleWorks saw exactly what I suspected they would if the testing and test beds were built to a high standard. And that was a null report of thrust or thermal noise. I was convinced a couple years back that a steady state RF pumped into a enclosed device running at any mode would not produce anything resembling thrust other than artifact errors.
...
SeeShells - Hi! It seems reasonable to ask what it is that you *are* focusing on, if not such an RF cavity?
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/r__/images/d/d3/Wabac-Cartoon.jpeg/revision/latest?cb=20170913153738&path-prefix=rockyandbullwinkle)
I want to add all the pertinent links to posts I've done over the last couple years to show the progression from a steady state enclosed EMDrive cavity to what I'm working on currently. This will take some time . . . so hang in there.
I've wanted to do this for some time. I've 120 pages of my posts to dig through or you might want to browse through them as well.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=48229
All My Best,
Shell
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 06/26/2019 01:54 am
If only it could work:
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1143181254151610370
McCulloch is out of his mind to talk about 150N/kW. I thought he meant 150mN/kW.
Post by: RotoSequence on 06/26/2019 03:39 am
If only it could work:
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1143181254151610370
McCulloch is out of his mind to talk about 150N/kW. I thought he meant 150mN/kW.
Good grief. Maybe start with showing one mN/kW of non-thermal thrust, and let the ensuing physics revolution take care of the rest. :-\
Post by: zen-in on 06/26/2019 03:53 am
Never give up trying. You may not achieve what you originally set out to achieve. Instead you might discover something new and totally unexpected.If I go back into time in the Wayback Machine and review some of my past posts you'll see that I backed away from the steady state emdrive cavity.My work continues and I've not given up or thrown in the towel....
Monomorphic, NRL, Tajmar's team and even EagleWorks saw exactly what I suspected they would if the testing and test beds were built to a high standard. And that was a null report of thrust or thermal noise. I was convinced a couple years back that a steady state RF pumped into a enclosed device running at any mode would not produce anything resembling thrust other than artifact errors.
...
SeeShells - Hi! It seems reasonable to ask what it is that you *are* focusing on, if not such an RF cavity?
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/r__/images/d/d3/Wabac-Cartoon.jpeg/revision/latest?cb=20170913153738&path-prefix=rockyandbullwinkle)
I want to add all the pertinent links to posts I've done over the last couple years to show the progression from a steady state enclosed EMDrive cavity to what I'm working on currently. This will take some time . . . so hang in there.
I've wanted to do this for some time. I've 120 pages of my posts to dig through or you might want to browse through them as well.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=48229
All My Best,
Shell
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/26/2019 03:57 am
That means your kinetic energy in between is about 7,500,000,000 MJ/kg. That's approximately 100 times the energy density of your fission fuel. Are we ready to admit this (if it were real) could produce net energy gain, yet?
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/26/2019 04:05 am
Post by: cvbn on 06/27/2019 01:40 am
If only it could work:
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1143181254151610370
McCulloch is out of his mind to talk about 150N/kW. I thought he meant 150mN/kW.
Good grief. Maybe start with showing one mN/kW of non-thermal thrust, and let the ensuing physics revolution take care of the rest. :-\
He says what calculations show based on Taylor's paper (they assume that Unruh waves exist and can be easily damped with metal shields, which is very uncertain), but Whatever Will Be Will Be Whatever Will Be Will Be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdhAfMor9BM). ;)
Post by: Tcarey on 06/27/2019 05:02 am
My work continues and I've not given up or thrown in the towel....
...
Thanks for the reply. Glad to hear you are still at it in whatever form.
Looking forward to your results, whatever they may be.
Tom
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/27/2019 08:44 pm
https://www.fisw.space/news
Notice Sonny White on the second day "Dynamic Vacuum Model and Casimir Cavity Experiments."
Heidi Fearn will be there with Mike McCulloch.
I think Dr. Jeremy Munday is a young newcomer to advanced propulsion! You can see a recent presentation of his here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGKoBpsR4GU
EDIT: After watching the presentation, there was no mention of propulsion whatsoever.
Post by: Ricvil on 06/30/2019 05:27 am
It seems like a very fundamental idea and design, that one can adapt in unlimited ways, limited only by your imagination.So this is not a superconductor. First of all, if it was its utility is killed by the fact that they have to keep vibrating it, and have it surrounded by a coil with a pulsed current running through it (Also, they have a pulsed current running through the supposed superconductor as well). This makes it an active device that consumes energy to run.
https://phys.org/news/2019-02-navy-patent-room-temperature-superconductor.amp
The claim that it would satisfy the perfect exclusion of magnetic fields because it is carrying a current and it is vibrating and would therefore exclude magnetic field lines from other magnets. This is a complete non-sequiter. It having its own magnetic field under its default state is not the same thing as reacting to the presence of an external magnetic field to generate a perfect exclusion of that field from its interior.
They also describe it as having a thickness of approximately the London penetration depth. They ignore that this depth is material dependent and use the depth for a different actual superconductor. Also, the London penetration depth is the thickness where about 60% of the external magnetic field is excluded (because you need some thickness of material, "perfect exclusion" has an asterisk on it in practice.) This means that their device is designed to be too thin to actually exhibit true superconducting properties.
Same US Navy scientist, Dr. Salvatore Cezar Pais:
Ph.D. Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR)/ Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD), NAS Patuxent River Maryland 20670,
filed two other patent applications that were previously been reported a few pages back by Freddled Gruntbuggly, but not discussed contrary to the 3rd patent. These two other patents are:Unsure if this is on topic but the inventor of the above Room temp superconductor patent has a couple of others which appear to use microwave emitters and resonant cavities.NextBigFuture website briefly talked about them (https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/02/if-these-us-navy-patents-are-made-then-we-are-in-a-star-trek-technology-world.html) two months ago.
Gravity Wave Generator : https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180229864A1/en?inventor=Salvatore+Cezar+Pais
Craft using Inertial Mass Reduction Device : https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en?inventor=Salvatore+Cezar+Pais
Patents can be tricky to analyse, as they focus mainly on a list of claims, sketches and captions, but don't necessarily detail all fundamental hypotheses in a scientific point of view. Attached below, here are two papers from same Navy researcher, related to these patents. Perhaps it would be better to analyse these published papers instead of the patents.
• "The high energy electromagnetic field generator", Int. J. Space Science and Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 4, April 2016.
• "A hybrid craft using an inertial mass modification device", AIAA SPACE and Astronautics Forum and Exposition, Orlando, FL, September 2017.*
Your critical advice on these two papers is welcome.
* The 2017 AIAA SPACE Forum in Orlando was canceled at last minute due to hurricane Irma. However, paper were submitted and a similar document has been published a few days laters by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE International) as a technical paper (ref. 2017-01-2040) under the name "High Frequency Gravitational Waves - Induced Propulsion".
Patent granted.
https://sputniknews.com/science/201906291076101115-ufo-craft-technology-us-china/
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/30/2019 06:55 pm
Patent granted.
From the patent: "A high frequency gravitational wave generator including a gas filled shell with an outer shell surface, microwave emitters, sound generators, and acoustic vibration resonant gas-filled cavities. The outer shell surface is electrically charged and vibrated by the microwave emitters to generate a first electromagnetic field. The acoustic vibration resonant gas-filled cavities each have a cavity surface that can be electrically charged and vibrated by acoustic energy from the sound generators such that a second electromagnetic field is generated. The two acoustic vibration resonant gas-filled cavities are able to counter spin relative to each other to provide stability, and propagating gravitational field fluctuations are generated when the second electromagnetic field propagates through the first electromagnetic field."
While this may technically create high frequency gravitational waves, they would be so minuscule that there would never be any hope in detecting them, much less using them to do work.
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/30/2019 07:14 pm
This will be my first working "propellantless thruster" as it is an electrodynamic thruster based on real physics. It will also provide us some data on Lorentz forces and how they influence torsional pendulums. The pendulum needs to be aligned certain ways, with current flowing certain ways before these forces become an issue.
I had to rotate the balance 180 degrees as the B-field at one end of the enclosure was distorted because of something in the wall. The B Field at the other end was oriented properly as shown below.
Post by: Notsosureofit on 07/01/2019 06:24 pm
"Scientists have detected radio waves emanating from the space between a pair of galaxy clusters—evidence of intergalactic magnetic fields and fast-moving particles in the space between these giant galactic assemblages."
Has anyone seen a calculation of the strength of inter- or intra- galactic fields as a propulsion mechanism ?
Post by: meberbs on 07/01/2019 06:42 pm
FYI: https://gizmodo.com/astronomers-spot-mysterious-10-million-light-year-long-1835301269Why do people keep posting random unrelated articles in this thread? This is now twice it has happened in just over a week. I should be reporting this to moderator, but I don't like forcing them to read this section. Some self-moderation can be applied.
"Scientists have detected radio waves emanating from the space between a pair of galaxy clusters—evidence of intergalactic magnetic fields and fast-moving particles in the space between these giant galactic assemblages."
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/01/2019 07:17 pm
Has anyone seen a calculation of the strength of inter- or intra- galactic fields as a propulsion mechanism ?
Interplanetary and intergalactic magnetic fields are very minuscule as B Fields obey the same inverse square falloff as gravity. Without huge improvements, electrodynamic thrusters would only be practical near the sun, in low Earth orbit, or for moving around the Jupiter system as Jupiter's magnetic field is 20,000 times the strength of the Earth.
As an example, the 22.5 uN thruster above would only generate ~0.022 uN in interplanetary space, but as much as 0.44 Newtons in low Jupiter orbit!
EDIT: The field from a dipole magnet falls off as 1/r3 rather than 1/r2.
Post by: trm14 on 07/01/2019 08:14 pm
...as B Fields obey the same inverse square falloff as gravity...
No, unless you have found a magnetic monopole
Post by: Star One on 07/01/2019 08:50 pm
FYI: https://gizmodo.com/astronomers-spot-mysterious-10-million-light-year-long-1835301269Why do people keep posting random unrelated articles in this thread? This is now twice it has happened in just over a week. I should be reporting this to moderator, but I don't like forcing them to read this section. Some self-moderation can be applied.
"Scientists have detected radio waves emanating from the space between a pair of galaxy clusters—evidence of intergalactic magnetic fields and fast-moving particles in the space between these giant galactic assemblages."
I also posted that in the astronomy thread at the time, as it is not even a recent article.
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/01/2019 09:48 pm
No, unless you have found a magnetic monopole
You're correct. The field from a dipole magnet falls off as 1/r3 rather than 1/r2. I will edit my comment. The field strength falls off more rapidly than inverse square once one gets further away than the distance of the two poles of the dipole.
Post by: dustinthewind on 07/02/2019 02:41 am
No, unless you have found a magnetic monopole
You're correct. The field from a dipole magnet falls off as 1/r3 rather than 1/r2. I will edit my comment. The field strength falls off more rapidly than inverse square once one gets further away than the distance of the two poles of the dipole.
Something interesting to note is that the Biot-Savart equation gives the magetic field as 1/r^2 for a single charge. However when you integrate a current loop you get the 1/r^3 result. The 1/r^3 of the magnetic field result is actually also the 1/r^3 behavior of being outside a dipole electric field. The magnetic field lines actually represent velocity dependent potential lines. You can think of the magnetic field as representing the superposition of all possible dipole electric fields, depending on the observers velocity vector, combined with (relativistic electric field tilting which is another effect I didn't go into).
I noticed if you integrate the Biot-Savart equation from infinity to a distance from the source, integrate[f(r) ,infinity ,r] and get the magnetic field at that location, then assume that sum of the magnetic field is traveling at the speed of light - so v x sum(B) = E, you get the electric field of light. The real kicker is your assuming the magnetic field of a single charge behaves as 1/r^2. The integration of the field from infinity gives the electric field of light which behaves as 1/r . Lights energy as 1/r^2 but its field as 1/r and is why is propagates across the universe.
If that's right then it might be that light is the universes way of keeping track of every change in the magnetic field in the universe.
Or that light is depositing the magnetic field over the universe as it travels.
Also whats interesting is that because light is from the magnetic field then dQ/dt radiation is a separate matter. :) It would propagate with the electric field in the direction of travel, very unlike normal light. I think generally of much less magnitude but I think that might depend on the device that generates it and the magnitude of change in charge.
Post by: Mulletron on 07/02/2019 02:41 am
Quote
Notice that the gravitational field is no longer irrotational in S, which express the content of the gravitational analogue of Faraday’s law. Since ∇ × G (does not equal) 0, it might seem that the gravitational field is not conservative anymore. This is only apparent, however, since we shall see in sections 9 and 10 that the gravitational fields have, besides an energy, also a momentum associated, so that the spacetime momentum of the fields is conserved in any inertial reference frame
Everything after, "this is only apparent" is why I'm posting, because until yesterday I've never thought of it this way.
Source:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.00815
Post by: meberbs on 07/02/2019 06:56 am
If that's right then it might be that light is the universes way of keeping track of every change in the magnetic field in the universe.Speaking of off topic, you have repeated this observation of yours multiple times in multiple threads. It really does not contribute anything to this topic, and it isn't an interesting observation, because it is well known that anytime charges accelerate, they emit radiation, and this radiation propagating at the speed of light therefore coincides with the speed of light delayed propagation of information that the charge has accelerated. The energy and momentum carried by the radiation is what allows energy and momentum to be balanced when distant charges interact with the change in the fields. Your observation about the magnetic field is a partial recognition of what happens hear, but you are missing that the change in the electric field is also communicated, and that for this context, you really would be better off considering that the electromagnetic fields are a single object, since whether they are electric or magnetic fields depends on the reference frame.
Or that light is depositing the magnetic field over the universe as it travels.
Also whats interesting is that because light is from the magnetic field then dQ/dt radiation is a separate matter. :) It would propagate with the electric field in the direction of travel, very unlike normal light. I think generally of much less magnitude but I think that might depend on the device that generates it and the magnitude of change in charge.As I already explained to you:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1917955#msg1917955
There is no such thing as any form of electromagnetic radiation where the electric field is partially in the direction of propagation. You are confusing the moving of the electric field because a charge is moving with the actual radiation.
Post by: dustinthewind on 07/02/2019 01:23 pm
What is interesting is subjective. It was on topic because it was discussed if the magnetic field drops off as 1/r^2. In the biot savart equation for a single charge the magnetic field does.If that's right then it might be that light is the universes way of keeping track of every change in the magnetic field in the universe.Speaking of off topic, you have repeated this observation of yours multiple times in multiple threads. It really does not contribute anything to this topic, and it isn't an interesting observation, because it is well known that anytime charges accelerate, they emit radiation, and this radiation propagating at the speed of light therefore coincides with the speed of light delayed propagation of information that the charge has accelerated. The energy and momentum carried by the radiation is what allows energy and momentum to be balanced when distant charges interact with the change in the fields. Your observation about the magnetic field is a partial recognition of what happens hear, but you are missing that the change in the electric field is also communicated, and that for this context, you really would be better off considering that the electromagnetic fields are a single object, since whether they are electric or magnetic fields depends on the reference frame.
Or that light is depositing the magnetic field over the universe as it travels.
Quote
This was some what exotic and I probably didn't have to include this.Also whats interesting is that because light is from the magnetic field then dQ/dt radiation is a separate matter. :) It would propagate with the electric field in the direction of travel, very unlike normal light. I think generally of much less magnitude but I think that might depend on the device that generates it and the magnitude of change in charge.As I already explained to you:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1917955#msg1917955
There is no such thing as any form of electromagnetic radiation where the electric field is partially in the direction of propagation. You are confusing the moving of the electric field because a charge is moving with the actual radiation.
I was referring to the idea that you can make a phased array that seems to radiate in a direction in which radiation should not radiate. In the direction of charge motion. Normally radiation is perpendicular to the direction of charge motion. The electric field would be in the direction of travel. image below.
topic is here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1919418#msg1919418 but goes back a ways.
I don't think its all that important here, but I don't think anyone knows what is important when it comes to how propulsion is being induced if it is and even if propulsion is being induced so exploration of topics is some what natural. Inhibiting it inhibits creative thinking.
Post by: Ricvil on 07/02/2019 05:11 pm
What is interesting is subjective. It was on topic because it was discussed if the magnetic field drops off as 1/r^2. In the biot savart equation for a single charge the magnetic field does.If that's right then it might be that light is the universes way of keeping track of every change in the magnetic field in the universe.Speaking of off topic, you have repeated this observation of yours multiple times in multiple threads. It really does not contribute anything to this topic, and it isn't an interesting observation, because it is well known that anytime charges accelerate, they emit radiation, and this radiation propagating at the speed of light therefore coincides with the speed of light delayed propagation of information that the charge has accelerated. The energy and momentum carried by the radiation is what allows energy and momentum to be balanced when distant charges interact with the change in the fields. Your observation about the magnetic field is a partial recognition of what happens hear, but you are missing that the change in the electric field is also communicated, and that for this context, you really would be better off considering that the electromagnetic fields are a single object, since whether they are electric or magnetic fields depends on the reference frame.
Or that light is depositing the magnetic field over the universe as it travels.QuoteThis was some what exotic and I probably didn't have to include this.Also whats interesting is that because light is from the magnetic field then dQ/dt radiation is a separate matter. :) It would propagate with the electric field in the direction of travel, very unlike normal light. I think generally of much less magnitude but I think that might depend on the device that generates it and the magnitude of change in charge.As I already explained to you:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1917955#msg1917955
There is no such thing as any form of electromagnetic radiation where the electric field is partially in the direction of propagation. You are confusing the moving of the electric field because a charge is moving with the actual radiation.
I was referring to the idea that you can make a phased array that seems to radiate in a direction in which radiation should not radiate. In the direction of charge motion. Normally radiation is perpendicular to the direction of charge motion. The electric field would be in the direction of travel. image below.
topic is here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1919418#msg1919418 but goes back a ways.
I don't think its all that important here, but I don't think anyone knows what is important when it comes to how propulsion is being induced if it is and even if propulsion is being induced so exploration of topics is some what natural. Inhibiting it inhibits creative thinking.
Dear dustinthewind,
Perhaps you are looking for something like this.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287250565_Focused_electromagnetic_doughnut_pulses_and_their_interaction_with_interfaces_and_nanostructures
"2. The‘focused doughnut’ pulse
The FD pulse was first established as a solution to the homogenous Maxwell’s equations by Hellwarth and Nouchi [13]. As space-time non-separable solutions to Maxwells equations, FD pulses can be classified in TE and TM field configurations"
For their generation there is a proposal here
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.06088
Post by: meberbs on 07/02/2019 07:38 pm
What is interesting is subjective. It was on topic because it was discussed if the magnetic field drops off as 1/r^2. In the biot savart equation for a single charge the magnetic field does.No, the question had already been answered for how real magnetic fields drop off. The question was off topic, because it was prompted by an off topic article that Notsosureofit posted. (and no, editing in a question did not suddenly make it on topic, as Star One pointed out, there is a separate thread on this site where the article would be on topic.)
Also, there is no such thing as "biot savart equation for a single charge." The Biot-Savart law only applies to steady currents. A single charge by definition cannot be a steady current. Again, I already explained this in the post I previously linked.
This was some what exotic and I probably didn't have to include this.It isn't exotic, it is simply wrong. The electric field of electromagnetic radiation is always perpendicular to the direction of propagation, and an accelerating charge generally radiates in all directions (there will typically be nulls, but those are only in exact specific directions, even slightly off from them there would be some field.)
I was referring to the idea that you can make a phased array that seems to radiate in a direction in which radiation should not radiate. In the direction of charge motion. Normally radiation is perpendicular to the direction of charge motion. The electric field would be in the direction of travel. image below.
topic is here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1919418#msg1919418 but goes back a ways.
I don't think its all that important here, but I don't think anyone knows what is important when it comes to how propulsion is being induced if it is and even if propulsion is being induced so exploration of topics is some what natural. Inhibiting it inhibits creative thinking.Pointing out that something is wrong isn't "inhibiting creative thinking." It is simply avoiding wasting time on things that cannot produce the desired result. Pointing out that off topic discussions are off topic is basic application of the forum rules.
Post by: dustinthewind on 07/03/2019 12:12 am
A single charge doesn't radiate in all directions. It doesn't radiate in the direction it's accelerated or directly behind (see Purcell image below). A charge accelerated in direction x radiates E field like sin(theta). Nor does the Biot-savart equation give a magnetic field directly in front or behind and behaves similarly. It might not seem like the Biot-Savart equation should give the electric field for light but it does.What is interesting is subjective. It was on topic because it was discussed if the magnetic field drops off as 1/r^2. In the biot savart equation for a single charge the magnetic field does.No, the question had already been answered for how real magnetic fields drop off. The question was off topic, because it was prompted by an off topic article that Notsosureofit posted. (and no, editing in a question did not suddenly make it on topic, as Star One pointed out, there is a separate thread on this site where the article would be on topic.)
Also, there is no such thing as "biot savart equation for a single charge." The Biot-Savart law only applies to steady currents. A single charge by definition cannot be a steady current. Again, I already explained this in the post I previously linked.This was some what exotic and I probably didn't have to include this.It isn't exotic, it is simply wrong. The electric field of electromagnetic radiation is always perpendicular to the direction of propagation, and an accelerating charge generally radiates in all directions (there will typically be nulls, but those are only in exact specific directions, even slightly off from them there would be some field.)
I was referring to the idea that you can make a phased array that seems to radiate in a direction in which radiation should not radiate. In the direction of charge motion. Normally radiation is perpendicular to the direction of charge motion. The electric field would be in the direction of travel. image below.
topic is here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1919418#msg1919418 but goes back a ways.
That device image I linked
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/assets/45824.0/1568308.jpg)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1962383#msg1962383
should give a phased array effect across the dielectric in the direction of the charge acceleration in which no radiation should be radiated. If there is any such radiation from it, the electric field would point toward or away from the device charged panels which is what's so interesting about it.
(http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/mrr/fig1.gif)
http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/mrr/MRRtalk.html
I guess this is off topic though, or is it?
Quote
I don't think its all that important here, but I don't think anyone knows what is important when it comes to how propulsion is being induced if it is and even if propulsion is being induced so exploration of topics is some what natural. Inhibiting it inhibits creative thinking.Pointing out that something is wrong isn't "inhibiting creative thinking." It is simply avoiding wasting time on things that cannot produce the desired result. Pointing out that off topic discussions are off topic is basic application of the forum rules.
Post by: meberbs on 07/03/2019 01:36 am
Apparently you decided to just not read what I wrote. I moved the bold to the part that you ignored. Since based on your apparent lack of understanding of this topic you may need some additional clarification: "direction of propagation" does not mean the direction the electron is accelerating in, but the local direction of propagation of the electromagnetic wave.It isn't exotic, it is simply wrong. The electric field of electromagnetic radiation is always perpendicular to the direction of propagation, and an accelerating charge generally radiates in all directions (there will typically be nulls, but those are only in exact specific directions, even slightly off from them there would be some field.)A single charge doesn't radiate in all directions. It doesn't radiate in the direction it's accelerated or directly behind...
Nor does the Biot-savart equation give a magnetic field directly in front or behind and behaves similarly. It might not seem like the Biot-Savart equation should give the electric field for light but it does.No, it simply does not. When I say that you are "simply wrong" I am quoting from Griffith's Introduction to Electrodynamics referring to exactly the incorrect claim that you are making by trying to generalize the Biot-Savart law to point charges and non-steady state currents.
I guess this is off topic though, or is it?This you are correct on, we are off topic.
Post by: zen-in on 07/03/2019 05:16 am
I was investigating the ways a torsional pendulum can be fooled using Lorentz forces when I had the idea to build four short (10 cm) electrodynamic tethers that are supplied with ~1.25A of current each. In the ~45 uT geomagnetic field in my lab, that should produce ~22.5 uN of thrust. What I am really interested in is how tightly I can pack the 4 tethers and still produce usable thrust before they begin interfering with one another. The mount is adjustable so I can move the tethers closer to one another.
This will be my first working "propellantless thruster" as it is an electrodynamic thruster based on real physics. It will also provide us some data on Lorentz forces and how they influence torsional pendulums. The pendulum needs to be aligned certain ways, with current flowing certain ways before these forces become an issue.
I had to rotate the balance 180 degrees as the B-field at one end of the enclosure was distorted because of something in the wall. The B Field at the other end was oriented properly as shown below.
An interesting experiment. However it is impossible to generate a tether-like force that way. You have a current loop, not a tether. Where the red and black wires join up again in the bundle you have net current flow that is in the opposite direction as your "tether". You would need freely moving ions to complete the circuit. In space ions are available to do that. There is no method of producing a force with a DC current loop. You can only generate a torque. That torque may interfere with the "force" transducer used with a torsion pendulum apparatus, giving a false positive for a force being produced. Some experimenters have tried using mumetal to bias a current loop and thereby unbalance the torque. Some have claimed part of a current loop can be shielded by enclosing it inside a superconductor tube. None of those ideas work. A current loop can't be so easily fooled into acting like something it is not. It will always produce a torque.
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/03/2019 03:52 pm
An interesting experiment. However it is impossible to generate a tether-like force that way. You have a current loop, not a tether. Where the red and black wires join up again in the bundle you have net current flow that is in the opposite direction as your "tether". You would need freely moving ions to complete the circuit. In space ions are available to do that. There is no method of producing a force with a DC current loop. You can only generate a torque. That torque may interfere with the "force" transducer used with a torsion pendulum apparatus, giving a false positive for a force being produced. Some experimenters have tried using mumetal to bias a current loop and thereby unbalance the torque. Some have claimed part of a current loop can be shielded by enclosing it inside a superconductor tube. None of those ideas work. A current loop can't be so easily fooled into acting like something it is not. It will always produce a torque.
So the first test yielded something. :o
I agree, electrodynamic tether is not what this is and that was a bad word choice on my part. It is a specially shaped DC current loop that was inspired by PotomacNeuron and some of your work, actually. I used the right hand rule to run the wires in certain directions with respect to the local B-field to create a net movement in one direction.
At 45 uT, 5A (1.25A each), and 10 cm x 4 of wire I was predicting ~22 uN in the best circumstances (no interference from other wires or their force contribution was calculated).
7.65 uN was detected in the expected direction.
I'm not claiming this is thrust, as a torque is highly suspected. We need to calculate the expected torque on a DC current loop with those parameters above. Or we can check experimentally by running a single long wire in a loop on the pendulum and see what that yields at 5A.
Post by: zen-in on 07/03/2019 04:51 pm
An interesting experiment. However it is impossible to generate a tether-like force that way. You have a current loop, not a tether. Where the red and black wires join up again in the bundle you have net current flow that is in the opposite direction as your "tether". You would need freely moving ions to complete the circuit. In space ions are available to do that. There is no method of producing a force with a DC current loop. You can only generate a torque. That torque may interfere with the "force" transducer used with a torsion pendulum apparatus, giving a false positive for a force being produced. Some experimenters have tried using mumetal to bias a current loop and thereby unbalance the torque. Some have claimed part of a current loop can be shielded by enclosing it inside a superconductor tube. None of those ideas work. A current loop can't be so easily fooled into acting like something it is not. It will always produce a torque.
So the first test yielded something. :o
I agree, electrodynamic tether is not what this is and that was a bad word choice on my part. It is a specially shaped DC current loop that was inspired by PotomacNeuron and some of your work, actually. I used the right hand rule to run the wires in certain directions with respect to the local B-field to create a net movement in one direction.
At 45 uT, 5A (1.25A each), and 10 cm x 4 of wire I was predicting ~22 uN in the best circumstances (no interference from other wires or their force contribution was calculated).
7.65 uN was detected in the expected direction.
I'm not claiming this is thrust, as a torque is highly suspected. We need to calculate the expected torque on a DC current loop with those parameters above. Or we can check experimentally by running a single long wire in a loop on the pendulum and see what that yields at 5A.
I'll have to take some of what I said back. If the current loop was half on the pendulum and half off it you could see an unbalanced for e on the pendulum. However if the batteries and all wiring are situated on the pendulum, only torque will be produced.
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/03/2019 05:33 pm
I'll have to take some of what I said back. If the current loop was half on the pendulum and half off it you could see an unbalanced for e on the pendulum. However if the batteries and all wiring are situated on the pendulum, only torque will be produced.
Running a single (non-shaped) DC current loop also shows the same order of displacement, but about half as much. My guess is that the shaped DC loop is longer and has more "winds" which causes a stronger field and increases the torque.
Post by: cvbn on 07/04/2019 02:09 am
https://www.tsijournals.com/articles/superluminal-travel-from-quantised-inertia.pdf
Post by: RonM on 07/04/2019 03:05 am
Superluminal Travel from Quantised Inertia by Mike McCulloch:
https://www.tsijournals.com/articles/superluminal-travel-from-quantised-inertia.pdf
Quote from: Superluminal Travel from Quantised Inertia
The effects of quantized inertia have not been observed in particle accelerators which accelerate particles to close to the speed of light. This could be because these particles travel along circular trajectories and are therefore highly accelerated, making QI less apparent.
What about linear particle accelerators like SLAC?
McCulloch spends half a page describing the math to show why circular accelerators don't show QI. He seems unaware of linear accelerators such as SLAC. By his own statement, linear accelerators show his QI theory is incorrect.
Post by: meberbs on 07/04/2019 06:24 am
The paper doesn't reference the emDrive at all, so the only relevance to this thread is that as you point out, applying critical thinking to the paper shows the the theory is wrong, and therefore can be removed from the list of plausible theories that predict a working emDrive. (As far as I can tell, that list is currently empty.)Superluminal Travel from Quantised Inertia by Mike McCulloch:
https://www.tsijournals.com/articles/superluminal-travel-from-quantised-inertia.pdfQuote from: Superluminal Travel from Quantised InertiaThe effects of quantized inertia have not been observed in particle accelerators which accelerate particles to close to the speed of light. This could be because these particles travel along circular trajectories and are therefore highly accelerated, making QI less apparent.
What about linear particle accelerators like SLAC?
McCulloch spends half a page describing the math to show why circular accelerators don't show QI. He seems unaware of linear accelerators such as SLAC. By his own statement, linear accelerators show his QI theory is incorrect.
Since the paper is about an FTL drive, it would be appropriate to make a new thread for it, if anyone cared to discuss it in depth. However, from what I have looked at so far in the paper, it would just become a list of problems with McCulloch's theory.
Post by: Ricvil on 07/04/2019 12:01 pm
This is the first source of any kind I've found at least which gets deep in the weeds about the curl.QuoteNotice that the gravitational field is no longer irrotational in S, which express the content of the gravitational analogue of Faraday’s law. Since ∇ × G (does not equal) 0, it might seem that the gravitational field is not conservative anymore. This is only apparent, however, since we shall see in sections 9 and 10 that the gravitational fields have, besides an energy, also a momentum associated, so that the spacetime momentum of the fields is conserved in any inertial reference frame
Everything after, "this is only apparent" is why I'm posting, because until yesterday I've never thought of it this way.
Source:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.00815
Interesting point of view and a strong affirmation at page 13 footnote, about the non existence of classical magnetic monopoles and the balance of forces over all possible inertial frames of reference.
But at realm of condensed matter there are evidences of collective effects producing "magnetic monopoles".
Post by: Notsosureofit on 07/04/2019 09:21 pm
Post by: meberbs on 07/04/2019 10:11 pm
Problem is its been proposed maybe even the EM drive works becuse of quantized inertia. You see no one really know if it works why it works.You are missing the fact that if it doesn't work (as the best evidence currently indicates) then no correct theory can ever explain it working.
This is why I asked meberbs the question above about how were were off topic, or are we? He thinks we are, but how do we even know some strange form of unusual quadrapole propulsion that passes through the cavity isn't some possible form of thrust.I don't "think" we are off topic, it is a fact that we are. Your proposal has no stated relation to the emDrive. the recent papers have no stated relation to the emDrive. Saying "but it is new physics" doesn't matter, unrelated new physics is unrelated. Also, your proposal actually doesn't incorporate any new science, so it is well known that it does not have a chance of being relevant.
Statements about "maybe it is the Mach effect" don't add value any more than "maybe it is magic" or "maybe it is aliens." To add value there would have to be a specific relation pointed out, and there is a separate thread for updates on the Mach effect anyway.
Anyway, guess what else is off topic: Arguing about what is off topic.
Post by: MikeMcCulloch on 07/05/2019 06:57 pm
Post by: RonM on 07/05/2019 07:22 pm
I do not wish to get dragged into an argument on here, but I would like to complain about some recent moderation. Yesterday a post appeared linking to my new paper on QI and FTL. Then a criticism was made which I took the time to answer very clearly on twitter and well meaning people posted my comments here. Today, all my rebuttals have been erased and only the original (wrong) criticism remains. Why? If the topic is not valid on this forum, then why just delete my defence & leave the criticism? This is not impartial moderation.
That doesn't sound fair at all. I didn't even get to see your rebuttal before it was removed. So, let's start over.
You state in your paper that "The effects of quantized inertia have not been observed in particle accelerators which accelerate particles to close to the speed of light. This could be because these particles travel along circular trajectories and are therefore highly accelerated, making QI less apparent."
That's fine for circular accelerators, but what about linear accelerators? Since their particles do not travel along circular trajectories, what would make QI less apparent for linear accelerators?
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/05/2019 08:06 pm
I do not wish to get dragged into an argument on here, but I would like to complain about some recent moderation. Yesterday a post appeared linking to my new paper on QI and FTL. Then a criticism was made which I took the time to answer very clearly on twitter and well meaning people posted my comments here. Today, all my rebuttals have been erased and only the original (wrong) criticism remains. Why? If the topic is not valid on this forum, then why just delete my defence & leave the criticism? This is not impartial moderation.
Sorry Mike -
It'll have been a trim issue. There's a good number of "This is off topic" report to mods and when that post went, as a parent post, the children posts (replies) went in the trim. Can you report to mod the post that remains which started this issue off? (We can remove the criticism).
Post by: RonM on 07/05/2019 08:47 pm
I do not wish to get dragged into an argument on here, but I would like to complain about some recent moderation. Yesterday a post appeared linking to my new paper on QI and FTL. Then a criticism was made which I took the time to answer very clearly on twitter and well meaning people posted my comments here. Today, all my rebuttals have been erased and only the original (wrong) criticism remains. Why? If the topic is not valid on this forum, then why just delete my defence & leave the criticism? This is not impartial moderation.
Sorry Mike -
It'll have been a trim issue. There's a good number of "This is off topic" report to mods and when that post went, as a parent post, the children posts (replies) went in the trim. Can you report to mod the post that remains which started this issue off? (We can remove the criticism).
Mike is talking about my post https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1962834#msg1962834
I repeated my question two posts back. If Mike thinks it's wrong he needs to explain why because it is a legitimate question about his theory.
Post by: Mark7777777 on 07/05/2019 10:43 pm
I do not wish to get dragged into an argument on here, but I would like to complain about some recent moderation. Yesterday a post appeared linking to my new paper on QI and FTL. Then a criticism was made which I took the time to answer very clearly on twitter and well meaning people posted my comments here. Today, all my rebuttals have been erased and only the original (wrong) criticism remains. Why? If the topic is not valid on this forum, then why just delete my defence & leave the criticism? This is not impartial moderation.
Sorry Mike -
It'll have been a trim issue. There's a good number of "This is off topic" report to mods and when that post went, as a parent post, the children posts (replies) went in the trim. Can you report to mod the post that remains which started this issue off? (We can remove the criticism).
Mike is talking about my post https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1962834#msg1962834
I repeated my question two posts back. If Mike thinks it's wrong he needs to explain why because it is a legitimate question about his theory.
In his words:
"The effects of quantized inertia have not been observed in particle accelerators which accelerate particles to close to the speed of light. This could be because these particles travel along circular trajectories and are therefore highly accelerated, making QI less apparent."
I'm guessing that Mike was actually saying that generally circular accelerators are much higher powered than linear ones (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accelerators_in_particle_physics) and so that was "making QI less apparent".
Taking the "circular" factor out and just comparing the power/acceleration factor between linear and circular, it makes me wonder if the mentioned QI might be better seen in slower/less power linear accelerators?
Post by: cvbn on 07/05/2019 10:55 pm
Post by: RonM on 07/05/2019 11:31 pm
I do not wish to get dragged into an argument on here, but I would like to complain about some recent moderation. Yesterday a post appeared linking to my new paper on QI and FTL. Then a criticism was made which I took the time to answer very clearly on twitter and well meaning people posted my comments here. Today, all my rebuttals have been erased and only the original (wrong) criticism remains. Why? If the topic is not valid on this forum, then why just delete my defence & leave the criticism? This is not impartial moderation.
Sorry Mike -
It'll have been a trim issue. There's a good number of "This is off topic" report to mods and when that post went, as a parent post, the children posts (replies) went in the trim. Can you report to mod the post that remains which started this issue off? (We can remove the criticism).
Mike is talking about my post https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1962834#msg1962834
I repeated my question two posts back. If Mike thinks it's wrong he needs to explain why because it is a legitimate question about his theory.
In his words:
"The effects of quantized inertia have not been observed in particle accelerators which accelerate particles to close to the speed of light. This could be because these particles travel along circular trajectories and are therefore highly accelerated, making QI less apparent."
I'm guessing that Mike was actually saying that generally circular accelerators are much higher powered than linear ones (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accelerators_in_particle_physics) and so that was "making QI less apparent".
Taking the "circular" factor out and just comparing the power/acceleration factor between linear and circular, it makes me wonder if the mentioned QI might be better seen in slower/less power linear accelerators?
SLAC is listed as 50 GeV and LHC up to 6.5 TeV. Yes, that's a big difference, but SLAC accelerates electrons while LHC accelerates protons and lead ions. Both push their particles to nearly the speed of light, so one would think we would see the effects of QI in the data.
If you look at Dr. McCulloch's paper you'll see he uses the radius of the LHC to show why QI would not be seen in the LHC's data. That's fine, but that explanation won't work for a linear accelerator such as SLAC.
https://www.tsijournals.com/articles/superluminal-travel-from-quantised-inertia.pdf
Post by: Mark7777777 on 07/06/2019 10:04 am
I do not wish to get dragged into an argument on here, but I would like to complain about some recent moderation. Yesterday a post appeared linking to my new paper on QI and FTL. Then a criticism was made which I took the time to answer very clearly on twitter and well meaning people posted my comments here. Today, all my rebuttals have been erased and only the original (wrong) criticism remains. Why? If the topic is not valid on this forum, then why just delete my defence & leave the criticism? This is not impartial moderation.
Sorry Mike -
It'll have been a trim issue. There's a good number of "This is off topic" report to mods and when that post went, as a parent post, the children posts (replies) went in the trim. Can you report to mod the post that remains which started this issue off? (We can remove the criticism).
Mike is talking about my post https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1962834#msg1962834
I repeated my question two posts back. If Mike thinks it's wrong he needs to explain why because it is a legitimate question about his theory.
In his words:
"The effects of quantized inertia have not been observed in particle accelerators which accelerate particles to close to the speed of light. This could be because these particles travel along circular trajectories and are therefore highly accelerated, making QI less apparent."
I'm guessing that Mike was actually saying that generally circular accelerators are much higher powered than linear ones (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accelerators_in_particle_physics) and so that was "making QI less apparent".
Taking the "circular" factor out and just comparing the power/acceleration factor between linear and circular, it makes me wonder if the mentioned QI might be better seen in slower/less power linear accelerators?
SLAC is listed as 50 GeV and LHC up to 6.5 TeV. Yes, that's a big difference, but SLAC accelerates electrons while LHC accelerates protons and lead ions. Both push their particles to nearly the speed of light, so one would think we would see the effects of QI in the data.
If you look at Dr. McCulloch's paper you'll see he uses the radius of the LHC to show why QI would not be seen in the LHC's data. That's fine, but that explanation won't work for a linear accelerator such as SLAC.
https://www.tsijournals.com/articles/superluminal-travel-from-quantised-inertia.pdf
I wonder if people think that discussion of that could be better served in a new thread topic? If so perhaps someone with physics education background could start it and introduce the topic with maybe its abstract and any relevant discussion points. I have seen there are other FTL threads open too such as:
Janus Cosmological Model & FTL travel (and how to introduce negative mass in GR) New
Started
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43501.0
Theoretical FTL
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13542.0
Any resolutions to FTL paradoxes?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43385.0
Post by: Mark7777777 on 07/07/2019 10:20 am
I do not wish to get dragged into an argument on here, but I would like to complain about some recent moderation. Yesterday a post appeared linking to my new paper on QI and FTL. Then a criticism was made which I took the time to answer very clearly on twitter and well meaning people posted my comments here. Today, all my rebuttals have been erased and only the original (wrong) criticism remains. Why? If the topic is not valid on this forum, then why just delete my defence & leave the criticism? This is not impartial moderation.
Sorry Mike -
It'll have been a trim issue. There's a good number of "This is off topic" report to mods and when that post went, as a parent post, the children posts (replies) went in the trim. Can you report to mod the post that remains which started this issue off? (We can remove the criticism).
Mike is talking about my post https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1962834#msg1962834
I repeated my question two posts back. If Mike thinks it's wrong he needs to explain why because it is a legitimate question about his theory.
In his words:
"The effects of quantized inertia have not been observed in particle accelerators which accelerate particles to close to the speed of light. This could be because these particles travel along circular trajectories and are therefore highly accelerated, making QI less apparent."
I'm guessing that Mike was actually saying that generally circular accelerators are much higher powered than linear ones (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accelerators_in_particle_physics) and so that was "making QI less apparent".
Taking the "circular" factor out and just comparing the power/acceleration factor between linear and circular, it makes me wonder if the mentioned QI might be better seen in slower/less power linear accelerators?
SLAC is listed as 50 GeV and LHC up to 6.5 TeV. Yes, that's a big difference, but SLAC accelerates electrons while LHC accelerates protons and lead ions. Both push their particles to nearly the speed of light, so one would think we would see the effects of QI in the data.
If you look at Dr. McCulloch's paper you'll see he uses the radius of the LHC to show why QI would not be seen in the LHC's data. That's fine, but that explanation won't work for a linear accelerator such as SLAC.
https://www.tsijournals.com/articles/superluminal-travel-from-quantised-inertia.pdf
I wonder if people think that discussion of that could be better served in a new thread topic? If so perhaps someone with physics education background could start it and introduce the topic with maybe its abstract and any relevant discussion points. I have seen there are other FTL threads open too such as:
Janus Cosmological Model & FTL travel (and how to introduce negative mass in GR) New
Started
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43501.0
Theoretical FTL
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13542.0
Any resolutions to FTL paradoxes?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43385.0
Here's a new thread on it:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48497.0
People may want to discuss it there and suggest good/bad science/physics in it.
Post by: Mulletron on 07/08/2019 12:04 am
At 42:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OjKWfRFlFU
Post by: CraigPichach on 07/08/2019 03:16 pm
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/de/4c/43/62c585ccc936cc/US10144532.pdf
Post by: meberbs on 07/08/2019 03:37 pm
Any thoughts on this US patent? I only ask because it has been assigned to the US Navy and has the standard caption that Federal research patents have. It discusses using EM for thrust but in a totally different arrangement than the EM drive; seems to be playing two cavities?That or similar from the same inventor has been discussed on this thread before. His claims generally indicate that he has no clue what he is talking about. (For example in one paper/patent he describes a so-called superconductor that does not have the basic properties required of a superconductor.)
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/de/4c/43/62c585ccc936cc/US10144532.pdf
Post by: Mulletron on 07/09/2019 12:05 am
I don't want a bunch of spheres leftover though, I want truncated cones or similar, that's the tough part so far.
(1) http://www.degradex.com/pmma-microspheres.html
These two are pretty information dense:
http://soft-matter.seas.harvard.edu/index.php/Colloidal_Photonic_Crystals
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2015/tc/c5tc01083g#!divAbstract
Post by: Notsosureofit on 07/12/2019 06:52 pm
Well it looks like a common theme that people who have made inverse opals are doing (though there's a bunch of other ways too) is you get a bunch of polystyrene or acrylic spheres from places like this (1) and you get them to settle into a nicely ordered configuration from a colloidal, and then you infiltrate the gaps around the spheres with a higher index material, and then you either dissolve out or burn out the spheres to leave the voids. Greatly simplified.
I don't want a bunch of spheres leftover though, I want truncated cones or similar, that's the tough part so far.
We metalize and coat replicated microstructures on a regular basis. What sort of composition and dimensions are you thinking about ? There may be something similar already available....you never know.
Post by: Ricvil on 07/20/2019 05:56 pm
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 07/22/2019 02:34 pm
Is the EMdrive cavity producing anapoles along it's conical surface?
It certainly seems to me the shapes of the fields are toroidal so I believe this to be a reasonable conjecture. I proposed to SeaShells about a year ago that we should consider the Helmholtz toroid equations...not an analysis I've seen done...and I've not had any time to try to do it myself...
Post by: Ricvil on 07/23/2019 12:36 pm
It envolves a inversion under a sphere and a inversion under a torus.
The result is the ratio between the radius of big end and small end plates appears to be very close to the ratio between the first two zeros of the derivative of zero order bessel function of first kind.
PS: Edited
Post by: meberbs on 07/24/2019 11:43 pm
Well, this cavity has a very interesting design.I and others have asked you multiple times why you keep posting sketches that look like a cross section of an emDrive with random circles superimposed. I have yet to see a coherent response to that question. You aren't actually successfully communicating anything with these images.
It envolves a inversion under a sphere and a inversion under a torus.
The result is the ratio between the radius of big end and small end plates appears to be very close to the ratio between the first two zeros of the derivative of zero order bessel function of first kind.
PS: Edited
Also, you continue using terms such as "inversion under a sphere" that have no discernible meaning. Inversion of what? What sphere? etc.
Post by: Ricvil on 07/25/2019 04:54 am
Well, this cavity has a very interesting design.I and others have asked you multiple times why you keep posting sketches that look like a cross section of an emDrive with random circles superimposed. I have yet to see a coherent response to that question. You aren't actually successfully communicating anything with these images.
It envolves a inversion under a sphere and a inversion under a torus.
The result is the ratio between the radius of big end and small end plates appears to be very close to the ratio between the first two zeros of the derivative of zero order bessel function of first kind.
PS: Edited
Also, you continue using terms such as "inversion under a sphere" that have no discernible meaning. Inversion of what? What sphere? etc.
Meberbs,
About "inversion" , in 2D , I think this link will help
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversive_geometry
Because of axis of symmetry of cavity, under a rotation about this axis, circle cross sections can represent spheres or torus, and lines can be plates, cones or cylinders.
Why this all geometry?
Because the shape of cavity defines the boundary conditions.
With the cavity under resonance, the shape of the boundary conditions will define the shape of constant phase surfaces of modes inside cavity, and it's relation with energy and momentum, phase and group velocity.
This transformations can be composed with conformal and duality transformations , and show a preferencial direction of propagation inside cavity.
But I am not ready to explain yet.
Post by: meberbs on 07/25/2019 06:44 am
Meberbs,That link helps in that it clarifies that you are just throwing out random terms that do not apply or assist with anything relevant.
About "inversion" , in 2D , I think this link will help
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversive_geometry
Because of axis of symmetry of cavity, under a rotation about this axis, circle cross sections can represent spheres or torus, and lines can be plates, cones or cylinders.Except all of the extra lines and circles you are drawing are not real, you are just drawing them in effectively random spots, which I can only assume are chosen because you find them aesthetically pleasing in some way. There are no spherical or circular toroidal shapes present in an emDrive cavity.
Why this all geometry?This statement is correct, it is the shape of the cavity, not the shape of all the extra lines and circles you draw.
Because the shape of cavity defines the boundary conditions.
With the cavity under resonance, the shape of the boundary conditions will define the shape of constant phase surfaces of modes inside cavity, and it's relation with energy and momentum, phase and group velocity.That amounts to a bunch of word salad, ending with a completely false conclusion.
This transformations can be composed with conformal and duality transformations , and show a preferencial direction of propagation inside cavity.
The mode shape is determined by Maxwell's equations in free space constrained by the boundary conditions of the cavity. Inversive geometry does not help solve this problem, nor does it provide any insight to this problem in any way.
But I am not ready to explain yet.If you have nothing to say, please don't waste anyone's time by posting random pictures that you refuse to explain.
Post by: JohnFornaro on 07/25/2019 03:36 pm
If you have nothing to say, please don't waste anyone's time by posting random pictures that you refuse to explain.
Took the words right outta my mouth.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/26/2019 06:13 pm
When experienced members head that down route new members think it's fine for them to do likewise and then you have a snowball effect.
So don't.
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/26/2019 06:35 pm
What is interesting is subjective. It was on topic because it was discussed if the magnetic field drops off as 1/r^2. In the biot savart equation for a single charge the magnetic field does.If that's right then it might be that light is the universes way of keeping track of every change in the magnetic field in the universe.Speaking of off topic, you have repeated this observation of yours multiple times in multiple threads. It really does not contribute anything to this topic, and it isn't an interesting observation, because it is well known that anytime charges accelerate, they emit radiation, and this radiation propagating at the speed of light therefore coincides with the speed of light delayed propagation of information that the charge has accelerated. The energy and momentum carried by the radiation is what allows energy and momentum to be balanced when distant charges interact with the change in the fields. Your observation about the magnetic field is a partial recognition of what happens hear, but you are missing that the change in the electric field is also communicated, and that for this context, you really would be better off considering that the electromagnetic fields are a single object, since whether they are electric or magnetic fields depends on the reference frame.
Or that light is depositing the magnetic field over the universe as it travels.QuoteThis was some what exotic and I probably didn't have to include this.Also whats interesting is that because light is from the magnetic field then dQ/dt radiation is a separate matter. :) It would propagate with the electric field in the direction of travel, very unlike normal light. I think generally of much less magnitude but I think that might depend on the device that generates it and the magnitude of change in charge.As I already explained to you:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1917955#msg1917955
There is no such thing as any form of electromagnetic radiation where the electric field is partially in the direction of propagation. You are confusing the moving of the electric field because a charge is moving with the actual radiation.
I was referring to the idea that you can make a phased array that seems to radiate in a direction in which radiation should not radiate. In the direction of charge motion. Normally radiation is perpendicular to the direction of charge motion. The electric field would be in the direction of travel. image below.
topic is here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1919418#msg1919418 but goes back a ways.
I don't think its all that important here, but I don't think anyone knows what is important when it comes to how propulsion is being induced if it is and even if propulsion is being induced so exploration of topics is some what natural. Inhibiting it inhibits creative thinking.
I recently read several papers showing how waves with electric fields along the direction of propagation, called longitudinal waves, can exist and have been measured. Basically, when the Lorentz Gauge is not used, such waves come out of Maxwell's equations. Here are just a few references to search.
Reed, "Unravelling the potentials puzzle and corresponding case for the scalar longitudinal electrodynamic wave"
Hively, "Implications of a New Electrodynamic Theory"
Hively, Giakos, "Toward a more complete electrodynamic theory"
Post by: meberbs on 07/26/2019 08:39 pm
I recently read several papers showing how waves with electric fields along the direction of propagation, called longitudinal waves, can exist and have been measured. Basically, when the Lorentz Gauge is not used, such waves come out of Maxwell's equations. Here are just a few references to search.Using different gauges has exactly 0 effect on the fields. Gauge freedom only affects the electric potential and the magnetic vector potential, but those are not real, physically measurable things,* just mathematical conveniences. If you get any difference in the fields due to different gauges, it means you did the math wrong.
...
* If you read that and say "but wait, I have a voltmeter sitting on my desk," keep in mind that voltmeters measure potential difference. This inherently subtracts off the gauge freedom to result in something physically measurable. This need for a reference point for any voltage measurement is basically what gauge freedom means.
Post by: 1 on 07/26/2019 10:14 pm
In the seven or so years since the first thread was started, we're precisely in the same spot where we were before. Much of the dialogue over the last couple of threads has been a lot of back and forth, over ground already well-trodden, and with increasing exasperation from many folks in here. If these threads are to continue, perhaps a re-grounding of sorts might improve quality.
I would suggest refocusing on what is, in my eyes, the crown jewel of these threads; Monomorphic's homemade build. Not because I personally believe any EM-drive like device will ever work as advertised (I don't), but because Monomorphic has essentially been running a master class on small signal isolation and error detection/mitigation; the lessons of which are applicable to anyone in any number of fields.
I think both the experimentalists and theorists among us would be happier to have something more real-world to focus on, and it would serve as a better dividing line for what is and isn't on topic / constructive regarding some of the more, well, repetitive posts as of late.
Lock this and start thread 12 with a new scope?
Lock this in favor of Starlab thread 1?
Keep this thread on its current Thelma & Louise-esque trajectory?
Post by: JohnFornaro on 07/27/2019 12:32 pm
In the seven or so years since the first thread was started, we're precisely in the same spot where we were before.
In addition, we have lost the input of the folks who are building hardware, and reporting their results. Perhaps the experimenters have drawn conclusions?
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/27/2019 05:41 pm
I recently read several papers showing how waves with electric fields along the direction of propagation, called longitudinal waves, can exist and have been measured. Basically, when the Lorentz Gauge is not used, such waves come out of Maxwell's equations. Here are just a few references to search.Using different gauges has exactly 0 effect on the fields. Gauge freedom only affects the electric potential and the magnetic vector potential, but those are not real, physically measurable things,* just mathematical conveniences. If you get any difference in the fields due to different gauges, it means you did the math wrong.
...
* If you read that and say "but wait, I have a voltmeter sitting on my desk," keep in mind that voltmeters measure potential difference. This inherently subtracts off the gauge freedom to result in something physically measurable. This need for a reference point for any voltage measurement is basically what gauge freedom means.
You don't get any difference in the E and B fields. There are new fields. People have measured longitudinal E field waves. Also, I recently read several more papers from a variety of scientists saying exactly the opposite of what you just said about the vector and scalar potentials being mere contrivances and that they should be considered the more fundamental things. That's the view in quantum mechanics and that seemed to be Feynman's view. One is not forced to make the vector and scalar potentials dependent on each other. They can be independent. So it's not just me.
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/27/2019 06:36 pm
Perhaps the EM-drive threads have run their course.
In the seven or so years since the first thread was started, we're precisely in the same spot where we were before. Much of the dialogue over the last couple of threads has been a lot of back and forth, over ground already well-trodden, and with increasing exasperation from many folks in here. If these threads are to continue, perhaps a re-grounding of sorts might improve quality.
I would suggest refocusing on what is, in my eyes, the crown jewel of these threads; Monomorphic's homemade build. Not because I personally believe any EM-drive like device will ever work as advertised (I don't), but because Monomorphic has essentially been running a master class on small signal isolation and error detection/mitigation; the lessons of which are applicable to anyone in any number of fields.
I think both the experimentalists and theorists among us would be happier to have something more real-world to focus on, and it would serve as a better dividing line for what is and isn't on topic / constructive regarding some of the more, well, repetitive posts as of late.
Lock this and start thread 12 with a new scope?
Lock this in favor of Starlab thread 1?
Keep this thread on its current Thelma & Louise-esque trajectory?
Keep it. People obviously post here because they want to.
Post by: MathewOrman on 07/28/2019 01:49 pm
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2169809-impossible-em-drive-doesnt-seem-to-work-after-all/ (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2169809-impossible-em-drive-doesnt-seem-to-work-after-all/)In the seven or so years since the first thread was started, we're precisely in the same spot where we were before.
In addition, we have lost the input of the folks who are building hardware, and reporting their results. Perhaps the experimenters have drawn conclusions?
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/28/2019 03:06 pm
Seems a lot of new Flight Thruster test, design & engineering data are being released. Original data here:
http://www.emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html
Interesting times ahead.
Quote
People may like to read the paper I am presenting at IAC19 in Washington on 25 Oct.
There will be a lot of information in it on our original Flight Thruster, which might be helpful.
The patent for first generation EmDrive has now elapsed, and the Boeing agreements are no longer valid, so design information will be included.
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/28/2019 03:21 pm
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2169809-impossible-em-drive-doesnt-seem-to-work-after-all/ (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2169809-impossible-em-drive-doesnt-seem-to-work-after-all/)In the seven or so years since the first thread was started, we're precisely in the same spot where we were before.
In addition, we have lost the input of the folks who are building hardware, and reporting their results. Perhaps the experimenters have drawn conclusions?
An old and admittedly flawed test.
Post by: MathewOrman on 07/28/2019 03:51 pm
Roger Shawyer has publicly proven that it is a fraud by publishing of this video where his devices rotates showing thrust million times greater than what he claimed... :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFa90WBNGJU
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/28/2019 04:21 pm
Why waist time building a device which has no physics that supports it?
Roger Shawyer has publicly proven that it is a fraud by publishing of this video where his devices rotates showing thrust million times greater than what he claimed... :-)
Claimed thrust for the Demonstrator run was 96mN, ~9.8gm, at 334Wrf input with a 8.2gm frictional rotation load. Effective thrust ~1.6gm.
http://www.emdrive.com/testnotes.pdf
Post by: Vlad Kri on 07/28/2019 05:33 pm
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/28/2019 08:59 pm
So it says but the video shows something else not to mention that after he switched the power off the device actually began to gain speed... Roger Fraudster... :-)Why waist time building a device which has no physics that supports it?
Roger Shawyer has publicly proven that it is a fraud by publishing of this video where his devices rotates showing thrust million times greater than what he claimed... :-)
Claimed thrust for the Demonstrator run was 96mN, ~9.8gm, at 334Wrf input with a 8.2gm frictional rotation load. Effective thrust ~1.6gm.
http://www.emdrive.com/testnotes.pdf
Roger's CEAS 2009 paper explains why that happened. Page 9 onward.
http://www.emdrive.com/CEAS2009paper.doc
Note the rate of acceleration while the drive was powered and note no movement was induced by the circulating coolant before resonance lock.
Movement started then the control system obtained resonance lock.
Post by: meberbs on 07/29/2019 07:30 am
What "admitted flaws" are there in the test that article is about? That is not talking about the old test that had a Q orders of magnitude too low.https://www.newscientist.com/article/2169809-impossible-em-drive-doesnt-seem-to-work-after-all/ (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2169809-impossible-em-drive-doesnt-seem-to-work-after-all/)
An old and admittedly flawed test.
Post by: meberbs on 07/29/2019 09:01 am
What "new fields?" I looked through one of the papers you mentioned previously (Implications of a New Electrodynamic Theory), and it talks about no other fields. It starts with making the statement I made about how you can freely add a term of a certain form to the potentials without changing the fields, and by the end is describing differences in the E-field as a result of the changes in gauge. The existence of a flaw in the logic is obvious and finding the exact spot doesn't seem particularly worthwhile. At a glance, it seems to be a problem with not using a valid gauge function either by not taking the appropriate derivatives before adding it in, or by using a recursive definition which confuses things enough to make it look like you can do a certain manipulation, but you are actually breaking something when you do it. (You can do something similar with basic algebra "proving" 1=0 by doing a bunch of perfectly legitimate steps, but ignoring that you started with an assumption that causes one of your steps to divide by 0.)I recently read several papers showing how waves with electric fields along the direction of propagation, called longitudinal waves, can exist and have been measured. Basically, when the Lorentz Gauge is not used, such waves come out of Maxwell's equations. Here are just a few references to search.Using different gauges has exactly 0 effect on the fields. Gauge freedom only affects the electric potential and the magnetic vector potential, but those are not real, physically measurable things,* just mathematical conveniences. If you get any difference in the fields due to different gauges, it means you did the math wrong.
...
* If you read that and say "but wait, I have a voltmeter sitting on my desk," keep in mind that voltmeters measure potential difference. This inherently subtracts off the gauge freedom to result in something physically measurable. This need for a reference point for any voltage measurement is basically what gauge freedom means.
You don't get any difference in the E and B fields. There are new fields.
People have measured longitudinal E field waves.No, they haven't. You provided no supporting evidence for this claim that is incompatible with the well tested theory of electromagnetism. It is on you to provide evidence to support your claim, all I can do from my end is say that you are wrong. Whether that is because of flaws in the experiments, your misunderstanding of whatever you read, because there simply is no supporting evidence for your statement, or some other option, I can't say.
Also, I recently read several more papers from a variety of scientists saying exactly the opposite of what you just said about the vector and scalar potentials being mere contrivances and that they should be considered the more fundamental things. That's the view in quantum mechanics and that seemed to be Feynman's view. One is not forced to make the vector and scalar potentials dependent on each other. They can be independent. So it's not just me.What you just said indicates to me that you did not understand what I said, because it is not about the potentials being dependent on each other, but about how there is an unavoidable degree of freedom in the potentials that is devoid of physical meaning.
Post by: dustinthewind on 07/30/2019 07:44 am
Aharonov–Bohm effectWhat "new fields?" I looked through one of the papers you mentioned previously (Implications of a New Electrodynamic Theory), and it talks about no other fields. It starts with making the statement I made about how you can freely add a term of a certain form to the potentials without changing the fields, and by the end is describing differences in the E-field as a result of the changes in gauge. The existence of a flaw in the logic is obvious and finding the exact spot doesn't seem particularly worthwhile. At a glance, it seems to be a problem with not using a valid gauge function either by not taking the appropriate derivatives before adding it in, or by using a recursive definition which confuses things enough to make it look like you can do a certain manipulation, but you are actually breaking something when you do it. (You can do something similar with basic algebra "proving" 1=0 by doing a bunch of perfectly legitimate steps, but ignoring that you started with an assumption that causes one of your steps to divide by 0.)I recently read several papers showing how waves with electric fields along the direction of propagation, called longitudinal waves, can exist and have been measured. Basically, when the Lorentz Gauge is not used, such waves come out of Maxwell's equations. Here are just a few references to search.Using different gauges has exactly 0 effect on the fields. Gauge freedom only affects the electric potential and the magnetic vector potential, but those are not real, physically measurable things,* just mathematical conveniences. If you get any difference in the fields due to different gauges, it means you did the math wrong.
...
* If you read that and say "but wait, I have a voltmeter sitting on my desk," keep in mind that voltmeters measure potential difference. This inherently subtracts off the gauge freedom to result in something physically measurable. This need for a reference point for any voltage measurement is basically what gauge freedom means.
You don't get any difference in the E and B fields. There are new fields.People have measured longitudinal E field waves.No, they haven't. You provided no supporting evidence for this claim that is incompatible with the well tested theory of electromagnetism. It is on you to provide evidence to support your claim, all I can do from my end is say that you are wrong. Whether that is because of flaws in the experiments, your misunderstanding of whatever you read, because there simply is no supporting evidence for your statement, or some other option, I can't say.Also, I recently read several more papers from a variety of scientists saying exactly the opposite of what you just said about the vector and scalar potentials being mere contrivances and that they should be considered the more fundamental things. That's the view in quantum mechanics and that seemed to be Feynman's view. One is not forced to make the vector and scalar potentials dependent on each other. They can be independent. So it's not just me.What you just said indicates to me that you did not understand what I said, because it is not about the potentials being dependent on each other, but about how there is an unavoidable degree of freedom in the potentials that is devoid of physical meaning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov%E2%80%93Bohm_effect
Quote
Potentials vs. fields
It is generally argued that Aharonov–Bohm effect illustrates the physicality of electromagnetic potentials, Φ and A, in quantum mechanics. Classically it was possible to argue that only the electromagnetic fields are physical, while the electromagnetic potentials are purely mathematical constructs, that due to gauge freedom aren't even unique for a given electromagnetic field.
However, Vaidman has challenged this interpretation by showing that the AB effect can be explained without the use of potentials so long as one gives a full quantum mechanical treatment to the source charges that produce the electromagnetic field.[9] According to this view, the potential in quantum mechanics is just as physical (or non-physical) as it was classically. Aharonov, Cohen, and Rohrlich responded that the effect may be due to a local gauge potential or due to non-local gauge-invariant fields.[10]
...
Locality of electromagnetic effects
The Aharonov–Bohm effect shows that the local E and B fields do not contain full information about the electromagnetic field, and the electromagnetic four-potential, (Φ, A), must be used instead. By Stokes' theorem, the magnitude of the Aharonov–Bohm effect can be calculated using the electromagnetic fields alone, or using the four-potential alone. But when using just the electromagnetic fields, the effect depends on the field values in a region from which the test particle is excluded. In contrast, when using just the electromagnetic four-potential, the effect only depends on the potential in the region where the test particle is allowed. Therefore, one must either abandon the principle of locality, which most physicists are reluctant to do, or accept that the electromagnetic four-potential offers a more complete description of electromagnetism than the electric and magnetic fields can. On the other hand, the AB effect is crucially quantum mechanical; quantum mechanics is well-known to feature non-local effects (albeit still disallowing superluminal communication), and Vaidman has argued that this is just a non-local quantum effect in a different form.[9]
In classical electromagnetism the two descriptions were equivalent. With the addition of quantum theory, though, the electromagnetic potentials Φ and A are seen as being more fundamental. [13] Despite this, all observable effects end up being expressible in terms of the electromagnetic fields, E and B. This is interesting because, while you can calculate the electromagnetic field from the four-potential, due to gauge freedom the reverse is not true.
...
Monopoles and Dirac strings
The magnetic Aharonov–Bohm effect is also closely related to Dirac's argument that the existence of a magnetic monopole can be accommodated by the existing magnetic source-free Maxwell's equations if both electric and magnetic charges are quantized.
A magnetic monopole implies a mathematical singularity in the vector potential, which can be expressed as a Dirac string of infinitesimal diameter that contains the equivalent of all of the 4πg flux from a monopole "charge" g. The Dirac string starts from, and terminates on, a magnetic monopole.
This last paragraph above reminds me of the 1/r^2 behavior of the magnetic field from a single charge in the Biot-Savart law.
Quote
Global action vs. local forces
Similarly, the Aharonov–Bohm effect illustrates that the Lagrangian approach to dynamics, based on energies, is not just a computational aid to the Newtonian approach, based on forces. Thus the Aharonov–Bohm effect validates the view that forces are an incomplete way to formulate physics, and potential energies must be used instead. In fact Richard Feynman complained[citation needed] that he had been taught electromagnetism from the perspective of electromagnetic fields, and he wished later in life he had been taught to think in terms of the electromagnetic potential instead, as this would be more fundamental. In Feynman's path-integral view of dynamics, the potential field directly changes the phase of an electron wave function, and it is these changes in phase that lead to measurable quantities.
Is this below the scalar electric potential wave?
Quote
Electric effect
Just as the phase of the wave function depends upon the magnetic vector potential, it also depends upon the scalar electric potential. By constructing a situation in which the electrostatic potential varies for two paths of a particle, through regions of zero electric field, an observable Aharonov–Bohm interference phenomenon from the phase shift has been predicted; again, the absence of an electric field means that, classically, there would be no effect.
From the Schrödinger equation, the phase of an eigenfunction with energy E goes as {\displaystyle e^{-iEt/\hbar }} {\displaystyle e^{-iEt/\hbar }}. The energy, however, will depend upon the electrostatic potential V for a particle with charge q. In particular, for a region with constant potential V (zero field), the electric potential energy qV is simply added to E, resulting in a phase shift:
{\displaystyle \Delta \phi =-{\frac {qVt}{\hbar }},} \Delta \phi =-{\frac {qVt}{\hbar }},
where t is the time spent in the potential.
The initial theoretical proposal for this effect suggested an experiment where charges pass through conducting cylinders along two paths, which shield the particles from external electric fields in the regions where they travel, but still allow a varying potential to be applied by charging the cylinders. This proved difficult to realize, however. Instead, a different experiment was proposed involving a ring geometry interrupted by tunnel barriers, with a bias voltage V relating the potentials of the two halves of the ring. This situation results in an Aharonov–Bohm phase shift as above, and was observed experimentally in 1998.[27]
I want to say no that this above is a little different but related maybe. This article seems a bit more related but not sure its the best source.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327447483_Scalar_Waves
Scalar Waves
Bahman Zohuri
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/30/2019 05:35 pm
What "admitted flaws" are there in the test that article is about? That is not talking about the old test that had a Q orders of magnitude too low.https://www.newscientist.com/article/2169809-impossible-em-drive-doesnt-seem-to-work-after-all/ (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2169809-impossible-em-drive-doesnt-seem-to-work-after-all/)
An old and admittedly flawed test.
As I understand it, the Woodward team responded to Tajmar's null test showing how the Dresden team didn't follow proper protocol, didn't understand what they were doing and ruined the device.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iMkqxPFXFBFT3rbmRrXmrtGlrBdZWmNh/view
Post by: meberbs on 07/30/2019 05:52 pm
The article is about the emDrive, and has literally nothing to do with Woodward's device at all.What "admitted flaws" are there in the test that article is about? That is not talking about the old test that had a Q orders of magnitude too low.https://www.newscientist.com/article/2169809-impossible-em-drive-doesnt-seem-to-work-after-all/ (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2169809-impossible-em-drive-doesnt-seem-to-work-after-all/)
An old and admittedly flawed test.
As I understand it, the Woodward team responded to Tajmar's null test showing how the Dresden team didn't follow proper protocol, didn't understand what they were doing and ruined the device.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iMkqxPFXFBFT3rbmRrXmrtGlrBdZWmNh/view
This is the wrong thread to go into Woodward's complaints about the test of Woodward's device, so I won't respond to what you just said about that in detail, but you are taking a one sided perspective, and not considering Woodward's responsibility to actually sufficiently explain how to run his device.
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/30/2019 05:59 pm
The article is about the emDrive, and has literally nothing to do with Woodward's device at all.What "admitted flaws" are there in the test that article is about? That is not talking about the old test that had a Q orders of magnitude too low.https://www.newscientist.com/article/2169809-impossible-em-drive-doesnt-seem-to-work-after-all/ (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2169809-impossible-em-drive-doesnt-seem-to-work-after-all/)
An old and admittedly flawed test.
As I understand it, the Woodward team responded to Tajmar's null test showing how the Dresden team didn't follow proper protocol, didn't understand what they were doing and ruined the device.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iMkqxPFXFBFT3rbmRrXmrtGlrBdZWmNh/view
This is the wrong thread to go into Woodward's complaints about the test of Woodward's device, so I won't respond to what you just said about that in detail, but you are taking a one sided perspective, and not considering Woodward's responsibility to actually sufficiently explain how to run his device.
Point taken. Sorry, I mixed up things. Tajmar is testing both concepts and the article mentioned Woodward and I conflated them in my mind. Sorry.
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/01/2019 04:40 am
Email received from Roger Shawyer.
Seems a lot of new Flight Thruster test, design & engineering data are being released. Original data here:
http://www.emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html
Interesting times ahead.QuotePeople may like to read the paper I am presenting at IAC19 in Washington on 25 Oct.
There will be a lot of information in it on our original Flight Thruster, which might be helpful.
The patent for first generation EmDrive has now elapsed, and the Boeing agreements are no longer valid, so design information will be included.
Additional information from Roger says there will be sufficient supportive information placed on the www.emdrive.com web site, after his Oct 2019 IAC paper presentation, such that anyone skilled in the art will be able to replicate the Flight Thruster, test rig & obtain a high level of thrust.
Interesting times ahead in the world of Momentum Transfer Drive (MTD). Ie MTD accelerated mass gains momentum as trapped photons lose matching momentum & their wavelengths increase as their momentum drops. CofM is obeyed.
Post by: meberbs on 08/01/2019 06:26 am
CofM is obeyed.For the countless time:
If a system starts at rest, ends up moving, and you can't point to anything else moving in the opposite direction, that is the literal definition of breaking conservation of momentum. You clearly have issues with your understanding of photon momentum, but those don't matter for seeing that you are breaking conservation of momentum, since you just turn the drive off, let the photons all get absorbed by the cavity walls, and see that if the device works as you claim, conservation of momentum is broken.
Post by: Ricvil on 08/01/2019 12:40 pm
Email received from Roger Shawyer.
Seems a lot of new Flight Thruster test, design & engineering data are being released. Original data here:
http://www.emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html
Interesting times ahead.QuotePeople may like to read the paper I am presenting at IAC19 in Washington on 25 Oct.
There will be a lot of information in it on our original Flight Thruster, which might be helpful.
The patent for first generation EmDrive has now elapsed, and the Boeing agreements are no longer valid, so design information will be included.
Additional information from Roger says there will be sufficient supportive information placed on the www.emdrive.com web site, after his Oct 2019 IAC paper presentation, such that anyone skilled in the art will be able to replicate the Flight Thruster, test rig & obtain a high level of thrust.
Interesting times ahead in the world of Momentum Transfer Drive (MTD). Ie MTD accelerated mass gains momentum as trapped photons lose matching momentum & their wavelengths increase as their momentum drops. CofM is obeyed.
Congratulations TheTraveller ( and US Navy :) )
Your MTD is nothing more than a Resonant Spacetime "Hall Effect" like Device.
Post by: rfmwguy on 08/01/2019 01:12 pm
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/01/2019 01:13 pm
Email received from Roger Shawyer.
Seems a lot of new Flight Thruster test, design & engineering data are being released. Original data here:
http://www.emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html
Interesting times ahead.QuotePeople may like to read the paper I am presenting at IAC19 in Washington on 25 Oct.
There will be a lot of information in it on our original Flight Thruster, which might be helpful.
The patent for first generation EmDrive has now elapsed, and the Boeing agreements are no longer valid, so design information will be included.
Additional information from Roger says there will be sufficient supportive information placed on the www.emdrive.com web site, after his Oct 2019 IAC paper presentation, such that anyone skilled in the art will be able to replicate the Flight Thruster, test rig & obtain a high level of thrust.
Interesting times ahead in the world of Momentum Transfer Drive (MTD). Ie MTD accelerated mass gains momentum as trapped photons lose matching momentum & their wavelengths increase as their momentum drops. CofM is obeyed.
Following Roger's release of Flight Thruster design data, I'll be working with another DIYer to replicate a Flight Thruster, RF system & test rig as per Roger's data.
They will release the test data, which will include a spectrum scan showing increasing trapped photon wavelength, ie photon momentum loss, as the Flight Thruster accelerates vs no wavelength change when not accelerating.
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/01/2019 01:19 pm
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009457651832071X
Post by: rfmwguy on 08/01/2019 01:34 pm
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/01/2019 01:41 pm
Still an enigma. Perhaps someday the principle of conservation of momentum without mass exchange will be exploited. I've long felt it's just that simple.
With photons, that can't alter velocity as their momentum alters, their emitted wavelength, after momentum transfer to mass, alters.
With mass <> mass momentum exchanges, each mass alters velocity to conserve momentum.
With mass <> photon momentum exchanges, while mass alters velocity, photons alter wavelength to conserve momentum.
Post by: dwheeler on 08/01/2019 02:43 pm
Email received from Roger Shawyer.
Seems a lot of new Flight Thruster test, design & engineering data are being released. Original data here:
http://www.emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html
Interesting times ahead.QuotePeople may like to read the paper I am presenting at IAC19 in Washington on 25 Oct.
There will be a lot of information in it on our original Flight Thruster, which might be helpful.
The patent for first generation EmDrive has now elapsed, and the Boeing agreements are no longer valid, so design information will be included.
Additional information from Roger says there will be sufficient supportive information placed on the www.emdrive.com web site, after his Oct 2019 IAC paper presentation, such that anyone skilled in the art will be able to replicate the Flight Thruster, test rig & obtain a high level of thrust.
Interesting times ahead in the world of Momentum Transfer Drive (MTD). Ie MTD accelerated mass gains momentum as trapped photons lose matching momentum & their wavelengths increase as their momentum drops. CofM is obeyed.
Following Roger's release of Flight Thruster design data, I'll be working with another DIYer to replicate a Flight Thruster, RF system & test rig as per Roger's data.
They will release the test data, which will include a spectrum scan showing increasing trapped photon wavelength, ie photon momentum loss, as the Flight Thruster accelerates vs no wavelength change when not accelerating.
If the Oct 2019 IAC presentation and supporting data is conclusive, why would we need DIYers to continue their work? Won't every space tech firm, university, and government space agency be scrambling to implement it? Throwing billions of dollars at it to produce a usable space craft drive system?
Post by: meberbs on 08/01/2019 02:44 pm
For all of the interactions you just described forces are equal and opposite so that momentum is conserved. No closed system can move under that scenario, since part of the system would move in one direction, part in the other, and as long as nothing leaves the system (such as propellant flying away from a rocket) then the motion in opposite directions will eventually reach the constraint holding the system together, and momentum will transfer back (for example, photons hitting the end of the cavity.)Still an enigma. Perhaps someday the principle of conservation of momentum without mass exchange will be exploited. I've long felt it's just that simple.
With photons, that can't alter velocity as their momentum alters, their emitted wavelength, after momentum transfer to mass, alters.
With mass <> mass momentum exchanges, each mass alters velocity to conserve momentum.
With mass <> photon momentum exchanges, while mass alters velocity, photons alter wavelength to conserve momentum.
Shawyer's claim has always inherently been that the photon momentum magically changes between one end of the cavity and the other, without transferring that momentum to anything else. This obviously and clearly breaks momentum conservation, and as stated in my previous post, if you are confused about the photon momentum, just look at the before and after states of the system with power off and no photons to worry about, and you can clearly see that momentum conservation is broken.
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/01/2019 02:59 pm
Email received from Roger Shawyer.
Seems a lot of new Flight Thruster test, design & engineering data are being released. Original data here:
http://www.emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html
Interesting times ahead.QuotePeople may like to read the paper I am presenting at IAC19 in Washington on 25 Oct.
There will be a lot of information in it on our original Flight Thruster, which might be helpful.
The patent for first generation EmDrive has now elapsed, and the Boeing agreements are no longer valid, so design information will be included.
Additional information from Roger says there will be sufficient supportive information placed on the www.emdrive.com web site, after his Oct 2019 IAC paper presentation, such that anyone skilled in the art will be able to replicate the Flight Thruster, test rig & obtain a high level of thrust.
Interesting times ahead in the world of Momentum Transfer Drive (MTD). Ie MTD accelerated mass gains momentum as trapped photons lose matching momentum & their wavelengths increase as their momentum drops. CofM is obeyed.
Following Roger's release of Flight Thruster design data, I'll be working with another DIYer to replicate a Flight Thruster, RF system & test rig as per Roger's data.
They will release the test data, which will include a spectrum scan showing increasing trapped photon wavelength, ie photon momentum loss, as the Flight Thruster accelerates vs no wavelength change when not accelerating.
If the Oct 2019 IAC presentation and supporting data is conclusive, why would we need DIYers to continue their work? Won't every space tech firm, university, and government space agency be scrambling to implement it? Throwing billions of dollars at it to produce a usable space craft drive system?
You are basically correct.
Don't ignore the Skilled In The Act bit.
Complex process to follow.
Get any step wrong & uncertain results may occur.
Such as initial vibration/acceleration source is needed to cause initial differential Doppler shift, which then causes differential radiation pressure. Non accelerating cavity does not generate differential Doppler shift nor differential radiation pressure nor thrust. Roger disclosed this years ago.
Should be interesting.
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/01/2019 06:07 pm
For all of the interactions you just described forces are equal and opposite so that momentum is conserved. No closed system can move under that scenario, since part of the system would move in one direction, part in the other, and as long as nothing leaves the system (such as propellant flying away from a rocket) then the motion in opposite directions will eventually reach the constraint holding the system together, and momentum will transfer back (for example, photons hitting the end of the cavity.)Still an enigma. Perhaps someday the principle of conservation of momentum without mass exchange will be exploited. I've long felt it's just that simple.
With photons, that can't alter velocity as their momentum alters, their emitted wavelength, after momentum transfer to mass, alters.
With mass <> mass momentum exchanges, each mass alters velocity to conserve momentum.
With mass <> photon momentum exchanges, while mass alters velocity, photons alter wavelength to conserve momentum.
Shawyer's claim has always inherently been that the photon momentum magically changes between one end of the cavity and the other, without transferring that momentum to anything else. This obviously and clearly breaks momentum conservation, and as stated in my previous post, if you are confused about the photon momentum, just look at the before and after states of the system with power off and no photons to worry about, and you can clearly see that momentum conservation is broken.
What you say makes sense and I basically agree with the caveat that perhaps not all nuances of photon and field momentum or the interactions with spacetime are completely understood. For any device that does prove to work, in the end momentum will be shown to be conserved even if it has to include some new physics or the universe as a whole to do so.
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/01/2019 06:31 pm
New article by Tajmar on tests on the Emdrive and on Woodward device:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009457651832071X
"Forces claimed by potential propellantless propulsion systems like the Mach-Effect-Thruster or the EMDrive are in the μN or even sub-μN range." I'm skeptical of test devices limited to producing the smallest possible thrust. Whatever results are gained they just invite further skepticism..."What about this? You didn't account for that...and on and on. I doubt any useful conclusions will ever be made from uN results. Shawyer and Fetta (Cannae) both claim superconducting cavities can produce enormous amounts of thrust. I wish someone would test those designs. Either they do or they don't.
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/01/2019 06:48 pm
Email received from Roger Shawyer.
Seems a lot of new Flight Thruster test, design & engineering data are being released. Original data here:
http://www.emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html
Interesting times ahead.QuotePeople may like to read the paper I am presenting at IAC19 in Washington on 25 Oct.
There will be a lot of information in it on our original Flight Thruster, which might be helpful.
The patent for first generation EmDrive has now elapsed, and the Boeing agreements are no longer valid, so design information will be included.
Additional information from Roger says there will be sufficient supportive information placed on the www.emdrive.com web site, after his Oct 2019 IAC paper presentation, such that anyone skilled in the art will be able to replicate the Flight Thruster, test rig & obtain a high level of thrust.
Interesting times ahead in the world of Momentum Transfer Drive (MTD). Ie MTD accelerated mass gains momentum as trapped photons lose matching momentum & their wavelengths increase as their momentum drops. CofM is obeyed.
Following Roger's release of Flight Thruster design data, I'll be working with another DIYer to replicate a Flight Thruster, RF system & test rig as per Roger's data.
They will release the test data, which will include a spectrum scan showing increasing trapped photon wavelength, ie photon momentum loss, as the Flight Thruster accelerates vs no wavelength change when not accelerating.
Can you put the whole device including the power supply in a sealed black box and see if it accelerates on an air table?
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/01/2019 07:02 pm
For all of the interactions you just described forces are equal and opposite so that momentum is conserved. No closed system can move under that scenario, since part of the system would move in one direction, part in the other, and as long as nothing leaves the system (such as propellant flying away from a rocket) then the motion in opposite directions will eventually reach the constraint holding the system together, and momentum will transfer back (for example, photons hitting the end of the cavity.)Still an enigma. Perhaps someday the principle of conservation of momentum without mass exchange will be exploited. I've long felt it's just that simple.
With photons, that can't alter velocity as their momentum alters, their emitted wavelength, after momentum transfer to mass, alters.
With mass <> mass momentum exchanges, each mass alters velocity to conserve momentum.
With mass <> photon momentum exchanges, while mass alters velocity, photons alter wavelength to conserve momentum.
Please clarify a couple of points. It seems the general thinking on the EmDrive is that what happens in the cavity stays in the cavity, except thermal photons. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems all those bouncing microwaves inside would induce currents in the EmDrive surface which themselves would produce fields and photons outside which thus can shed momentum. And even just considering thermal photons, couldn't the truncated cone shape preferentially radiate power in one direction? Thanks.
Post by: meberbs on 08/01/2019 07:43 pm
Energy and momentum conservation both have to happen. You can't just freely convert between forms of energy. When you do have a mechanism that converts say electrical energy into kinetic energy, physics states that the mechanism will also conserve momentum. If the kinetic energy goes into one object to give it momentum in one direction, the mechanism will need to provide equal and opposite force to something else, and make that something else move in the opposite direction. Kinetic energy will not necessarily be distributed equally for equal momentum distribution if the objects have different masses. (And photons are a valid thing that could be either of the things that end up with momentum)CofM is obeyed.For the countless time:
If a system starts at rest, ends up moving, and you can't point to anything else moving in the opposite direction, that is the literal definition of breaking conservation of momentum. You clearly have issues with your understanding of photon momentum, but those don't matter for seeing that you are breaking conservation of momentum, since you just turn the drive off, let the photons all get absorbed by the cavity walls, and see that if the device works as you claim, conservation of momentum is broken.
Serious question (not trying to be a troll). If the system has movement imparted to it through energy (or mass that was converted to energy), then you wouldn't see anything else moving in the opposite direction, right? Even if you can measure the input energy that was used to impart the movement?
Please clarify a couple of points. It seems the general thinking on the EmDrive is that what happens in the cavity stays in the cavity, except thermal photons. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems all those bouncing microwaves inside would induce currents in the EmDrive surface which themselves would produce fields and photons outside which thus can shed momentum. And even just considering thermal photons, couldn't the truncated cone shape preferentially radiate power in one direction? Thanks.RF should not be able to significantly escape from a well designed cavity due to RF skin depth in metal, etc. Radiation from surface currents would all be inside the cavity, and is tied in with the process of reflection of the internal waves. Even if it did escape, all you are getting is a photon rocket with the escaped power at best, and there are more direct and efficient ways to make a photon rocket. In this regime, electrodynamics is well tested and understood, so it is unlikely that there is any unknown coupling. Assuming that the emDrive does work by some mechanism, then there would have to be something else carrying away the momentum for momentum conservation to hold. The problem with statements like those from TT and Shawyer are that they claim there is no new physics, and point to no balancing thing carrying away the opposite momentum, yet they still claim momentum conservation.
Post by: rfmwguy on 08/01/2019 07:57 pm
Post by: meberbs on 08/01/2019 08:03 pm
Momentum without mass. A point in space with an internal, directional momentum imbalance seeking conservation. It may be as simple as that. Momentum requires no mass exchange. The rocket equation is old news. Spooky action at a distance? Maybe...but cofm is being conserved. The aha moment is when we stop thinking photons are marbles bouncing around in a closed system...its so 17th century.Photons are massless particles that have momentum. That is something that is rigorously treated in special relativity. It turns out that for purposes of easier understanding, you can think of them as tiny regular particles carrying around momentum in the direction they move and get the right answers. It is ok to do this since scientists have done the rigorous math and shown that it all adds up.
Do you have an actual suggestion on an alternative, or are you just throwing words around?
Post by: rfmwguy on 08/01/2019 08:16 pm
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/01/2019 08:16 pm
Energy and momentum conservation both have to happen. You can't just freely convert between forms of energy. When you do have a mechanism that converts say electrical energy into kinetic energy, physics states that the mechanism will also conserve momentum. If the kinetic energy goes into one object to give it momentum in one direction, the mechanism will need to provide equal and opposite force to something else, and make that something else move in the opposite direction. Kinetic energy will not necessarily be distributed equally for equal momentum distribution if the objects have different masses. (And photons are a valid thing that could be either of the things that end up with momentum)CofM is obeyed.For the countless time:
If a system starts at rest, ends up moving, and you can't point to anything else moving in the opposite direction, that is the literal definition of breaking conservation of momentum. You clearly have issues with your understanding of photon momentum, but those don't matter for seeing that you are breaking conservation of momentum, since you just turn the drive off, let the photons all get absorbed by the cavity walls, and see that if the device works as you claim, conservation of momentum is broken.
Serious question (not trying to be a troll). If the system has movement imparted to it through energy (or mass that was converted to energy), then you wouldn't see anything else moving in the opposite direction, right? Even if you can measure the input energy that was used to impart the movement?Please clarify a couple of points. It seems the general thinking on the EmDrive is that what happens in the cavity stays in the cavity, except thermal photons. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems all those bouncing microwaves inside would induce currents in the EmDrive surface which themselves would produce fields and photons outside which thus can shed momentum. And even just considering thermal photons, couldn't the truncated cone shape preferentially radiate power in one direction? Thanks.RF should not be able to significantly escape from a well designed cavity due to RF skin depth in metal, etc. Radiation from surface currents would all be inside the cavity, and is tied in with the process of reflection of the internal waves. Even if it did escape, all you are getting is a photon rocket with the escaped power at best, and there are more direct and efficient ways to make a photon rocket. In this regime, electrodynamics is well tested and understood, so it is unlikely that there is any unknown coupling. Assuming that the emDrive does work by some mechanism, then there would have to be something else carrying away the momentum for momentum conservation to hold. The problem with statements like those from TT and Shawyer are that they claim there is no new physics, and point to no balancing thing carrying away the opposite momentum, yet they still claim momentum conservation.
Thanks. That makes sense about radiation staying internal, except heat unless the cavity was very thin, within skin depth but then it probably wouldn't be able to keep its shape under intense radiation pressure.
Speaking of cavities and radiation pressure, this is probably old news and maybe unless but I'll reference it in case it's not.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jacob_Pate3/publication/329230432_Electrostatic_tuning_of_mechanical_and_microwave_resonances_in_3D_superconducting_radio_frequency_cavities/links/5c12b301299bf139c756be10/Electrostatic-tuning-of-mechanical-and-microwave-resonances-in-3D-superconducting-radio-frequency-cavities.pdf
Post by: meberbs on 08/01/2019 08:59 pm
Oh yeah, I have suggestions on where the answer lies. In fact most all papers I've read are all saying about the same thing in different terms. Mass generates momentum we call gravity...massless objects generate what science fiction calls antigravity. But these are just words...no one should think any more about it.If you have seen papers, you should link to them so others can judge what they say.
Besides that, the actual reason no one should think in depth about what you said is that we experimentally know that your statement about massless particles and anti-gravity is false. We know this because of measurements of the gravitational bending of light and gravitational redshift, both of which effectively amount to a description of gravitational "force" acting on light in the typical way. (Note, this is not a technically correct explanation, since gravity in GR is a bending of space-time rather than a force, but either way claiming that massless particles are somehow anti-gravity is simply not consistent with reality.)
Post by: Bob Woods on 08/01/2019 10:51 pm
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/01/2019 11:06 pm
Oh yeah, I have suggestions on where the answer lies. In fact most all papers I've read are all saying about the same thing in different terms. Mass generates momentum we call gravity...massless objects generate what science fiction calls antigravity. But these are just words...no one should think any more about it.
Hi RfMwGuy/Dave,
Mate good to see you back.
What the intended result are 2 sets of high quality data.
1) Very clear thrust at the +20mN level or greater from 100Wrf.
2) Very clear data that during acceleration, trapped photon wavelength increases, due to lost photon momentum transferred to gained accelerated mass momentum. Plus data to show there are no increased photon wavelengths when acceleration does not occur, ie no mass momentum gain.
I have posted here several times & advised various DIY EmDrive test stand builders that the goal to measure uN level thrust, requiring elimination of vibration, may cause the elimination of thrust as reported by Roger many years ago.
Quote
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.
http://www.emdrive.com/EmDriveForceMeasurement.pdf
Post by: meberbs on 08/01/2019 11:48 pm
One should not ask for suggestions simply to attack it with other's theories. Since thise theories are not of your own construct, I consider your posts of little value. By the way, who are you really? Or have you chosen to remain anonymous?I would appreciate it if you did not blatantly misrepresent my post like that. I pointed to well known experiments that contradicted your description. This does not involve "other people's theories." It is also completely inappropriate to call something an attack, just for pointing out evidence that contrary to your statements. If you don't want any critiques of your ideas you are free to not share them, but that of course also means you lose the opportunity to learn whether your ideas actually hold water. On the other hand you are basing what you are saying on other people's theories and have not shared enough information to find any details on said theories.
As to who I am, I choose not to share that with the entire internet, but there are people on this site who I have shared relevant information with, people who know me in real life would have no trouble identifying me based on forum name, and you formerly were a mod on this site and therefore presumably would have had access to a post where I shared my background and name, besides having access to my e-mail address which can easily be used to track down much of the same information.
Post by: D_Dom on 08/02/2019 12:42 am
Post by: rfmwguy on 08/02/2019 02:13 am
Oh, there is a solid attempt to lure me out of retirement.
https://vimeo.com/249897808
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/02/2019 03:28 am
New article by Tajmar on tests on the Emdrive and on Woodward device:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009457651832071X
"Results of the tests performed between August and September 2018 are presented, but no final conclusions can be drawn."
We already had this round of testing results though, didn't we?CofM is obeyed.For the countless time:
If a system starts at rest, ends up moving, and you can't point to anything else moving in the opposite direction, that is the literal definition of breaking conservation of momentum. You clearly have issues with your understanding of photon momentum, but those don't matter for seeing that you are breaking conservation of momentum, since you just turn the drive off, let the photons all get absorbed by the cavity walls, and see that if the device works as you claim, conservation of momentum is broken.
Serious question (not trying to be a troll). If the system has movement imparted to it through energy (or mass that was converted to energy), then you wouldn't see anything else moving in the opposite direction, right? Even if you can measure the input energy that was used to impart the movement?
The photons in the cavity have zero net momentum even if they lose energy. For the cavity to accelerate and remain in motion would mean something escaped the cavity. This would mean the photons imparted energy into something that escaped the cavity. This interaction I suspect would also give the effect where the photons are heavy and then light. The photons are a directed result of the electric field of the electrons so it may be the electrons that are becoming heavy then light. (sort of like mach effect or maybe like orbiting black holes that throw energy into space time waves. ) (black holes seperated have stored potential energy that has effective mass in space time. As the black holes spin down the black holes speed up converting that stored potential energy with effective mass to their Lorentz contraction and Relativistic Mass
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/tdil.html
However this effective mass is thrown off as space times waves and as a result the black holes slow down losing this effective mass such that real effective mass is thrown off into space time (think of the wave as repulsive or attractive which slows the black hole as its thrown off). I think this is the effective mass that could escape the cavity and be used as the impulse engine.
I was speculating a transverse magnetic mode in the cavity where electrons in the cavity are accelerated up and down but in a way you change their acceleration in one direction as opposed to the other direction. Problem is electron velocity may need to be ramped up to near light speed and very large accelerations. The way to accomplish this is low electron density which maximizes velocity and acceleration. Electron density in copper is too dense and they are slow. Superconductors provide low density for electron pairs but are hard to keep cool. My idea was to introduce an electron ring inside the cavity with Helmholtz coils and accelerate that electron ring with the transverse magnetic mode. (beware large accelerations on electrons could induce gamma radiation penetrating cavities. Experimenters beware.)
The trick then is to make the electrons follow a path which maximizes their asymmetry in acceleration.
Stored energy in cavities are great way to enhance energy stored in the electrons and may enhance the energy conversion process. Its sort of related to cavities we use on earth. Combustion engines are cavities and the higher the pressure and longer the stroke length the more energy can be converted from thermal energy to motion of a car - leaving the gas that escapes cooler. (by the way automatic transmissions are less efficient because they allow larger rpm's - need large torque and low rpm's) The photon rockets also use large quality to enhance energy conversion of photon frequency to mirror acceleration. Normally thrust from photons are dismal but not with a photon rocket.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzLEK8Zq7Pk
If electrons can be made to intact with space time the efficiency of converting the photon frequency to space time thrust may not be dismal. I am also not convinced that warping of space time as propulsion is a dismal form of propulsion. In fact it is suspected asymmetrically orbiting black holes may effectively propel themselves out of their own host galaxy by asymmetrically emitted gravity waves and I was reading relativistic objects could absorb as much as 10% of the energy of a space time wave passing by, which is much greater than the % of energy absorbed from a photon impact at normal velocities. I think the trick is to use the stored potential photon energy to be converted to electron relativistic mass. This relativistic coupling I think would enhance the asymmetric coupling to space time and I think it would be similar to scooting ones butt across the carpet so to speak. Pick Butt up, it becomes light or low friction. Push Butt down to enhance friction, but for relativistic mass it's large velocity, now accelerate hard.
Photo attached of a supposed path for the electrons to follow which would induce asymmetry in acceleration. Y = displacement, X = time or w*t. This one probably has too many frequencies involved but it illustrates better the asymmetry. I think you put this into an equation for the electrons as harmonic oscillators that leaves the EM field as an unknown. The known is the path of the electron ring as the oscillators. You then solve for the EM field that needs to be put in to get the desired behavior of the electron ring to traverse the cavity.
https://wiki.jlab.org/ciswiki/images/e/ee/PhysRevAccelBeams.19.122001.pdf
Multiple harmonic frequencies resonant cavity design
and half-scale prototype measurements for a fast kicker
Post by: meberbs on 08/02/2019 06:02 am
(by the way automatic transmissions are less efficient because they allow larger rpm's - need large torque and low rpm's)Off topic, but see here (https://www.autoblog.com/2010/08/18/greenlings-why-do-automatic-transmissions-now-get-better-fuel-e/) for an explanation of why you are not correct. The issue with automatic transmissions used to be the lack of direct mechanical coupling, causing a loss in power. Nowadays automatic transmissions are the more efficient ones, in part because they can use mechanical coupling when cruising, and also because they now have more gears and allow staying in the optimal RPM range for a wider range of speeds.
The photon rockets also use large quality to enhance energy conversion of photon frequency to mirror acceleration. Normally thrust from photons are dismal but not with a photon rocket.Typically the term "photon rocket" refers to the non-recycling version. For a recycling one like in the video you shared, it basically is a way of indirectly pushing against whatever the mirror on the other end is attached to, and the efficiency depends on the relative mass of the other mirror.
If electrons can be made to intact with space time the efficiency of converting the photon frequency to space time thrust may not be dismal.This is another one of those ideas that immediately brings up the question of how exactly you propose to do this, and why you think this could produce useful thrust.
I am also not convinced that warping of space time as propulsion is a dismal form of propulsion. In fact it is suspected asymmetrically orbiting black holes may effectively propel themselves out of their own host galaxy by asymmetrically emitted gravity waves and I was reading relativistic objects could absorb as much as 10% of the energy of a space time wave passing by, which is much greater than the % of energy absorbed from a photon impact at normal velocities.I have explained this to you repeatedly: If you look at a photon reflecting off of a mirror from a variety of reference frames, you will see different results for the energy transfer and can find any answer you want from near 100% transfer of energy from the photon to the mirror, to frames where the mirror has high velocity towards the direction the photon is coming from, and the mirror transfers energy to the photon. All of these accurately describe the same event, and none of it is any different than photon rocket propulsion. (The basic kind without recycling, just a factor of 2 since it is an externally provided photon being reflected.) This is dictated by the principle of relativity, that the laws of physics do not depend on choice of inertial reference frame. The example with back holes only indicates the extreme amount of energy that is released in order to provide the high acceleration.
Post by: rfmwguy on 08/02/2019 11:06 am
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/02/2019 01:54 pm
Fellas, we are still stuck at assuming mass exchange is the key and there is balance within a frustum. The arguments of mass action and reaction must be set aside for this to come to a resolution. Imho, an asymmetrical condition occurs within the frustum generated by massless forces of photonic energy...what that is...we should continue to explore. Firmly convinced it's the answer. I'm back to the shadows again.
The main point I made above for you is that the light in the cavity has no net momentum so if the cavity accelerates the light in the cavity can't account for the equal and opposite momentum. If we still believe in momentum conservation in the universe then we need this. It has to be something that escaped the cavity for momentum to be conserved, else the cavity will quickly come to a stop. I gave what I think gives that effective escaping mass is to carry away equal and opposite momentum.
Imagine pulling on an electron when its about twice as heavy via its relativistic effective mass via its velocity, barely giving it time to change its effective mass via the still present space time deformation. I.e. space time doesn't have the time to react to change its effective mass quickly enough.
The gradual deceleration of the electron allows its effective mass to gradually change during the deceleration.
So pulling 10E9 times per second on 10E9 electrons that are twice as heavy, and pushing when they are only 1.5 times as heavy gives the effect of 5E9 electrons slamming into one wall 10E9 times. But what changes their effective mass? Why not relativistic effective mass? How do black holes and neutron stars do it?
I think its possible that energetically inflated space might be gravitationally repulsive and accounts for dark energy that is pushing the universe apart and that it migrates to the great voids. Like hot air that floats away from gravity. Thermally inflated space speeds up time causing the galaxies to appear to rotate faster and seeming enhance the gravitational well in which they exist. So imagine the plank length being inflated and the thermally excited space ticking faster via its thermal excitation. So in a sense I think it may appear as negative energy. In a sense all that lost energy by the black holes, or electrons in stars, being trapped in the voids pushing our universe apart.
great inflation of the universe being related.
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/02/2019 03:53 pm
What matters is he is keeping the RPMs down. This allows more atomic reflections off of a receding cylinder wall transferring more thermal energy into the energy of the vehicle. you can put more gears on a manual transmission as well. You also have a clutch for coasting. a lot of those automatic transmission will downshift increasing RPMs and decreasing efficiency. It is related because we're talking about the efficiency of converting photon energy in the cavity to propellantless propulsion via increasing or quality of the cavity. Lowering the RPMs increases quality. in our case increasing the number of times the photons accelerate the electrons back and forth increases the quality.(by the way automatic transmissions are less efficient because they allow larger rpm's - need large torque and low rpm's)Off topic, but see here (https://www.autoblog.com/2010/08/18/greenlings-why-do-automatic-transmissions-now-get-better-fuel-e/) for an explanation of why you are not correct. The issue with automatic transmissions used to be the lack of direct mechanical coupling, causing a loss in power. Nowadays automatic transmissions are the more efficient ones, in part because they can use mechanical coupling when cruising, and also because they now have more gears and allow staying in the optimal RPM range for a wider range of speeds.
Quote
Exactly. The efficiency of energy transfer is governed by the relative mass of the particle collision with the relative effective mass of the vehicle and the number of times it's allowed to collide and transfer energy. Heavier vehicles are less fuel-efficientThe photon rockets also use large quality to enhance energy conversion of photon frequency to mirror acceleration. Normally thrust from photons are dismal but not with a photon rocket.Typically the term "photon rocket" refers to the non-recycling version. For a recycling one like in the video you shared, it basically is a way of indirectly pushing against whatever the mirror on the other end is attached to, and the efficiency depends on the relative mass of the other mirror.
Quote
I already stated, by changing the effective mass of the electrons involved.If electrons can be made to intact with space time the efficiency of converting the photon frequency to space time thrust may not be dismal.This is another one of those ideas that immediately brings up the question of how exactly you propose to do this, and why you think this could produce useful thrust.
Quote
I am also not convinced that warping of space time as propulsion is a dismal form of propulsion. In fact it is suspected asymmetrically orbiting black holes may effectively propel themselves out of their own host galaxy by asymmetrically emitted gravity waves and I was reading relativistic objects could absorb as much as 10% of the energy of a space time wave passing by, which is much greater than the % of energy absorbed from a photon impact at normal velocities.I have explained this to you repeatedly: If you look at a photon reflecting off of a mirror from a variety of reference frames, you will see different results for the energy transfer and can find any answer you want from near 100% transfer of energy from the photon to the mirror, to frames where the mirror has high velocity towards the direction the photon is coming from, and the mirror transfers energy to the photon. All of these accurately describe the same event, and none of it is any different than photon rocket propulsion. (The basic kind without recycling, just a factor of 2 since it is an externally provided photon being reflected.) This is dictated by the principle of relativity, that the laws of physics do not depend on choice of inertial reference frame. The example with back holes only indicates the extreme amount of energy that is released in order to provide the high acceleration.
The reason photon propulsion is ineffective is because of the low percentage of energy transfer between the photon and the object it collides with. Very small change in frequency.
Post by: meberbs on 08/02/2019 04:41 pm
Please read the link I previously provided, you apparently don't get the fact that modern automatic transmissions beat manual on efficiency. Your explanation of why you usually want to keep RPMs down is also wrong see here. (https://www.quora.com/When-do-engines-consume-more-fuel-at-low-revs-or-high-revs) There are multiple factors that go into it which is why you need an optimal range, and why you don't just always drive in high gear.What matters is he is keeping the RPMs down. This allows more atomic reflections off of a receding cylinder wall transferring more thermal energy into the energy of the vehicle. you can put more gears on a manual transmission as well. You also have a clutch for coasting. a lot of those automatic transmission will downshift increasing RPMs and decreasing efficiency.(by the way automatic transmissions are less efficient because they allow larger rpm's - need large torque and low rpm's)Off topic, but see here (https://www.autoblog.com/2010/08/18/greenlings-why-do-automatic-transmissions-now-get-better-fuel-e/) for an explanation of why you are not correct. The issue with automatic transmissions used to be the lack of direct mechanical coupling, causing a loss in power. Nowadays automatic transmissions are the more efficient ones, in part because they can use mechanical coupling when cruising, and also because they now have more gears and allow staying in the optimal RPM range for a wider range of speeds.
It is related because we're talking about the efficiency of converting photon energy in the cavity to propellantless propulsion via increasing or quality of the cavity. Lowering the RPMs increases quality. in our case increasing the number of times the photons accelerate the electrons back and forth increases the quality.Even if you were getting your facts straight on this, it would still not be a meaningful analogy. A high number of reflections increases the total energy stored in the cavity, but the electrons are oscillating at the injected frequency no matter what, just more of them are moving with higher fields. But since this is back and forth motion, there is no reason for it to be directional.
And you are doing that how? with a magic wand? Sure the relativistic mass of an object increases slightly as it accelerates, but this is small at any relevant speed, and it is an effect built in to momentum conservation under special relativity, so that doesn't get you anywhere.QuoteI already stated, by changing the effective mass of the electrons involved.If electrons can be made to intact with space time the efficiency of converting the photon frequency to space time thrust may not be dismal.This is another one of those ideas that immediately brings up the question of how exactly you propose to do this, and why you think this could produce useful thrust.
No, what you just said is literally the exact opposite of what I said. Especially re-read where I added the bolding.QuoteI have explained this to you repeatedly: If you look at a photon reflecting off of a mirror from a variety of reference frames, you will see different results for the energy transfer and can find any answer you want from near 100% transfer of energy from the photon to the mirror, to frames where the mirror has high velocity towards the direction the photon is coming from, and the mirror transfers energy to the photon. All of these accurately describe the same event, and none of it is any different than photon rocket propulsion. (The basic kind without recycling, just a factor of 2 since it is an externally provided photon being reflected.) This is dictated by the principle of relativity, that the laws of physics do not depend on choice of inertial reference frame. The example with back holes only indicates the extreme amount of energy that is released in order to provide the high acceleration.
Good, so you agree that there can be efficient energy transfer from a photon to kinetic energy of a vehicle. This would effectively absorb up to 100% of the photons frequency to kinetic energy of a vehicle in a single collision. Much more efficient than propulsion by normal photons where almost all the energy resides entirely in the photon itself and no energy is transferred to the vehicle.
Different amounts of energy transfer in different reference frames is no different than noticing that if you are standing on your head you see objects falling up instead of down. The energy of the photon is different in different reference frames, because the frequency shifts thanks to the Lorentz transform. In frames where it transfers more energy, it had more energy to begin with, and also more momentum, but it loses some of the factor of 2 in the momentum transfer from the reflection, since it Doppler shifts upon reflection.
The actual frame invariant thing that defines the effective efficiency is the energy/momentum ratio of the photon, which is the same in all cases. The fact that any single instance of a photon reflecting off a mirror can have any energy transfer ratio you want just by picking a different, equally valid reference frame means that this metric is meaningless, no matter how much you insist on using it.
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/02/2019 06:13 pm
[No, what you just said is literally the exact opposite of what I said. Especially re-read where I added the bolding.QuoteI have explained this to you repeatedly: If you look at a photon reflecting off of a mirror from a variety of reference frames, you will see different results for the energy transfer and can find any answer you want from near 100% transfer of energy from the photon to the mirror, to frames where the mirror has high velocity towards the direction the photon is coming from, and the mirror transfers energy to the photon. All of these accurately describe the same event, and none of it is any different than photon rocket propulsion. (The basic kind without recycling, just a factor of 2 since it is an externally provided photon being reflected.) This is dictated by the principle of relativity, that the laws of physics do not depend on choice of inertial reference frame. The example with back holes only indicates the extreme amount of energy that is released in order to provide the high acceleration.
Good, so you agree that there can be efficient energy transfer from a photon to kinetic energy of a vehicle. This would effectively absorb up to 100% of the photons frequency to kinetic energy of a vehicle in a single collision. Much more efficient than propulsion by normal photons where almost all the energy resides entirely in the photon itself and no energy is transferred to the vehicle.
Different amounts of energy transfer in different reference frames is no different than noticing that if you are standing on your head you see objects falling up instead of down. The energy of the photon is different in different reference frames, because the frequency shifts thanks to the Lorentz transform. In frames where it transfers more energy, it had more energy to begin with, and also more momentum, but it loses some of the factor of 2 in the momentum transfer from the reflection, since it Doppler shifts upon reflection.
The actual frame invariant thing that defines the effective efficiency is the energy/momentum ratio of the photon, which is the same in all cases. The fact that any single instance of a photon reflecting off a mirror can have any energy transfer ratio you want just by picking a different, equally valid reference frame means that this metric is meaningless, no matter how much you insist on using it.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say? Are you saying no photon recycling scheme is worth doing no matter what?
Post by: meberbs on 08/02/2019 06:44 pm
I'm not sure what you are trying to say? Are you saying no photon recycling scheme is worth doing no matter what?I am not saying anything like that. Recycling photon rockets would work as demonstrated in the shared video, as long as you can deal with beam focus over long distances. For practical purposes, it would be best to generally anchor them to the moon, but then you are limited to accelerating away from the moon, which still has uses. (There are also some other potential applications though such as using a large LEO satellite as the momentum sink.)
Dustinthewind is also talking about other things including claims that a single reflection photon rocket is somehow more efficient when the mirror is moving at relativistic speeds, despite the fact that this is only a matter of perspective, and you can get any answer you want for the energy transfer by shifting reference frames, since any mirror is moving relativistically in some reference frame.
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/02/2019 07:25 pm
I'm not sure what you are trying to say? Are you saying no photon recycling scheme is worth doing no matter what?I am not saying anything like that. Recycling photon rockets would work as demonstrated in the shared video, as long as you can deal with beam focus over long distances. For practical purposes, it would be best to generally anchor them to the moon, but then you are limited to accelerating away from the moon, which still has uses. (There are also some other potential applications though such as using a large LEO satellite as the momentum sink.)
Dustinthewind is also talking about other things including claims that a single reflection photon rocket is somehow more efficient when the mirror is moving at relativistic speeds, despite the fact that this is only a matter of perspective, and you can get any answer you want for the energy transfer by shifting reference frames, since any mirror is moving relativistically in some reference frame.
Thanks. I see. Regarding relativistic moving mirrors, if the mirror is moving at virtually c wrt the beam source, it will convert nearly 100% of the beam energy into kinetic energy. Then, there will be virtually no reflected beam to get back to source where the other mirror is. If another observer moving at half c would say there is a reflected beam that gets back to the source, what if there is a bomb with a wavelength dependent trigger at the source? Some say it explodes, while some say it doesn't! Clearly, the event of the bomb exploding or not must be the same for all observers though at different times. The answer is that all observers would see that whatever their relative speed, the light is of such a frequency and the mirror is of such velocity that when the beam hits the mirror, it will be fully absorbed. In other words, they all see both different light characteristics and different mirror speeds but the same physics. So the two events of the light being absorbed and the bomb not exploding are universal to all observers.
Post by: meberbs on 08/02/2019 11:34 pm
Thanks. I see. Regarding relativistic moving mirrors, if the mirror is moving at virtually c wrt the beam source, it will convert nearly 100% of the beam energy into kinetic energy. Then, there will be virtually no reflected beam to get back to source where the other mirror is. If another observer moving at half c would say there is a reflected beam that gets back to the source, what if there is a bomb with a wavelength dependent trigger at the source? Some say it explodes, while some say it doesn't! Clearly, the event of the bomb exploding or not must be the same for all observers though at different times. The answer is that all observers would see that whatever their relative speed, the light is of such a frequency and the mirror is of such velocity that when the beam hits the mirror, it will be fully absorbed. In other words, they all see both different light characteristics and different mirror speeds but the same physics. So the two events of the light being absorbed and the bomb not exploding are universal to all observers.Close, but not quite.
Because of some combination of length contraction and time dilation, observers from different reference frames would disagree on the wavelength is required to trigger the bomb. Therefore if in whatever frame you like the observed "bomb trigger frequency" is equal to the frequency of the photon, than those things would be equal to each other in every frame. If any light is reflected at all, than there must be some light reflected in every frame, with the same number of photons but a different energy and frequency. Otherwise there could be no such thing as reflected light, and we know that mirrors exist.
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/02/2019 11:47 pm
Thanks. I see. Regarding relativistic moving mirrors, if the mirror is moving at virtually c wrt the beam source, it will convert nearly 100% of the beam energy into kinetic energy. Then, there will be virtually no reflected beam to get back to source where the other mirror is. If another observer moving at half c would say there is a reflected beam that gets back to the source, what if there is a bomb with a wavelength dependent trigger at the source? Some say it explodes, while some say it doesn't! Clearly, the event of the bomb exploding or not must be the same for all observers though at different times. The answer is that all observers would see that whatever their relative speed, the light is of such a frequency and the mirror is of such velocity that when the beam hits the mirror, it will be fully absorbed. In other words, they all see both different light characteristics and different mirror speeds but the same physics. So the two events of the light being absorbed and the bomb not exploding are universal to all observers.Close, but not quite.
Because of some combination of length contraction and time dilation, observers from different reference frames would disagree on the wavelength is required to trigger the bomb. Therefore if in whatever frame you like the observed "bomb trigger frequency" is equal to the frequency of the photon, than those things would be equal to each other in every frame. If any light is reflected at all, than there must be some light reflected in every frame, with the same number of photons but a different energy and frequency. Otherwise there could be no such thing as reflected light, and we know that mirrors exist.
I disagree. The wavelength that triggers the bomb was designed at a fixed value. It is invariant. Only that wavelength will trigger the bomb. Observers don't disagree about that. I think what you are missing is that it isn't the conditions as observed by an arbitrary viewer that matters, each one has to translate to the proper reference frame which is the reference frame where the bomb is. Then they will all agree on the frequency.
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/03/2019 12:15 am
In this image, the balance is configured to have the same torsional spring rate and oscillation period as the Fullerton-style torsional pendulum I have also built. This is so I can test the differences between hanging pendulums and dual flexure bearing pendulums.
Post by: meberbs on 08/03/2019 12:26 am
I disagree. The wavelength that triggers the bomb was designed at a fixed value. It is invariant. Only that wavelength will trigger the bomb. Observers don't disagree about that. I think what you are missing is that it isn't the conditions as observed by an arbitrary viewer that matters, each one has to translate to the proper reference frame which is the reference frame where the bomb is. Then they will all agree on the frequency.All of the observers can use the Lorentz transformation and do the calculation in the rest frame of the bomb, and compare to the frequency of the the light in the rest frame of the bomb, but that is missing the point.
You can do the calculations in any inertial frame you want, and you will always get that the bomb trigger frequency is the same as the frequency of the light in that frame. Whether or not the bomb explodes is a relativistic invariant. The frequency of any given photon is not an invariant. Similarly, the physical size of the bomb, and frequency of reference oscillators inside the bomb, etc are also not invariant.
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/03/2019 02:09 am
I disagree. The wavelength that triggers the bomb was designed at a fixed value. It is invariant. Only that wavelength will trigger the bomb. Observers don't disagree about that. I think what you are missing is that it isn't the conditions as observed by an arbitrary viewer that matters, each one has to translate to the proper reference frame which is the reference frame where the bomb is. Then they will all agree on the frequency.All of the observers can use the Lorentz transformation and do the calculation in the rest frame of the bomb, and compare to the frequency of the the light in the rest frame of the bomb, but that is missing the point.
You can do the calculations in any inertial frame you want, and you will always get that the bomb trigger frequency is the same as the frequency of the light in that frame. Whether or not the bomb explodes is a relativistic invariant. The frequency of any given photon is not an invariant. Similarly, the physical size of the bomb, and frequency of reference oscillators inside the bomb, etc are also not invariant.
Maybe it's just semantics, but while it's true that the size of the bomb along the direction of relative motion will be different as measured by different observers in motion, each will know the actual size of the bomb, and it's designed trigger frequency in the bombs frame and all will agree. If I write that frequency in big numbers on the bomb, observers may see those numbers narrowed but they will still see the same numbers I wrote. Likewise, it only matters what the frequency of light is relative to the bomb, not to any other observer. If I designed the bomb to explode with light at 5000A and it explodes, I know that the light was 5000A in the bombs frame regardless of what I measured it as in another frame, for instance as 6000A. I wouldn't then say the bomb exploded with a designed 6000A trigger just because in some frame I measure 6000A. I would say I'm observing relativistic distortions. The statement "you will always get that the bomb trigger frequency is the same as the frequency of the light in that frame." seems misleading. As I said, if had a visual display on the bomb of the frequency as the bomb sees it, it would always be seen as the same number in all frames. I didn't say that frequency is invariant.
Post by: demofsky on 08/03/2019 04:27 am
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29232/navys-advanced-aerospace-tech-boss-claims-key-ufo-patent-is-operable (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29232/navys-advanced-aerospace-tech-boss-claims-key-ufo-patent-is-operable)
The key thing for me in this article is NOT the alleged technology and implied physics, but rather the involvement of senior management within the US Navy (Naval Aviation Enterprise Chief Technology Officer Dr. James Sheehy) who states the patents are in fact “operable” in the context of patent law.
To me this is a clear tell that there is something very serious going on in the area of new physics for space flight. The article mentions videos showing high speed flying phenomena released by the US Navy and duly reported by the NY Times amongst others. The huge tell there was the fact that the videos were released with full chain of evidence documentation. Those videos literally could be used as legitimate evidence in a court of law.
The chain of evidence documentation must have had approval for release by senior management of the Navy.
So we essentially have official acknowledgement by the US Navy that new physics (of some sort) for aerospace applications exist and is in some sense operational. And they are being very sneaky about that acknowledgment.
Post by: dwheeler on 08/03/2019 05:00 am
Posting this here as a heads up and a follow up to an earlier article posted here as well. This is written from a skeptical perspective and covers all the bases from that view point.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29232/navys-advanced-aerospace-tech-boss-claims-key-ufo-patent-is-operable (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29232/navys-advanced-aerospace-tech-boss-claims-key-ufo-patent-is-operable)
The key thing for me in this article is NOT the alleged technology and implied physics, but rather the involvement of senior management within the US Navy (Naval Aviation Enterprise Chief Technology Officer Dr. James Sheehy) who states the patents are in fact “operable” in the context of patent law.
To me this is a clear tell that there is something very serious going on in the area of new physics for space flight. The article mentions videos showing high speed flying phenomena released by the US Navy and duly reported by the NY Times amongst others. The huge tell there was the fact that the videos were released with full chain of evidence documentation. Those videos literally could be used as legitimate evidence in a court of law.
The chain of evidence documentation must have had approval for release by senior management of the Navy.
So we essentially have official acknowledgement by the US Navy that new physics (of some sort) for aerospace applications exist and is in some sense operational. And they are being very sneaky about that acknowledgment.
I like this quote in the article from Dr. Mark Gubrud, a University of North Carolina physicist, in regards to these patents:
Quote
"Pais's patents flow as an intimidating river of mumbo-jumbo that most trained physicists would recognize as nonsense, although many might simply disengage in confusion, and there are always some who might even be credulous. Of what, however, is hard to say, as it is not really clear what Pais is even claiming, apart from the room-temperature superconductor which, if it were true, would be huge news.
"Pais deploys fairly sophisticated babble to make this sound plausible to those who know what real physics sounds like, but don't understand much of it. Which is likely to include most patent examiners, journalists, and Pais's own enablers in the Navy."
And then in regards to why the Navy CTO would vouch for these patents:
Quote
"I don't know why Sheehy defended Pais's patents. I am certain it's not because they really make some kind of sense. I suspect the story is just one professional charlatan who has embedded himself in the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, plus one or a few supervisors he's managed to fool..."
Post by: demofsky on 08/03/2019 07:26 am
Quote
Sheehy assures the examiner that he is “well versed in the generation of electromagnetic fields, high temperature super conductivity, and physics in general.” Note, too, the last line: Sheehy’s declaration was made with the knowledge that false statements to the USPTO are punishable by fine or imprisonment.
Sheehy’s letter was accompanied by a statement from Naval Aviation Enterprise attorney Mark Glut in which Glut states that “Sheehy states the invention is operable and enabled, thus overcoming both rejections."
So not only management but also a Navy lawyer. Also, Pais would not be directly supervised by the CTO but by the individual organization Pais was employed by. Large organization, different bureaucracies. In that kind of context folks sticking their necks out legally like this need significant motivation.
Also, where does “well versed in the generation of electromagnetic fields, high temperature super conductivity” fit into the typical skill set of Naval Aviation? ??? ???
Post by: meberbs on 08/03/2019 08:34 am
I didn't say that frequency is invariant.
You literally did. The wavelength and the frequency are related by wavelength*frequency = c, where c is the universal constant speed of light. You said:
I disagree. The wavelength that triggers the bomb was designed at a fixed value. It is invariant. Only that wavelength will trigger the bomb.The wavelength in the rest frame would be fixed, but the definition of an invariant is something that does not change with reference frame. While everyone would agree what a digital read out would say, and would all agree that the on-board reference oscillators are calibrated correctly in the bomb's rest frame, the oscillators would not be calibrated correctly in any of the other frames due to time dilation. Time dilation is a very real effect, not just some illusion or semantics.
Again, the original point of my posts was that when dustinthewind says "hey look how much more energy gets transferred from a massless particle to something massive when the object is moving relativistically." The statement is not helpful, because it does not change the invariant ratio of photon momentum and energy, the photon just has different energy in different frames. And literally any such interaction can be viewed either in the rest frame or in a fast moving relativistic frame. Based on your posts, I don't think you disagree with this.
Post by: meberbs on 08/03/2019 09:03 am
From the same article:Serious question: Does anyone know who to call to get Sheehy investigated for fraudulent statements?QuoteSheehy assures the examiner that he is “well versed in the generation of electromagnetic fields, high temperature super conductivity, and physics in general.” Note, too, the last line: Sheehy’s declaration was made with the knowledge that false statements to the USPTO are punishable by fine or imprisonment.
Sheehy’s letter was accompanied by a statement from Naval Aviation Enterprise attorney Mark Glut in which Glut states that “Sheehy states the invention is operable and enabled, thus overcoming both rejections."
So not only management but also a Navy lawyer. Also, Pais would not be directly supervised by the CTO but by the individual organization Pais was employed by. Large organization, different bureaucracies. In that kind of context folks sticking their necks out legally like this need significant motivation.
Also, where does “well versed in the generation of electromagnetic fields, high temperature super conductivity” fit into the typical skill set of Naval Aviation? ??? ???
Anyone who actually understands the definition of a superconductor and reads Pais' patent would understand that Pais' patent does not describe a superconductor. Also, none of the background he lists as evidence of his understanding of superconductivity actually has any direct relevance to superconductivity. Also, he falsely claims that the paper was peer reviewed, and the article points out that this was not true.
Note, I am not saying that he is guilty, maybe he just overestimates his own competence, and genuinely didn't know that the paper had not passed a peer review.
Post by: flux_capacitor on 08/03/2019 11:51 am
Also, where does “well versed in the generation of electromagnetic fields, high temperature super conductivity” fit into the typical skill set of Naval Aviation? ??? ???
Unlike Salvatore Pais (who we know is a real person but has not released much information about him publicly), Dr James Sheehy's full resume is available online:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/james-sheehy-28437a8/
He's been in NAVAIR for 34 years. CTO since 2008. Career began in 1985 in optics (human physiology, lenses, lasers, nonlinear materials). Graduated in these topics from the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and PennState University. Mainly skilled in optics (obviously), aerospace R&D, systems engineering, program management. Could he be fooled that much by an employee with a nonsense patent AND a working prototype?! (remember he insisted with the word "operable").
Notably, from his last position in the organization chart:
Quote
(https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/C5603AQHVhGHMAAKccg/profile-displayphoto-shrink_800_800/0?e=1570060800&v=beta&t=j8ULowAyaP08tlSeQrkr1rHn43QzB-Y_VvRKBE7cIq0)
James Sheehy
Chief Technology Officer Naval Aviation Enterprise
April 2008 – Today
Main Location Patuxent River MD
Dr. Sheehy is the Chief Technology Officer for the Naval Aviation Enterprise. He is NAVAIR’s Chief Scientist / CTO and tech authority, and spokesperson for all basic, applied, advanced research and transition.
Dr. Sheehy was selected to the Senior Executive Service in November 2001 and was awarded the Presidential Rank Award for sustained superior accomplishments in 2007.
He began in 1985 conducting research in the areas of visual performance. In 1990, he became the head of the Vision Laboratory, directing / managing Naval & Joint Service programs. In 1995, he became NAVAIR Chief Scientist -research encompassed high / low light resolution, night vision devices, nonlinear optics and materials. He led 29 efforts with combined funding > 131M.
Selected in 2008 as the Chief Technology Officer for the Naval Aviation Enterprise encompassing all science and technology. As CTO he oversees and advocates the selection of S&T for the NAE and DCA for the Marine Corp. Dr. Sheehy’s demonstrated expertise in advancing and improving the full spectrum by identifying capability gaps and supporting S&T objectives (STOs) supported by near, mid, and far term quantifiable metrics embodied in the STO document. The document currently identifies10 capability gaps with 33 supporting STOs road mapped to programs of record with known funding and TRL levels. The portfolio currently includes 909 projects, ~3000 archived projects with a total investment in excess of 1B. Total Ownership Cost, Energy, and Rapid Response & People underlyall STOs.
He developed a Core Capability Document identifies the core capabilities of each department rated by projects, skill sets, and infrastructure - strategic, prioritized needs base document of critical areas. This moved the NAE from a reactive to a proactive organization that can clearly articulate needs and importance. Dr. Sheehy oversees workforce development adding > 60 advanced degrees per year to grow the critical skill sets.
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/03/2019 05:40 pm
I didn't say that frequency is invariant.
You literally did. The wavelength and the frequency are related by wavelength*frequency = c, where c is the universal constant speed of light. You said:I disagree. The wavelength that triggers the bomb was designed at a fixed value. It is invariant. Only that wavelength will trigger the bomb.The wavelength in the rest frame would be fixed, but the definition of an invariant is something that does not change with reference frame. While everyone would agree what a digital read out would say, and would all agree that the on-board reference oscillators are calibrated correctly in the bomb's rest frame, the oscillators would not be calibrated correctly in any of the other frames due to time dilation. Time dilation is a very real effect, not just some illusion or semantics.
Again, the original point of my posts was that when dustinthewind says "hey look how much more energy gets transferred from a massless particle to something massive when the object is moving relativistically." The statement is not helpful, because it does not change the invariant ratio of photon momentum and energy, the photon just has different energy in different frames. And literally any such interaction can be viewed either in the rest frame or in a fast moving relativistic frame. Based on your posts, I don't think you disagree with this.
The device was designed to trigger at a given frequency. That fact is as invariant as the rest mass of an electron is invariant and I mean it in the same sense. If I call it the "rest frequency" will that satisfy you? If I fly by you and measure your thickness as 1cm it would be unhelpful to discuss the biology of flat humans bodies because in reality your rest body is not flat.
I don't disagree with your comments on Dust's statement but still, it is not as important that "one can find" a reference frame to observe what you want as it is in that case that the relative velocity between the beam and the mirror is near c. In that case the efficiency of energy transfer is near 100%. Consider a hypothetical (unpractical) case where the mirror vibrates against the beam to create relativistic relative velocities. Then the coupling would be very high.
I don't think we really disagree very much here but are emphasizing different points.
Post by: meberbs on 08/03/2019 06:25 pm
I don't disagree with your comments on Dust's statement but still, it is not as important that "one can find" a reference frame to observe what you want as it is in that case that the relative velocity between the beam and the mirror is near c. In that case the efficiency of energy transfer is near 100%.I don't get what you are even trying to say here. If you don't disagree with my original point, then this entire conversation seems to be just a waste of time. I also don't get what you mean by the "case that the relative velocity between the beam and the mirror is near c." That case is always the case, because there is always an inertial reference frame moving at near c relative to any given mirror, and a beam of light moves at c in every reference frame. Your example of a vibrating mirror is just entirely changing the question.
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/03/2019 06:38 pm
I don't disagree with your comments on Dust's statement but still, it is not as important that "one can find" a reference frame to observe what you want as it is in that case that the relative velocity between the beam and the mirror is near c. In that case the efficiency of energy transfer is near 100%.I don't get what you are even trying to say here. If you don't disagree with my original point, then this entire conversation seems to be just a waste of time. I also don't get what you mean by the "case that the relative velocity between the beam and the mirror is near c." That case is always the case, because there is always an inertial reference frame moving at near c relative to any given mirror, and a beam of light moves at c in every reference frame. Your example of a vibrating mirror is just entirely changing the question.
Your point seems to be there is always a reference frame moving close to c wrt the mirror. True. But is there a laser beam always there too? There's also always a reference frame where my favorite pitchers pitches are well over 100mph. And where I'm as thin as I want to be. Unfortunately, I can't find a frame where I get rich as well. :(
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/03/2019 07:55 pm
I'm not sure what you are trying to say? Are you saying no photon recycling scheme is worth doing no matter what?I am not saying anything like that. Recycling photon rockets would work as demonstrated in the shared video, as long as you can deal with beam focus over long distances. For practical purposes, it would be best to generally anchor them to the moon, but then you are limited to accelerating away from the moon, which still has uses. (There are also some other potential applications though such as using a large LEO satellite as the momentum sink.)
Dustinthewind is also talking about other things including claims that a single reflection photon rocket is somehow more efficient when the mirror is moving at relativistic speeds, despite the fact that this is only a matter of perspective, and you can get any answer you want for the energy transfer by shifting reference frames, since any mirror is moving relativistically in some reference frame.
the only time it's more efficient is when the object is moving toward the photon in which case the photon is more blue-shifted. This increases the photons effective mass. As you approach the speed of light the photon can continue increasing an effective Mass increasing the effective exchange of energy. I don't believe the Doppler effect has anything to do with the percentage of energy absorbed because it's just absorption and remission translation. I think it has to do with the effective masses involved.
If the object is traveling away from the approaching photon, the photon can be redshifted decreasing its effective mass and decreasing the effect of the push of the photon
Post by: meberbs on 08/03/2019 08:36 pm
the only time it's more efficient is when the object is moving toward the photon in which case the photon is more blue-shifted. This increases the photons effective mass. As you approach the speed of light the photon can continue increasing an effective Mass increasing the effective exchange of energy. I don't believe the Doppler effect has anything to do with the percentage of energy absorbed because it's just absorption and remission translation. I think it has to do with the effective masses involved.Please read the post immediately above yours from Bob12345. Physics is independent of reference frame, so the same exact event can be described in a frame where the mirror is moving towards or away from the direction of the incoming photon. What actually happens is the same in all reference frames even though the energy numbers are different, so claiming "more efficiency" because the amount of energy transfer is different in a different frame does not make sense.
If the object is traveling away from the approaching photon, the photon can be redshifted decreasing its effective mass and decreasing the effect of the push of the photon
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/03/2019 09:42 pm
I am not aware of claiming more efficiency because of some frame translation.the only time it's more efficient is when the object is moving toward the photon in which case the photon is more blue-shifted. This increases the photons effective mass. As you approach the speed of light the photon can continue increasing an effective Mass increasing the effective exchange of energy. I don't believe the Doppler effect has anything to do with the percentage of energy absorbed because it's just absorption and remission translation. I think it has to do with the effective masses involved.Please read the post immediately above yours from Bob12345. Physics is independent of reference frame, so the same exact event can be described in a frame where the mirror is moving towards or away from the direction of the incoming photon. What actually happens is the same in all reference frames even though the energy numbers are different, so claiming "more efficiency" because the amount of energy transfer is different in a different frame does not make sense.
If the object is traveling away from the approaching photon, the photon can be redshifted decreasing its effective mass and decreasing the effect of the push of the photon
The only frame I am concerned with is the frame of the mirror, which observes an incoming photon having some effective mass. Everything else is just frame translation which should all agree with the
frame of the physicall interaction.
Post by: meberbs on 08/03/2019 10:05 pm
I am not aware of claiming more efficiency because of some frame translation.
If electrons can be made to intact with space time the efficiency of converting the photon frequency to space time thrust may not be dismal. I am also not convinced that warping of space time as propulsion is a dismal form of propulsion. In fact it is suspected asymmetrically orbiting black holes may effectively propel themselves out of their own host galaxy by asymmetrically emitted gravity waves and I was reading relativistic objects could absorb as much as 10% of the energy of a space time wave passing by, which is much greater than the % of energy absorbed from a photon impact at normal velocities.Emphasis added. You claimed that relativistic objects have a high absorption ratio of energy, but the only special thing about a relativistic object is that you aren't looking at it in its rest frame, but in a frame where it is moving rapidly.
This is not the first time you have made this claim, and it is not the first time that I have explained that you are not making sense:
A wave exchanging 10% of its kinetic energy with a relativistic object is way more effecient. Its effecient because its the relativistic objects that emit and absorb effectively.
The only frame I am concerned with is the frame of the mirror, which observes an incoming photon having some effective mass. Everything else is just frame translation which should all agree with theIf you are only concerned about the rest frame, (which is a good frame to choose, since it usually makes calculations easier) then why do you keep insisting on discussing the energy transfer ratio for relativistic objects which by definition are objects that you are not observing from their rest frame?
frame of the physicall interaction.
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/03/2019 10:08 pm
I am not aware of claiming more efficiency because of some frame translation.If electrons can be made to intact with space time the efficiency of converting the photon frequency to space time thrust may not be dismal. I am also not convinced that warping of space time as propulsion is a dismal form of propulsion. In fact it is suspected asymmetrically orbiting black holes may effectively propel themselves out of their own host galaxy by asymmetrically emitted gravity waves and I was reading relativistic objects could absorb as much as 10% of the energy of a space time wave passing by, which is much greater than the % of energy absorbed from a photon impact at normal velocities.Emphasis added. You claimed that relativistic objects have a high absorption ratio of energy, but the only special thing about a relativistic object is that you aren't looking at it in its rest frame, but in a frame where it is moving rapidly.
This is not the first time you have made this claim, and it is not the first time that I have explained that you are not making sense:A wave exchanging 10% of its kinetic energy with a relativistic object is way more effecient. Its effecient because its the relativistic objects that emit and absorb effectively.The only frame I am concerned with is the frame of the mirror, which observes an incoming photon having some effective mass. Everything else is just frame translation which should all agree with theIf you are only concerned about the rest frame, (which is a good frame to choose, since it usually makes calculations easier) then why do you keep insisting on discussing the energy transfer ratio for relativistic objects which by definition are objects that you are not observing from their rest frame?
frame of the physicall interaction.
because as I already stated the quality of a cavity is necessary to increase the energy transfer process. The combustion engine won't work properly if you don't have high pressure increasing the quality by increasing atomic collisions. the recycling photon rocket won't work properly if you don't have enough recycled photon reflections.
The other process is by coupling and decoupling of space-time in a recycled fashion such that those particles repeatedly interact with space-time in one direction.
similar to asymmetrically decelerating black holes that emit their energy in one direction but in a recycled fashion. Enhanced by the energy storage of a cavity with a large quality.
Post by: meberbs on 08/03/2019 10:47 pm
because as I already stated the quality of a cavity is necessary to increase the energy transfer process. The combustion engine won't work properly if you don't have high pressure increasing the quality by increasing atomic collisions. the recycling photon rocket won't work properly if you don't have enough recycled photon reflections.You are changing the subject and mixing unrelated things.
As I already stated there are major flaws in your combustion engine analogy, in part related to the fact that your descriptions of combustion engines have not been particularly accurate.
The real key with a recycling photon rocket is that you are pushing off of an external object, so it doesn't have any relevance for a self-contained cavity, which would be stuck thanks to equal and opposite forces.
None of what you just said actually addresses the part where you have repeatedly keep trying to compare very-much-not-rest-frame relativistic objects to the calculations done in the rest frame of an object.
The other process is by coupling and decoupling of space-time in a recycled fashion such that those particles repeatedly interact with space-time in one direction.Nothing in this quote makes any sense to me. Again, recycling photon rockets only work because there is a mirror on another object that they are pushing against. Black holes emitting radiation preferentially in one direction only gives them photon rocket equivalent levels of thrust, they just use absurdly huge amounts of energy. Nothing "recycling" about that. Plenty of electromagnetic systems radiate preferentially in one direction. The bit about "coupling and decoupling of space-time" still sounds like you are saying "wave a magic wand and temporarily change the laws of physics." To fix this, you need to explain what specifically you propose doing in terms of directions that someone would be able to follow.
similar to asymmetrically decelerating black holes that emit their energy in one direction but in a recycled fashion. Enhanced by the energy storage of a cavity with a large quality.
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/04/2019 05:38 am
In a combustion engine the car as an effective mass via the connected receding cylinder, gear ratio, and all the physically connected parts. In the recycled photon thruster which increases efficiency by is small mass and many cycles. By changing the Lorentz factor of an object and pulling on it you accelerate its effective mass. But what is its effective mass? It's space-time.because as I already stated the quality of a cavity is necessary to increase the energy transfer process. The combustion engine won't work properly if you don't have high pressure increasing the quality by increasing atomic collisions. the recycling photon rocket won't work properly if you don't have enough recycled photon reflections.You are changing the subject and mixing unrelated things.
As I already stated there are major flaws in your combustion engine analogy, in part related to the fact that your descriptions of combustion engines have not been particularly accurate.
The real key with a recycling photon rocket is that you are pushing off of an external object, so it doesn't have any relevance for a self-contained cavity, which would be stuck thanks to equal and opposite forces.
None of what you just said actually addresses the part where you have repeatedly keep trying to compare very-much-not-rest-frame relativistic objects to the calculations done in the rest frame of an object.
Quote
The other process is by coupling and decoupling of space-time in a recycled fashion such that those particles repeatedly interact with space-time in one direction.Nothing in this quote makes any sense to me. Again, recycling photon rockets only work because there is a mirror on another object that they are pushing against. Black holes emitting radiation preferentially in one direction only gives them photon rocket equivalent levels of thrust, they just use absurdly huge amounts of energy. Nothing "recycling" about that. Plenty of electromagnetic systems radiate preferentially in one direction. The bit about "coupling and decoupling of space-time" still sounds like you are saying "wave a magic wand and temporarily change the laws of physics." To fix this, you need to explain what specifically you propose doing in terms of directions that someone would be able to follow.
similar to asymmetrically decelerating black holes that emit their energy in one direction but in a recycled fashion. Enhanced by the energy storage of a cavity with a large quality.
Black holes rapidly slow down at the last leg. Why the sudden deceleration or rapid slowing? Because they speed up, and more rapidly accelerate. They suddenly couple better. It's like applying the clutch and increasing the change in effective mass via increased friction. The larger the mass you throw off the more efficient the exchange of kinetic energy (as we know from newtons cradle 100% at equal mass) - or with combustion engines if you can't change the effective mass of the molecules you increase the cycles, such that kinetic energy is gradually exchanged before its wasted as heat.
Post by: meberbs on 08/04/2019 06:11 am
In a combustion engine the car as an effective mass via the connected receding cylinder, gear ratio, and all the physically connected parts. In the recycled photon thruster which increases efficiency by is small mass and many cycles. By changing the Lorentz factor of an object and pulling on it you accelerate its effective mass. But what is its effective mass? It's space-time.None of what you said here is even remotely coherent. It literally doesn't even mean anything to claim that effective mass is space-time. That isn't even wrong, it is just word salad.
And again, when asked to explain one thing you change the subject. Now you are making nonsensical claims about black holes suddenly slowing down, and making up your own gibberish explanation for why that happens rather than acknowledging that the source you originally provided that describes the deceleration of a newly merged black hole also describes how and why it happens.QuoteThe other process is by coupling and decoupling of space-time in a recycled fashion such that those particles repeatedly interact with space-time in one direction.Nothing in this quote makes any sense to me. Again, recycling photon rockets only work because there is a mirror on another object that they are pushing against. Black holes emitting radiation preferentially in one direction only gives them photon rocket equivalent levels of thrust, they just use absurdly huge amounts of energy. Nothing "recycling" about that. Plenty of electromagnetic systems radiate preferentially in one direction. The bit about "coupling and decoupling of space-time" still sounds like you are saying "wave a magic wand and temporarily change the laws of physics." To fix this, you need to explain what specifically you propose doing in terms of directions that someone would be able to follow.
similar to asymmetrically decelerating black holes that emit their energy in one direction but in a recycled fashion. Enhanced by the energy storage of a cavity with a large quality.
Black holes rapidly slow down at the last leg. Why the sudden deceleration or rapid slowing? Because they speed up, and more rapidly accelerate. They suddenly couple better. It's like applying the clutch and increasing the change in effective mass via increased friction. The larger the mass you throw off the more efficient the exchange of kinetic energy (as we know from newtons cradle 100% at equal mass) - or with combustion engines if you can't change the effective mass of the molecules you increase the cycles, such that kinetic energy is gradually exchanged before its wasted as heat.
https://physics.aps.org/story/v25/st22
It is not because someone is going around with a magic wand changing coupling factors, it is because the newly merged black hole is still asymmetric shortly after it forms, and it emits additional gravitational waves which will tend to be in the opposite direction from the initial set of gravitational waves from the merger. You are the one who originally cited those results, but you immediately started making claims contrary to the results you cited. This is extremely inappropriate academic behavior.
I am not going to address the details of your combustion engine analogy, because it has no relevance whatsoever to this situation.
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/04/2019 01:09 pm
In a combustion engine the car as an effective mass via the connected receding cylinder, gear ratio, and all the physically connected parts. In the recycled photon thruster which increases efficiency by is small mass and many cycles. By changing the Lorentz factor of an object and pulling on it you accelerate its effective mass. But what is its effective mass? It's space-time.
You seem to be doing your best to discourage research into the area of propellantless drive.
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/04/2019 02:05 pm
You have already claimed yourself they throw off solar masses of energy in the form of space time waves. That effective mass/energy is stored in the warping of space time between two separated black holes. That stored energy has effective mass. They throw off their effective mass and velocity they would gain via the Lorentz factor because they lose energy/mass generating space time waves. That's why they merge.In a combustion engine the car as an effective mass via the connected receding cylinder, gear ratio, and all the physically connected parts. In the recycled photon thruster which increases efficiency by is small mass and many cycles. By changing the Lorentz factor of an object and pulling on it you accelerate its effective mass. But what is its effective mass? It's space-time.None of what you said here is even remotely coherent. It literally doesn't even mean anything to claim that effective mass is space-time. That isn't even wrong, it is just word salad.
...
Do you really think assymetrically emitted gravity waves could propell a black hole system out of its host Galaxy or even slow them selves down with something that has no effective mass?
Post by: Ricvil on 08/04/2019 03:02 pm
You have already claimed yourself they throw off solar masses of energy in the form of space time waves. That effective mass/energy is stored in the warping of space time between two separated black holes. That stored energy has effective mass. They throw off their effective mass and velocity they would gain via the Lorentz factor because they lose energy/mass generating space time waves. That's why they merge.In a combustion engine the car as an effective mass via the connected receding cylinder, gear ratio, and all the physically connected parts. In the recycled photon thruster which increases efficiency by is small mass and many cycles. By changing the Lorentz factor of an object and pulling on it you accelerate its effective mass. But what is its effective mass? It's space-time.None of what you said here is even remotely coherent. It literally doesn't even mean anything to claim that effective mass is space-time. That isn't even wrong, it is just word salad.
...
Do you really think assymetrically emitted gravity waves could propell a black hole system out of its host Galaxy or even slow them selves down with something that has no effective mass?
A stored negative effective density of energy?
Post by: meberbs on 08/04/2019 03:35 pm
You have already claimed yourself they throw off solar masses of energy in the form of space time waves. That effective mass/energy is stored in the warping of space time between two separated black holes. That stored energy has effective mass. They throw off their effective mass and velocity they would gain via the Lorentz factor because they lose energy/mass generating space time waves. That's why they merge.In a combustion engine the car as an effective mass via the connected receding cylinder, gear ratio, and all the physically connected parts. In the recycled photon thruster which increases efficiency by is small mass and many cycles. By changing the Lorentz factor of an object and pulling on it you accelerate its effective mass. But what is its effective mass? It's space-time.None of what you said here is even remotely coherent. It literally doesn't even mean anything to claim that effective mass is space-time. That isn't even wrong, it is just word salad.
...
In GR you have to be extra careful with the GR equivalent of gravitational potential energy, it does not work the same way as other forms of energy, and lumping all forms of mass-energy into it is wrong, and equating the special relativity kinetic energy contribution with space-time is even more wrong.
You keep making adding assertions like "That effective mass/energy is stored in the warping of space time between two separated black holes." It is not so simple as that. For a rotating system of 2 black holes before they merge, they have rotational kinetic energy, which unlike the linear kinetic energy of a system viewed from an arbitrary reference frame, the rotational kinetic energy has a minimum value even in the center of energy frame (relativistic equivalent of center of mass rest frame.) Any energy radiated away comes from energy like this that all frames can agree on. In moving frames, the radiated gravitational waves would be Doppler shifted by the frame change, changing their energy, and at the same time, the different initial speed of the black hole change the delta kinetic energy needed, by an amount that matches the difference in energy of the gravitational waves, maintaining consistency like any other transfer of momentum and energy does when you change frames.
Do you really think assymetrically emitted gravity waves could propell a black hole system out of its host Galaxy or even slow them selves down with something that has no effective mass?"Effective mass" is a term that you keep using in various ways, and doesn't seem to have a consistent defintion from you. Mass-energy is mass-energy. In some frames, an object is moving faster than in others, therefore in those frames it has more energy, which means more mass. This is a real thing, not just some "effective" value, but it is frame dependent. In the rest frame of an object, the value of its mass-energy in that frame is called the rest mass. Massless particles exist that do not have any rest mass at all, but they still have energy, because they always move at the speed of light. There is no such thing as a rest frame for massless particles. Things therefore can slow themselves down by emitting massless particles, and when they do, they use real energy that comes from their existing mass-energy.
Post by: JonathanD on 08/05/2019 02:30 pm
So we essentially have official acknowledgement by the US Navy that new physics (of some sort) for aerospace applications exist and is in some sense operational. And they are being very sneaky about that acknowledgment.
Doesn't make sense, unless:
"With all this in mind, it's certainly possible that these patents are part of some ongoing information campaign designed to make America’s competitors question what types of black budget research is currently underway at NAWCAD and other research organizations."
Post by: RotoSequence on 08/05/2019 02:35 pm
In a combustion engine the car as an effective mass via the connected receding cylinder, gear ratio, and all the physically connected parts. In the recycled photon thruster which increases efficiency by is small mass and many cycles. By changing the Lorentz factor of an object and pulling on it you accelerate its effective mass. But what is its effective mass? It's space-time.
You seem to be doing your best to discourage research into the area of propellantless drive.
As things stand, perhaps the most important tenet of physics is that energy is conserved. Every physical description of a propellant-less propulsion scheme either violates it directly, or contradicts known experimental results. No one has managed to avoid this, and no one has demonstrated a device that irrefutably produces thrust. After seven years of this on NSF alone, can you blame him?
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/05/2019 05:09 pm
So we essentially have official acknowledgement by the US Navy that new physics (of some sort) for aerospace applications exist and is in some sense operational. And they are being very sneaky about that acknowledgment.
Doesn't make sense, unless:
"With all this in mind, it's certainly possible that these patents are part of some ongoing information campaign designed to make America’s competitors question what types of black budget research is currently underway at NAWCAD and other research organizations."
Or it could just be a case of the Emperor's New Clothes. No one in the Navy hierarchy is willing to challenge the inventor's extremely non-conventional ideas. The High Frequency Gravitational Wave Generator patent describes a kind of "Death Star" technology capable of destroying an entire planet like Earth "which may be achieved with the concept at hand". The bigger question for me is why, even with some pressure, the USPTO is still allowing them?
Post by: trm14 on 08/05/2019 07:46 pm
So we essentially have official acknowledgement by the US Navy that new physics (of some sort) for aerospace applications exist and is in some sense operational. And they are being very sneaky about that acknowledgment.
Doesn't make sense, unless:
"With all this in mind, it's certainly possible that these patents are part of some ongoing information campaign designed to make America’s competitors question what types of black budget research is currently underway at NAWCAD and other research organizations."
That patent seems just too silly to be useful as disinformation.
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/08/2019 02:19 pm
In a combustion engine the car as an effective mass via the connected receding cylinder, gear ratio, and all the physically connected parts. In the recycled photon thruster which increases efficiency by is small mass and many cycles. By changing the Lorentz factor of an object and pulling on it you accelerate its effective mass. But what is its effective mass? It's space-time.
You seem to be doing your best to discourage research into the area of propellantless drive.
As things stand, perhaps the most important tenet of physics is that energy is conserved. Every physical description of a propellant-less propulsion scheme either violates it directly, or contradicts known experimental results. No one has managed to avoid this, and no one has demonstrated a device that irrefutably produces thrust. After seven years of this on NSF alone, can you blame him?
Well, I suspect that as with the recycled photon thruster, the newtons/kilowatt would go up as you increase the disparity in effective mass of the electrons (assymetric), and the more energy you can dissipate from the photons as thrust before they are exhausted as heat. The more energy you can store the larger the disparity in effective mass. You would be looking for a change in frequency, and that change in frequency would be efficiency of thrust conversion. Similar to escaping gas exhausting from a combustion cylinder being cooler, via efficiency, but also requiring more thermal energy (stored energy in the cavity) to increase torque or thrust.
The recycled photon thruster has better than photon thrust.
There might be some mechanism which reduces effective thrust when moving near the speed of light with respect to the local vacuum which you are pushing off, which is moving away at near the speed of light at near c velocity.
Post by: meberbs on 08/08/2019 03:06 pm
Well, I suspect that as with the recycled photon thruster, the newtons/kilowatt would go up as you increase the disparity in effective mass of the electrons (assymetric), and the more energy you can dissipate from the photons as thrust before they are exhausted as heat. The more energy you can store the larger the disparity in effective mass. You would be looking for a change in frequency, and that change in frequency would be efficiency of thrust conversion. Similar to escaping gas exhausting from a combustion cylinder being cooler, via efficiency, but also requiring more thermal energy (stored energy in the cavity) to increase torque or thrust.Again, you are waving around the phrase "effective mass" like some kind of magic variable that you can change at will just by wishing it. Please take a look at my previous post where I explained the actual terms related to mass that have real definitions.
The recycled photon thruster has better than photon thrust.As has been stated before, this is because it is just using the photons as an intermediary to push off of another object that has non-zero rest mass. Please stop looking for magic explanations for this. Nothing about that allows for a closed cavity containing electrodynamic waves to accelerate arbitrarily in one direction (the topic of this thread.)
There might be some mechanism which reduces effective thrust when moving near the speed of light with respect to the local vacuum which you are pushing off, which is moving away at near the speed of light at near c velocity.No, such a mechanism would violate the principle of relativity. It makes no sense to say that you are moving at high speed relative to the vacuum. A recycling photon rocket has a term proportional to the difference in velocity between the spacecraft and whatever the mirror on the other side is attached to. This is related to the Doppler shift, and is a real effect as it depends on the velocity difference between 2 physical objects, not a one sided, frame-dependent velocity.
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/09/2019 04:40 pm
There might be some mechanism which reduces effective thrust when moving near the speed of light with respect to the local vacuum which you are pushing off, which is moving away at near the speed of light at near c velocity.No, such a mechanism would violate the principle of relativity. It makes no sense to say that you are moving at high speed relative to the vacuum. A recycling photon rocket has a term proportional to the difference in velocity between the spacecraft and whatever the mirror on the other side is attached to. This is related to the Doppler shift, and is a real effect as it depends on the velocity difference between 2 physical objects, not a one sided, frame-dependent velocity.
The local vacuum is presumed to be always the same regardless of relative speed to some other frame. But in practice there is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation which appears pretty uniform after local redshifts and blueshifts are corrected out of the data so we know there seems to be a unique CMBR frame (this is not a violation of Special Relativity). Earth frame isn't too fast wrt CMBR but that implies a ship launched from this frame traveling at relativistic speeds would see quite an anisotropic CMBR. But I'm not proposing a CMBR drive or anything..... :)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
Post by: mikegem on 08/10/2019 03:07 am
[/quote]
No, such a mechanism would violate the principle of relativity. It makes no sense to say that you are moving at high speed relative to the vacuum. A recycling photon rocket has a term proportional to the difference in velocity between the spacecraft and whatever the mirror on the other side is attached to. This is related to the Doppler shift, and is a real effect as it depends on the velocity difference between 2 physical objects, not a one sided, frame-dependent velocity.
[/quote]
My apologies if my question is too far off-topic.
Regarding moving at high speed relative to the vacuum - that would certainly seem to violate relativity.
However, the dynamical Casimir effect (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/424111/first-observation-of-the-dynamical-casimir-effect/) would seem to depend on velocity relative to the vacuum, specifically the speed of the SQUID electromagnetic mirror relative to its immediate local vacuum.If velocity is zero, no photons are seen. If velocity is significant (~ 5% C) the investigators find microwave photons.
This experimental result confuses me regarding absence of preferred frames, etc. Can you elucidate? Thank you.
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/11/2019 02:20 am
http://www.emdrive.com/EmDriveForceMeasurement.pdf
Quote
The most important point to be made, is that to measure force, the cavity must experience acceleration. In a fully restrained cavity, thrust and reaction force cancel out.
Cavity static = no thrust.
Cavity accelerated via initial external force providing big to small acceleration = thrust generation.
Why?
Initial initial force application generates differential cavity Doppler shift, causing differential radiation pressure triggering initial thrust. Then differential radiation pressure causes self generated acceleration & Doppler shift.
Not aware of any EmDrive replicator that has read this note, understood what it reveals & adopted their test rig to provide the external initial acceleration force.
Post by: meberbs on 08/11/2019 05:04 am
Initial initial force application generates differential cavity Doppler shift, causing differential radiation pressure triggering initial thrust. Then differential radiation pressure causes self generated acceleration & Doppler shift.For a change you are touching on a real effect. If a cavity is accelerating there will be a differential Doppler shift, however, the net result of this is for more radiation pressure to be applied to the cavity wall on the "back" of the device, which means the additional radiation pressure is in the opposite direction as the acceleration. This means that the only thing this force does is resist externally applied accelerations. Also, since this is a real effect, its magnitude can be determined. It is obviously proportional to the amount of acceleration the cavity is experiencing, and it turns out that it is simply equivalent to increasing the cavity's mass by an amount equal to E/c^2 where E is the total electromagnetic energy stored in the cavity. The specific value is not a coincidence, because it simply represents the fact that Energy and mass are equivalent, and if an external force is pushing on the cavity, it also has to push on the photons too. This is extremely small, and completely undetectable in any reasonable experiment.
Not aware of any EmDrive replicator that has read this note, understood what it reveals & adopted their test rig to provide the external initial acceleration force.As described above this effect cannot logically even produce a useful force, so there is nothing to account for. Also, among all of the times you have made this or similar claims, you have never once specified a numerical threshold for what this means, despite being asked to repeatedly. As it stands this is just a made up rule, and you and Shawyer seem to just arbitrarily apply it to experiments where you don't like the result.
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/11/2019 02:08 pm
In a combustion engine the car as an effective mass via the connected receding cylinder, gear ratio, and all the physically connected parts. In the recycled photon thruster which increases efficiency by is small mass and many cycles. By changing the Lorentz factor of an object and pulling on it you accelerate its effective mass. But what is its effective mass? It's space-time.
You seem to be doing your best to discourage research into the area of propellantless drive.
As things stand, perhaps the most important tenet of physics is that energy is conserved. Every physical description of a propellant-less propulsion scheme either violates it directly, or contradicts known experimental results. No one has managed to avoid this, and no one has demonstrated a device that irrefutably produces thrust. After seven years of this on NSF alone, can you blame him?
Are you asking me if I "blame" dustinthewind for discouraging research into the area of propellantless drive?
I'm not sure where the idea of "blame" gets inserted into this context. Put another way, which is less kind, my comment means that I suggest dustinthewind's continued babbling of agglomerations of words, are, as meberbs points out, a "word salad", devoid of meaning, and that his comments tend to discredit the propellantless drive inquiry.
None of what [dustinthewind] said here is even remotely coherent. It literally doesn't even mean anything to claim that effective mass is space-time. That isn't even wrong, it is just word salad.
Dustinthewind is responsible for his own words.
As to your idea that "perhaps the most important tenet of physics is that energy is conserved", I would say that, regarding propellantless drive [PPD], it is rather that the conservation of momentum is "most important". What the PPD folks are trying to do is demonstrate that it is possible to convert electricity into forward momentum. Mankind already has one method of doing this; the electric motor connected to a wheel resting on a surface in a massive gravitational field where friction exists. Momentum is conserved by pushing on the road surface. In space, there isn't an equivalent "road surface". Because momentum and inertia are related and not fully explained by current science, some of the PPD folks are trying to find something to push against.
And, after seven years here at least, they have found nothing. Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but the PPD folks do not have a theory either, much less a working machine.
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/11/2019 02:14 pm
QuoteNo, such a mechanism would violate the principle of relativity. It makes no sense to say that you are moving at high speed relative to the vacuum. A recycling photon rocket has a term proportional to the difference in velocity between the spacecraft and whatever the mirror on the other side is attached to. This is related to the Doppler shift, and is a real effect as it depends on the velocity difference between 2 physical objects, not a one sided, frame-dependent velocity.
My apologies if my question is too far off-topic.
Regarding moving at high speed relative to the vacuum - that would certainly seem to violate relativity.
However, the dynamical Casimir effect (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/424111/first-observation-of-the-dynamical-casimir-effect/) would seem to depend on velocity relative to the vacuum, specifically the speed of the SQUID electromagnetic mirror relative to its immediate local vacuum.If velocity is zero, no photons are seen. If velocity is significant (~ 5% C) the investigators find microwave photons.
This experimental result confuses me regarding absence of preferred frames, etc. Can you elucidate? Thank you.
I don't think I am the only one that thinks there is an effective velocity with respect to space time in a gravity well. Watch this video and turn it to 1:04 where they suddenly see a new
https://www.worldsciencefestival.com/videos/black-holes-and-holographic-worlds/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIqpGbxc6I4gIVDZ-fCh1_8gbpEAAYASAAEgLWC_D_BwE
actually use this vdieo link here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f9d7XZu8UQ
It also resolves the twin paradox in relativity as to which twin ages slower and which twin ages faster. Often they will say its the twin that accelerates that ages slower but you see the universe exists at generally low velocity with respect to c. The matter in the universe defines space time. If you accelerate you eventually have high velocity with respect to the universe and perceive the universe as distorted.
We know we have velocity w.r.t. the universe by the dipole Doppler shift of the CMB.
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/11/2019 03:44 pm
[
And, after seven years here at least, they have found nothing. Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but the PPD folks do not have a theory either, much less a working machine.
Untrue on both counts. There is evidence published and there have been several theories put forth. You or I may not agree with them or we may dispute the evidence put forth but to say neither has happened is to deny facts.
Post by: meberbs on 08/11/2019 05:34 pm
I don't think I am the only one that thinks there is an effective velocity with respect to space time in a gravity well.You seem to be confused, there is an effective velocity relative to a gravity well, because in GR gravity is not modeled as a force, but as bending of space-time.
Watch this video and turn it to 1:04 where they suddenly see a new metric appear. He says it took him a year to understand why the new metric appeared in the video.Please don't misquote him. No "new metric" appears in the video. The metric is the general description of space-time itself, there is only 1 of it, though it can be written different ways in different coordinate systems, frames etc. He said it took him "a year to understand this." "This" in that sentence is not equal to "a new metric appears" because that is not what happens.
As he explains in the video, he painted magic lines on the event horizon of the black hole. Once you get past the event horizon, it is above you instead of below you, so it appears blue as it is blue shifted by falling down. You also see an illusory image of these lines below you due to the light from those lines that has already fallen in to the black hole and you are falling towards.
He says essentially space time is flowing into the black hole beyond the horizon faster than light at 1:05:54. Basically space rotates into time and time into space. This is the curvature in the drawing below where the time vector is vertical and space horizontal.Please listen to the dialogue with the other panelists around then, it is not as simple as what you are saying, which is basically because the words in the English language are not well suited to describe what is happening. What seems to be the key point to correct your misunderstanding of this is that everything he describes is relative to the black hole. It is described as moving spacetime, because that is how GR describes gravity rather than as a force, which is why gravity even affects things like light. Gravity has specific well defined effects, not just arbitrary ones, trying to claim that a photon rocket behaves differently depending on speed relative to a "local vacuum" still makes no sense if you are not inside a black hole.
The matter in the universe defines space time. If you accelerate you eventually have high velocity with respect to the universe and perceive the universe as distorted.Again, your statements here don't make sense, the universe is not all moving at constant velocity, and no matter how much you accelerate, there will be some neutrino moving even faster than you and from its perspective, you are still travelling in the opposite direction as it. You use the correct word in the last sentence I quoted here, "perceive" This is all a matter of perception, and therefore does not actually do anything useful.
We know we have velocity w.r.t. the universe by the dipole Doppler shift of the CMB.There is nothing special about the CMB frame, except for whether or not you see the CMB as asymmetric, (which implies you feel a very tiny force from it when not in the CMB frame.)
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/12/2019 04:29 am
Initial initial force application generates differential cavity Doppler shift, causing differential radiation pressure triggering initial thrust. Then differential radiation pressure causes self generated acceleration & Doppler shift.For a change you are touching on a real effect. If a cavity is accelerating there will be a differential Doppler shift, however, the net result of this is for more radiation pressure to be applied to the cavity wall on the "back" of the device, which means the additional radiation pressure is in the opposite direction as the acceleration.
Yes there is differential Doppler shift generated during acceleration. Glad we agree.
Now consider there may be say 100k transits & reflections of the travelling waves. What is the effect?
As for the force, you might try rethinking what would happen. You know, no isolated force. Needs to be an action, force on the big end, and reaction, small end moving opposite to big end force.
Post by: meberbs on 08/12/2019 05:31 am
I already answered this in the previous message. The number of reflections translates from the the power input to the total energy stored in the cavity, and as I stated, the force is proportional to the energy stored in the cavity. There is no additional amplification beyond that, since the effect is simply due to the change in velocity of the cavity in the time it takes the light to propagate from one end of the cavity to another.Initial initial force application generates differential cavity Doppler shift, causing differential radiation pressure triggering initial thrust. Then differential radiation pressure causes self generated acceleration & Doppler shift.For a change you are touching on a real effect. If a cavity is accelerating there will be a differential Doppler shift, however, the net result of this is for more radiation pressure to be applied to the cavity wall on the "back" of the device, which means the additional radiation pressure is in the opposite direction as the acceleration.
Yes there is differential Doppler shift generated during acceleration. Glad we agree.
Now consider there may be say 100k transits & reflections of the travelling waves. What is the effect?
As for the force, you might try rethinking what would happen. You know, no isolated force. Needs to be an action, force on the big end, and reaction, small end moving opposite to big end force.As usual, you are misusing the words action and reaction. Please go look up a tutorial on introductory physics, since you clearly need more help on this than is reasonable to type in a post here. For the short version of what you have wrong:
The photons apply a force to the large end of the cavity (ignoring the part applied to the small end and sidewalls that partially cancels with this), and the reaction force is the big end applying a force on the photons in the opposite direction. Things accelerate in the direction of the force applied to them. (For photons, they don't accelerate in a literal sense, but their momentum still increases) In no case ever does applying a force to something make it accelerate in the opposite direction.
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/12/2019 11:45 pm
http://www.emdrive.com/IAC13paper17254.v2.pdf page 2.
Post by: meberbs on 08/13/2019 12:12 am
Roger explains EmDrive Doppler shift during acceleration.And as usual, Shawyer can't keep his sign conventions straight, and contradicts himself, saying that in "motor" mode (the one that supposedly produces useful thrust) the acceleration of the cavity causes a Doppler shift reducing stored energy and thrust, despite other times he and you claim that acceleration is necessary for there to be thrust. If the net effect of the Doppler shift is to decrease thrust (which it is to a negligible extent despite the multiple issues in Shawyer's explanation), then it is nonsensical to claim that there must be pre-existing acceleration for thrust to be generated. Honestly not worth me going into specifics since you simply ignored my previous post, and Shawyer uses no real equations anyway.
http://www.emdrive.com/IAC13paper17254.v2.pdf page 2.
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/14/2019 06:04 pm
Roger explains EmDrive Doppler shift during acceleration.If the net effect of the Doppler shift is to decrease thrust (which it is to a negligible extent despite the multiple issues in Shawyer's explanation), then it is nonsensical to claim that there must be pre-existing acceleration for thrust to be generated. Honestly not worth me going into specifics since you simply ignored my previous post, and Shawyer uses no real equations anyway.
http://www.emdrive.com/IAC13paper17254.v2.pdf page 2.
I just don't see your point. Decreasing thrust decreases acceleration but doesn't necessarily eliminate or reverse it.
Post by: meberbs on 08/14/2019 06:29 pm
Shawyer is simultaneously saying "Doppler shift decreases the force" and "Doppler shift is required for the force to be non-zero" (i.e. increases the force from 0) This is a contradiction, and is rooted in Shawyer's repeated issues with doing basic force calculations.Roger explains EmDrive Doppler shift during acceleration.If the net effect of the Doppler shift is to decrease thrust (which it is to a negligible extent despite the multiple issues in Shawyer's explanation), then it is nonsensical to claim that there must be pre-existing acceleration for thrust to be generated. Honestly not worth me going into specifics since you simply ignored my previous post, and Shawyer uses no real equations anyway.
http://www.emdrive.com/IAC13paper17254.v2.pdf page 2.
I just don't see your point. Decreasing thrust decreases acceleration but doesn't necessarily eliminate or reverse it.
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/14/2019 08:20 pm
Shawyer is simultaneously saying "Doppler shift decreases the force" and "Doppler shift is required for the force to be non-zero" (i.e. increases the force from 0) This is a contradiction, and is rooted in Shawyer's repeated issues with doing basic force calculations.Roger explains EmDrive Doppler shift during acceleration.If the net effect of the Doppler shift is to decrease thrust (which it is to a negligible extent despite the multiple issues in Shawyer's explanation), then it is nonsensical to claim that there must be pre-existing acceleration for thrust to be generated. Honestly not worth me going into specifics since you simply ignored my previous post, and Shawyer uses no real equations anyway.
http://www.emdrive.com/IAC13paper17254.v2.pdf page 2.
I just don't see your point. Decreasing thrust decreases acceleration but doesn't necessarily eliminate or reverse it.
Thanks. It doesn't seem necessarily contradictory to me. It may be necessary but not sufficient. However, I have my own questions such as why isn't there a component of force from the angled portions that add to the smaller end plate and why are the group velocities not equal to each other or to c? I suppose those have been answered years ago and I missed them. It seems the first question might be addressed by direct measurement of the radiation pressure on the various walls of the cavity through piezo-electric sensors. Has that been done? Both may have been addressed through modeling. Does any one know the results? Thanks.
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/15/2019 05:27 am
Shawyer is simultaneously saying "Doppler shift decreases the force" and "Doppler shift is required for the force to be non-zero" (i.e. increases the force from 0) This is a contradiction, and is rooted in Shawyer's repeated issues with doing basic force calculations.Roger explains EmDrive Doppler shift during acceleration.If the net effect of the Doppler shift is to decrease thrust (which it is to a negligible extent despite the multiple issues in Shawyer's explanation), then it is nonsensical to claim that there must be pre-existing acceleration for thrust to be generated. Honestly not worth me going into specifics since you simply ignored my previous post, and Shawyer uses no real equations anyway.
http://www.emdrive.com/IAC13paper17254.v2.pdf page 2.
I just don't see your point. Decreasing thrust decreases acceleration but doesn't necessarily eliminate or reverse it.
What Shawyer is saying, I believe, from reading the document is that the thrust decreases because, as light becomes non-resonant with the cavity, it becomes rejected by the cavity. Normally they have to have a path for the rejected radiation to be shunted into a resistor of some sort, or it will go back to the signal generator or magnetron. Am I wrong?
If the radiation is rejected by the cavity, the cavities Q decreases, or it cant store as much energy. The stored energy/pressure in a diesel engine for instance increases its torque, increasing its conversion of the stored thermal energy to motion. I don't see much problem with this, but I think he lacks any explanation as to how the photons are losing energy and gaining momentum.
In a diesel engine the gas pushes on a moving cylinder wall and they cool, or a parallel for photons is they red-shift. In a closed cavity there is no moving wall for them to push on. If you accelerate the cavity, photons bounce off one wall blue shifting, hitting the wall that accelerates to them, and red-shift off the receding wall - inducing a traveling wave that travels with the cavity. Effectively, accelerating their effective mass but they shouldn't lose energy, except by heat loss, so were still missing what is causing his claimed red-shift.
If the photons red-shift in one direction they lose energy to something such that their bounce becomes less. The sum of both their paths means they transfer their gained/lost momentum to the cavity. The photons momentum becomes the cavities so their momentum is shared. This means we have missing equal and opposite momentum.
This is why I suggested the equal and opposite momentum would need to be carried off by space time some how for it to work, similar to how black holes decelerate, undergo a change in effective mass, and lose their energy or momentum and potential effective mass. This or something that escapes the cavity. Any explanation of that is missing.
Post by: meberbs on 08/15/2019 06:22 am
Thanks. It doesn't seem necessarily contradictory to me. It may be necessary but not sufficient. However, I have my own questions such as why isn't there a component of force from the angled portions that add to the smaller end plate and why are the group velocities not equal to each other or to c? I suppose those have been answered years ago and I missed them. It seems the first question might be addressed by direct measurement of the radiation pressure on the various walls of the cavity through piezo-electric sensors. Has that been done? Both may have been addressed through modeling. Does any one know the results? Thanks.The answer is that basically everything Shawyer has ever said about the behavior of the emDrive is simply wrong.
If you take a emDrive shaped resonant cavity (non-accelerating for now) you will see a larger force on the large end than the small end. This is because there is also force on the sidewalls, which when accounted for causes the forces to perfectly balance. Shawyer always handwaves the sidewall force away since that would be a problem his claims.
The group velocities being different is representative of the fact that there would be lower pressure on the small end than the large end, which you can see by imagining a laser angled so that it reflects off the large wall, the sidewalls (maybe multiple times) and then the small wall. The laser reflects at a more shallow angle off the small wall, and thus imparts less force, though this is clearly balance by the sidewall portion. Since the cavity size is comparable to the wavelength, this is not an exact analogy, but it illustrates the effect, and the guide wavelength defined by Shawyer, while taken out of context may be a reasonable estimation of this difference. There is not point in really determining how accurate that is since the sidewall force balances everything when you don't ignore it.
As for directly measuring the forces, that would be a challenging experimental setup, since you would be trying to measure very small forces, and separating the end plates from the sidewalls causes various issues (such as not having a good, closed cavity.) Actual RF modelling of the forces was done a long time ago and yields the expected results. (It doesn't cover the transient parts, but those could in general give you a photon rocket if you ignore the original emission of them, the resonant part is where all of the "maybe a force gets amplified" thoughts come from, but a million times zero is still zero.)
http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
Post by: meberbs on 08/15/2019 06:36 am
What Shawyer is saying, I believe, from reading the document is that the thrust decreases because, as light becomes non-resonant with the cavity, it becomes rejected by the cavity. Normally they have to have a path for the rejected radiation to be shunted into a resistor of some sort, or it will go back to the signal generator or magnetron. Am I wrong?It is what Shawyer is saying that is wrong. Any attempt to explain what Shawyer is saying will also be wrong for the same reasons. RF radiation that gets absorbed by the cavity walls can turn into heat. Reflection of the initial signals back to the signal source is not relevant.
Skipping over more of you making bad analogies with combustion engines, you then say:
This is why I suggested the equal and opposite momentum would need to be carried off by space time some how for it to work, similar to how black holes decelerate, undergo a change in effective mass, and lose their energy or momentum and potential effective mass. This or something that escapes the cavity. Any explanation of that is missing."Carried off by space-time" is just a handwave statement, it means nothing. If it is similar to how black holes can change velocity by emitting gravitational waves, it means that it is no better than a photon rocket, and therefore useless, since there are easier and more effective ways to build a photon rocket. I have already explained that your use of the term "effective mass" defies any attempt at definition and is equally meaningless. Do you have any interest in trying to communicate using words that actually have meaning, or are you just here to waste people's time?
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/15/2019 02:00 pm
That's right. Any attempt to suggest Shawyer's claims light is Doppler shifted in the cavity is wrong. So proclaimed. sigh.What Shawyer is saying, I believe, from reading the document is that the thrust decreases because, as light becomes non-resonant with the cavity, it becomes rejected by the cavity. Normally they have to have a path for the rejected radiation to be shunted into a resistor of some sort, or it will go back to the signal generator or magnetron. Am I wrong?It is what Shawyer is saying that is wrong. Any attempt to explain what Shawyer is saying will also be wrong for the same reasons. RF radiation that gets absorbed by the cavity walls can turn into heat. Reflection of the initial signals back to the signal source is not relevant.
Assuming he isn't making it up...
Ignore his side wall explanation. It's nonsense.
Quote
Skipping over more of you making bad analogies with combustion engines, you then say:This is why I suggested the equal and opposite momentum would need to be carried off by space time some how for it to work, similar to how black holes decelerate, undergo a change in effective mass, and lose their energy or momentum and potential effective mass. This or something that escapes the cavity. Any explanation of that is missing."Carried off by space-time" is just a handwave statement, it means nothing. If it is similar to how black holes can change velocity by emitting gravitational waves, it means that it is no better than a photon rocket, and therefore useless, since there are easier and more effective ways to build a photon rocket. I have already explained that your use of the term "effective mass" defies any attempt at definition and is equally meaningless. Do you have any interest in trying to communicate using words that actually have meaning, or are you just here to waste people's time?
It means momentum is carried off by something that escapes the cavity. Why is that so hard for you to understand? That is the only way light is Doppler shifted is if its giving up energy.
Fundamentally his explanation is missing the conservation of momentum. End of conversation.
Post by: meberbs on 08/15/2019 02:36 pm
That's right. Any attempt to suggest Shawyer's claims light is Doppler shifted in the cavity is wrong. So proclaimed. sigh.There is Doppler shifting that happens in an accelerating cavity, and I already explained how this works. Shawyers explanation of it is wrong, like basically everything else he has ever said including sidewalls, and what direction something moves when you push on it.
It means momentum is carried off by something that escapes the cavity. Why is that so hard for you to understand?Saying that "something" carries off momentum to conserve momentum is the clear minimum requirement to get something else to move while conserving momentum. However if you are trying to explain how that works, you have to actually explain what that something is and how the interaction with that something works. Saying that maybe the emDrive works by transferring momentum to florbs, does not provide useful information.
That is the only way light is Doppler shifted is if its giving up energy.No, Doppler shifts can actually increase the energy in the light too, transferring a bit of kinetic energy from the cavity to the photons. In a frame where the cavity has velocity in the same direction that it is accelerating this happens, and is part of the mechanism by which the mass-energy of the photons gets accounted for in the total mass-energy of the cavity when someone pushes on the cavity to accelerate it.
Fundamentally his explanation is missing the conservation of momentum.We can agree on that.
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/15/2019 06:10 pm
Thanks. It doesn't seem necessarily contradictory to me. It may be necessary but not sufficient. However, I have my own questions such as why isn't there a component of force from the angled portions that add to the smaller end plate and why are the group velocities not equal to each other or to c? I suppose those have been answered years ago and I missed them. It seems the first question might be addressed by direct measurement of the radiation pressure on the various walls of the cavity through piezo-electric sensors. Has that been done? Both may have been addressed through modeling. Does any one know the results? Thanks.The answer is that basically everything Shawyer has ever said about the behavior of the emDrive is simply wrong.
If you take a emDrive shaped resonant cavity (non-accelerating for now) you will see a larger force on the large end than the small end. This is because there is also force on the sidewalls, which when accounted for causes the forces to perfectly balance. Shawyer always handwaves the sidewall force away since that would be a problem his claims.
The group velocities being different is representative of the fact that there would be lower pressure on the small end than the large end, which you can see by imagining a laser angled so that it reflects off the large wall, the sidewalls (maybe multiple times) and then the small wall. The laser reflects at a more shallow angle off the small wall, and thus imparts less force, though this is clearly balance by the sidewall portion. Since the cavity size is comparable to the wavelength, this is not an exact analogy, but it illustrates the effect, and the guide wavelength defined by Shawyer, while taken out of context may be a reasonable estimation of this difference. There is not point in really determining how accurate that is since the sidewall force balances everything when you don't ignore it.
As for directly measuring the forces, that would be a challenging experimental setup, since you would be trying to measure very small forces, and separating the end plates from the sidewalls causes various issues (such as not having a good, closed cavity.) Actual RF modelling of the forces was done a long time ago and yields the expected results. (It doesn't cover the transient parts, but those could in general give you a photon rocket if you ignore the original emission of them, the resonant part is where all of the "maybe a force gets amplified" thoughts come from, but a million times zero is still zero.)
http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
Thanks. You seem to be saying radiation pressure forces in a cavity amounts to virtually nothing. YK Bae has demonstrated his Photonic Laser Thruster accelerates macroscopic objects so I think an EmDrive cavity of higher power and much higher Q would have large internal forces. I believe Fetta (Cannae) believes Lorentz forces are the primary cause of pressure in his cavities which are much larger. Photon presure is 2X3.3nN/W for reflection but for a Q of one million at a power of 1000 watts that's 6.6N, not nothing.**
I'm looking at the link you supplied but I can to tell if it's peer reviewed or just self-published. I'm also wondering if the analysis looked at all possible modes.
** Update: it looks like the forces are measurable according to the link you supplied. ~9N/J so for say 1J of total EM energy in the cavity at a given instant, the forces on an endplate would be ~9N.
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/15/2019 06:21 pm
Fundamentally his explanation is missing the conservation of momentum.We can agree on that.
If the forces reported turn out to be real it woudn't matter what his explanation is or isn't. Someone else would figure that out eventually.
Post by: X_RaY on 08/15/2019 06:45 pm
As long as you do not present other (new) physical correlations we stick to Maxwell. Why? Because it works! As a result, the inner forces cancel each other out, as meberbs already explained.Thanks. It doesn't seem necessarily contradictory to me. It may be necessary but not sufficient. However, I have my own questions such as why isn't there a component of force from the angled portions that add to the smaller end plate and why are the group velocities not equal to each other or to c? I suppose those have been answered years ago and I missed them. It seems the first question might be addressed by direct measurement of the radiation pressure on the various walls of the cavity through piezo-electric sensors. Has that been done? Both may have been addressed through modeling. Does any one know the results? Thanks.The answer is that basically everything Shawyer has ever said about the behavior of the emDrive is simply wrong.
If you take a emDrive shaped resonant cavity (non-accelerating for now) you will see a larger force on the large end than the small end. This is because there is also force on the sidewalls, which when accounted for causes the forces to perfectly balance. Shawyer always handwaves the sidewall force away since that would be a problem his claims.
The group velocities being different is representative of the fact that there would be lower pressure on the small end than the large end, which you can see by imagining a laser angled so that it reflects off the large wall, the sidewalls (maybe multiple times) and then the small wall. The laser reflects at a more shallow angle off the small wall, and thus imparts less force, though this is clearly balance by the sidewall portion. Since the cavity size is comparable to the wavelength, this is not an exact analogy, but it illustrates the effect, and the guide wavelength defined by Shawyer, while taken out of context may be a reasonable estimation of this difference. There is not point in really determining how accurate that is since the sidewall force balances everything when you don't ignore it.
As for directly measuring the forces, that would be a challenging experimental setup, since you would be trying to measure very small forces, and separating the end plates from the sidewalls causes various issues (such as not having a good, closed cavity.) Actual RF modelling of the forces was done a long time ago and yields the expected results. (It doesn't cover the transient parts, but those could in general give you a photon rocket if you ignore the original emission of them, the resonant part is where all of the "maybe a force gets amplified" thoughts come from, but a million times zero is still zero.)
http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
Thanks. You seem to be saying radiation pressure forces in a cavity amounts to virtually nothing. YK Bae has demonstrated his Photonic Laser Thruster accelerates macroscopic objects so I think an EmDrive cavity of higher power and much higher Q would have large internal forces. I believe Fetta (Cannae) believes Lorentz forces are the primary cause of pressure in his cavities which are much larger. Photon presure is 2X3.3nN/W for reflection but for a Q of one million at a power of 1000 watts that's 6.6N, not nothing.
The quality of a resonant circuit Q is a dimensionless quantity which results from a pre-defined determination, simply multiplying it by the transmitted energy of a photon during reflection is physically nonsensical.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/2/1/8/21836bf553c86c1c4c508916965f15b2.png)
while Δf is the frequency difference at -3dB or even more precise: Only in the case κ=1 (κ=Coupling factor) the full 3dB half width is measured to determine the circular quality - this corresponds to ρ=1/√2 because of the power definition of the dB values (dB = 20-log(U/U0)), in all other cases the full half width must be determined:
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/15/2019 07:05 pm
As long as you do not present other (new) physical correlations we stick to Maxwell. Why? Because it works! As a result, the inner forces cancel each other out, as meberbs already explained.Thanks. It doesn't seem necessarily contradictory to me. It may be necessary but not sufficient. However, I have my own questions such as why isn't there a component of force from the angled portions that add to the smaller end plate and why are the group velocities not equal to each other or to c? I suppose those have been answered years ago and I missed them. It seems the first question might be addressed by direct measurement of the radiation pressure on the various walls of the cavity through piezo-electric sensors. Has that been done? Both may have been addressed through modeling. Does any one know the results? Thanks.The answer is that basically everything Shawyer has ever said about the behavior of the emDrive is simply wrong.
If you take a emDrive shaped resonant cavity (non-accelerating for now) you will see a larger force on the large end than the small end. This is because there is also force on the sidewalls, which when accounted for causes the forces to perfectly balance. Shawyer always handwaves the sidewall force away since that would be a problem his claims.
The group velocities being different is representative of the fact that there would be lower pressure on the small end than the large end, which you can see by imagining a laser angled so that it reflects off the large wall, the sidewalls (maybe multiple times) and then the small wall. The laser reflects at a more shallow angle off the small wall, and thus imparts less force, though this is clearly balance by the sidewall portion. Since the cavity size is comparable to the wavelength, this is not an exact analogy, but it illustrates the effect, and the guide wavelength defined by Shawyer, while taken out of context may be a reasonable estimation of this difference. There is not point in really determining how accurate that is since the sidewall force balances everything when you don't ignore it.
As for directly measuring the forces, that would be a challenging experimental setup, since you would be trying to measure very small forces, and separating the end plates from the sidewalls causes various issues (such as not having a good, closed cavity.) Actual RF modelling of the forces was done a long time ago and yields the expected results. (It doesn't cover the transient parts, but those could in general give you a photon rocket if you ignore the original emission of them, the resonant part is where all of the "maybe a force gets amplified" thoughts come from, but a million times zero is still zero.)
http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
Thanks. You seem to be saying radiation pressure forces in a cavity amounts to virtually nothing. YK Bae has demonstrated his Photonic Laser Thruster accelerates macroscopic objects so I think an EmDrive cavity of higher power and much higher Q would have large internal forces. I believe Fetta (Cannae) believes Lorentz forces are the primary cause of pressure in his cavities which are much larger. Photon presure is 2X3.3nN/W for reflection but for a Q of one million at a power of 1000 watts that's 6.6N, not nothing.
The quality of a resonant circuit Q is a dimensionless quantity which results from a pre-defined determination, simply multiplying it by the transmitted energy of a photon during reflection is physically nonsensical.
Are you doubting the work of Y.K. Bae? It's a scientific, proven fact that multiple reflections increase the momentum transfer and thus the force from a given beam. It's entirely Maxwellian. And if you note, I didn't claim this as a net force, just enhanced pressure.
Post by: X_RaY on 08/15/2019 07:14 pm
OK, higher field strength, more reflections, more stored energy leads to higher internal radiation pressure. Agreed.As long as you do not present other (new) physical correlations we stick to Maxwell. Why? Because it works! As a result, the inner forces cancel each other out, as meberbs already explained.Thanks. It doesn't seem necessarily contradictory to me. It may be necessary but not sufficient. However, I have my own questions such as why isn't there a component of force from the angled portions that add to the smaller end plate and why are the group velocities not equal to each other or to c? I suppose those have been answered years ago and I missed them. It seems the first question might be addressed by direct measurement of the radiation pressure on the various walls of the cavity through piezo-electric sensors. Has that been done? Both may have been addressed through modeling. Does any one know the results? Thanks.The answer is that basically everything Shawyer has ever said about the behavior of the emDrive is simply wrong.
If you take a emDrive shaped resonant cavity (non-accelerating for now) you will see a larger force on the large end than the small end. This is because there is also force on the sidewalls, which when accounted for causes the forces to perfectly balance. Shawyer always handwaves the sidewall force away since that would be a problem his claims.
The group velocities being different is representative of the fact that there would be lower pressure on the small end than the large end, which you can see by imagining a laser angled so that it reflects off the large wall, the sidewalls (maybe multiple times) and then the small wall. The laser reflects at a more shallow angle off the small wall, and thus imparts less force, though this is clearly balance by the sidewall portion. Since the cavity size is comparable to the wavelength, this is not an exact analogy, but it illustrates the effect, and the guide wavelength defined by Shawyer, while taken out of context may be a reasonable estimation of this difference. There is not point in really determining how accurate that is since the sidewall force balances everything when you don't ignore it.
As for directly measuring the forces, that would be a challenging experimental setup, since you would be trying to measure very small forces, and separating the end plates from the sidewalls causes various issues (such as not having a good, closed cavity.) Actual RF modelling of the forces was done a long time ago and yields the expected results. (It doesn't cover the transient parts, but those could in general give you a photon rocket if you ignore the original emission of them, the resonant part is where all of the "maybe a force gets amplified" thoughts come from, but a million times zero is still zero.)
http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
Thanks. You seem to be saying radiation pressure forces in a cavity amounts to virtually nothing. YK Bae has demonstrated his Photonic Laser Thruster accelerates macroscopic objects so I think an EmDrive cavity of higher power and much higher Q would have large internal forces. I believe Fetta (Cannae) believes Lorentz forces are the primary cause of pressure in his cavities which are much larger. Photon presure is 2X3.3nN/W for reflection but for a Q of one million at a power of 1000 watts that's 6.6N, not nothing.
The quality of a resonant circuit Q is a dimensionless quantity which results from a pre-defined determination, simply multiplying it by the transmitted energy of a photon during reflection is physically nonsensical.
Are you doubting the work of Y.K. Bae? It's a scientific, proven fact that multiple reflections increase the momentum transfer and thus the force from a given beam. It's entirely Maxwellian. And if you note, I didn't claim this as a net force, just enhanced pressure.
... but a million times zero is still zero...
http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
As you note by yourself, no net force follows from this fact alone, but this is what we are looking for in the end. Resulting net force is the claim that must be explained or rejected. ::)
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/15/2019 07:23 pm
OK, higher field strength, more reflections, more stored energy leads to higher internal radiation pressure. Agreed. As you note by yourself, no net force follows from this fact alone, but this is what we are looking for in the end. This is the claim that must be explained or rejected. ::)As long as you do not present other (new) physical correlations we stick to Maxwell. Why? Because it works! As a result, the inner forces cancel each other out, as meberbs already explained.
Thanks. You seem to be saying radiation pressure forces in a cavity amounts to virtually nothing. YK Bae has demonstrated his Photonic Laser Thruster accelerates macroscopic objects so I think an EmDrive cavity of higher power and much higher Q would have large internal forces. I believe Fetta (Cannae) believes Lorentz forces are the primary cause of pressure in his cavities which are much larger. Photon presure is 2X3.3nN/W for reflection but for a Q of one million at a power of 1000 watts that's 6.6N, not nothing.
The quality of a resonant circuit Q is a dimensionless quantity which results from a pre-defined determination, simply multiplying it by the transmitted energy of a photon during reflection is physically nonsensical.
Are you doubting the work of Y.K. Bae? It's a scientific, proven fact that multiple reflections increase the momentum transfer and thus the force from a given beam. It's entirely Maxwellian. And if you note, I didn't claim this as a net force, just enhanced pressure.
My God, I was finally right about something! Thanks. :)
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/15/2019 09:33 pm
As you note by yourself, no net force follows from this fact alone, but this is what we are looking for in the end. Resulting net force is the claim that must be explained or rejected. ::)
Static EmDrive = NO NET FORCE, as Roger has stated.
Accelerating EmDrive = self accelerating force is generated. Initially triggered by external force causing small end forward acceleration, causing asymmetric Doppler shift, Red shift at small end & Blue shift at big end, causing more radiation pressure on the big end than on the small end, amplified by the number of times the travelling waves transit the cavity. This big end directed force Roger calls Thrust and the N3 reaction force, small end directed, he calls Acceleration.
See attached.
That others here have claimed the Thrust force is a result of the additional energy equivalent mass of the trapped photons is not correct.
The now agreed acceleration generated asymmetric Doppler shift at each end plate causes a real word asymmetric radiation pressure to be generated, which is as real as any other radiation pressure. Denying its existence is to deny the basis of radiation pressure.
Post by: meberbs on 08/16/2019 01:24 am
Physics 101. The photons are applying a force to the cavity pointed to the left as labelled thrust in your picture. The reaction force is therefore a force applied by the cavity to the photons. F=m*a, so the direction the cavity accelerates is in the direction of the force applied to the cavity. That is to the left in your picture.As you note by yourself, no net force follows from this fact alone, but this is what we are looking for in the end. Resulting net force is the claim that must be explained or rejected. ::)
Static EmDrive = NO NET FORCE, as Roger has stated.
Accelerating EmDrive = self accelerating force is generated. Initially triggered by external force causing small end forward acceleration, causing asymmetric Doppler shift, Red shift at small end & Blue shift at big end, causing more radiation pressure on the big end than on the small end, amplified by the number of times the travelling waves transit the cavity. This big end directed force Roger calls Thrust and the N3 reaction force, small end directed, he calls Acceleration.
That others here have claimed the Thrust force is a result of the additional energy equivalent mass of the trapped photons is not correct.No matter how many times you claim otherwise, 1+1=2. The net force applied to a cavity by the internal photons in an accelerating cavity is directed opposite to the externally applied force, goes away when the external force goes away, and is proportional to the total energy of the photons in the cavity.
The now agreed acceleration generated asymmetric Doppler shift at each end plate causes a real word asymmetric radiation pressure to be generated, which is as real as any other radiation pressure. Denying its existence is to deny the basis of radiation pressure.Claiming that applying a force applied to an object causes the object to accelerate in the opposite direction of the force is to deny the most fundamental definitions in physics.
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/16/2019 01:25 am
YK Bae has demonstrated his Photonic Laser Thruster accelerates macroscopic objects so I think an EmDrive cavity of higher power and much higher Q would have large internal forces.
It is worth mentioning that YK Bae's 2015 recycling photon thruster, operating under the best laboratory conditions, at 0.5kW, generated 3.5mN of thrust.
If the emdrive is more efficient than that, then there would need to be something else going on besides recycling photons.
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/16/2019 12:27 pm
Claiming that applying a force applied to an object causes the object to accelerate in the opposite direction of the force is to deny the most fundamental definitions in physics.
I forget. Who was it who claimed exactly that?
Post by: meberbs on 08/16/2019 01:53 pm
Shawyer and by extension TT. It happened again in the last post from TT with the claim that increased pressure on the inside of the large end magically causes the cavity to accelerate small end forward.Claiming that applying a force applied to an object causes the object to accelerate in the opposite direction of the force is to deny the most fundamental definitions in physics.
I forget. Who was it who claimed exactly that?
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/16/2019 04:54 pm
YK Bae has demonstrated his Photonic Laser Thruster accelerates macroscopic objects so I think an EmDrive cavity of higher power and much higher Q would have large internal forces.
It is worth mentioning that YK Bae's 2015 recycling photon thruster, operating under the best laboratory conditions, at 0.5kW, generated 3.5mN of thrust.
If the emdrive is more efficient than that, then there would need to be something else going on besides recycling photons.
That's a 1000X improvement over a once reflected beam. Its a start but likely not an end to the technology. But yes, what's going on in a working EmDrive is likely more.
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/16/2019 05:10 pm
Post by: MathewOrman on 08/17/2019 11:40 am
Roger Shawyer when I pointed to him that on his video of the demo the device is rotating in opposite direction...Claiming that applying a force applied to an object causes the object to accelerate in the opposite direction of the force is to deny the most fundamental definitions in physics.
I forget. Who was it who claimed exactly that?
Post by: MathewOrman on 08/17/2019 11:45 am
Is it possible to form an amplified standing wave in the cavity? Thanks.Resonance... :-)
Post by: SeeShells on 08/17/2019 01:07 pm
Is it possible to form an amplified standing wave in the cavity? Thanks.Yes.
Ever been on a swing, swinging? Same thing, add energy at the right time and you will go higher.
Shell
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/17/2019 06:01 pm
Is it possible to form an amplified standing wave in the cavity? Thanks.Resonance... :-)
Thanks. I was originally thinking it was different but I checked out some videos of microwave oven wave patterns.Is it possible to form an amplified standing wave in the cavity? Thanks.Yes.
Ever been on a swing, swinging? Same thing, add energy at the right time and you will go higher.
Shell
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kp33ZprO0Ck
Now, I wonder if it's possible with EM waves to not have nodes but maximum fields at the endplates.
Post by: MathewOrman on 08/17/2019 06:35 pm
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/17/2019 06:38 pm
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/17/2019 08:55 pm
The other is light losing energy via the Compton effect to a semi transparent cold plasma cloud near the narrow end of the frustum. Light more efficiently transfers energy to plasma because of the small effective mass of the light being closer to the mass of the plasma. (Similar to why they chose thin wafer mirrors for the recycled photon thruster satellites they fire off.) The plasma charges, after taking a few Compton reflections, transfer momentum to the cavity. The plasma to cavity energy transfer being more efficient because of the now increased effective mass of the plasma? The plasma being trapped at one end of the cavity.
What is interesting is that the 2nd idea doesn't require something to escape the cavity to carry off the missing momentum because of the direction in which the light is losing momentum is the direction in which the cavity gains momentum. Question is if this makes sense or not.
Post by: meberbs on 08/17/2019 10:19 pm
Image of two speculations of propulsion. One is light losing momentum to increased effective mass of fast moving electrons, and the electrons not losing their effective mass during velocity reversal, due to large acceleration. This would be free electrons in the air in the cavity being accelerated by a series of frequencies which create an asymmetric acceleration on the free charges.Are you not reading my posts, or are you just continuing to use words like "effective mass" that have no defined meaning in this context because you don't want to communicate clearly? I previously explained the mass related terms and their meanings that make sense to talk about. I would suggest "relativistic mass" as the term you want to be using, but that would make statements like the one "the electrons not losing their florb during velocity reversal" to just be completely wrong. (I replaced "effective mass" with "florb" since both have the same amount of meaning here.) An accelerating charge passes through every velocity in between its initial and final velocities, and there is no reason in this situation for them to be moving relativistically, let alone switching directions that quickly.
Meanwhile your attached picture instead of this nonsensical statement has the useless statement that maybe some undefined thing is carrying away momentum for an undefined reason. Also, for no apparent reason, the picture shows talks about what the relativistic field of a charged particle looks like, and then makes another meaningless statement about this magically increasing "space-time coupling."
The other is light losing energy via the Compton effect to a semi transparent cold plasma cloud near the narrow end of the frustum. Light more efficiently transfers energy to plasma because of the small effective mass of the light being closer to the mass of the plasma. (Similar to why they chose thin wafer mirrors for the recycled photon thruster satellites they fire off.) The plasma charges, after taking a few Compton reflections, transfer momentum to the cavity. The plasma to cavity energy transfer being more efficient because of the now increased effective mass of the plasma? The plasma being trapped at one end of the cavity.No, none of this makes sense, and it clearly is not possible since producing any net force from a closed system violates conservation of momentum and conservation of energy.
What is interesting is that the 2nd idea doesn't require something to escape the cavity to carry off the missing momentum because of the direction in which the light is losing momentum is the direction in which the cavity gains momentum. Question is if this makes sense or not.
Post by: SeeShells on 08/18/2019 11:07 am
If visually seeing it helps answer your questions. Here is a link to a simulator that can answer your questions.Is it possible to form an amplified standing wave in the cavity? Thanks.Resonance... :-)Thanks. I was originally thinking it was different but I checked out some videos of microwave oven wave patterns.Is it possible to form an amplified standing wave in the cavity? Thanks.Yes.
Ever been on a swing, swinging? Same thing, add energy at the right time and you will go higher.
Shell
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kp33ZprO0Ck
Now, I wonder if it's possible with EM waves to not have nodes but maximum fields at the endplates.
https://ophysics.com/waves8b.html
Shell
Post by: Bryan_Kelly on 08/18/2019 03:52 pm
No, none of this makes sense, and it clearly is not possible since producing any net force from a closed system violates conservation of momentum and conservation of energy.
This would suggest that perhaps pumping light through a system, instead of within, may be a worthwhile alternative pursuit.
Post by: Alex_O on 08/19/2019 03:29 am
YK Bae has demonstrated his Photonic Laser Thruster accelerates macroscopic objects so I think an EmDrive cavity of higher power and much higher Q would have large internal forces.
It is worth mentioning that YK Bae's 2015 recycling photon thruster, operating under the best laboratory conditions, at 0.5kW, generated 3.5mN of thrust.
If the emdrive is more efficient than that, then there would need to be something else going on besides recycling photons.
Hi Monomorphic!, hi guys!
Look at the simulation of a two-mirror parabolic antenna with a horn emitter and a variable distance between the reflectors. This is a trial model of Emdrive without side walls. The dZ parameter is a measure of the distance between the mirrors, in meters. For different dZ - we see a different distribution of the EM field in the system. The dimensions of the mirrors are about 1 meter and the wavelength is about 3 centimeters. Also, the arrows show clearly how well the antenna radiates power to the far zone.
(https://d.radikal.ru/d10/1908/1d/9185aac02db5.gif)
I would like to understand from this model - what radiation pressure on the walls (mirrors) can be in such a system? I think I see a moment when the radiation pressure on a small mirror is much less than on a large one. But I do not understand how this is possible, if all the photons (if represented as solid balls) are always reflected between the mirrors in the same way, regardless of the parameter dz. The simulation clearly reflects the wave properties of EM waves.
On this frame you can see better
(https://b.radikal.ru/b12/1908/82/96ea9e401081.gif)
The second question is how the pressure depends on the possible quality factor of this resonator.
This thing, if you put it here on the Shawyer stand, it will obviously move along the stand at different speeds???. And the thrust of this emdrive may depend on the quality factor of the resonator, as Roger Shawyer claims.
(https://c.radikal.ru/c21/1807/bf/b424b363b9ce.jpg)
I do not know how to correctly understand this summation, and which physics is correct. It would be interesting to find out the correct answer. ОК?
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/19/2019 06:04 pm
YK Bae has demonstrated his Photonic Laser Thruster accelerates macroscopic objects so I think an EmDrive cavity of higher power and much higher Q would have large internal forces.
It is worth mentioning that YK Bae's 2015 recycling photon thruster, operating under the best laboratory conditions, at 0.5kW, generated 3.5mN of thrust.
If the emdrive is more efficient than that, then there would need to be something else going on besides recycling photons.
This thing, if you put it here on the Shawyer stand, it will obviously move along the stand at different speeds???. And the thrust of this emdrive may depend on the quality factor of the resonator, as Roger Shawyer claims.
(https://c.radikal.ru/c21/1807/bf/b424b363b9ce.jpg)
I do not know how to correctly understand this summation, and which physics is correct. It would be interesting to find out the correct answer. ОК?
Is that Shawyer? Is that an air table? Can you point to the link of this video? Thanks.
Post by: Alex_O on 08/19/2019 06:49 pm
Is that Shawyer? Is that an air table? Can you point to the link of this video? Thanks.
https://ok.ru/video/317461105392
from 29:23
Post by: SeeShells on 08/19/2019 07:59 pm
https://www.fisw.space/fisw-2019
Foundations of Interstellar Studies Workshop 2019
SESSION TWO: ADVANCED PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY & MISSIONS
Keynote 2: Alan Costley, “Development for Faster Fusion at Tokamak Energy”, Tokamak Energy Ltd.
Speaker 8: Angelo Genovese, “Laser-Powered Electric Propulsion Precursor Mission”, Initiative for Interstellar Studies, UK.
Speaker 9: Ryan Weed, “Antielectron Propulsion”, Positron Dynamics, USA.
Speaker 10: Rob Swinney, “Project Icarus Fusion Starship Concept Design Solutions”, Initiative for Interstellar Studies, UK.
Speaker 11: Charles Swanson, “Direct Fusion Drive for the Gravitational Lens Mission”, Princeton Satellite Systems, USA.
Interactive Workshop Discussion: Fusion, Antimatter Catalysed Fusion, Laser-Electric Propulsion, Precursor Missions.
Speaker 12: Jeremy Munday, “Engineering Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations”, University of Maryland, USA.
Speaker 13: Harold ‘Sonny’ White, “Dynamic Vacuum Propulsion”, NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, USA.
Speaker 14: Heidi Fearn, “Advances in Mach Effect Gravitational Assist (MEGA) Drive Experimentation”, CSU Fullerton, California, USA.
Speaker 15: Mike McCulloch, “Quantised Inertia, Propellant-less Thrust and Interstellar Travel”, Plymouth University.
Speaker 16: Philip Lubin, “Directed Energy – The Path to Interstellar Flight”, University California Santa Barbara, California, USA.
Interactive Workshop Discussion: Quantum Vacuum, Mach Effect, Inertia Drives.
Excerpt from Dr. "Sonny" White's presentation NASA's EAGLEWORKS
With 100% efficient system, thrust to power will be 6.3 uN/W, or 1900x photon rocket
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c751cb03560c34b3b675308/t/5d1d0e42c39b82000117afa5/1562185304980/13_White_EW_June_2019_White.pdf
Shell
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/19/2019 09:01 pm
there should not be any maximum electric nodes at the end plates if light is being actively reflected from them. It's the acceleration of the electrons in the metal plate that causes a counter electric field to be developed which cancels the local electric field near the plate. in a transverse electric mode of operation it's just the magnetic field near the surface.Is it possible to form an amplified standing wave in the cavity? Thanks.Resonance... :-)Thanks. I was originally thinking it was different but I checked out some videos of microwave oven wave patterns.Is it possible to form an amplified standing wave in the cavity? Thanks.Yes.
Ever been on a swing, swinging? Same thing, add energy at the right time and you will go higher.
Shell
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kp33ZprO0Ck
Now, I wonder if it's possible with EM waves to not have nodes but maximum fields at the endplates.
A transverse magnetic mode of operation induces separation of charge so in that case there are electric fields that appear at the surface of the metal temporarily, in the capacitative cycle. In this case the cavity will alternate between capacitive and inductive. These type of electric Fields always point away from The metal at the surface. In both transverse electric and transverse magnetic modes, there are no electric fields that point parallel to the surface of the metal as a property of the metal because it reflects light, or the induced acceleration of charges at the surface.
At least at full resonance anyway. There are some electric fields that do reach the metal as stored energy is increasing, decreasing or being lost as heat.
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/19/2019 09:04 pm
Is that Shawyer? Is that an air table? Can you point to the link of this video? Thanks.
https://ok.ru/video/317461105392
from 29:23
I can't really tell what's going on since it's in Russian without subtitles but thanks anyway.
Post by: DamianM on 08/19/2019 09:28 pm
https://www.fisw.space/fisw-2019
Foundations of Interstellar Studies Workshop 2019
SESSION TWO: ADVANCED PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY & MISSIONS
Keynote 2: Alan Costley, “Development for Faster Fusion at Tokamak Energy”, Tokamak Energy Ltd.
Speaker 8: Angelo Genovese, “Laser-Powered Electric Propulsion Precursor Mission”, Initiative for Interstellar Studies, UK.
Speaker 9: Ryan Weed, “Antielectron Propulsion”, Positron Dynamics, USA.
Speaker 10: Rob Swinney, “Project Icarus Fusion Starship Concept Design Solutions”, Initiative for Interstellar Studies, UK.
Speaker 11: Charles Swanson, “Direct Fusion Drive for the Gravitational Lens Mission”, Princeton Satellite Systems, USA.
Interactive Workshop Discussion: Fusion, Antimatter Catalysed Fusion, Laser-Electric Propulsion, Precursor Missions.
Speaker 12: Jeremy Munday, “Engineering Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations”, University of Maryland, USA.
Speaker 13: Harold ‘Sonny’ White, “Dynamic Vacuum Propulsion”, NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, USA.
Speaker 14: Heidi Fearn, “Advances in Mach Effect Gravitational Assist (MEGA) Drive Experimentation”, CSU Fullerton, California, USA.
Speaker 15: Mike McCulloch, “Quantised Inertia, Propellant-less Thrust and Interstellar Travel”, Plymouth University.
Speaker 16: Philip Lubin, “Directed Energy – The Path to Interstellar Flight”, University California Santa Barbara, California, USA.
Interactive Workshop Discussion: Quantum Vacuum, Mach Effect, Inertia Drives.
Excerpt from Dr. "Sonny" White's presentation NASA's EAGLEWORKS
With 100% efficient system, thrust to power will be 6.3 uN/W, or 1900x photon rocket
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c751cb03560c34b3b675308/t/5d1d0e42c39b82000117afa5/1562185304980/13_White_EW_June_2019_White.pdf
Shell
New research from PrimeLightworks
Measurement Error Analysis of Impulsive Thrust from a
Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum
https://primelightworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Prime-Lightworks_SmallSat_Presentation_2019-08-07_Final.pdf
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/19/2019 09:44 pm
Is that Shawyer? Is that an air table? Can you point to the link of this video? Thanks.
https://ok.ru/video/317461105392
from 29:23
I can't really tell what's going on since it's in Russian without subtitles but thanks anyway.
The clip appears to be from the long running BBC TV programme Horizon.
The clip is used in this interview with Roger Shawyer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DQ7FLb5tfM
Post by: gaballard on 08/19/2019 09:55 pm
Has this been disproven? Has anyone demonstrated a 100% internally powered EM drive that consistently produces the same amount of thrust as ones with external power sources?
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/19/2019 11:29 pm
Excerpt from Dr. "Sonny" White's presentation NASA's EAGLEWORKS
With 100% efficient system, thrust to power will be 6.3 uN/W, or 1900x photon rocket
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c751cb03560c34b3b675308/t/5d1d0e42c39b82000117afa5/1562185304980/13_White_EW_June_2019_White.pdf
Interesting how Dr. White is using a tapered Casimir cavity to predict thrust. Very frustum-like.
Should this get its own thread? Seems like White has completely abandoned RF cavities in favor of Casimir micro wedges.
Post by: meberbs on 08/20/2019 12:15 am
Last time I checked on EM drive development (probably 2 years ago by now), people were finding that when you started running them on internal power sources the thrust largely disappears. The consensus was that the EM drive was interacting with the magnetic fields created by having a high voltage power line running through your whole setup.If anything it has been further confirmed. Better and better tests have led to less and less force. No test has produced data that is not reasonably explained by some error source. (Not all tests had magnetic fields as the explanation, there were other things that mattered such as thermal distortion.)
Has this been disproven? Has anyone demonstrated a 100% internally powered EM drive that consistently produces the same amount of thrust as ones with external power sources?
Post by: Asteroza on 08/20/2019 12:59 am
https://www.fisw.space/fisw-2019
Foundations of Interstellar Studies Workshop 2019
SESSION TWO: ADVANCED PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY & MISSIONS
Keynote 2: Alan Costley, “Development for Faster Fusion at Tokamak Energy”, Tokamak Energy Ltd.
Speaker 8: Angelo Genovese, “Laser-Powered Electric Propulsion Precursor Mission”, Initiative for Interstellar Studies, UK.
Speaker 9: Ryan Weed, “Antielectron Propulsion”, Positron Dynamics, USA.
Speaker 10: Rob Swinney, “Project Icarus Fusion Starship Concept Design Solutions”, Initiative for Interstellar Studies, UK.
Speaker 11: Charles Swanson, “Direct Fusion Drive for the Gravitational Lens Mission”, Princeton Satellite Systems, USA.
Interactive Workshop Discussion: Fusion, Antimatter Catalysed Fusion, Laser-Electric Propulsion, Precursor Missions.
Speaker 12: Jeremy Munday, “Engineering Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations”, University of Maryland, USA.
Speaker 13: Harold ‘Sonny’ White, “Dynamic Vacuum Propulsion”, NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, USA.
Speaker 14: Heidi Fearn, “Advances in Mach Effect Gravitational Assist (MEGA) Drive Experimentation”, CSU Fullerton, California, USA.
Speaker 15: Mike McCulloch, “Quantised Inertia, Propellant-less Thrust and Interstellar Travel”, Plymouth University.
Speaker 16: Philip Lubin, “Directed Energy – The Path to Interstellar Flight”, University California Santa Barbara, California, USA.
Interactive Workshop Discussion: Quantum Vacuum, Mach Effect, Inertia Drives.
Excerpt from Dr. "Sonny" White's presentation NASA's EAGLEWORKS
With 100% efficient system, thrust to power will be 6.3 uN/W, or 1900x photon rocket
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c751cb03560c34b3b675308/t/5d1d0e42c39b82000117afa5/1562185304980/13_White_EW_June_2019_White.pdf
Shell
With all the phonon/acoustics talk from Dr. White, I'm going to drag out a link I posted upthread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1921631#msg1921631) in reply 901
The gravitational mass carried by sound waves (https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.08771)
With all the talk on acoustics/phonons though, I wonder if other acoustic properties/techniques are transferable, perhaps from the realm of thermoacoustics? Maybe acoustic metamaterial lenses?
The above pictured Casimir array is probably amenable to semiconductor manufacturing techniques. I wonder if you could print it onto a flexible substrate/thin film, and slap that on the back of a solar sail material lined with flexible PV cells on the other side...
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/20/2019 03:41 am
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/20/2019 03:47 am
If anything it has been further confirmed. Better and better tests have led to less and less force. No test has produced data that is not reasonably explained by some error source. (Not all tests had magnetic fields as the explanation, there were other things that mattered such as thermal distortion.)
So for the record, to be very clear, you do not accept there is any validity to any of the test data Roger has produced using his various EmDrive devices?
If so how do you explain the published results?
Post by: meberbs on 08/20/2019 04:32 am
Has he published any results where he has demonstrated that he understands the definition of the word force? What little that Shawyer has meaningfully shared has been experiments that easily could be entirely due to one error source or another, but he generally doesn't share the kind of specifics needed to fully assess that.If anything it has been further confirmed. Better and better tests have led to less and less force. No test has produced data that is not reasonably explained by some error source. (Not all tests had magnetic fields as the explanation, there were other things that mattered such as thermal distortion.)
So for the record, to be very clear, you do not accept there is any validity to any of the test data Roger has produced using his various EmDrive devices?
If so how do you explain the published results?
How can anyone take his results seriously when Shawyer has demonstrated a complete lack of competence, since he doesn't know which way something moves when you push on it, and to the extent he has shared details for replications of his device, no one has ever built a device that comes close to the thrust levels he claims.
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/20/2019 04:19 pm
Last time I checked on EM drive development (probably 2 years ago by now), people were finding that when you started running them on internal power sources the thrust largely disappears. The consensus was that the EM drive was interacting with the magnetic fields created by having a high voltage power line running through your whole setup.If anything it has been further confirmed. Better and better tests have led to less and less force. No test has produced data that is not reasonably explained by some error source. (Not all tests had magnetic fields as the explanation, there were other things that mattered such as thermal distortion.)
Has this been disproven? Has anyone demonstrated a 100% internally powered EM drive that consistently produces the same amount of thrust as ones with external power sources?
Couldn't completely internal power sources could also be sources of subtle interference effects which could go either way depending on potential design flaws? My perception is that there seems to be a race to use less and less power and spend funds to design more and more precise instruments to measure the smaller and smaller effects produced with that tiny power.
I wish researchers would design experiments which, if they worked, produce forces of unambiguous magnitude. Of course it's much easier for me to want that than for them to do that but I do understand McCulloch's team is doing an experiment they hope will produce a force on the Newton level.
Post by: meberbs on 08/20/2019 04:55 pm
Couldn't completely internal power sources could also be sources of subtle interference effects which could go either way depending on potential design flaws? My perception is that there seems to be a race to use less and less power and spend funds to design more and more precise instruments to measure the smaller and smaller effects produced with that tiny power.It is not a race to measure lower power, but smaller levels of force/power ratio. It turns out this is easier to do when power levels are low enough that things like thermal distortion and convection currents simply aren't present, of course there are still other problems that come up in doing this. If large forces that are easy to show are not experimental artifacts could be generated that would be great, but when such an experiment shows no result, supporters would just claim the signal could have been there but the experiment was not sensitive enough. We have already been through this cycle. If anyone had a real, consistent theory that made predictions, then this wouldn't be an issue, the first no result would show the theory is wrong and everyone could move on.
I wish researchers would design experiments which, if they worked, produce forces of unambiguous magnitude. Of course it's much easier for me to want that than for them to do that but I do understand McCulloch's team is doing an experiment they hope will produce a force on the Newton level.
Also, McCulloch eventually provided his predictions for the emDrive like devices he is having tested, and they are uN and mN levels.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48497.msg1965026#msg1965026
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/20/2019 05:20 pm
Couldn't completely internal power sources could also be sources of subtle interference effects which could go either way depending on potential design flaws? My perception is that there seems to be a race to use less and less power and spend funds to design more and more precise instruments to measure the smaller and smaller effects produced with that tiny power.It is not a race to measure lower power, but smaller levels of force/power ratio. It turns out this is easier to do when power levels are low enough that things like thermal distortion and convection currents simply aren't present, of course there are still other problems that come up in doing this. If large forces that are easy to show are not experimental artifacts could be generated that would be great, but when such an experiment shows no result, supporters would just claim the signal could have been there but the experiment was not sensitive enough. We have already been through this cycle. If anyone had a real, consistent theory that made predictions, then this wouldn't be an issue, the first no result would show the theory is wrong and everyone could move on.
I wish researchers would design experiments which, if they worked, produce forces of unambiguous magnitude. Of course it's much easier for me to want that than for them to do that but I do understand McCulloch's team is doing an experiment they hope will produce a force on the Newton level.
Also, McCulloch eventually provided his predictions for the emDrive like devices he is having tested, and they are uN and mN levels.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48497.msg1965026#msg1965026
I didn't say it was a race... I said it seemed so. In any case when people measure micro Newtons other people claim it's thermal, stray fields or whatever. It's difficult to believe small signals no matter how one rationalized ratio's. I see your quote of McCulloch but he said later his German team hopes to measure 200N/kW at 10Watts power which is 2N but he cautioned that may be optimistic.
Post by: Star One on 08/20/2019 05:56 pm
Couldn't completely internal power sources could also be sources of subtle interference effects which could go either way depending on potential design flaws? My perception is that there seems to be a race to use less and less power and spend funds to design more and more precise instruments to measure the smaller and smaller effects produced with that tiny power.It is not a race to measure lower power, but smaller levels of force/power ratio. It turns out this is easier to do when power levels are low enough that things like thermal distortion and convection currents simply aren't present, of course there are still other problems that come up in doing this. If large forces that are easy to show are not experimental artifacts could be generated that would be great, but when such an experiment shows no result, supporters would just claim the signal could have been there but the experiment was not sensitive enough. We have already been through this cycle. If anyone had a real, consistent theory that made predictions, then this wouldn't be an issue, the first no result would show the theory is wrong and everyone could move on.
I wish researchers would design experiments which, if they worked, produce forces of unambiguous magnitude. Of course it's much easier for me to want that than for them to do that but I do understand McCulloch's team is doing an experiment they hope will produce a force on the Newton level.
Also, McCulloch eventually provided his predictions for the emDrive like devices he is having tested, and they are uN and mN levels.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48497.msg1965026#msg1965026
I didn't say it was a race... I said it seemed so. In any case when people measure micro Newtons other people claim it's thermal, stray fields or whatever. It's difficult to believe small signals no matter how one rationalized ratio's. I see your quote of McCulloch but he said later his German team hopes to measure 200N/kW at 10Watts power which is 2N but he cautioned that may be optimistic.
I am glad for posters such as yourself as I’ve now found I have to ignore certain posters on this thread so strong are their inherent biases be it for or against the EM drive.
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/20/2019 06:03 pm
How can anyone take his results seriously when Shawyer has demonstrated a complete lack of competence, since he doesn't know which way something moves when you push on it....
When Bohr and Einstein publicly debated quantum theory, they essentially were saying the other guy didn't know what physics was all about but they were able to do it in such a way to enlighten others and maintain personal respect. Bohr didn't claim Einstein doesn't have a clue what probability meant and Einstein didn't say Bohr was completely incompetent. There's an art to it and I respectfully assert we have a responsibility to learn it.
Post by: meberbs on 08/20/2019 06:32 pm
Einstein and Bohr would have been debating subtle aspects of a new theory, not which direction something moves when you push on it. Shawyer has repeatedly and consistently gotten this basic concept wrong, as well as consistently misused the term reaction force. If you have a suggestion on another way to state this fact that doesn't lessen the fact that Shawyer is 100% wrong based on the very definitions of the words he using using, please share it.How can anyone take his results seriously when Shawyer has demonstrated a complete lack of competence, since he doesn't know which way something moves when you push on it....
When Bohr and Einstein publicly debated quantum theory, they essentially were saying the other guy didn't know what physics was all about but they were able to do it in such a way to enlighten others and maintain personal respect. Bohr didn't claim Einstein doesn't have a clue what probability meant and Einstein didn't say Bohr was completely incompetent. There's an art to it and I respectfully assert we have a responsibility to learn it.
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/20/2019 06:33 pm
Couldn't completely internal power sources could also be sources of subtle interference effects which could go either way depending on potential design flaws? My perception is that there seems to be a race to use less and less power and spend funds to design more and more precise instruments to measure the smaller and smaller effects produced with that tiny power.It is not a race to measure lower power, but smaller levels of force/power ratio. It turns out this is easier to do when power levels are low enough that things like thermal distortion and convection currents simply aren't present, of course there are still other problems that come up in doing this. If large forces that are easy to show are not experimental artifacts could be generated that would be great, but when such an experiment shows no result, supporters would just claim the signal could have been there but the experiment was not sensitive enough. We have already been through this cycle. If anyone had a real, consistent theory that made predictions, then this wouldn't be an issue, the first no result would show the theory is wrong and everyone could move on.
I wish researchers would design experiments which, if they worked, produce forces of unambiguous magnitude. Of course it's much easier for me to want that than for them to do that but I do understand McCulloch's team is doing an experiment they hope will produce a force on the Newton level.
Also, McCulloch eventually provided his predictions for the emDrive like devices he is having tested, and they are uN and mN levels.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48497.msg1965026#msg1965026
I didn't say it was a race... I said it seemed so. In any case when people measure micro Newtons other people claim it's thermal, stray fields or whatever. It's difficult to believe small signals no matter how one rationalized ratio's. I see your quote of McCulloch but he said later his German team hopes to measure 200N/kW at 10Watts power which is 2N but he cautioned that may be optimistic.
I am glad for posters such as yourself as I’ve now found I have to ignore certain posters on this thread so strong are their inherent biases be it for or against the EM drive.
Thanks! And I have to constantly try and keep myself from just believing what I want to be true as I so want some form of propellent-less propulsion to pan out.
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/20/2019 07:25 pm
Einstein and Bohr would have been debating subtle aspects of a new theory, not which direction something moves when you push on it. Shawyer has repeatedly and consistently gotten this basic concept wrong, as well as consistently misused the term reaction force. If you have a suggestion on another way to state this fact that doesn't lessen the fact that Shawyer is 100% wrong based on the very definitions of the words he using using, please share it.How can anyone take his results seriously when Shawyer has demonstrated a complete lack of competence, since he doesn't know which way something moves when you push on it....
When Bohr and Einstein publicly debated quantum theory, they essentially were saying the other guy didn't know what physics was all about but they were able to do it in such a way to enlighten others and maintain personal respect. Bohr didn't claim Einstein doesn't have a clue what probability meant and Einstein didn't say Bohr was completely incompetent. There's an art to it and I respectfully assert we have a responsibility to learn it.
Yes, "Shawyer has repeatedly and consistently gotten this basic concept wrong, as well as consistently misused the term reaction force." is a lot better than "Shawyer has demonstrated a complete lack of competence, since he doesn't know which way something moves when you push on it" The former is more about his ideas being wrong and the latter is more about his person. Make it about his ideas and not about his mental capacity or character. Saying someone has a "complete lack of competence" is too personal even if they really do. And please don't take it as a personal affront if someone here doesn't always accept your arguments. Thanks. :)
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/20/2019 09:28 pm
"Shawyer has repeatedly and consistently gotten this basic concept wrong..."
is a lot better than
"Shawyer has demonstrated a complete lack of competence..."
I'm sorry, but who made you the thread moderator? Is this really what we are arguing about now? :(
I think both of those clauses are essentially the same and you would still be complaining even if meberbs used the first one.
Post by: Star One on 08/20/2019 09:42 pm
"Shawyer has repeatedly and consistently gotten this basic concept wrong..."
is a lot better than
"Shawyer has demonstrated a complete lack of competence..."
I'm sorry, but who made you the thread moderator? Is this really what we are arguing about now? :(
I think both of those clauses are essentially the same and you would still be complaining even if meberbs used the first one.
They really aren’t & Bob is quite correct to point this out.
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/20/2019 09:53 pm
They really aren’t & Bob is quite correct to point this out.
I disagree. If one can't get a basic concept right, one shows a complete lack of competence.
The mods aren't going to ban meberbs and he isn't going to change. There's really no point in all this constant complaining. Let's argue the merits please.
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/20/2019 10:09 pm
White is now claiming that a 1cm x 1cm array of tapered Casimir cavities can produce up to 0.11 uN of thrust if enhanced with an external B field. I have several questions such as can the B field generator be attached to the Casimir array, and wouldn't that be like pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps?
It seems as if this is all theoretical now as the individual Casimir cavities produce too tiny a force and there are no thrust balance measurements included.
It seems Dr. White has abandoned the Emdrive in favor of this new method. Does this mean the Emdrive rotary test rig experiment was a failure?
Post by: meberbs on 08/20/2019 10:14 pm
Star One does have a point in there being differences between the 2 statements I made, but this thread is not the place to discuss whether those differences are meaningful. I have previously asked people to PM me if they have specific suggestions to improve the tone and civility of my posts, and PM is the appropriate place for meta-discussion like this. I am certainly willing to learn and improve my method of communication, but I won't stop pointing out mistakes I see, and only clear data or well founded theory will change my views of propellantless propulsion devices. At least 5 posts including this one I am writing are off topic, so lets just move on and take any further discussion of this to PM.They really aren’t & Bob is quite correct to point this out.
I disagree. If one can't get a basic concept right, one shows a complete lack of competence.
The mods aren't going to ban meberbs and he isn't going to change. There's really no point in all this constant complaining. Let's argue the merits please.
Post by: Vesc on 08/20/2019 10:51 pm
The real story here is that we have now seen the first of Dr. White's newest work with the Casimir force.
White is now claiming that a 1cm x 1cm array of tapered Casimir cavities can produce up to 0.11 uN of thrust if enhanced with an external B field. I have several questions such as can the B field generator be attached to the Casimir array, and wouldn't that be like pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps?
It seems as if this is all theoretical now as the individual Casimir cavities produce too tiny a force and there are no thrust balance measurements included.
It seems Dr. White has abandoned the Emdrive in favor of this new method. Does this mean the Emdrive rotary test rig experiment was a failure?
Been away a very long time. I lost interest in EMDrive when it occurred to me it might be just another form of electromagnetic drive with the Earth's Geomagnetic field acting as the field coil with the EMDrive frustrum as the armature. In truly empty space with no background B field, you get.... nothing. Well you get emitted IR from the hot frustrum. This does have application for satellite station keeping in a strong planetary magnetic field, but you'd get more thrust out of a true electromagnet. I suspect this still might not compete well with existing Hall effect thrusters. Anyway where were the control studies using Helmholtz coils to neutralize the Earth's magnetic field?
That being said and putting EMDrive aside, Sonny White is a totally different story. Tinkering with "vacuum dynamics" is fascinating to me big time. And yes I think Casimir Effect drives deserve their own threads. I don't expect high volume in them. Not yet anyway... ;-) Considering hydrogen atom orbitals follow acoustic dynamic pathways derived from Schrodinger Eq. but not part of the Copenhagen Interpretation is way, way out there. And probably right on the timeline of comparative 20th Century vs 21st Century physics. How can this not be exciting? Even if it turns out to be complete bunk. And if we're pushing against the fabric of space-time, would this create a wavelike wake that could distort atomic orbitals "behind" the active thrusters as further proof of an effect? Weird stuff. Reminiscent of Mills' hydrino theory which I never put much stock in. But this seems... very, very different....
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/20/2019 11:23 pm
That being said and putting EMDrive aside, Sonny White is a totally different story. Tinkering with "vacuum dynamics" is fascinating to me big time. And yes I think Casimir Effect drives deserve their own threads. I don't expect high volume in them. Not yet anyway... ;-)
New thread started here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48852.0
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/21/2019 12:07 am
"Shawyer has repeatedly and consistently gotten this basic concept wrong..."
is a lot better than
"Shawyer has demonstrated a complete lack of competence..."
I'm sorry, but who made you the thread moderator? Is this really what we are arguing about now? :(
I think both of those clauses are essentially the same and you would still be complaining even if meberbs used the first one.
I'm not but he asked me and I answered. I just don't want to see this thread locked like the Woodward Effect thread was today.
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/21/2019 04:28 am
Please indicate via Yes or No which of the following statements you agree or not with. Please don't post a general statement that doesn't indicate your opinion on EACH statement:
1) An EmDrive, when filled with resonant RF but not accelerating will not generate thrust.
2) An EmDrive when accelerating small end forward will generate Red shifted, lower momentum photons impacting the small end, while at the big end the photons are Blue shifted and deliver higher momentum on impact.
3) This differential radiation pressure will generate a net momentum transfer from the photons to the cavity, big end directed.
4) The single transit differential radiation pressure toward the big end will be amplified by the number of EM wave transits between the end plates.
5) As per N3, isolated forces are not allowed. To cause an Action/Reaction N3 effect requires a matching but opposite direction cavity Reaction force, small end directed, to be generated to balance the initial Action force, big end directed. Yes a mind twist but it must exist if you accept the acceleration generated differential Doppler shift and resultant differential radiation pressure.
6) Due to the momentum transfer from the photons to accelerating mass causes photon wavelength to increase. Ie accelerating cavity momentum gain is balanced by photon momentum loss & increased wavelength.
Post by: meberbs on 08/21/2019 05:39 am
Please indicate via Yes or No which of the following statements you agree or not with. Please don't post a general statement that doesn't indicate your opinion on EACH statement:Some of your statements are too twisted for a pure "yes or no" statement to be correct. You say something either correct or almost correct but with room to be interpreted completely wrong.
1) An EmDrive, when filled with resonant RF but not accelerating will not generate thrust.Yes, also, no net thrust when accelerating under an external force either, just resistance to the external force causing the acceleration due to the mass of the cavity (including a small contribution from the mass-energy of the photons inside the cavity), as dictated by Newton's third law.
2) An EmDrive when accelerating small end forward will generate Red shifted, lower momentum photons impacting the small end, while at the big end the photons are Blue shifted and deliver higher momentum on impact.Yes, or at least close, but imagining that you could separate out the photons travelling in each direction, you would also see redshift and blueshift if you look at an emDrive from an inertial frame where the emDrive is moving at constant velocity. In that frame the net force totaling the radiation pressure on all walls will be zero. This is because in such a case while there is a blueshift happening on the big end reflection, what is reflecting is photons that were red shifted when reflected by the small end. The inverse happens at the small end and the effects cancel. A net difference in force only happens during acceleration because the velocity of the cavity changed while the photon was travelling from one end to the other, and therefore the amount of the redshift or blueshift does not cancel the amount from the previous reflection on the other end.
3) This differential radiation pressure will generate a net momentum transfer from the photons to the cavity, big end directed.Yes, but see previous answer for caveats on important subtleties with why this happens that you are ignoring.
4) The single transit differential radiation pressure toward the big end will be amplified by the number of EM wave transits between the end plates.No. If you actually did the math you would see that the amount of the force is only proportional to the change in velocity since the previous reflection, and to the total energy in the cavity. The total energy in the cavity is proportional to Q, but you do not get to add in a second factor of Q.
5) As per N3, isolated forces are not allowed. To cause an Action/Reaction N3 effect requires a matching but opposite direction cavity Reaction force, small end directed, to be generated to balance the initial Action force, big end directed. Yes a mind twist but it must exist if you accept the acceleration generated differential Doppler shift and resultant differential radiation pressure.No, there is no mind twist when applying Newton's laws. The photons apply a force to the cavity and the cavity applies an equal and opposite force to the photons. This net force on the photons is what causes a net blueshift of the photons. This net blueshift allows the center of energy of the photons to be moving forward t the same rate as the cavity.
6) Due to the momentum transfer from the photons to accelerating mass causes photon wavelength to increase. Ie accelerating cavity momentum gain is balanced by photon momentum loss & increased wavelength.No, opposite of true, and complete nonsense as explained alongside my previous answers.
Now that I answered yours, there are 2 related questions that I asked you almost 3 years ago, and you repeatedly ignored. The first of these questions only has 3 possible answers, "big end forward," "little end forward," and "doesn't move" Only one of these is correct. And this is completely analagous to the situation with the photons that you are failing to describe correctly here.
Can you please answer these 2 simple questions from the end of this old post?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1598852#msg1598852
Post by: cvbn on 08/21/2019 01:30 pm
Couldn't completely internal power sources could also be sources of subtle interference effects which could go either way depending on potential design flaws? My perception is that there seems to be a race to use less and less power and spend funds to design more and more precise instruments to measure the smaller and smaller effects produced with that tiny power.It is not a race to measure lower power, but smaller levels of force/power ratio. It turns out this is easier to do when power levels are low enough that things like thermal distortion and convection currents simply aren't present, of course there are still other problems that come up in doing this. If large forces that are easy to show are not experimental artifacts could be generated that would be great, but when such an experiment shows no result, supporters would just claim the signal could have been there but the experiment was not sensitive enough. We have already been through this cycle. If anyone had a real, consistent theory that made predictions, then this wouldn't be an issue, the first no result would show the theory is wrong and everyone could move on.
I wish researchers would design experiments which, if they worked, produce forces of unambiguous magnitude. Of course it's much easier for me to want that than for them to do that but I do understand McCulloch's team is doing an experiment they hope will produce a force on the Newton level.
Also, McCulloch eventually provided his predictions for the emDrive like devices he is having tested, and they are uN and mN levels.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48497.msg1965026#msg1965026
I didn't say it was a race... I said it seemed so. In any case when people measure micro Newtons other people claim it's thermal, stray fields or whatever. It's difficult to believe small signals no matter how one rationalized ratio's. I see your quote of McCulloch but he said later his German team hopes to measure 200N/kW at 10Watts power which is 2N but he cautioned that may be optimistic.
Taylor's Emdrive which uses visible or ultraviolet light is supposed to give N/kW. Tajmar is going to perform several different experiments for McCulloch and one of them is this one.
http://www.jbis.org.uk/paper.php?p=2017.70.238
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323278529_Propulsive_forces_using_high-Q_asymmetric_high_energy_laser_resonators
Post by: Alex_O on 08/21/2019 07:29 pm
Look at the simulation of a two-mirror parabolic antenna with a horn emitter and a variable distance between the reflectors.
...
I would like to understand from this model - what radiation pressure on the walls (mirrors) can be in such a system?
...
The second question is how the pressure depends on the possible quality factor of this resonator.
...
I do not know how to correctly understand this summation, and which physics is correct. It would be interesting to find out the correct answer. ОК?
Please excuse me. Why no one answered my message? I am a regular reader of this great forum, maybe I have poorly prepared my question?
Learning Breakthrough Propulsion Physics is my hobby, I'm not a scientist, and I don't work as an engineer. For three years I have read a large number of various scientific works and I know almost everything about experiments with Emdive. For example, I can show my analysis of NASA's Emdrive, where I studied the issues of speeds and accelerations. I noticed that the Paula March's torsion before turning on the power RF was spinning, which means that the resonator Emdrive experienced an acceleration. (about which TT and Shawyer speak so much). Which is fundamentally different from the experiments Dresden, NRL and Monomorphic. I also look at the Shawyer stands (with linear displacement) I know and help myself - how did Shawyer learn about the Doppler idea? I suspect that Shawyer observed Doppler effects in his experiments. About which we still do not know.
Also, I am still in search of an answer to my first question - about the important role of an unstable magnetron in creating the thrust effect in Shawyer experiments. Also, I can add that I read any scientific papers about that non-electromagnetic radiation can exist in nature and I am looking for an answer to the question - is this a good idea for emdrive ?
Thank.
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/21/2019 08:37 pm
Please excuse me. Why no one answered my message? I am a regular reader of this great forum, maybe I have poorly prepared my question?My understanding is that Shawyer does think the Emdrive will work on a torsional pendulum, but it would need to be set up in such a way that a pre-load is used. Shawyer has said recently, "He [Monomorphic] could pre-load it [emdrive] by setting the torque arm against a back stop, and carry out a set of thrust/load measurements."
Learning Breakthrough Propulsion Physics is my hobby, I'm not a scientist, and I don't work as an engineer. For three years I have read a large number of various scientific works and I know almost everything about experiments with Emdive. For example, I can show my analysis of NASA's Emdrive, where I studied the issues of speeds and accelerations. I noticed that the Paula March's torsion before turning on the power RF was spinning, which means that the resonator Emdrive experienced an acceleration. (about which TT and Shawyer speak so much). Which is fundamentally different from the experiments Dresden, NRL and Monomorphic. I also look at the Shawyer stands (with linear displacement) I know and help myself - how did Shawyer learn about the Doppler idea? I suspect that Shawyer observed Doppler effects in his experiments. About which we still do not know.
Also, I am still in search of an answer to my first question - about the important role of an unstable magnetron in creating the thrust effect in Shawyer experiments. Also, I can add that I read any scientific papers about that non-electromagnetic radiation can exist in nature and I am looking for an answer to the question - is this a good idea for emdrive ?
Thank.
Post by: cvbn on 08/22/2019 12:54 am
Tinkering with "vacuum dynamics" is fascinating to me big time. And yes I think Casimir Effect drives deserve their own threads.
McCulloch's work is also based, in a sense, on Casimir Effect and "vacuum dynamics" (MiHsC - Modified Inertia from a Hubble-scale Casimir effect, currently known as Quantised Inertia) - he proposed to explain Emdrive using that. He also proposed a theoretical basis for FTL drive among other things: https://www.tsijournals.com/articles/superluminal-travel-from-quantised-inertia.pdf
Post by: Alex_O on 08/22/2019 06:24 am
I don’t understand the term "torque arm against a back stop". It seems to me that you could install a special hammer on the torsion bar. To push the torsion with a short, light blow before turning on the RF power. At the same time, you should see on your indicator how your torsion pendulum rotates. This is the first option. The second option is to put a retractable stop, which can limit the rotation of the torsion bar for a short time when the RF power is already on. This retractable stop will need to be removed, after a short time, after RF power is on. The third option - the retractable stop can be as flexible as a spring. But I think this is difficult, since the force of elasticity of the stop should be at the level of micronewtons.Please excuse me. Why no one answered my message? I am a regular reader of this great forum, maybe I have poorly prepared my question?My understanding is that Shawyer does think the Emdrive will work on a torsional pendulum, but it would need to be set up in such a way that a pre-load is used. Shawyer has said recently, "He [Monomorphic] could pre-load it [emdrive] by setting the torque arm against a back stop, and carry out a set of thrust/load measurements."
Learning Breakthrough Propulsion Physics is my hobby, I'm not a scientist, and I don't work as an engineer. For three years I have read a large number of various scientific works and I know almost everything about experiments with Emdive. For example, I can show my analysis of NASA's Emdrive, where I studied the issues of speeds and accelerations. I noticed that the Paula March's torsion before turning on the power RF was spinning, which means that the resonator Emdrive experienced an acceleration. (about which TT and Shawyer speak so much). Which is fundamentally different from the experiments Dresden, NRL and Monomorphic. I also look at the Shawyer stands (with linear displacement) I know and help myself - how did Shawyer learn about the Doppler idea? I suspect that Shawyer observed Doppler effects in his experiments. About which we still do not know.
Also, I am still in search of an answer to my first question - about the important role of an unstable magnetron in creating the thrust effect in Shawyer experiments. Also, I can add that I read any scientific papers about that non-electromagnetic radiation can exist in nature and I am looking for an answer to the question - is this a good idea for emdrive ?
Thank.
Maybe it could be a stream of air? Air hammer or (wow!) just a directional low-frequency sound wave from the speaker? It was cool if it worked. You spent a lot of effort to defeat different noises. Removed vibrations, removed thermal air movements. You've got the perfect torsion pendulum. Maybe this is somehow bad for emdrive?.
In other words, it might be that in order to get traction, you first need to somehow turn on the excitation mode (by analogy with the rotation of the synchronous electric motor, where there is a special magnetic field excitation winding).
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/22/2019 01:16 pm
I don’t understand the term "torque arm against a back stop". It seems to me that you could install a special hammer on the torsion bar. To push the torsion with a short, light blow before turning on the RF power. At the same time, you should see on your indicator how your torsion pendulum rotates. This is the first option. The second option is to put a retractable stop, which can limit the rotation of the torsion bar for a short time when the RF power is already on. This retractable stop will need to be removed, after a short time, after RF power is on. The third option - the retractable stop can be as flexible as a spring. But I think this is difficult, since the force of elasticity of the stop should be at the level of micronewtons.
Maybe it could be a stream of air? Air hammer or (wow!) just a directional low-frequency sound wave from the speaker? It was cool if it worked. You spent a lot of effort to defeat different noises. Removed vibrations, removed thermal air movements. You've got the perfect torsion pendulum. Maybe this is somehow bad for emdrive?.
In other words, it might be that in order to get traction, you first need to somehow turn on the excitation mode (by analogy with the rotation of the synchronous electric motor, where there is a special magnetic field excitation winding).
Easiest thing to use would be the existing calibration voice coil. It would be easy to use that to create a little movement (with a known signal profile), engage the emdrive during movement and see if the signals deviate from the known calibration signals.
Post by: Alex_O on 08/22/2019 07:05 pm
It seems to me that we need to learn how to make such a diagram.I don’t understand the term "torque arm against a back stop". It seems to me that you could install a special hammer on the torsion bar. To push the torsion with a short, light blow before turning on the RF power. At the same time, you should see on your indicator how your torsion pendulum rotates. This is the first option. The second option is to put a retractable stop, which can limit the rotation of the torsion bar for a short time when the RF power is already on. This retractable stop will need to be removed, after a short time, after RF power is on. The third option - the retractable stop can be as flexible as a spring. But I think this is difficult, since the force of elasticity of the stop should be at the level of micronewtons.
Maybe it could be a stream of air? Air hammer or (wow!) just a directional low-frequency sound wave from the speaker? It was cool if it worked. You spent a lot of effort to defeat different noises. Removed vibrations, removed thermal air movements. You've got the perfect torsion pendulum. Maybe this is somehow bad for emdrive?.
In other words, it might be that in order to get traction, you first need to somehow turn on the excitation mode (by analogy with the rotation of the synchronous electric motor, where there is a special magnetic field excitation winding).
Easiest thing to use would be the existing calibration voice coil. It would be easy to use that to create a little movement (with a known signal profile), engage the emdrive during movement and see if the signals deviate from the known calibration signals.
I look at the graphs from the EW report and see the graphs of speed and acceleration. The existing calibration voice coil, if it is possible to smoothly change the voltage for, for example, 20 seconds, this will create rotation for the torsion bar, and you can try to turn on the RF power at the time of rotation.
The second question is - do you have the opportunity to measure velocity and acceleration?
The third question - we know that in the EW system there were thermal forces, as it seems to me quite large. An interesting idea is that the thermal force created a useful acceleration of thorison, which (as Shawyer says) is necessary for Emdrive.
Note. But this is probably not complete advice. Something important about traveling wave modes. I remember that Shawyerwas talking about traveling wave modes.
Post by: oyzw on 08/25/2019 02:02 am
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/25/2019 01:58 pm
Hello, Mr. Jamie! I haven't contacted you for a long time. Wish you all the best. Do you still have the conditions to continue to improve the experimental scheme? Or wait and see? I still hope to continue the experiment.
Hello! Long time no see. I hope you are doing well too. I have been working on a new hanging wire torsional pendulum for testing heavier objects like the emdrive. Flexure bearings with very low stiffness can only support <5lbs and the emdrives tend to weigh a bit more than that. The hanging wire pendulum can support 50lbs without any elasticity in the wire with the same torsional stiffness. Then the next step is to finish the design of the liquid metal coax connection.
Many are also waiting for the 2019 IAC conference in October where it is rumored Roger Shawyer will be releasing specific design details on his first gen demonstrator thrusters. It doesn't make sense to keep building cavities based on guesses.
Post by: Vlad Kri on 08/26/2019 07:21 am
https://youtu.be/xrzfBiFCBVk
Is that Shawyer? Is that an air table? Can you point to the link of this video? Thanks.
https://ok.ru/video/317461105392
from 29:23
I can't really tell what's going on since it's in Russian without subtitles but thanks anyway.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6s29zl
Post by: Alex_O on 08/26/2019 06:58 pm
I have been working on a new hanging wire torsional pendulum for testing heavier objects like the emdrive. Flexure bearings with very low stiffness can only support <5lbs and the emdrives tend to weigh a bit more than that. The hanging wire pendulum can support 50lbs without any elasticity in the wire with the same torsional stiffness.Jamie, do you have the opportunity to conduct an experiment on an early installation? What could you think of a helium balloon pendant? Volume approximately 1m3. Just attach a small balloon to the torsional pendulum. This can well reduce the load (weights) on flexible bearings. I don’t know how this can affect the effects of noise.
My second question may be about non-electromagnetic radiation. I read about very strange things, for example about streams in Aether (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories) (theories). Do you have a working resonator emdrive? For example, the end walls of a resonator may be slightly transparent to Aether wind. This is very similar to White's quantum vacuum. There may simply be different terms when describing one physics. But it may be that it is the resonator that you used - it may be very bad for the transit of Aether flows through itself. It just uses bad material, bad copper (from a metallurgical factory), etc. .. (for example, at the level of dissolved gases / impurities) or a problem at the level of wall thickness ....
Thank!
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/26/2019 11:34 pm
Jamie, do you have the opportunity to conduct an experiment on an early installation? What could you think of a helium balloon pendant? Volume approximately 1m3. Just attach a small balloon to the torsional pendulum. This can well reduce the load (weights) on flexible bearings. I don’t know how this can affect the effects of noise.
My second question may be about non-electromagnetic radiation. I read about very strange things, for example about streams in Aether (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories) (theories). Do you have a working resonator emdrive? For example, the end walls of a resonator may be slightly transparent to Aether wind. This is very similar to White's quantum vacuum. There may simply be different terms when describing one physics. But it may be that it is the resonator that you used - it may be very bad for the transit of Aether flows through itself. It just uses bad material, bad copper (from a metallurgical factory), etc. .. (for example, at the level of dissolved gases / impurities) or a problem at the level of wall thickness ....
Better to use the hanging wire pendulum as it can hold more weight for the same sensitivity. The whole balance needs to be placed in a draft enclosure, so I don't think a balloon would be very practical.
I have a working frustum-shaped 2.4ghz RF cavity resonator, but I have not been able to get any thrust out of it to date. The new liquid metal coax connection (that allows me to remove the heavy RF amplifier and phase change heatsink from the torsional pendulum) should greatly simplify the experiment.
Post by: Alex_O on 08/27/2019 02:03 pm
Jamie, do you have the opportunity to conduct an experiment on an early installation? What could you think of a helium balloon pendant? Volume approximately 1m3. Just attach a small balloon to the torsional pendulum. This can well reduce the load (weights) on flexible bearings. I don’t know how this can affect the effects of noise.
My second question may be about non-electromagnetic radiation. I read about very strange things, for example about streams in Aether (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories) (theories). Do you have a working resonator emdrive? For example, the end walls of a resonator may be slightly transparent to Aether wind. This is very similar to White's quantum vacuum. There may simply be different terms when describing one physics. But it may be that it is the resonator that you used - it may be very bad for the transit of Aether flows through itself. It just uses bad material, bad copper (from a metallurgical factory), etc. .. (for example, at the level of dissolved gases / impurities) or a problem at the level of wall thickness ....
Better to use the hanging wire pendulum as it can hold more weight for the same sensitivity. The whole balance needs to be placed in a draft enclosure, so I don't think a balloon would be very practical.
I have a working frustum-shaped 2.4ghz RF cavity resonator, but I have not been able to get any thrust out of it to date. The new liquid metal coax connection (that allows me to remove the heavy RF amplifier and phase change heatsink from the torsional pendulum) should greatly simplify the experiment.
I looked again at your video channel, I understand that there is not enough space for an ordinary gel ball.
But it seems that this can be organized. In this case, the diameter of the hole in the draft enclosure for a thin thread (fishing cord) can be less than 1 millimeter. An additional guard (thin short tube or some foam) can be used.
And here's another crazy idea. I read that in strange experiments with strange radiations surrounding objects can greatly harm. The wall of the room! If you move the installation to the center of the room and use the remote control .. Is it not very difficult to experience? And the casing draft enclosure also need to be removed.
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/05/2019 08:55 am
Quote
Latest news
September 2019
A copy of the original Flight Thruster Technical Report is given here. The report which was first produced in September 2010, was updated in December 2017 to include the original manufacturing drawings.
Also given are the Cullen and Bailey papers, which provided the original source material for the development of the EmDrive theory of operation.
These three files are referenced in the paper entitled, EmDrive Thrust/Load Characteristics. Theory, experimental Results and a Moon Mission. This paper will be given at the IAC 2019 conference in Washington next month.
Flight Thruster Report Issue 2
Cullen Paper 0001
Bailey RRE Paper
http://www.emdrive.com/flighthrusterreportissue2.pdf
http://www.emdrive.com/cullenpaper0001.pdf
http://www.emdrive.com/baileyrrepaper.pdf
Replicators, GO!
Have fun, be nice.
Post by: Flyby on 09/05/2019 12:50 pm
This must be the first pdf with substantial useful information (on how to build) since 2014...ever since this topic started...
All the rest of the previous papers were - sorry to say - nothing more then propaganda material: a lot of empty visuals with zero content...
I will not replicate... no time, no money to burn and more important, some serious gaps in my engineering skills... but maybe others can have a go at it ?
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/05/2019 02:41 pm
Finally....
This must be the first pdf with substantial useful information (on how to build) since 2014...ever since this topic started...
All the rest of the previous papers were - sorry to say - nothing more then propaganda material: a lot of empty visuals with zero content...
I will not replicate... no time, no money to burn and more important, some serious gaps in my engineering skills... but maybe others can have a go at it ?
Hi Flyby,
NDAs & other commercial arrangements with SPR clients prevented this data from being released earlier.
As stated earlier, it is time for G1 EmDrive tech to come out from the shadows
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/05/2019 02:55 pm
Roger has loaded the Flight Thruster detailed engineering report onto www.emdrive.comQuoteLatest news
September 2019
A copy of the original Flight Thruster Technical Report is given here. The report which was first produced in September 2010, was updated in December 2017 to include the original manufacturing drawings.
Also given are the Cullen and Bailey papers, which provided the original source material for the development of the EmDrive theory of operation.
These three files are referenced in the paper entitled, EmDrive Thrust/Load Characteristics. Theory, experimental Results and a Moon Mission. This paper will be given at the IAC 2019 conference in Washington next month.
Flight Thruster Report Issue 2
Cullen Paper 0001
Bailey RRE Paper
http://www.emdrive.com/flighthrusterreportissue2.pdf
http://www.emdrive.com/cullenpaper0001.pdf
http://www.emdrive.com/baileyrrepaper.pdf
Replicators, GO!
Have fun, be nice.
This release is more disruptive than anything in the last 100 years of the quickly throw mass away propulsion industry.
EmDrive is nothing more than a new type of machine than converts electrical energy into accelerative KE. No OU. No constant thrust as some assume. As accelerative KE increases, thrust decreases. CofE, CofM & N3 occurr.
Science is about never being 100% sure you know everything. An open & questioning mind is required to do science.
Post by: meberbs on 09/05/2019 06:01 pm
EmDrive is nothing more than a new type of machine than converts electrical energy into accelerative KE. No OU.Mathematically impossible, this has been explained to you before, since there is no special reference frame, and thermal energy and electrical energy from the batteries do not change with frame, but kinetic energy change does, if they happen to balance in one frame, they will not in another. This is not a problem for actual rockets because the difference in the kinetic energy of the rocket and what is expels is constant. But even simpler is the issue you keep ignoring with conservation of momentum:
No constant thrust as some assume. As accelerative KE increases, thrust decreases. CofE, CofM & N3 occurr.Conservation of momentum simply is 100% contradicted by Shawyer's claims. Take an emDrive sitting at rest (total momentum =0). Turn it on and have it run for a while until it gains some velocity and then turn it off. With it off, the energy dissipates in the cavity, so the total momentum is clearly >0. There is nothing external that the emDrive interacts with so there is nothing else with opposite balancing momentum. The total net momentum of the universe therefore magically changed, which is the definition of breaking conservation of momentum.
I replied to your previous set of questions that revolved around your misunderstanding of Newton's laws. I had follow up questions for you (that I originally asked years ago) You still haven't answered those simple questions.
Science is about never being 100% sure you know everything. An open & questioning mind is required to do science.There are certain things that are definitions, or mathematical or logical facts, such as 1+1 = 2.
Post by: Mark7777777 on 09/05/2019 10:12 pm
Roger has loaded the Flight Thruster detailed engineering report onto www.emdrive.comQuoteLatest news
September 2019
A copy of the original Flight Thruster Technical Report is given here. The report which was first produced in September 2010, was updated in December 2017 to include the original manufacturing drawings.
Also given are the Cullen and Bailey papers, which provided the original source material for the development of the EmDrive theory of operation.
These three files are referenced in the paper entitled, EmDrive Thrust/Load Characteristics. Theory, experimental Results and a Moon Mission. This paper will be given at the IAC 2019 conference in Washington next month.
Flight Thruster Report Issue 2
Cullen Paper 0001
Bailey RRE Paper
http://www.emdrive.com/flighthrusterreportissue2.pdf
http://www.emdrive.com/cullenpaper0001.pdf
http://www.emdrive.com/baileyrrepaper.pdf
Replicators, GO!
Have fun, be nice.
Thanks The Traveller. Do you know how Roger has been getting on with his superconducting efforts?
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/06/2019 12:51 am
Roger has loaded the Flight Thruster detailed engineering report onto www.emdrive.comQuoteLatest news
September 2019
A copy of the original Flight Thruster Technical Report is given here. The report which was first produced in September 2010, was updated in December 2017 to include the original manufacturing drawings.
Also given are the Cullen and Bailey papers, which provided the original source material for the development of the EmDrive theory of operation.
These three files are referenced in the paper entitled, EmDrive Thrust/Load Characteristics. Theory, experimental Results and a Moon Mission. This paper will be given at the IAC 2019 conference in Washington next month.
Flight Thruster Report Issue 2
Cullen Paper 0001
Bailey RRE Paper
http://www.emdrive.com/flighthrusterreportissue2.pdf
http://www.emdrive.com/cullenpaper0001.pdf
http://www.emdrive.com/baileyrrepaper.pdf
Replicators, GO!
Have fun, be nice.
Thanks The Traveller. Do you know how Roger has been getting on with his superconducting efforts?
Roger tells me his Luna PSV project is work in progress as attached.
For those with EmDrive understanding, there are interesting data presented there.
The upper crew module can be removed and replaced with a cargo module.
Some of which will be discussed in his 2019 IAC paper:
"EmDrive Thrust/Load Characteristics. Theory, experimental Results and a Moon Mission".
Should be an interesting read.
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/06/2019 02:08 am
The coupler and tuning mechanism is not really anything like what was expected. It was always assumed there would be a direct connection with the coupler (antenna) and the tuning mechanism very close by. It turns out this was a tuning rod near the antenna! This may have had the dual role of tuning both the antenna and cavity at once.
The CAD files for the geometry of the cavity are a little less clear. Both ends are shaped in a concave-convex configuration as expected, but the plates are not perfectly spherical, and the large end-plate shows a "baseplate error correction" being used.
The report claims a 0.05mm tolerance for maximum Q factor (~75,000). This tolerance is beyond the capability of DIY projects and makes manufacture very expensive. :-\
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/06/2019 02:15 am
These are some of the more interesting CAD plans from the recent release in my opinion.
The coupler and tuning mechanism is not really anything like what was expected. It was always assumed there would be a direct connection with the coupler (antenna) and the tuning mechanism very close by. It turns out this was a tuning rod near the antenna! This may have had the dual role of tuning both the antenna and cavity at once.
The CAD files for the geometry of the cavity are a little less clear. Both ends are shaped in a concave-convex configuration as expected, but the plates are not perfectly spherical, and the large end-plate shows an "error correction" baseplate being used.
The report claims a 0.05mm tolerance for maximum Q factor. This is beyond the capability of DIY projects and makes manufacture very expensive. :-\
Hi Jamie,
I'll get a clarification from Roger & post his reply.
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/06/2019 02:22 am
Conservation of momentum simply is 100% contradicted by Shawyer's claims. Take an emDrive sitting at rest (total momentum =0). Turn it on and have it run for a while until it gains some velocity and then turn it off. With it off, the energy dissipates in the cavity, so the total momentum is clearly >0. There is nothing external that the emDrive interacts with so there is nothing else with opposite balancing momentum. The total net momentum of the universe therefore magically changed, which is the definition of breaking conservation of momentum.
The internal photons and their momentum are part of the universe.
As the EmDrive accelerates and gains momentum, the internal photons lose the momentum gained by the drive and their wavelengths increase.
Thus universal momentum is not altered & CofM is conserved
Post by: meberbs on 09/06/2019 03:31 am
As I specified in my post, the comparison is performed after you turn the drive off and all of the photons get absorbed by the walls of the cavity.Conservation of momentum simply is 100% contradicted by Shawyer's claims. Take an emDrive sitting at rest (total momentum =0). Turn it on and have it run for a while until it gains some velocity and then turn it off. With it off, the energy dissipates in the cavity, so the total momentum is clearly >0. There is nothing external that the emDrive interacts with so there is nothing else with opposite balancing momentum. The total net momentum of the universe therefore magically changed, which is the definition of breaking conservation of momentum.The internal photons and their momentum are part of the universe.
(This specification is not required, but it makes the explanation simpler, since you have refused to recognize the half dozen other ways to explain this, and you just repeat claims that the photons in a moving cavity have net momentum in the opposite direction of what they actually do.)
As the EmDrive accelerates and gains momentum, the internal photons lose the momentum gained by the drive and their wavelengths increase.Just as wrong as the last time you claimed this. See my previous response that covered this in detail. (And while you are at it read and respond to those simple questions I asked.)
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/06/2019 08:13 am
As I specified in my post, the comparison is performed after you turn the drive off and all of the photons get absorbed by the walls of the cavity.
Invalid model.
Momentum is transferred from the photons to the accelerating EmDrive every time the travelling waves reflect off the end plates. Happens in real time.
As the EmDrive gains momentum, the internal photons lose a balancing amount of momentum and their wavelengths increase. Again CofM occurs & momentum is transferred on each end plate absorb & emit event. Standard radiation pressure physics.
As for energy, as the EmDrive accelerates and it's KE increases, the total energy stored inside the cavity decreases, resulting in an energy division. Some goes into KE and some is radiated away as waste heat energy.
Input Rf energy = Gained KE + waste heat radiated energy.
BTW the loss of cavity energy to KE also drops the Force generated as the KE drain drops cavity energy, which causes the Force generated to drop.
So no OU operations here. Just energy conversion Rf > photons > some % to KE > what is left is radiated away as waste heat.
Please read the Flight Thruster report and comment on where the measured 80mN of thrust, that reversed direction when the cavity position was altered from Up to Down, came from. That is assuming you still wish to believe the EmDrive doesn't work and Roger's thrust claims are not correct.
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/06/2019 09:11 am
Note that cavity thermal expansion is used to trigger Force generation.
Ie, no initial acceleration, no Reaction Force will be generated.
Quote
During a test run, because there is no thermal compensation in the flight thruster design, the walls of the thruster will expand.
The large difference in spring constants of the suspension spring and the electronic balance, mean this wall expansion will cause the centre of mass of the thruster to move.
The movement is recorded as an increase in the pre-load, measured on the electronic balance.
The acceleration in this movement, caused by the Reaction force, is measured as an increase or decrease in the pre-load depending on the attitude of the thruster.
Thus with the thrust vector down, (as illustrated in fig 5.5), the Reaction force is up, and the pre-load increase will be slightly decreased.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/06/2019 09:56 am
Here Roger explains how the Reaction Force is measured on the attached Test Rig.
Note that cavity thermal expansion is used to trigger Force generation.
Ie, no initial acceleration, no Reaction Force will be generated.
Note that cavity thermal expansion is used to trigger Force generation.
YES!
...
The third question - we know that in the EW system there were thermal forces, as it seems to me quite large. An interesting idea is that the thermal force created a useful acceleration of thorison, which (as Shawyer says) is necessary for Emdrive.
Post by: meberbs on 09/06/2019 01:55 pm
I am not specifying a model, if you turn off the drive, the energy in the cavity dissipates, so the photons are no longer there. Everyone should understand that fact. The question of where the momentum ends up is completely valid, but you keep dodging it.As I specified in my post, the comparison is performed after you turn the drive off and all of the photons get absorbed by the walls of the cavity.
Invalid model.
Most of the rest of your post is repeating things such as your completely backwards claims about what direction something moves when it is pushed on, and generally ignoring my last couple of replies to you.I already explained that even if you make up numbers that balance energy in one frame, they will not work in literally any other frame, and no frame is special.
Please read the Flight Thruster report and comment on where the measured 80mN of thrust, that reversed direction when the cavity position was altered from Up to Down, came from. That is assuming you still wish to believe the EmDrive doesn't work and Roger's thrust claims are not correct.There is no "belief" to it. No other experiment hasproduced anything near what Shawyer reported, and all reports can be explained by various error sources. Shawyer describes a terrible experimental setup that would be vulnerable to all sorts of errors, and even describes some like thermal expansion while completely ignoring how those would dominate the measurements (and yes given the complexity of the setup and off-center balances and attachments, it could reverse direction, but given Shawyer's lack of comprehension of how forces work, he also could have just added a negative sign in the upside down tests implying that the cavity would "move" the opposite direction because the spring was attached to the opposite side, no way to be sure without information from a source that actually knows how forces work.)
Details of some of the ways the experiment can be wrong will have to wait until you answer the simple questions that you have been avoiding for years, and I re-asked at the end of my recent post that you ignored. If you don't first understand how forces work, it will be impossible to explain to you the problems with Shawyer's setup.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1981848#msg19818481
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/06/2019 02:07 pm
I am not specifying a model, if you turn off the drive, the energy in the cavity dissipates, so the photons are no longer there. Everyone should understand that fact. The question of where the momentum ends up is completely valid, but you keep dodging it.
I'm dodging nothing, while you dodge that happens in real time, during each photon end plate absorb & emit event. As per attachment.
Again what happens after the cavity stored energy turns into waste heat has nothing to do with our discussions, so why keep going there?
What I have explained to you is the momentum transfer from the trapped photons to the increasing EmDrive momentum and their increasing wavelengths happens in real time, every time the photons are absorbed & emitted at the end plates. So why do not comment on this? Why ask questions about what happens when the cavity stored energy is turned into waste heat? Maybe because it destroys your failed model?
Nothing is about what happens after the stored cavity energy decays so why are you going there? Your model is wrong.
Anyway I doubt you and I will every agree on theory so let's agree to disagree and move on.
What we have before us is experimental data. Do you accept the results? If not why?
Post by: trm14 on 09/06/2019 02:25 pm
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/06/2019 02:56 pm
These are some of the more interesting CAD plans from the recent release in my opinion.
The coupler and tuning mechanism is not really anything like what was expected. It was always assumed there would be a direct connection with the coupler (antenna) and the tuning mechanism very close by. It turns out this was a tuning rod near the antenna! This may have had the dual role of tuning both the antenna and cavity at once.
The CAD files for the geometry of the cavity are a little less clear. Both ends are shaped in a concave-convex configuration as expected, but the plates are not perfectly spherical, and the large end-plate shows a "baseplate error correction" being used.
The report claims a 0.05mm tolerance for maximum Q factor (~75,000). This tolerance is beyond the capability of DIY projects and makes manufacture very expensive. :-\
Hi Jamie,
Roger replied about page 55. Was done to correct a machining error. Replications can use the earlier paged dimensions, pages 6, 47-54 as the build goal.
I'm informed +-50 micron tolerance, about human hair diameter, is fairly easy to achieve with any decent machine shop.
I'm making enquiries about getting a Flight Thruster cavity replicated.
Plus can source a 100W 3.85GHz Rf amp and freq tracker.
Are you interested in testing it as per Roger's requirement of using a precursor cavity acceleration?
If so have a few ideas of others ways to cause the external force that causes internal Doppler shift, triggering self acceleration.
In the end, the viability of the EmDrive is about experimental data.
Now Roger has opened the door to others doing high fidelity replications of the drive and the test rig.
Let the test data set us free.
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/06/2019 03:47 pm
Please read the Flight Thruster report and comment on where the measured 80mN of thrust, that reversed direction when the cavity position was altered from Up to Down, came from. That is assuming you still wish to believe the EmDrive doesn't work and Roger's thrust claims are not correct.There is no "belief" to it. No other experiment has produced anything near what Shawyer reported, and all reports can be explained by various error sources. Shawyer describes a terrible experimental setup that would be vulnerable to all sorts of errors, and even describes some like thermal expansion while completely ignoring how those would dominate the measurements (and yes given the complexity of the setup and off-center balances and attachments, it could reverse direction, but given Shawyer's lack of comprehension of how forces work, he also could have just added a negative sign in the upside down tests implying that the cavity would "move" the opposite direction because the spring was attached to the opposite side, no way to be sure without information from a source that actually knows how forces work.)
The experimental results have nothing to do with theory, yours or Roger's or mine.
Experimental data has been published showing a very clear and high thrust value, 170mN at 450W input.
Please explain, not using theory or lack of it, how this large thrust value was obtained.
And if as you suggest it is from from failed experimental data or technique, how that occurred.
Not fair to wave your hands and claim it can't be real as you do not agree with Roger's theory.
The data is data.
Either explain how the error occurred or accept the data as valid.
Theory has no part in the experimental data.
Post by: meberbs on 09/06/2019 04:46 pm
You are aware there other posters can read the post history right? I previously answered your inside-out explanation of forces with the correct description, and even included a link in case you somehow couldn't find it one page back on the thread. On the other hand you have not answered any of my questions.I am not specifying a model, if you turn off the drive, the energy in the cavity dissipates, so the photons are no longer there. Everyone should understand that fact. The question of where the momentum ends up is completely valid, but you keep dodging it.
I'm dodging nothing, while you dodge that happens in real time, during each photon end plate absorb & emit event. As per attachment.
Again what happens after the cavity stored energy turns into waste heat has nothing to do with our discussions, so why keep going there?It has everything to do with the conversation. A before and after sum of momentum is the simplest way to see if momentum is conserved. It avoids all of the little tricks you keep hiding behind while ignoring my explanations.
What I have explained to you is the momentum transfer from the trapped photons to the increasing EmDrive momentum and their increasing wavelengths happens in real time, every time the photons are absorbed & emitted at the end plates. So why do not comment on this?I did comment on this already. Why do you keep ignoring my post where I answered all of your questions on this topic?
Anyway I doubt you and I will every agree on theory so let's agree to disagree and move on.Can't do that, because the problem isn't "theory" but you not reading my posts, and not understanding the definition of terms under discussion such as "force." With a setup like Shawyer's it is easy to get wrong answers if you don't understand what force is.
What we have before us is experimental data. Do you accept the results? If not why?I accept the results from the experimenters with a setup that is not extremely error-prone and have demonstrated that they understand which direction something moves in when you push on it.
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/06/2019 04:47 pm
EmDrive is nothing more than a new type of machine than converts electrical energy into accelerative KE. No OU.Mathematically impossible, this has been explained to you before, since there is no special reference frame, and thermal energy and electrical energy from the batteries do not change with frame, but kinetic energy change does, if they happen to balance in one frame, they will not in another. This is not a problem for actual rockets because the difference in the kinetic energy of the rocket and what is expels is constant. But even simpler is the issue you keep ignoring with conservation of momentum:No constant thrust as some assume. As accelerative KE increases, thrust decreases. CofE, CofM & N3 occurr.Conservation of momentum simply is 100% contradicted by Shawyer's claims. Take an emDrive sitting at rest (total momentum =0). Turn it on and have it run for a while until it gains some velocity and then turn it off. With it off, the energy dissipates in the cavity, so the total momentum is clearly >0. There is nothing external that the emDrive interacts with so there is nothing else with opposite balancing momentum. The total net momentum of the universe therefore magically changed, which is the definition of breaking conservation of momentum.
I replied to your previous set of questions that revolved around your misunderstanding of Newton's laws. I had follow up questions for you (that I originally asked years ago) You still haven't answered those simple questions.Science is about never being 100% sure you know everything. An open & questioning mind is required to do science.There are certain things that are definitions, or mathematical or logical facts, such as 1+1 = 2.
Sometimes 1+1 is not equal to 2. Occasionally our definitions are incomplete. Also, it's a fact that sometimes the whole is more than the sum of the parts such as the effect of two half critical masses separately and then together! ;)
Post by: meberbs on 09/06/2019 04:58 pm
Sometimes 1+1 is not equal to 2.Never true. it is the definition of the numbers 1, 2, and the + operator.
Occasionally our definitions are incomplete.Sometimes true, but Shawyer and TT do not propose any change in physics, they just do the math wrong, often by flipping signs on forces. They are not proposing extending the definitions.
Also, it's a fact that sometimes the sum is more than the parts such as the effect of two half critical masses separately and then together! ;)No, the energy released comes out of their original masses. If you want to make the colloquial phrase scientifically accurate, "the sum is more useful than the parts." (Unless you are trying to talk about something like human emotion, which is not a scientifically conserved quantity, and does not combine arithmetically, but that would be WAY off topic.)
Post by: meberbs on 09/06/2019 05:06 pm
Shawyer's apparent inability to understand what a force is is relevant when discussing his experiments.The experimental results have nothing to do with theory, yours or Roger's or mine.Please read the Flight Thruster report and comment on where the measured 80mN of thrust, that reversed direction when the cavity position was altered from Up to Down, came from. That is assuming you still wish to believe the EmDrive doesn't work and Roger's thrust claims are not correct.There is no "belief" to it. No other experiment has produced anything near what Shawyer reported, and all reports can be explained by various error sources. Shawyer describes a terrible experimental setup that would be vulnerable to all sorts of errors, and even describes some like thermal expansion while completely ignoring how those would dominate the measurements (and yes given the complexity of the setup and off-center balances and attachments, it could reverse direction, but given Shawyer's lack of comprehension of how forces work, he also could have just added a negative sign in the upside down tests implying that the cavity would "move" the opposite direction because the spring was attached to the opposite side, no way to be sure without information from a source that actually knows how forces work.)
Experimental data has been published showing a very clear and high thrust value, 170mN at 450W input.You appear to be asking for a "theory that is not involve theory." Ignoring that contradiction, I already explained that motion due to thermal distortion is a problem with the setup, Shawyer even states that it exists in what you quoted, but he does not do anything near sufficient to adjust for this.
Please explain, not using theory or lack of it, how this large thrust value was obtained.
I cannot explain anything in any more detail to you than that because any more detailed explanation would involve the word force. You repeatedly have ignored my attempts to get you to answer questions that would resolve the issues with how you distort this word.
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/06/2019 06:03 pm
Sometimes 1+1 is not equal to 2.Never true. it is the definition of the numbers 1, 2, and the + operator.Occasionally our definitions are incomplete.Sometimes true, but Shawyer and TT do not propose any change in physics, they just do the math wrong, often by flipping signs on forces. They are not proposing extending the definitions.Also, it's a fact that sometimes the sum is more than the parts such as the effect of two half critical masses separately and then together! ;)No, the energy released comes out of their original masses. If you want to make the colloquial phrase scientifically accurate, "the sum is more useful than the parts." (Unless you are trying to talk about something like human emotion, which is not a scientifically conserved quantity, and does not combine arithmetically, but that would be WAY off topic.)
1+1 = 10. ;D
Post by: Alex_O on 09/06/2019 07:47 pm
Let me show you a simple idea about the conservation of momentum in a system where photons are emitted .. Of course, I am familiar with the main articles, but the topic of momentum is raised on this forum almost every day. I did a thought experiment and got what I think is an important result. With your permission, I use simple words.
1. Take an ideal spherical source of many photons (light bulb), place it in an ideal place in the universe and turn it on. Photons uniformly leave the source at a solid angle of 360 degrees and each photon carries with it a pulse. But our Source remains motionless, at rest. A school physics teacher will say that the total momentum in the system is zero.
2. We place a test body next to it, a small-sized solar sail. This is a black body. A sail absorbs some photons without reflection. And begins to move. Amazing! The total photon momentum in the system has not changed. The photon source is at rest. And we have the Sail Movement. We see how it accelerates. We can sail the astronaut and he will fly away. But the momentum in the system is zero, and the Sail Pull Force = greater than zero.
3. Take a transparent rope and tie a source of photons to the Black Sail with a rope. Got a photon rocket, but nothing has changed. The total momentum of all the photons that flew away from the Source - (according to the school physics textbook) is strictly zero. Don't you find it strange?
I have a simple explanation.
1. The photon that flew from the Source - it no longer belongs to the Source. He flew away. A photon can fly 13 billion light years and reach the edge of the universe. You can already turn off the source of photons, destroy it - and photons will still exist in the universe.
2. Theorem. Any photon that is created by the source physically belongs and this is some kind of (not yet known to people) physical process that is physically determined in what we call the space-continuum. You can trap these photons, put the photon sources in a closed box - but no photon belongs to and is not connected with the photon source.
3. Note. The problem of calculating the momentum of photons is the problem of calculating or accounting for physical processes in a "test tube", the size of which is equal to the size of the universe. And the law of conservation of momentum should be accurately calculated for the entire universe, taking into account the passage of time. And on smaller scales and times - the magnitude of the total photon momentum is a variable value.
==
Next, I spent the discussion and added another sail to the system, got an analog of two mirror antennas. Black Sails have a different area, and a small sail is now a brake. The thrust of my rocket has become less. But the rocket is flying forward, and the total momentum in the operating system by the name of the universe is still zero. Then I remembered the wave nature of photons and studied the question of a resonator with a Q factor. I saw that the thrust of a two-mirror rocket depends on the quality of the resonance, on the quality factor.
Comment. I had to perform an engineering trick. To build the resonator, I turned the black sail into a mirror, but retained the "blackness". In the sense that a photon is reflected multiple times, it will still be absorbed on one of the sails (with a certain probability (which should be considered according to the laws of geometric probability, on a small or large sail, depends on the ratio of the size of the sails + probability of random selection).
Another example.
In zero gravity we shoot a bullet from a gun. But a bucket (with a slot) was attached to the barrel of the gun. After the shot, the gun begins to move "backwards" until the bullet hits inelastically in the bottom of the bucket - and the gun stops. With each shot, this system will make a slight “backward” movement. Until the cartridges run out. So you can go the way to the "million kilometers". Emdrive will fly the same way. Until the battery runs out of energy. We built (according to the school physics textbooks) a closed system and made a movement in the space-continuum due to the work of internal forces.
Post by: meberbs on 09/06/2019 08:33 pm
2. We place a test body next to it, a small-sized solar sail. This is a black body. A sail absorbs some photons without reflection. And begins to move. Amazing! The total photon momentum in the system has not changed.False, if photons were absorbed, then there are no longer photons moving in the direction that the sail now is moving. The net momentum of the remaining, non-absorbed photons is equal magnitude but opposite direction to the momentum that has been absorbed by the sail.
Most of the rest of your post is extrapolation from this mistake.
In zero gravity we shoot a bullet from a gun. But a bucket (with a slot) was attached to the barrel of the gun. After the shot, the gun begins to move "backwards" until the bullet hits inelastically in the bottom of the bucket - and the gun stops. With each shot, this system will make a slight “backward” movement. Until the cartridges run out. So you can go the way to the "million kilometers".Again, no. The center of mass of the system of gun, bucket and bullets does not move. In the extreme case where the bucket and gun weigh almost nothing compared to the bullets, the total motion you would get by exhausting all of the bullets would only move the gun and bucket by approximately the distance from the magazine of the gun to the bottom of the bucket. (By the time you are done, the bullets will approximately be back where they started, which is where the bottom of the bucket end up.) Instead if you got rid of the bucket, then you would have a standard rocket which could go an unlimited distance (assuming you aren't stuck in a gravity well), but at a speed limited by the ratio of the mass of the bullets to the gun, and the speed at which the bullets are expelled.
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/07/2019 02:43 am
Will then offer this package to others to do their own testing and post their results, either way. Thinking here is to work on their site until I'm satisfied the whole system works as expected. Then walk away and let the others do their own analysis, measurements, data collection and reporting.
3 experienced EmDrive builders & testers come to mind. Major qualification is they have good credibility in the EmDrive world. Two have agreed to work with me. Will talk with the other at IAC 2019, where he is presenting a paper.
Would suggest all measuring the same thrust will stop the doubts and give the theory guys hard data to work from.
That said, who out there can come up with examples of how Roger may have fooled himself and the data he measured is not thrust from his Flight Thruster?
Hand waving statement are not how to do this. Study his test rig and his test protocol. Where did he get it wrong? What is causing the thrust signatures that follow the direction, Up or Down, the small end of the Flight Thruster is pointing?
Post by: Mark7777777 on 09/07/2019 05:35 am
Using the paper Roger has placed into the public domain, my plan is to build a replica of the SPR Flight Thruster, Rf system, freq tracking system and Roger's test Rig. I have Roger's permission to do this.
Will then offer this package to others to do their own testing and post their results, either way. Thinking here is to work on their site until I'm satisfied the whole system works as expected. Then walk away and let the others do their own analysis, measurements, data collection and reporting.
3 experienced EmDrive builders & testers come to mind. Major qualification is they have good credibility in the EmDrive world. Two have agreed to work with me. Will talk with the other at IAC 2019, where he is presenting a paper.
Would suggest all measuring the same thrust will stop the doubts and give the theory guys hard data to work from.
That said, who out there can come up with examples of how Roger may have fooled himself and the data he measured is not thrust from his Flight Thruster?
Hand waving statement are not how to do this. Study his test rig and his test protocol. Where did he get it wrong? What is causing the thrust signatures that follow the direction, Up or Down, the small end of the Flight Thruster is pointing?
If the whole thing works as specified, I wonder if anyone can calculate how much electricity would need to be given to it to make the whole thing levitate? I think that may gain a lot more worldwide attention than a chart?
Post by: Alex_O on 09/08/2019 12:11 pm
2. We place a test body next to it, a small-sized solar sail. This is a black body. A sail absorbs some photons without reflection. And begins to move. Amazing! The total photon momentum in the system has not changed.False, if photons were absorbed, then there are no longer photons moving in the direction that the sail now is moving. The net momentum of the remaining, non-absorbed photons is equal magnitude but opposite direction to the momentum that has been absorbed by the sail.
Most of the rest of your post is extrapolation from this mistake.
Thank. I made a mistake using the term "photon momentum". The correct term is the "total momentum in the system". Of course, the sail absorbed some of the photons. But the law of conservation of energy will tell us that the sail will become hotter, and will dump the received energy from photons in the form of IR radiation. IR photons can also fly 13 billion light years and reach the edge of the universe. In the operational area of our test tube (universe), the total momentum will be zero. I do not see a fundamental error in these constructions.
I repeat once again - a rocket with a black sail makes a move due to the energy of internal forces, but the total momentum of the universe has not changed (is it equal to zero?).
(I also remember that, for example, when a car travels on the surface of planet Earth, it transmits momentum to the planet, or when a rocket starts from a cosmodrome, it transmits momentum to the Earth, which slightly changes the planet’s orbit around the Sun. But it seems to me that the total momentum in the system By name, the universe remains unchanged (am I not mistaken? in these examples).
The idea that Emdrive can fly in the universe due to the energy of internal forces is criticized by school physics teachers for violating the law of conservation of momentum. Maybe the fact is that the correct calculation of the balance of the impulse should be carried out taking into account the size of the universe? (This will immediately remove a lot of taboos!)
I came up with an example with a gun, and also made a mistake. Of course, the motion of the center of mass will not change. But I wanted to show that a bullet - while it flies in zero gravity, in a vacuum, from a pistol to a bucket - at this point in time, the bullet does not belong to the physical system of the gun-bucket. That gun-bucket system is actually an open system. (This needs to be discussed separately, for example, how to come up with a tricky trick that essentially connects the center of mass of the bucket gun with a certain remote center of mass (galaxies?) And allows the gun to make local motions relative to the more general (galactic) center of mass.
===
Why did I start this conversation. I see that the idea of creating any stellar engine contains deep contradictions. The law of conservation of momentum is very interfering! But I (the engineer) was taught to show flexible creative thinking in solving engineering and inventive problems. I was taught to solve inventive problems, to overcome technical (engineering) contradictions. There are 40 typical techniques for resolving technical inconsistencies. One of them sounds something like this - mentally increase (decrease) the size of the system by a billion times. Another technique recommends is to separate the processes in your system in time and space.
In engineering, you can find a million examples (in patents) where these two methods (out of 40) are used to solve the problem, to eliminate technical contradictions.
Therefore, I look at Emdrive, I see technical contradictions and noticed that Emdrive uses strange "bullets" (Photons). What is the key to understanding the idea of building a stellar engine on the example of Emdrive should be sought in nature, the device "photon". That is why I came up with the idea of calculating the Emdrive momentum based on the size of the universe.
I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that the closed box for photons (in the form of the Emdrive microwave resonator) - that this contains a very interesting technical, engineering and physical contradiction. And this is very good!
Need to prove! that the copper box for photons cannot be closed box, in principle. And then the developers of stellar engines will no longer quarrel with physics in general.
How to prove? Maybe you can find at least one point on the inner surface of the resonator where there is a strange dark place (where there are no photons) and immediately shout “wow”? . Well, there are angles in the cone, there are troubles with the diameter of the waveguides and the EM wavelength, if you build - attention, this seems to be an idea - like the equivalent surface of Emdrive (somehow through "photons", I don’t know how) then this surface will turn out to be " box with a hole. " Which automatically proves the thesis about an open system.
(I read about waveguides, about waveguide equivalent circuits as a picture of a frame antenna in which there are many frames that merge into a solid surface. And there are points in the waveguides where you can drill a hole (safe for microwave radiation)
Thank. Too long post turns out, sorry.
Post by: JohnFornaro on 09/08/2019 01:48 pm
...The law of conservation of energy will tell us that the sail will become hotter, and will dump the received energy from photons in the form of IR radiation. IR photons can also fly 13 billion light years...
Just driving by here real quick like.
That you go on with the irrelevant observation that the IR photons can fly off some 13BLY, indicates that you haven't properly considered meberbs' admonition above:
2. We place a test body next to it, a small-sized solar sail. This is a black body. A sail absorbs some photons without reflection. And begins to move. Amazing! The total photon momentum in the system has not changed.
False, if photons were absorbed, then there are no longer photons moving in the direction that the sail now is moving. The net momentum of the remaining, non-absorbed photons is equal magnitude but opposite direction to the momentum that has been absorbed by the sail.
In a way, you're distracting yourself with irrelevancies.
Post by: chazemz on 09/08/2019 02:33 pm
Would it not be better for you to add gravity to your gun and bucket.If the gun and bucket are enclosed we can call it "the system" If the system is placed on some scales it will have a weight. The gun is fired and the bullet leaves the barrel of the gun. As you have stated ,the bullet does not interact with the bucket when in flight. You can now ask the following.
Since the bullet does not interact with the system when in flight, the weight of the system will change for this moment.
If the weight changes it follows that the mass must change since the force of gravity remains constant.
If the mass changes, does the centre of mass change?
Post by: Alex_O on 09/08/2019 03:38 pm
Alex-0
Would it not be better for you to add gravity to your gun and bucket.If the gun and bucket are enclosed we can call it "the system" If the system is placed on some scales it will have a weight. The gun is fired and the bullet leaves the barrel of the gun. As you have stated ,the bullet does not interact with the bucket when in flight. You can now ask the following.
Since the bullet does not interact with the system when in flight, the weight of the system will change for this moment.
If the weight changes it follows that the mass must change since the force of gravity remains constant.
If the mass changes, does the centre of mass change?
Hi Chazemz!
If I add gravity to the system, I will immediately get an example of an open system. Amazing I took a box with thick walls, put a pistol, a bullet and a bucket in it, and after adding gravity, this system became open. I don’t know if you will like my evidence, but if you mentally imagine the physical phenomenon of gravity as a result of a certain physical process of the movement of particles of gravitons in nature (I don’t know what it is), then I will immediately mentally see how gravitons fly in a box with thick walls from outside (for example, from the center of the universe), fly through the walls of the box and .. this box becomes a completely open system where the exact description of the physical model (with gravitons) can be described by a system of equations with an infinitely large set variables. So, let's get without gravity? :)
Please note, I came up with a pistol with bullets that discuss the problem of Emdrive, where there is a gun (microwave source), there are bullets (microwave photons, in general, these are strange things) and there is a target bucket of a good microwave resonator.
The bullet was replaced with a photon, they made a very important conclusion. A photon (like a bullet) when it flies from a pistol to a target - at this point in time exists by itself.
And when the photon (bullet) flies onto the target (bucket) and creates radiation pressure - it will be the Force that acts in this brief moment on the target from the side of the "universe". And the gun, as it were, "nothing to do with it."
Comment. After adding gravity, the effects of general relativity immediately appear in the box with photons. Time dilation, gravitational curvature of bullet / photon trajectories. If this box is placed on an accurate scale, they will measure the increase in the weight of the box due to the "GR force" (a small value of the order of 10-10) This makes Emdrive an open system, where the task of calculating the total momentum immediately goes beyond the scope of school physics.
Post by: meberbs on 09/08/2019 04:34 pm
This makes Emdrive an open system, where the task of calculating the total momentum immediately goes beyond the scope of school physics.No, gravity still obeys conservation of momentum. The momentum gained by the force of gravity of the bucket, gun, and bullets is equal and opposite to that obtained by the planet, star or whatever is generating the gravitational field. include the source of the gravitational field, and your system is closed again (just like how in your previous post you redundantly said 4 different ways that if you add up the momentum of everything it still stays balanced.) You don't get anything special or useful out of adding gravity.
The only thing gravity does is apply a force to the gun, bucket and bullets towards the source of the gravity. The force is applied just as well to the bullets while they are in flight, so it changes nothing there. It works just as well with photons, because gravitational redshift and blueshift are what changing momentum of photons looks like. (Though the equivalent mass-energy of the photons is small, and the time of flight from one end of the cavity to the other is short, so this is not an effect you usually have to think about.)
Post by: Alex_O on 09/08/2019 05:20 pm
...The law of conservation of energy will tell us that the sail will become hotter, and will dump the received energy from photons in the form of IR radiation. IR photons can also fly 13 billion light years...
Just driving by here real quick like.
That you go on with the irrelevant observation that the IR photons can fly off some 13BLY, indicates that you haven't properly considered meberbs' admonition above:2. We place a test body next to it, a small-sized solar sail. This is a black body. A sail absorbs some photons without reflection. And begins to move. Amazing! The total photon momentum in the system has not changed.
False, if photons were absorbed, then there are no longer photons moving in the direction that the sail now is moving. The net momentum of the remaining, non-absorbed photons is equal magnitude but opposite direction to the momentum that has been absorbed by the sail.
In a way, you're distracting yourself with irrelevancies.
Thank! JohnFornaro !.
I well understood the answer of meberbs and understood the error in the way I used the term photon momentum. It is necessary to use the term total momentum in the system.
The sail absorbed some of the photons and flew. Photons gave him their impulse as a runner passes a baton. The bulb remained motionless. I mentally held the X axis horizontally and projected onto the X axis the momentum of all the bodies in the system: a bulb, photons, sail. The sail now also carries an impulse with it, it received its portion of energy from a light bulb and it has an impulse p = mv. Тhe sail is now moving with acceleration (while the light is shining). But my calculation showed that the total momentum in the system is zero. What does it mean?
Post by: Alex_O on 09/08/2019 05:43 pm
Thank you, I mentally built a good superconducting resonator with a diameter of 3 meters with a Q= 108 with vertical walls. And mentally I saw how an EM photon (which flew horizontally) made 108 reflections (between vertical walls) and traveled a path equal to 1 light second. At the same time, due to GR, photon decreases to the bottom of the resonator by 420 mm (depends on the angle of gravitational curvature on the surface of the earth). I mentally heard a boom! the photon “fell” from a height of 420 mm and transmitted a little E = mgh to the resonator. Then I counted the total mass of photons.This makes Emdrive an open system, where the task of calculating the total momentum immediately goes beyond the scope of school physics.(Though the equivalent mass-energy of the photons is small, and the time of flight from one end of the cavity to the other is short, so this is not an effect you usually have to think about.)
In addition, vertical walls were also problematic. On the vertical walls was also a problem. The angle of departure / reflection from one (for example, the left wall) is not equal to the angle of arrival of the photon on the right wall. As a result, the cavity walls will receive a different momentum from each photon, and an unbalanced pulse is summed along the vertical axis. The resonator will fly in the direction of the center of the planet with additional acceleration. Amazing The effects of general relativity conveyed a small portion of energy into the closed cavity of Emdrive, which means that Emdrive is an open system. I called it - the power of general relativity, you can use it in Overt's maneuver to accelerate a rocket.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/08/2019 06:19 pm
This makes Emdrive an open system, where the task of calculating the total momentum immediately goes beyond the scope of school physics.No, gravity still obeys conservation of momentum. The momentum gained by the force of gravity of the bucket, gun, and bullets is equal and opposite to that obtained by the planet, star or whatever is generating the gravitational field.
Thank you, I completely agree with you, but I remember that we may know the problems in systems with fast movements / switching. That gravitational forces do not work faster than the speed of light. According to the generally accepted consensus. But within the framework of the famous consensus, there is no good idea how to build an engine for flying to the stars.
When I look at Emdrive, I see an interesting idea - that the force of radiation pressure on the cavity walls is the force that acts from the side. From the side of the universe. If this is so, then gravitational forces can be a force that acts on matter from the side of the universe. Then any Emdrive that seems to be a closed system is an absolutely open system. Where in the calculations of the total momentum of any closed box with photons - you need to think and look more widely.
For example, what happens in the universe if a “free photon” is caught in a box? I read about the Nobel Prize for studying the behavior of a microwave photon in an EM resonator with Q = 1011. There are interesting things there.
Post by: meberbs on 09/08/2019 07:52 pm
I called it - the power of general relativity, you can use it in Overt's maneuver to accelerate a rocket.I assume you mean Oberth maneuver, and what you just described is not that.
The energy of photons in a cavity comes from some on-board power source, and the mass of the on-board power source is reduced by an equivalent amount in the process. It does not matter whether you leave the mass in the battery, or convert it to photons in the cavity, the total change in momentum of your device due to gravitational forces won't change.
When I look at Emdrive, I see an interesting idea - that the force of radiation pressure on the cavity walls is the force that acts from the side. From the side of the universe.This statement is nonsensical. You keep trying to jump from "standard physics works" to "but maybe magic happens."
There is nothing that would suddenly transfer momentum to some far off galaxy, and if there was, we could use it for time travel. The speed of light limit is not arbitrary.
Post by: oyzw on 09/09/2019 12:04 am
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/09/2019 03:01 am
Rf system will be a 100W Rf amp with RS485 comms, via USB adapter, that allows real time measurement of forward & reverse power plus adjustment of output power in +- 1dBm steps. Frequency will be supplied from a USB controlled Rf generator. Both will be connected to a laptop PC running a control program I developed some time ago. Additionally the serial link from the scale will be connected to the laptop via a RS232 to USB adapter.
Expected thrust is around 35mN or 3.5g at 100W, which should easily swamp and other non real thrust signals.
PLUS my 3 verifiers have agreed to work with me on this program. Will be meeting with them & Roger in late Oct to finalize the verification process.
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/09/2019 03:16 am
Hello, Mr. TT, wish you all the best. I remember you said last year that you cooperated with a company in Australia to build a large EMDRIVE, but there is no new news.
Hi Oyzw,
Not an Australia company. We are still testing our Momentum Transfer Drive. Never easy nor happens at the expected timeline. Good progress toward TRL8 & flight test are being made.
Have you reviewed the SPR Flight Thruster engineering report Roger has released?
http://www.emdrive.com/flighthrusterreportissue2.pdf
It is an excellent detail rich technical engineering report that will enable other to build a replica of the SPR Flight Thruster, the RF system & test rig.
Please note how Roger used initial cavity thermal expansion to provide the initial acceleration, that causes differential Doppler shift on the 2 end plates, causing differential radiation pressure to be generated, which then triggers sustained cavity generated internal thrust.
In Jan 2015, Roger made it very clear this was a required precursor:
http://www.emdrive.com/EmDriveForceMeasurement.pdf
Quote
This note describes simple examples of test methods which will clarify experimental results.
The most important point to be made, is that to measure force, the cavity must experience acceleration.
Quote
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.
Would suggest that if many EmDrive experimenters had been aware of this precursor acceleration requirement before they started their test programs, they may have recorded a very different result.
Post by: meberbs on 09/09/2019 04:11 am
Would suggest that if many EmDrive experimenters had been aware of this precursor acceleration requirement before they started their test programs, they may have recorded a very different result.You have suggested this countless times, yet you have yet to provide a definition for what acceleration is required, despite being asked repeatedly. No experiment is ever perfectly isolated, there inherently is always some small amount of heating, and small natural vibrations are always present. Therefore every experiment should have been good enough.
The reality is that thermal expansion is a source of error and Shawyer did not appear to remove it from his measurements, and his whole setup seems designed to maximize signal from error sources rather than real forces.
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/09/2019 04:46 am
Would suggest that if many EmDrive experimenters had been aware of this precursor acceleration requirement before they started their test programs, they may have recorded a very different result.You have suggested this countless times, yet you have yet to provide a definition for what acceleration is required, despite being asked repeatedly. No experiment is ever perfectly isolated, there inherently is always some small amount of heating, and small natural vibrations are always present. Therefore every experiment should have been good enough.
The reality is that thermal expansion is a source of error and Shawyer did not appear to remove it from his measurements, and his whole setup seems designed to maximize signal from error sources rather than real forces.
When he altered the vertical position of the thruster, small end down or small end up, the direction of the thrust signal followed the direction the small end was pointing.
In both cases, the scale registered a slight initial weight increase as the cavity started to expand. Later on the scale either recorded a increased weight, small end pointed down, or a decreased weight, small end pointer up.
The reality is the initial thermal expansion provided the initial differential Doppler shift & initial differential radiation pressure, creating a Thrust force toward the big end, that triggered the internally generated & sustained Reaction force toward the small end.
Clearly you do not believe this happens. Your right.
Which is why I'm working to build 4 Flight Thruster systems, based on Roger's public domain data, and putting them into the hands of respected and experienced EmDrive builders/testers. Their openly published test data should form the start of positive thrust data, which may assist others deciding if Roger's theory is correct or if another theory needs to be developed to explain the expected positive experimental data from the 3 guys involved in the testing.
Please understand that never before has there been such detailed EmDrive engineering data, which will allow high fidelity replication of the Flight Thruster, the test rig & associated systems.
Post by: meberbs on 09/09/2019 05:23 am
When he altered the vertical position of the thruster, small end down or small end up, the direction of the thrust signal followed the direction the small end was pointing.That slowly changing force? That is what is expected from pure thermal expansion, changing direction is possible depending on the setup details. So what you are actually saying is that there was no real force produced. Again, I am not going to waste my time trying to explain details to you when you refuse to respond to questions intended to explain what the word force means.
In both cases, the scale registered a slight initial weight increase as the cavity started to expand. Later on the scale either recorded a increased weight, small end pointed down, or a decreased weight, small end pointer up.
The reality is the initial thermal expansion provided the initial differential Doppler shift & initial differential radiation pressure, creating a Thrust force toward the big end, that triggered the internally generated & sustained Reaction force toward the small end.Force and reaction apply to different objects, not the same one. For example, photons push the cavity towards the big end, so the cavity pushes the photons towards the small end. If you are going to keep ignoring what these words mean, at least stop pretending that repeating them enough times will make you right.
Which is why I'm working to build 4 Flight Thruster systems,Like all of the other ones that you never built?
deciding if Roger's theory is correct or if another theory needs to be developed to explain the expected positive experimental data from the 3 guys involved in the testing.You are assuming that positive results are obtained. Based on the fact that the new data provides no significant differences in design to existing setups, there is no reason to expect results to suddenly appear. Also, Shawyer's theory is self-inconsistent, so it cannot explain anything. It has predicted the wrong direction of motion from day 1.
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/09/2019 06:01 am
Nothing that violates CofM, CofE or N3. Just not what we expect in the normal world of mass to mass momentum exchange.
What is clear is cavity acceleration, via an initial external method, will generate internal differential Doppler shifts at the 2 end plates, generating differential radiation pressure, which generates, as Roger calls it, a Thrust force, a net EM wave sourced momentum transfer, toward the big end. Nothing there outside physics.
What is needed is experimental data to confirm or not that the above precursor events give rise to the existence of the internal small end directed Reaction force, causing cavity acceleration and balancing cavity momentum gain from that lost by the EM wave, being the N3 balancing force pair to the internal big end directed Thrust force.
Hopefully by early next year, there will be new experimental data, generated by the, at least 3, Flight Thruster replicant testers, to assist further analysis of this new proposed small end directed Reaction force effect.
Post by: meberbs on 09/09/2019 06:25 am
Just maybe there is a new to physics effect in play here?It is refreshing to see you acknowledge at least this much, since emDrive working is simply not possible under known physics, it would have to be something new.
Nothing that violates CofM, CofE or N3. Just not what we expect in the normal world of mass to mass momentum exchange.See previous question you repeatedly ignored (Where you consider the total momentum of everything after the emDrive is turned off). If the emDrive can move anywhere, it violates conservation of momentum unless you can point to something else that is moving in the opposite direction.
What is clear is cavity acceleration, via an initial external method, will generate internal differential Doppler shifts at the 2 end plates, generating differential radiation pressure, which generates, as Roger calls it, a Thrust force, a net EM wave sourced momentum transfer, toward the big end. Nothing there outside physics.Yes.
What is needed is experimental data to confirm or not that the above precursor events give rise to the existence of the internal small end directed Reaction force, causing cavity acceleration and balancing cavity momentum gain from that lost by the EM wave, being the N3 balancing force pair to the internal big end directed Thrust force.That makes no sense. The EM waves gain momentum towards the small end while the pushing the cavity the other direction, which is how momentum is balanced and Newton's laws are satisfied. (Since there is an external force causing the cavity to accelerate small end forward, the momentum transfer with the EM waves just slows the acceleration of the cavity by a small amount.) Adding an extra force would break Newton's laws. Since the cavity is moving forward due to the external acceleration, the photons also need the extra forward momentum to be moving with the cavity. (Rather than having net 0 momentum, which they would as viewed from a frame where the cavity is stationary.)
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/09/2019 08:18 am
Will shortly do another long haul to the US to meet with Roger & the 3 Flight Thruster tester to sort out the details.
Not doing this because I wish the results to be positive. I'm doing this because I know the EmDrive works and to minimize variables occurring during the testing programs.
Roger released the data because he knows I will fund the various builds & tests, assist with the test setups, with the validity of his EmDrive invention finally proven beyond question.
The next step is then to work on theory verification, such as measurement data that during acceleration the trapped photons wavelengths progressively increase, ie their energy & momentum loss, wavelength increase, closely match that gained by the accelerating cavity. Once that is proven, then questions about CofM and CofE conservation are ended.
Post by: meberbs on 09/09/2019 03:02 pm
The next step is then to work on theory verification, such as measurement data that during acceleration the trapped photons wavelengths progressively increase, ie their energy & momentum loss, wavelength increase, closely match that gained by the accelerating cavity. Once that is proven, then questions about CofM and CofE conservation are ended.You are describing properties of individual photons in a system with countless photons while more are being continuously added. There is noway to make direct measurements of the things you are talking about.
Even if there were, no answer could resolve the conservation of momentum or energy problem. The photons are produced from an antenna inside the cavity, never leave the cavity or interact with anything outside the cavity. Claiming they somehow get net momentum other than from slowing the cavity a minuscule amount when an external force is applied to the cavity breaks conservation of momentum. The clearest way to see this is to let the photons get re-absorbed after the drive is turned off and add up all of the momentum. Why do you refuse to consider this simple case?
Post by: Bryan_Kelly on 09/09/2019 03:54 pm
Just maybe there is a new to physics effect in play here?
Now that's an interesting thought. 8)
I see no need to remain constrained by our current ignorance and incomplete mathematics when a little tinkering and re-framing might change the entire landscape.
Keep at it. I applaud your efforts and perseverance.
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/09/2019 07:38 pm
The next step is then to work on theory verification, such as measurement data that during acceleration the trapped photons wavelengths progressively increase, ie their energy & momentum loss, wavelength increase, closely match that gained by the accelerating cavity. Once that is proven, then questions about CofM and CofE conservation are ended.You are describing properties of individual photons in a system with countless photons while more are being continuously added. There is noway to make direct measurements of the things you are talking about.
Even if there were, no answer could resolve the conservation of momentum or energy problem. The photons are produced from an antenna inside the cavity, never leave the cavity or interact with anything outside the cavity. Claiming they somehow get net momentum other than from slowing the cavity a minuscule amount when an external force is applied to the cavity breaks conservation of momentum. The clearest way to see this is to let the photons get re-absorbed after the drive is turned off and add up all of the momentum. Why do you refuse to consider this simple case?
If it works we can let the physicists debate why (and they will) and build spaceships. :)
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/09/2019 07:45 pm
Just maybe there is a new to physics effect in play here?It is refreshing to see you acknowledge at least this much, since emDrive working is simply not possible under known physics, it would have to be something new.
Or a new, deeper understanding of established physics perhaps at the intersections of EM, quantum, Relativity or Cosmology for example. It doesn't have to rewrite all of physics.
Post by: RotoSequence on 09/09/2019 07:52 pm
Just maybe there is a new to physics effect in play here?It is refreshing to see you acknowledge at least this much, since emDrive working is simply not possible under known physics, it would have to be something new.
Or a new, deeper understanding of established physics perhaps at the intersections of EM, quantum, Relativity or Cosmology for example. It doesn't have to rewrite all of physics.
You've got your work cut out for you if the proposed new physics stands in apparent contradiction to Noether's Theorem.
Post by: meberbs on 09/09/2019 08:02 pm
Suggesting an impossible to perform experiment, and to try to demonstrate something that is self-contradictory is a waste of effort on multiple levels. Reasonable next steps would be ones that actually characterize the behavior of the device, though given the results so far, it does not seem likely that the first step of "show there is an actual force" would happen.The next step is then to work on theory verification, such as measurement data that during acceleration the trapped photons wavelengths progressively increase, ie their energy & momentum loss, wavelength increase, closely match that gained by the accelerating cavity. Once that is proven, then questions about CofM and CofE conservation are ended.You are describing properties of individual photons in a system with countless photons while more are being continuously added. There is noway to make direct measurements of the things you are talking about.
Even if there were, no answer could resolve the conservation of momentum or energy problem. The photons are produced from an antenna inside the cavity, never leave the cavity or interact with anything outside the cavity. Claiming they somehow get net momentum other than from slowing the cavity a minuscule amount when an external force is applied to the cavity breaks conservation of momentum. The clearest way to see this is to let the photons get re-absorbed after the drive is turned off and add up all of the momentum. Why do you refuse to consider this simple case?
If it works we can let the physicists debate why (and they will) and build spaceships. :)
Also, free energy generators are a much more straightforward use than building spaceships and is a much more logical first application.
I didn't say that it would rewrite all of physics, but the minimum level is something like "interactions between photons and a previously unknown medium" that somehow does not significantly interfere with any of the countless technologies that rely on electromagnetism.Just maybe there is a new to physics effect in play here?It is refreshing to see you acknowledge at least this much, since emDrive working is simply not possible under known physics, it would have to be something new.
Or a new, deeper understanding of established physics perhaps at the intersections of EM, quantum, Relativity or Cosmology for example. It doesn't have to rewrite all of physics.
Your list including EM, quantum, and relativity is odd. EM and relativity have been perfectly married from the beginning. QED is a well understood theory that has been proven, and brings relativity into quantum. There really aren't edges between them to slip new physics into. It would have to be something beyond them.
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/10/2019 12:20 am
The next step is then to work on theory verification, such as measurement data that during acceleration the trapped photons wavelengths progressively increase, ie their energy & momentum loss, wavelength increase, closely match that gained by the accelerating cavity. Once that is proven, then questions about CofM and CofE conservation are ended.You are describing properties of individual photons in a system with countless photons while more are being continuously added. There is noway to make direct measurements of the things you are talking about.
Even if there were, no answer could resolve the conservation of momentum or energy problem. The photons are produced from an antenna inside the cavity, never leave the cavity or interact with anything outside the cavity. Claiming they somehow get net momentum other than from slowing the cavity a minuscule amount when an external force is applied to the cavity breaks conservation of momentum. The clearest way to see this is to let the photons get re-absorbed after the drive is turned off and add up all of the momentum. Why do you refuse to consider this simple case?
EmDrives operate in pulsed mode, with the fill pulse being 5 x the TC of the cavity. Sometime shorter than 5 x TC, but that is another story.
TC = Qu / (2 * Pi * Freq)
Also defined as the time the forward power takes to reach 63.2% of the final value, assuming 1:1 coupling factor.
Interesting fact is measuring the time for forward power to reach 63.2% can be used to calc the cavities working Q.
Once the input pulse is complete, a spectrum scanner, using a monitoring port, can record the increasing wavelength of the photons as the cavity accelerates, gaining KE & momentum, and the 5 x TC decay time reduces from the non accelerating value, because of some of the cavity energy being converted into accelerative KE & momentum.
BTW in the G2 & G3 EmDrives, the small end plate is mounted on piezo elements to allow the cavity length to increase as the photon wavelength increases during cavity acceleration. Not required for G1 EmDrives such as the Flight Thruster due to much lower Q.
Post by: Bryan_Kelly on 09/10/2019 01:46 am
Or a new, deeper understanding of established physics perhaps at the intersections of EM, quantum, Relativity or Cosmology for example. It doesn't have to rewrite all of physics.
I'd add gravity to that list too, since it interacts with both light and matter.
Post by: meberbs on 09/10/2019 02:41 am
EmDrives operate in pulsed mode, with the fill pulse being 5 x the TC of the cavity. Sometime shorter than 5 x TC, but that is another story.Momentum is a quantity that has direction associated with it. Since photons are travelling in opposite directions in the cavity, the momentum cancels out for the most part. You cannot get information about momentum from such an experiment that just measures spectrum. You don't even get the correct spectrum shifts anyway, because the antenna in the cavity is co-moving with the cavity, so you do not measure the frequencies in the lab frame which is what you actually need to measure when talking conservation laws.
TC = Qu / (2 * Pi * Freq)
Also defined as the time the forward power takes to reach 63.2% of the final value, assuming 1:1 coupling factor.
Interesting fact is measuring the time for forward power to reach 63.2% can be used to calc the cavities working Q.
Once the input pulse is complete, a spectrum scanner, using a monitoring port, can record the increasing wavelength of the photons as the cavity accelerates, gaining KE & momentum, and the 5 x TC decay time reduces from the non accelerating value, because of some of the cavity energy being converted into accelerative KE & momentum.
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/10/2019 10:29 am
EmDrives operate in pulsed mode, with the fill pulse being 5 x the TC of the cavity. Sometime shorter than 5 x TC, but that is another story.You don't even get the correct spectrum shifts anyway, because the antenna in the cavity is co-moving with the cavity, so you do not measure the frequencies in the lab frame which is what you actually need to measure when talking conservation laws.
TC = Qu / (2 * Pi * Freq)
Also defined as the time the forward power takes to reach 63.2% of the final value, assuming 1:1 coupling factor.
Interesting fact is measuring the time for forward power to reach 63.2% can be used to calc the cavities working Q.
Once the input pulse is complete, a spectrum scanner, using a monitoring port, can record the increasing wavelength of the photons as the cavity accelerates, gaining KE & momentum, and the 5 x TC decay time reduces from the non accelerating value, because of some of the cavity energy being converted into accelerative KE & momentum.
Measuring increasing photon wavelength during acceleration is measured AFTER the input RF pulse has stopped. Ie no new photons being created by the coupler/antenna. Cavity is now in decay mode, with wall losses, coupler losses & KE transfer losses reducing cavity stored energy on a cycle by cycle basic.
Easiest way to measure increasing photon wavelength is to limit RF input pulse width to 20% of 1 TC. Ie 25 times shorter than full cavity fill pulse length.
BTW the sense coupler, providing photon wavelength data to the spectrum analyser is attached to the side wall of the accelerative cavity, thus sensing what is happening to the photon wavelengths inside the accelerating cavity. Ie it is in the frame of the accelerating cavity.
In the Gen2 & Gen2 superconducting EmDrives, the real time increasing wavelength data, can then be used to adjust the piezo elements, to move the small end plate away from the big end plate, to increase the cavity length, to maintain resonance as photon wavelength increases.
All part of the same effect that causes photon wavelength to increase as the accelerating cavity gains KE & momentum and the trapped photons to lose a matching amount of energy & momentum as their wavelength, on emission, increase. Nothing more than standard radiation pressure physics.
Is what makes solar sails & EmDrive work.
Post by: meberbs on 09/10/2019 02:22 pm
You deleted part of my post, and completely ignored it. (This is a problem because the style of quoting you did without any trimming of the old quote tree makes it look like you didn't do any editing at first glance.)You don't even get the correct spectrum shifts anyway, because the antenna in the cavity is co-moving with the cavity, so you do not measure the frequencies in the lab frame which is what you actually need to measure when talking conservation laws.Measuring increasing photon wavelength during acceleration is measured AFTER the input RF pulse has stopped. Ie no new photons being created by the coupler/antenna. Cavity is now in decay mode, with wall losses, coupler losses & KE transfer losses reducing cavity stored energy on a cycle by cycle basic.
What you are saying here does nothing to address anything that I said anyway. In fact you go on to admit that what I said is correct: you measure the frequencies based on an antenna (that is what a coupler is) that is co-moving with the cavity, and thus it does not provide the spectrum in the lab frame needed to talk about conservation laws:
BTW the sense coupler, providing photon wavelength data to the spectrum analyser is attached to the side wall of the accelerative cavity, thus sensing what is happening to the photon wavelengths inside the accelerating cavity. Ie it is in the frame of the accelerating cavity.Even if you had a magic device to work around this, you still couldn't change the fact that you wouldn't be measuring the net momentum inside the cavity, since photons are travelling in different directions.
All part of the same effect that causes photon wavelength to increase as the accelerating cavity gains KE & momentum and the trapped photons to lose a matching amount of energy & momentum as their wavelength, on emission, increase. Nothing more than standard radiation pressure physics.Your post has a correct diagram attached to it for a change, as it shows what is labelled as "reaction force" in the direction the mirror is accelerated, and it shows "momentum change" of the photon in the opposite direction. (where there are extra lines indicating how to do vector subtraction.)
Is what makes solar sails & EmDrive work.
This of course completely contradicts your claims that the cavity would accelerate towards the opposite direction of the force applied by the photons due to radiation pressure.
If you are not going to ever acknowledge that I answered your questions and explained what happens in a cavity accelerating under external force (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1981848#msg1981848) (and I also asked you related simple follow up questions which you refuse to answer), then at least stop spamming your backwards explanation claiming that an object would ever accelerate in the opposite direction of the net force applied to it.
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/10/2019 02:23 pm
EmDrives operate in pulsed mode, with the fill pulse being 5 x the TC of the cavity. Sometime shorter than 5 x TC, but that is another story.You don't even get the correct spectrum shifts anyway, because the antenna in the cavity is co-moving with the cavity, so you do not measure the frequencies in the lab frame which is what you actually need to measure when talking conservation laws.
TC = Qu / (2 * Pi * Freq)
Also defined as the time the forward power takes to reach 63.2% of the final value, assuming 1:1 coupling factor.
Interesting fact is measuring the time for forward power to reach 63.2% can be used to calc the cavities working Q.
Once the input pulse is complete, a spectrum scanner, using a monitoring port, can record the increasing wavelength of the photons as the cavity accelerates, gaining KE & momentum, and the 5 x TC decay time reduces from the non accelerating value, because of some of the cavity energy being converted into accelerative KE & momentum.
Measuring increasing photon wavelength during acceleration is measured AFTER the input RF pulse has stopped. Ie no new photons being created by the coupler/antenna. Cavity is now in decay mode, with wall losses, coupler losses & KE transfer losses reducing cavity stored energy on a cycle by cycle basic.
Easiest way to measure increasing photon wavelength is to limit RF input pulse width to 20% of 1 TC. Ie 25 times shorter than full cavity fill pulse length.
BTW the sense coupler, providing photon wavelength data to the spectrum analyser is attached to the side wall of the accelerative cavity, thus sensing what is happening to the photon wavelengths inside the accelerating cavity. Ie it is in the frame of the accelerating cavity.
In the Gen2 & Gen2 superconducting EmDrives, the real time increasing wavelength data, can then be used to adjust the piezo elements, to move the small end plate away from the big end plate, to increase the cavity length, to maintain resonance as photon wavelength increases.
All part of the same effect that causes photon wavelength to increase as the accelerating cavity gains KE & momentum and the trapped photons to lose a matching amount of energy & momentum as their wavelength, on emission, increase. Nothing more than standard radiation pressure physics.
Is what makes solar sails & EmDrive work.
That 20% pulse width of radiation would have to be enough to break the friction of the rotary systems such that the cavity actually moves. if that small amount of radiation can't even break the friction than the cavity doesn't even actually accelerate. if the cavity doesn't even actually accelerate than you can't really claim that's what's Doppler shifting the photons.
You would have to claim the the photons are actually accelerating something else. Something escaping the cavity if you want momentum conservation.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/10/2019 05:52 pm
So, point 1. - the radiation pressure forces in the resonator are large, and for a high-quality copper resonator they can be measured in fractions of Newton. The pressure strength depends on the quality of the resonator, on the quality factor.
point 1 Agreed?
Now place the resonator in the accelerated reference system. What will happen? Does Maskwell's electrodynamics have formulas for accelerated frames? Maybe it reminds the guy that they will accelerate on the board, catch up with the sea wave and have fun on the crest of a small path? Ride a wave? I probably see this a little wrong, but let's agree on point 1?
Post by: meberbs on 09/10/2019 06:01 pm
Now place the resonator in the accelerated reference system. What will happen? Does Maskwell's electrodynamics have formulas for accelerated frames?It does not make sense to place something in an "accelerated" reference frame. a reference frame is just where you do the calculations. It is almost certainly possible to reformulate Maxwell's equations in an accelerating frame, but it would not be particularly enlightening.
Instead, it is more useful to just take a single inertial frame and do the calculations about the accelerating object from there. As I have previously described, this simply gives the result that the EM waves in the cavity simply resist the externally applied acceleration of the cavity by a small amount since their energy is included in the mass-energy of the cavity according to E = m*c^2.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/10/2019 06:48 pm
Now place the resonator in the accelerated reference system. What will happen? Does Maskwell's electrodynamics have formulas for accelerated frames?It does not make sense to place something in an "accelerated" reference frame. a reference frame is just where you do the calculations. It is almost certainly possible to reformulate Maxwell's equations in an accelerating frame, but it would not be particularly enlightening.
Instead, it is more useful to just take a single inertial frame and do the calculations about the accelerating object from there. As I have previously described, this simply gives the result that the EM waves in the cavity simply resist the externally applied acceleration of the cavity by a small amount since their energy is included in the mass-energy of the cavity according to E = m*c^2.
I think I came up with! Take a simple parabolic antenna and place it on a trolley. Let it shine with EM photons on a fixed screen. We measure (as in Lebedev's experiments) the force of radiation pressure on the screen. And then we place the cart on the rails and with the help of a good jet engine give the cart a good (large) acceleration (towards the screen). We continue to measure radiation pressure on a fixed screen. We plot the dependence of the radiation pressure of photons on acceleration. The Doppler effect will be clearly noticeable. This will be the first stage. Agreed? (Ниже картинка излучения антенны , экран не показан)
Post by: meberbs on 09/10/2019 06:54 pm
We continue to measure radiation pressure on a fixed screen. We plot the dependence of the radiation pressure of photons on acceleration. The Doppler effect will be clearly noticeable.The Doppler shift depends on relative velocity, not on acceleration. With constant acceleration, the velocity is constantly increasing, so the Doppler shift and radiation pressure also increase. This is correlated with velocity, not acceleration.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/10/2019 07:05 pm
We continue to measure radiation pressure on a fixed screen. We plot the dependence of the radiation pressure of photons on acceleration. The Doppler effect will be clearly noticeable.The Doppler shift depends on relative velocity, not on acceleration. With constant acceleration, the velocity is constantly increasing, so the Doppler shift and radiation pressure also increase. This is correlated with velocity, not acceleration.
I would be careful and study the role of higher derivatives. I saw in textbooks that the exact formulas (in general relativity?) Are written as a polynomial.
I’m afraid the engineer’s intuition, suggests the possible important role of the “jerk”. For example, a jerk is used in the concept of laboratory generation of gravitational waves.
The second / third derivative may produce a small effect, but in the resonator any force effect is automatically multiplied by the quality factor.
Post by: meberbs on 09/10/2019 07:18 pm
I would be careful and study the role of higher derivatives. I saw in textbooks that the exact formulas (in general relativity?) Are written as a polynomial.GR has many complications including that there are few exact solutions. It is not however significant on the scale currently being discussed.
I’m afraid the engineer’s intuition, suggests the possible important role of the “jerk”. For example, a jerk is used in the concept of laboratory generation of gravitational waves.There is no such thing as laboratory generation of gravitational waves. The only gravitational waves that can be measured are from things like black hole mergers. You are just bringing up completely irrelevant things anyway here.
The second / third derivative may produce a small effect, but in the resonator any force effect is automatically multiplied by the quality factor.No, not necessarily true. Most of the time, it is more straightforward to write things in terms of the total energy in the cavity, in which case the Q factor is built in. Also, for some transient effects, the Q factor is actually irrelevant entirely.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/10/2019 07:31 pm
What does absolutely motionless mean? Well, it’s somehow connected, that the speed of light is independent of the movement of the box with photons, I can’t explain it, intuition works.
Fixed - this probably means that the time intervals are multiples of fettoseconds, taking into account the time for photon reflection (this is re-emission, right?) And taking into account the time of flight of the photon through the resonator.
Type you can find such a moment in time - when on the big bottom - the Doppler effect has already happened, but on the small - did not have time. And when he succeeds, a photon with a different wavelength / energy will already fly in, slowly reflect, catch the buzz from the inverse Doppler effect on the small bottom, and fly back.
And, it seems, I understood - that’s what a fixed bottom is, in an already really accelerated resonator. This is when the expected The Doppler effect on it has not yet had time to happen, since the speed of light is finite!
Post by: Alex_O on 09/10/2019 07:40 pm
No no has. One hundred years ago, Lebedev measured the pressure of light, and these were very measurable values. Any, even the weakest effect (micronewtons), and the photon pressure in the laboratory is whole micronewtons (large value!) Will be amplified in a high-Q cavity.I would be careful and study the role of higher derivatives. I saw in textbooks that the exact formulas (in general relativity?) Are written as a polynomial.GR has many complications including that there are few exact solutions. It is not however significant on the scale currently being discussed.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/10/2019 07:58 pm
Ok, let's go back to 1 point. Antenna on a cart, fixed wall. Wall pressure is easy to calculate. Taking into account the speed of the trolley is also simple. We will get a theoretical calculation and compare it with experiment, with acceleration, with a jerk of acceleration or in uniform motion. Let us immediately recall the Sagnac effect (I don’t know why, but to know that even weak derivatives / acceleration are well caught by laser gyroscopes, from the point of view of laboratory technology.)I would be careful and study the role of higher derivatives. I saw in textbooks that the exact formulas (in general relativity?) Are written as a polynomial.No, not necessarily true. Most of the time, it is more straightforward to write things in terms of the total energy in the cavity, in which case the Q factor is built in. Also, for some transient effects, the Q factor is actually irrelevant entirely.
Post by: meberbs on 09/10/2019 08:15 pm
Radiation pressure of light and GR are separate topics. GR effects are negligible for the experiments under discussion. Also microNewtons is a very small value and difficult to measure to begin with.No no has. One hundred years ago, Lebedev measured the pressure of light, and these were very measurable values. Any, even the weakest effect (micronewtons), and the photon pressure in the laboratory is whole micronewtons (large value!) Will be amplified in a high-Q cavity.I would be careful and study the role of higher derivatives. I saw in textbooks that the exact formulas (in general relativity?) Are written as a polynomial.GR has many complications including that there are few exact solutions. It is not however significant on the scale currently being discussed.
The Sagnac effect involves the entire device, emitter, detector, and mirrors rotating. It measures that different parts of the device are moving in different directions due to the nature of rotations. It is not in any way applicable to the experiment you described.Ok, let's go back to 1 point. Antenna on a cart, fixed wall. Wall pressure is easy to calculate. Taking into account the speed of the trolley is also simple. We will get a theoretical calculation and compare it with experiment, with acceleration, with a jerk of acceleration or in uniform motion. Let us immediately recall the Sagnac effect (I don’t know why, but to know that even weak derivatives / acceleration are well caught by laser gyroscopes, from the point of view of laboratory technology.)I would be careful and study the role of higher derivatives. I saw in textbooks that the exact formulas (in general relativity?) Are written as a polynomial.No, not necessarily true. Most of the time, it is more straightforward to write things in terms of the total energy in the cavity, in which case the Q factor is built in. Also, for some transient effects, the Q factor is actually irrelevant entirely.
For your experiment, you would simply get a Doppler shift proportional to the relative velocity of the screen and the antenna at any given time.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/10/2019 08:32 pm
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/10/2019 09:08 pm
Ok, let's go back to 1 point. Antenna on a cart, fixed wall. Wall pressure is easy to calculate. Taking into account the speed of the trolley is also simple. We will get a theoretical calculation and compare it with experiment, with acceleration, with a jerk of acceleration or in uniform motion. Let us immediately recall the Sagnac effect (I don’t know why, but to know that even weak derivatives / acceleration are well caught by laser gyroscopes, from the point of view of laboratory technology.)I would be careful and study the role of higher derivatives. I saw in textbooks that the exact formulas (in general relativity?) Are written as a polynomial.No, not necessarily true. Most of the time, it is more straightforward to write things in terms of the total energy in the cavity, in which case the Q factor is built in. Also, for some transient effects, the Q factor is actually irrelevant entirely.
I think what TT was talking about was Doppler shifting but not in the sense of the Doppler shift but rather more like the Compton effect where light loses energy to accelerating an electron. because of the claim that radiation is accelerating the cavity. Problem is how much pressure do you even need to break the devices static friction before it even begins to accelerate. If it never actually accelerates with just a pulse of radiation via breaking static friction, I don't think one could even claim accelerating the cavity has an effect like the Compton effect. The Compton effect would also be much smaller because of the immense size of the cavity compared to that of an electron. Unless the photons are accelerating something else like electrons in the cavity. Then the question is why are photons losing energy to electrons in the cavity and how would that provide a propulsive effect.
Post by: meberbs on 09/10/2019 10:00 pm
OK, will the pressure on the fixed screen depend on the Doppler shift of the wave frequency? agree?Yes.
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/11/2019 03:30 am
Even if you had a magic device to work around this, you still couldn't change the fact that you wouldn't be measuring the net momentum inside the cavity, since photons are travelling in different directions.
During the 5 x TC cavity stored energy decay time, sidewall and coupler losses will not cause photon wavelength change. Just reducing cavity stored energy.
We are not trying to measure directional momentum change. Only measuring net lengthening of photon wavelengths vs injected wavelength. From the wavelength difference, the amount of photon energy & momentum that was transferred to cavity energy & momentum gain can be calculated & compared to that gained by the accelerating cavity.
Maybe think about how net photon wavelength could lengthen inside an accelerating cavity and then NOT lengthen inside a cavity that is not accelerating?
Post by: meberbs on 09/11/2019 03:46 am
This statement is a complete non-sequiter, it has nothing to do with anything I said.Even if you had a magic device to work around this, you still couldn't change the fact that you wouldn't be measuring the net momentum inside the cavity, since photons are travelling in different directions.During the 5 x TC cavity stored energy decay time, sidewall and coupler losses will not cause photon wavelength change. Just reducing cavity stored energy.
We are not trying to measure directional momentum change. Only measuring net lengthening of photon wavelengths vs injected wavelength. From the wavelength difference, the amount of photon energy & momentum that was transferred to cavity energy & momentum gain can be calculated & compared to that gained by the accelerating cavity.Momentum is a vector quantity. That means if you don't know its direction, you have no way of comparing it to anything. With half of the momentum of the photons in one direction, and half in the other, the total momentum would be zero, and no amount of measuring frequency would tell you that.
Maybe think about how net photon wavelength could lengthen inside an accelerating cavity and then NOT lengthen inside a cavity that is not accelerating?Maybe you should actually read the post that I have linked you to repeatedly, and answer the simple questions I asked you. At this point it is extremely rude of you to keep using the quote button on my posts, but refuse to read what I am writing, or actually engage in a conversation. You are just repeating the same nonsensical statements that I already addressed.
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/11/2019 09:43 am
Momentum is a vector quantity. That means if you don't know its direction, you have no way of comparing it to anything. With half of the momentum of the photons in one direction, and half in the other, the total momentum would be zero, and no amount of measuring frequency would tell you that.
Will try to explain this one more time.
Do understand photon momentum has a vector.
This discussion has nothing to do with that.
Do you also understand the amount of a photons momentum is related to its wavelength? Lower momentum = longer wavelength?
To measure photon momentum loss.
Inject photons into the cavity for 5 x TC seconds or a shorter period.
If the photons do transfer momentum to the accelerating cavity, their net wavelength will be increasing, indicating that overall the trapped cavity photons momentum has decreased from that present during injection.
Trying to measure increasing wavelength during photon injection is really not doable, because as you stated they mix. However once injection is completed & as the photons naturally decay, it is possible to measure their wavelength increase or not.
Will admit that doing this will not indicate the direction of momentum transfer. Would suggest the only way for the photons to lose some momentum is via transfer to the accelerating cavity. Especially when the measured photon momentum loss, via net wavelength increase, closely matches the momentum gain of the accelerating cavity.
Post by: meberbs on 09/11/2019 01:56 pm
This discussion has everything to do with that, because you ignoring the direction of momentum or flipping it around randomly is a common reason for your incorrect statements. You cannot show conservation of momentum (the goal you stated) without accounting for direction. If you think otherwise, you do not actually understand anything about momentum and need to go take an introductory physics class.Momentum is a vector quantity. That means if you don't know its direction, you have no way of comparing it to anything. With half of the momentum of the photons in one direction, and half in the other, the total momentum would be zero, and no amount of measuring frequency would tell you that.
Will try to explain this one more time.
Do understand photon momentum has a vector.
This discussion has nothing to do with that.
Do you also understand the amount of a photons momentum is related to its wavelength? Lower momentum = longer wavelength?That is only true when you have a single photon, or all photons are travelling in the same direction, which is not the case here.
Will admit that doing this will not indicate the direction of momentum transfer.It won't tell you total momentum either, because photons will be travelling in opposite directions. You will also be measuring them relative to the moving cavity rather than the lab frame, as you admitted, so that is another level of measuring the wrong thing.
Would suggest the only way for the photons to lose some momentum is via transfer to the accelerating cavity.Doing an equal amount in opposite directions transfers nothing though. All you are proving here is that you will stubbornly ignore anything you don't like such as the simple questions I keep asking you to respond to.
Especially when the measured photon momentum loss, via net wavelength increase, closely matches the momentum gain of the accelerating cavity.There literally is no possible outcome to your experiment that would show both a working emDrive and conservation of momentum. This is obvious to anyone willing to actually address the simple questions I asked you.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/11/2019 03:11 pm
What isn't allowed is where people are uncivil. So none of that please.
"He didn't answer my question" is not a report to mod. He disagreed with me is not a report to mod. Frustration with someone who sounds like a scratched record and won't debate said points is annoying, but not a report to mod.
Report to mod is where there is a breach of forum rules. Don't ask a mod to step in because someone's equation didn't pass your sniff test. ;D
Post by: Alex_O on 09/12/2019 11:59 am
Thank. But I don’t understand what to do next :)OK, will the pressure on the fixed screen depend on the Doppler shift of the wave frequency? agree?Yes.
To ALL. Is there anyone with experience in calculating radiation pressure taking into account the doppler effect?
Hello TT. I read a huge amount of your messages and really appreciate you for your contribution to studying the concepts of emdrive. I also remember that you had minor health difficulties, I sincerely hope that everything is fine now?
Can you ask Roger Shawyer good data about acceleration diagrams in the Emdrive system? Good modeling requires analysis at time intervals (possibly) less than a hundredth of a second.
And the second question - how did Roger Shawyer even guess about the idea of Doppler? Where did he see it? Did he measure the floating frequency in the resonator while moving the assembly on a linear bench? And he measured the quality factor loss in the resonator during the movement on long rails?
I have one unexpected version of how emdrive works, it can be said in a nutshell.
- Emdrive - "digs a hole."
- The hole does "oops"!
- And the emdrive dives into the hole.
- And so in the loop.
Here the walls of the hole and this "oops" are somehow built from electromagnetic forces, this thing is connected from - I don’t know how to say it better - we see a standing wave in the resonator, we see that the EM field is locked "in the cell", and we see how the EM field is trying "break out of the cage." Therefore, the slightest push, vibration - creates a small (ordinary) physics, which allows the EM field, which is generally unique, unusual! distributed in the "cell" in the "wedge shape" create a small push. Which works only on condition that Emdrive is helped a little by external force? But only once, in the beginning. Remembering the microphone effect in TESLA superconducting resonators, it seems to me that this may be like the truth.
Upd.
I’ll add another verification option. Emdrive of a different geometry, for example, built from two cones (mirror image through a small bottom), if installed on a stand and turned on the RF power, can offer resistance - an attempt to move it from its initial position - if a small force (push) is applied along the axis.
By the way, it will be cool, it looks as if the inertial mass was added to the drive.
By the way, any electromagnetic cavity emits gravitational waves well, in the EM cavity there are several places - where gravitational waves are “born”, and it seems I read that processes in the skin layer have not yet been studied as a place where gravitational waves are generated . And I read about the waves of Unro ...
Post by: meberbs on 09/12/2019 03:09 pm
First calculate the frequency shift as a function of velocity. This is simply a factor that multiplies the original frequency. It is easy enough to google the formula.Thank. But I don’t understand what to do next :)OK, will the pressure on the fixed screen depend on the Doppler shift of the wave frequency? agree?Yes.
To ALL. Is there anyone with experience in calculating radiation pressure taking into account the doppler effect?
The energy and momentum in a photon are both proportional to the frequency, so they increase by the same factor.
The radiation pressure is proportional to the power hitting the surface, where the power can basically be considered as (photons/second)*(energy/photon). Therefore the radiation pressure also increases by the same factor.
There really isn't anywhere to go from there, because you aren't breaking any conservation laws with this, the antenna emitting the EM waves feels an equal amount of force in the opposite direction.
Therefore, the slightest push, vibration - creates a small (ordinary) physics, which allows the EM field, which is generally unique, unusual! distributed in the "cell" in the "wedge shape" create a small push. Which works only on condition that Emdrive is helped a little by external force? But only once, in the beginning.Please see my previous explanation, the net force from the photons inside the cavity is in the opposite direction of the externally applied acceleration. This differential radiation pressure goes away as soon as the externally applied acceleration does, it has no mechanism to be self-sustaining, because it always opposes applied acceleration.
By the way, any electromagnetic cavity emits gravitational waves well, in the EM cavity there are several places - where gravitational waves are “born”, and it seems I read that processes in the skin layer have not yet been studied as a place where gravitational waves are generated . And I read about the waves of Unro ...No, that isn't how gravitational waves work, and no significant or detectable gravitational waves could be generated by a small mass like that.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/12/2019 04:24 pm
First calculate the frequency shift as a function of velocity. This is simply a factor that multiplies the original frequency. It is easy enough to google the formula.
The energy and momentum in a photon are both proportional to the frequency, so they increase by the same factor.
The radiation pressure is proportional to the power hitting the surface, where the power can basically be considered as (photons/second)*(energy/photon). Therefore the radiation pressure also increases by the same factor.
Thank you, I saw these formulas, it seems that there is a simple proportion - if the frequency increases by 10%, then the pressure also increases by 10%. But it seems to me that it is too simple.
For example:.
1. Not movable perfect screen. The energy of the incident photon is equal to the energy of the reflected one. The screen receives a momentum from the photon = 2p. (where p is the photon momentum)
2. Movable perfect screen. The frequency of the incident photon is not equal to the frequency of the reflected one. The screen will receive an impulse = 2p + dp when a photon is reflected, where dp is the contribution of the Doppler effect
All Right? for the first stage?
Post by: meberbs on 09/12/2019 05:52 pm
The complications you bring up here don't change this part of the calculation.
First calculate the frequency shift as a function of velocity. This is simply a factor that multiplies the original frequency. It is easy enough to google the formula.
The energy and momentum in a photon are both proportional to the frequency, so they increase by the same factor.
The radiation pressure is proportional to the power hitting the surface, where the power can basically be considered as (photons/second)*(energy/photon). Therefore the radiation pressure also increases by the same factor.
Thank you, I saw these formulas, it seems that there is a simple proportion - if the frequency increases by 10%, then the pressure also increases by 10%. But it seems to me that it is too simple.
1. Not movable perfect screen. The energy of the incident photon is equal to the energy of the reflected one. The screen receives a momentum from the photon = 2p. (where p is the photon momentum)By "perfect screen" I assume you meant to write "perfect mirror" in which case this statement is correct. A perfrectly black screen would of course be half of this.
2. Movable perfect screen. The frequency of the incident photon is not equal to the frequency of the reflected one. The screen will receive an impulse = 2p + dp when a photon is reflected, where dp is the contribution of the Doppler effectThe reflected photon would have less momentum after reflection so dp would be negative, unless you are working in a frame where the mirror has initial velocity towards the signal source. For a moving mirror, you simply calculate the incident and reflected momentum to get the total force on the mirror, where the reflected momentum is just calculated by the Doppler shift due to reflection.
For when the mirror is initially starting out from 0 velocity, but is allowed to move, there is still a small Doppler shift due to energy transferred to the mirror as it starts moving. I did the calculations for this here. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1413761#msg1413761) This is generally a negligible effect, as the mass of the mirror is going to be very large compared to the energy in a photon.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/12/2019 06:06 pm
For when the mirror is initially starting out from 0 velocity, but is allowed to move, there is still a small Doppler shift due to energy transferred to the mirror as it starts moving. I did the calculations for this here. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1413761#msg1413761) This is generally a negligible effect, as the mass of the mirror is going to be very large compared to the energy in a photon.
OK, I understand your calculation, for one photon a very small value. But in the radiation pressure of the photon flux with a power of 1 kW, we will already have some deviation from the magnitude of the order of 3.3 μN, for each reflection, and this small deviation should be multiplied by the value of the quality factor (of the order of 5 * 104-109). It seems to me that you did not take into account the Q factor in your calculation.
I will go ahead.
Now consider two designs of an exemplary photon rocket. With one and two mirrors. Two mirrors are an emdrive without side walls. We will study three options.
1. The rocket stands on a movable trolley with zero friction in the supports. After turning on the RF power, the dinanometer attached to the trolley will show the thrust of the rocket = 3.33 μN / kW.
2. The rocket is on, hit the cart with a hammer.
a) The blow was struck from the side of emitter
b) The blow was struck from the side of a large mirror.
After the impact, the rocket’s design was deformed, the deformation propagates with the speed of sound in the metal.
3. The rocket is on, its parts have experienced thermal stress. In this case, different parts of the rocket could make relative movements at different speeds.
Now we need to very carefully formulate the difficult question in the next post.
Post by: meberbs on 09/12/2019 06:24 pm
OK, I understand your calculation, for one photon a very small value. But in the radiation pressure of the photon flux with a power of 1 kW, we will already have some deviation from the magnitude of the order of 3.3 μN, for each reflection, and this small deviation should be multiplied by the value of the quality factor (of the order of 5 * 104-109). It seems to me that you did not take into account the Q factor in your calculation.What in the world are you talking about? The setup that you have been asking about and what my calculation applies to is not a resonator, there is no Q factor.
1. The rocket stands on a movable trolley with zero friction in the supports. After turning on the RF power, the dinanometer attached to the trolley will show the thrust of the rocket = 3.33 μN / kW.Yes for your first picture where you are just radiating away (pretending perfect directionality), though lets just ignore the details of how you measure this result, and just assume that we know the power, the mass, and can observe the rate of change of velocity.
2. The rocket is on, hit the cart with a hammer.The answer to all of these is very simple, conservation of momentum holds, and you don't get any different results. If you think you get different results, you made a mistake. Plausible common mistakes include things like missing that the for the case in your first picture, the initial emission of the photons transfers momentum to the structure to the right exactly equal magnitude to the momentum in the photons as they go to the left.
a) The blow was struck from the side of emitter
b) The blow was struck from the side of a large mirror.
After the impact, the rocket’s design was deformed, the deformation propagates with the speed of sound in the metal.
3. The rocket is on, its parts have experienced thermal stress. In this case, different parts of the rocket could make relative movements at different speeds.
Now we need to very carefully formulate the difficult question in the next post.
For your picture with 2 mirrors, it will not go anywhere, ignoring any losses that are radiated away (which will total to no more than 3.33 μN / kW)
Post by: Alex_O on 09/12/2019 06:38 pm
OK, I understand your calculation, for one photon a very small value. But in the radiation pressure of the photon flux with a power of 1 kW, we will already have some deviation from the magnitude of the order of 3.3 μN, for each reflection, and this small deviation should be multiplied by the value of the quality factor (of the order of 5 * 104-109). It seems to me that you did not take into account the Q factor in your calculation.What in the world are you talking about? The setup that you have been asking about and what my calculation applies to is not a resonator, there is no Q factor.1. The rocket stands on a movable trolley with zero friction in the supports. After turning on the RF power, the dinanometer attached to the trolley will show the thrust of the rocket = 3.33 μN / kW.Yes for your first picture where you are just radiating away (pretending perfect directionality), though lets just ignore the details of how you measure this result, and just assume that we know the power, the mass, and can observe the rate of change of velocity.2. The rocket is on, hit the cart with a hammer.The answer to all of these is very simple, conservation of momentum holds, and you don't get any different results. If you think you get different results, you made a mistake. Plausible common mistakes include things like missing that the for the case in your first picture, the initial emission of the photons transfers momentum to the structure to the right exactly equal magnitude to the momentum in the photons as they go to the left.
a) The blow was struck from the side of emitter
b) The blow was struck from the side of a large mirror.
After the impact, the rocket’s design was deformed, the deformation propagates with the speed of sound in the metal.
3. The rocket is on, its parts have experienced thermal stress. In this case, different parts of the rocket could make relative movements at different speeds.
Now we need to very carefully formulate the difficult question in the next post.
For your picture with 2 mirrors, it will not go anywhere, ignoring any losses that are radiated away (which will total to no more than 3.33 μN / kW)
No no, we do not want to violate the law of conservation of momentum. We just want to calculate the manifestations of the Doppler effect at different points of the rocket, and then, already think about what to do next.
When parts of a rocket move, and different parts of a rocket make microscopic movements with the speed of sound in a solid, then if we want to take into account the Doppler effect.
Since the speed of the photon >> is greater than the speed of sound, options are possible.
a) The pressure on the large mirror already has an additive from the Doppler effect. And the pressure on the small mirror for a "long, long time" will have an initial value.
During this "long, long time", photons will have time to reflect many, many times between the mirrors, and in each transaction, create a pressure difference on the mirrors that will accumulate.
Here, "long, long time" is obvious = Length of the rocket / speed of sound minus Length of the rocket / speed of light.
==
What is it? I hit Emdrive with a hammer or thermally processed it, and is there a very real moment in time when at its different ends, for a very short time, but the photon pressure changed very, very much? With the accumulation of the effect due to the quality factor of the resonator?
Post by: meberbs on 09/12/2019 07:16 pm
No no, we do not want to violate the law of conservation of momentum. We just want to calculate the manifestations of the Doppler effect at different points of the rocket, and then, already think about what to do next.You aren't proposing interactions with anything else, therefore anything better than a photon rocket breaks conservation of momentum.
What is it? I hit Emdrive with a hammer or thermally processed it, and is there a very real moment in time when at its different ends, for a very short time, but the photon pressure changed very, very much? With the accumulation of the effect due to the quality factor of the resonator?This does not matter, go do the math, the effects cancel out and you are still left with a photon rocket. Resonators are not magical devices, if a resonator is moving at constant velocity, a Doppler shift on one side is cancelled out by the opposite Doppler shift on the other end, and things do not accumulate the way you wish.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/12/2019 07:29 pm
I will add a little drama.
On the trolley stands Emdrive turned on, and he remains at rest. Since the total (large value) radiation pressure on its walls is zero. This thing is created by electromagnetic forces, and there may even be manifestations of wake acceleration (ponderomotive forces).
Known ideas of particle accelerators to huge energies due to wake acceleration.
Then the wizard came and hit Emdrive with a light hammer. The cart rolled along the rails at a low speed. And suddenly, we saw that the total radiation pressure inside the resonator suddenly became different from zero !!!.
And the difference in pressure strongly depends on the quality factor of the resonator. Yes, it was for a split second. So what? Our Intuition expects an increase in effect like an avalanche when the trolley continues to move. The creative thought of an engineer will immediately think - how to enhance the effect.
And you know what? I would like to draw a plot of forces right away. Force vector. I know where the force vector ends (on the inner surface of the resonator), but I do not know where the beginning of the vector is. What if the beginning of the vector lies outside the cavity? This may mean that for some nanosecond, a still unknown external force acted on the resonator Emdrive.
Post by: meberbs on 09/12/2019 07:40 pm
Then the wizard came and hit Emdrive with a light hammer. The cart rolled along the rails at a low speed. And suddenly, we saw that the total radiation pressure inside the resonator suddenly became different from zero !!!.Because the wizard actually used a magic wand to turn off the laws of physics? What you describe simply has no basis in reality, the radiation pressure would not disappear magically.
And the difference in pressure strongly depends on the quality factor of the resonator. Yes, it was for a split second. So what? Our Intuition expects an increase in effect like an avalanche when the trolley continues to move.Your intuition is wrong. There is no effect that has been described that could feed itself. As I already explained, the only case where a closed cavity does not have net 0 force due to radiation pressure is when there is an externally applied acceleration, and it is always in the opposite direction of the acceleration. Since it is opposed to the acceleration, it is completely nonsensical to claim that it can cause itself.
The creative thought of an engineer will immediately think - how to enhance the effect.Not when there is no effect to enhance.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/12/2019 07:48 pm
No no, we do not want to violate the law of conservation of momentum. We just want to calculate the manifestations of the Doppler effect at different points of the rocket, and then, already think about what to do next.You aren't proposing interactions with anything else, therefore anything better than a photon rocket breaks conservation of momentum.What is it? I hit Emdrive with a hammer or thermally processed it, and is there a very real moment in time when at its different ends, for a very short time, but the photon pressure changed very, very much? With the accumulation of the effect due to the quality factor of the resonator?This does not matter, go do the math, the effects cancel out and you are still left with a photon rocket. Resonators are not magical devices, if a resonator is moving at constant velocity, a Doppler shift on one side is cancelled out by the opposite Doppler shift on the other end, and things do not accumulate the way you wish.
Sorry, we are not studying inertial reference systems. We were told that in order to initialize the thrust of the emdrive rocket, we need to tell the emdrive initial for a short moment of time acceleration. We do not have uniform movement, in principle.
It seems to me that I have proved that in a non-inertial reference system, in a closed, closed EM resonator system, one can find short time intervals when the total effect of radiation pressure on the inner surface, due to the Doppler effect, can be non-zero !.
Post by: meberbs on 09/12/2019 07:58 pm
Sorry, we are not studying inertial reference systems. We were told that in order to initialize the thrust of the emdrive rocket, we need to tell the emdrive initial for a short moment of time acceleration. We do not have uniform movement, in principle.My statements are not dependent on that.
It seems to me that I have proved that in a non-inertial reference system, in a closed, closed EM resonator system, one can find short time intervals when the total effect of radiation pressure on the inner surface, due to the Doppler effect, can be non-zero !.You have proven nothing. I previously explained that there will be a (small) radiation pressure difference between the 2 ends of the cavity, in the opposite direction of externally applied acceleration, for as long as there is an externally applied acceleration and no longer. This produces exactly no useful effects.
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/12/2019 08:04 pm
No no, we do not want to violate the law of conservation of momentum. We just want to calculate the manifestations of the Doppler effect at different points of the rocket, and then, already think about what to do next.You aren't proposing interactions with anything else, therefore anything better than a photon rocket breaks conservation of momentum.
While I very much want to violate conservation of momentum but sadly, I can't... :(
Post by: Alex_O on 09/12/2019 08:21 pm
Sorry, we are not studying inertial reference systems. We were told that in order to initialize the thrust of the emdrive rocket, we need to tell the emdrive initial for a short moment of time acceleration. We do not have uniform movement, in principle.My statements are not dependent on that.It seems to me that I have proved that in a non-inertial reference system, in a closed, closed EM resonator system, one can find short time intervals when the total effect of radiation pressure on the inner surface, due to the Doppler effect, can be non-zero !.You have proven nothing. I previously explained that there will be a (small) radiation pressure difference between the 2 ends of the cavity, in the opposite direction of externally applied acceleration, for as long as there is an externally applied acceleration and no longer. This produces exactly no useful effects.
Well, we agreed that at the ends of the resonator, within a very short period of time, the radiation pressure forces due to Doppler can change?
Moreover, the process looks like inconsistent, at different times, the pressure at the ends does not change synchronously, but with a delay?
Then slice, mentally, make a resonator from thin, flexible walls, and let it oscillate along the axis - like a corrugated siphon! We mentally reinforced the deformation of the resonator body, due to greater flexibility. And immediately enhanced the effect of Doppler.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/12/2019 08:40 pm
Sorry, we are not studying inertial reference systems. We were told that in order to initialize the thrust of the emdrive rocket, we need to tell the emdrive initial for a short moment of time acceleration. We do not have uniform movement, in principle.My statements are not dependent on that.It seems to me that I have proved that in a non-inertial reference system, in a closed, closed EM resonator system, one can find short time intervals when the total effect of radiation pressure on the inner surface, due to the Doppler effect, can be non-zero !.You have proven nothing. I previously explained that there will be a (small) radiation pressure difference between the 2 ends of the cavity, in the opposite direction of externally applied acceleration, for as long as there is an externally applied acceleration and no longer. This produces exactly no useful effects.
SavePoint 0
You forgot that there are two options. external force - hammer blow, and thermal deformation due to the work of internal forces. And there and there is room for Doppler. For, an example of a worm. The worm, in zero gravity, in a vacuum, compresses, unclenches its body due to internal energy, which is an resonator resonator. And catches the buzz from the gradients of radiation pressure at the ends.
Post by: meberbs on 09/12/2019 08:49 pm
Well, we agreed that at the ends of the resonator, within a very short period of time, the radiation pressure forces due to Doppler can change?Why do you keep bringing up a "short period of time"? A continuous acceleration works just fine for creating a difference in radiation pressure and is easier to do the math on. (Of course the difference is useless because it just opposes the external acceleration, but the same is true if the external acceleration comes from a short hammer blow.)
Moreover, the process looks like inconsistent, at different times, the pressure at the ends does not change synchronously, but with a delay?Continuous acceleration works just as well if not better, you are just over-complicating things, but if you want to do the math for this case, go ahead and do it, you will find that this does not create a useful force, since that would violate conservation of momentum. (I'd do the math for you, but typing it all out is tedious, and based on your responses so far you would just ignore the results anyway.)
Then slice, mentally, make a resonator from thin, flexible walls, and let it oscillate along the axis - like a corrugated siphon! We mentally reinforced the deformation of the resonator body, due to greater flexibility. And immediately enhanced the effect of Doppler.Again, conservation of momentum works, you aren't enhancing anything here. You haven't done any of the math for the last 2 or 3 steps, and are well past the point of handwaving.
You forgot that there are two options. external force - hammer blow, and thermal deformation due to the work of internal forces. And there and there is room for Doppler. For, an example of a worm. The worm, in zero gravity, in a vacuum, compresses, unclenches its body due to internal energy, which is an resonator resonator. And catches the buzz from the gradients of radiation pressure at the ends.I didn't forget the options you listed, but neither of them are useful in any way, shape or form. You have not proven anything about either case, just made unfounded assumptions of magical behaviors. If you ever did the actual math you would see that none of this would produce a useful net force. Midway through this post you now start talking complete gibberish, worms are in no way relevant.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/13/2019 11:01 am
Well, we agreed that at the ends of the resonator, within a very short period of time, the radiation pressure forces due to Doppler can change?Why do you keep bringing up a "short period of time"? A continuous acceleration works just fine for creating a difference in radiation pressure and is easier to do the math on. (Of course the difference is useless because it just opposes the external acceleration, but the same is true if the external acceleration comes from a short hammer blow.)Moreover, the process looks like inconsistent, at different times, the pressure at the ends does not change synchronously, but with a delay?Continuous acceleration works just as well if not better, you are just over-complicating things, but if you want to do the math for this case, go ahead and do it, you will find that this does not create a useful force, since that would violate conservation of momentum. (I'd do the math for you, but typing it all out is tedious, and based on your responses so far you would just ignore the results anyway.)Then slice, mentally, make a resonator from thin, flexible walls, and let it oscillate along the axis - like a corrugated siphon! We mentally reinforced the deformation of the resonator body, due to greater flexibility. And immediately enhanced the effect of Doppler.Again, conservation of momentum works, you aren't enhancing anything here. You haven't done any of the math for the last 2 or 3 steps, and are well past the point of handwaving.You forgot that there are two options. external force - hammer blow, and thermal deformation due to the work of internal forces. And there and there is room for Doppler. For, an example of a worm. The worm, in zero gravity, in a vacuum, compresses, unclenches its body due to internal energy, which is an resonator resonator. And catches the buzz from the gradients of radiation pressure at the ends.I didn't forget the options you listed, but neither of them are useful in any way, shape or form. You have not proven anything about either case, just made unfounded assumptions of magical behaviors. If you ever did the actual math you would see that none of this would produce a useful net force. Midway through this post you now start talking complete gibberish, worms are in no way relevant.
Thank you dear meberbs for a very useful conversation, I will be three days without the Internet, allow me to agree:
1. Emdrive stands on an ideal trolley or balancer.
2. Turn on the RF power.
3. Significant radiation force acts on the cavity walls, but the drive remains motionless. Since according to the law of conservation of momentum, the sum of the forces of radiation pressure on the internal surfaces of the resonator - the sum of the force is zero.
4. There are no external forces (no magic hammer).
5. Due to internal forces, the resonator body experiences thermal expansion. At the same time, over a short time interval, using a fast camera, it is observed that different parts of the resonator perform accelerated movement at different speeds. Within the flexible (elastic) properties of a copper substance.
6. The value of the time interval is selected within the time limit for the propagation of mechanical (sound waves) in the resonator body, that is, about 3570 m / s, which gives an interval of about 10 μs.
7. Thus, I described the initial boundary conditions. For the sake of simplicity of modeling, I chose such a regime of thermal loads when the small bottom remains motionless, and the large bottom moves rapidly - towards the small bottom, at a speed of 3570 m / s, during a small time interval = 10 μs. (or 1 μs, not important).
8. Earlier, we agreed that the force of radiation pressure on the large bottom in this case will differ by dp due to the Doppler effect.
9. Since the small bottom is motionless, the radiation force on it will not change.
10. I conclude that in the indicated small time interval, in comparison with point 3, a “strange” new, unbalanced force will appear in the resonator. Since the sum of radiation pressure forces in this case will differ by a "derivative" from dp.
11. Since the photon gas (I use this term for brevity) is somehow significantly different from the properties of any gas or liquid, I believe that from the side of the photon gas - at this point in time, a new, unbalanced force will act on the large bottom of the resonator and if the overall drive is granted freedom of movement, this force will force the drive to make a small movement with acceleration. Accurate scales will measure the thrust of an emdrive rocket. The thrust vector may have a direction towards the large bottom.
12. Thus, we see that in a small time interval, the EM field that is inside the resonator cavity can cause the cavity to move in space.
I wanted to prove just that. Q.E.D.
13. Clarification, the effect will manifest itself obviously in a shorter time interval when the reflected (but already changed by the Doppler) photons have not yet reached the small bottom. That is, the time interval is about 10-9 seconds.
14. That is, a photon gas creates a pulse force, with a pulse duration of about 10-9 seconds.
15. But since photons can be reflected many times between the large and small bottoms in the interval of 10 μs, the result of the pulse force should be summed up the work of the pulse force in the interval of 10 μs.
16. Thermal loads will cause the movement of the center of mass. This will mask the effect; a resonator with high quality factor is required for detection.
17. To clarify the pressure force on the small bottom, when more “violet” photons “arrive” on the small bottom (for the first time), which are already modified in frequency by the Doppler effect on the large bottom - at the initial moment of the time interval from 10-9 seconds. Obviously, the pressure force on the small bottom will also be increased. But since the area of the small and large bottoms is very different, this will not be able to destroy the effect of rocket thrust on the big bottom due to the Doppler effect.
18. Clarify the likelihood that the side walls of the resonator, due to the curved surface of the large bottom — that there are such photons in the total photon flux — never act on the side walls.
Thank. R.S. Sorry, I was in a hurry yesterday and could make messages with physics errors. And I could not answer your questions well during the conversation. (my wife swore at me very much that I should go to sleep :)). I also spend time on Google translating from Russian into English and correcting translation errors.
Post by: meberbs on 09/13/2019 02:14 pm
Thank you dear meberbs for a very useful conversation, I will be three days without the Internet, allow me to agree:Agree would imply that you are agreeing with previous statements I made, but several of your points contradict things I have said. I appreciate you breaking things down step by step like this, it makes it easier to show exactly where you make incorrect assumptions.
5. Due to internal forces, the resonator body experiences thermal expansion. At the same time, over a short time interval, using a fast camera, it is observed that different parts of the resonator perform accelerated movement at different speeds. Within the flexible (elastic) properties of a copper substance.Thermal expansion actually happens on a relatively slow time scale of seconds, because it takes time for the metal to heat up.
7. Thus, I described the initial boundary conditions. For the sake of simplicity of modeling, I chose such a regime of thermal loads when the small bottom remains motionless, and the large bottom moves rapidly - towards the small bottom, at a speed of 3570 m / s, during a small time interval = 10 μs. (or 1 μs, not important).The motion of the large end will be much slower than 3570 m/s, otherwise you exceeded the mechanical limits of the object, and it breaks into pieces. The exact velocity is not relevant, but lets go with 10 m/s for convenience.
8. Earlier, we agreed that the force of radiation pressure on the large bottom in this case will differ by dp due to the Doppler effect.Not quite, this only looks at one side of what is happening. While there would be increased radiation pressure on the large end since it is moving towards the EM waves, the resulting EM waves would be Doppler shifted to a higher frequency. That means that on their next reflection from the small end, they will increase the radiation pressure on the small end by the same amount, but obviously in the opposite direction. This is still balanced, and the only thing this accomplishes is moving momentum from the large end to the small end through the EM waves at the speed of light, rather than mechanically through the side walls at the speed of sound.
9. Since the small bottom is motionless, the radiation force on it will not change.Again, no, because the EMwaves hitting it have increased in momentum after being reflected off the large end.
10. I conclude that in the indicated small time interval, in comparison with point 3, a “strange” new, unbalanced force will appear in the resonator. Since the sum of radiation pressure forces in this case will differ by a "derivative" from dp.You conclude wrong. Your conclusion breaks conservation of momentum by claiming an unbalanced force. As I stated before , if you conclude that conservation of momentum is broken it means you made a mistake somewhere. In this case your mistake is what I just pointed out above.
11. Since the photon gas (I use this term for brevity) is somehow significantly different from the properties of any gas or liquid, I believe that from the side of the photon gas - at this point in time, a new, unbalanced force will act on the large bottom of the resonator and if the overall drive is granted freedom of movement, this force will force the drive to make a small movement with acceleration. Accurate scales will measure the thrust of an emdrive rocket. The thrust vector may have a direction towards the large bottom.Several problems with your statements here:
-There actually is a small amount of transfer of momentum, from the walls to the EM waves, but it is much smaller than implied by your incorrect bullet points above. It is easier to explain where this small force comes from in a continuous acceleration than in your example.
-A scale does not fit in with the design of the experiment described. What you actually could do is see the final velocity of the cavity which would be slower (compared to a cavity that was not filled with RF) by an amount to small to have any hope of actually measuring. The difference is solely because of the additional mass the cavity has due to the photons' energy and E=mc^2.
-The direction towards the large end is the opposite of the supposed effect based on experiments (though the best experiments show no measurable effect.)
12. Thus, we see that in a small time interval, the EM field that is inside the resonator cavity can cause the cavity to move in space.No, the EM waves apply a force that resists the motion induced by the externally applied force. The same would happen if you placed a small ball inside the cavity. The total mass of the cavity including the ball would increase, so the total increase in velocity would be smaller for the same momentum transfer.
13. Clarification, the effect will manifest itself obviously in a shorter time interval when the reflected (but already changed by the Doppler) photons have not yet reached the small bottom. That is, the time interval is about 10-9 seconds.Now you are getting to assumptions that actually lead towards the correct answer.
14. That is, a photon gas creates a pulse force, with a pulse duration of about 10-9 seconds.The first problem is that after the 1 ns for the Doppler shifted waves to get from one end of the cavity to the other, the forces are balanced. The total radiation pressure is continuously increasing, but there is no longer a difference between the ends. The next problem is that under the assumptions of the situation you set up, the cavity deformed over that time period. Over a comparable time period, the cavity will un-derform, so what effects do actually accumulate over the time period get undone while the deformation is being reversed. A very careful analysis would should just a very slight bit of extra momentum (directed towards the small end) stored in the EM waves when all is done.
15. But since photons can be reflected many times between the large and small bottoms in the interval of 10 μs, the result of the pulse force should be summed up the work of the pulse force in the interval of 10 μs.
16. Thermal loads will cause the movement of the center of mass. This will mask the effect; a resonator with high quality factor is required for detection.Thermal loads will NOT cause movement of the center of mass for an emDrive sitting on a cart. center of mass shifts due to thermal loads are an error source in experiments such as torsional pendulums where it causes things to no longer be balanced from deformation, or other situations such as where one end is resting on a scale, so only the other end is free to move.
17. To clarify the pressure force on the small bottom, when more “violet” photons “arrive” on the small bottom (for the first time), which are already modified in frequency by the Doppler effect on the large bottom - at the initial moment of the time interval from 10-9 seconds. Obviously, the pressure force on the small bottom will also be increased. But since the area of the small and large bottoms is very different, this will not be able to destroy the effect of rocket thrust on the big bottom due to the Doppler effect.Normally in an emDrive shaped cavity, there is less force on the small end, because some of the reflection happens on the side walls. Your logic here is just a complete failure, because if there was no force on the sidewalls because of some special setup (say you just run this with 2 relatively large mirrors (one bigger than the other for no real reason) and a concentrated laser) you would just be implying that the pressure (force per area) is higher on the "smaller" end so that the force is the same.
18. Clarify the likelihood that the side walls of the resonator, due to the curved surface of the large bottom — that there are such photons in the total photon flux — never act on the side walls.Likelihood of that is zero for an RF resonator. And if you came up with some setup where that was true, it would just mean that there is more pressure on the smaller end than the larger end, so that the forces balance.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/13/2019 04:36 pm
Post by: RyanC on 09/13/2019 08:23 pm
It sounds like the kind of crazy thing Musk would do; especially since the other 59 satellites (or so) in a Starlink mission would pay for the one off crazy experiment.
Post by: RotoSequence on 09/13/2019 09:51 pm
Wouldn't it be quicker to build a Starlink sized EM drive demonstrator unit and have it tossed from a F9 during a regular Starlink mission to actually flight test a EM drive in space?
It sounds like the kind of crazy thing Musk would do; especially since the other 59 satellites (or so) in a Starlink mission would pay for the one off crazy experiment.
I don't think any propellant-less thruster scheme has enough potential left in the tank for SpaceX to dedicate their engineers' time towards trying it.
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/14/2019 12:57 am
Wouldn't it be quicker to build a Starlink sized EM drive demonstrator unit and have it tossed from a F9 during a regular Starlink mission to actually flight test a EM drive in space?
No, it would not be quicker. There is a tremendous amount of work involved in designing, fabricating, launching and precise tracking of an Emdrive propelled microsat.
Solar power, batteries, communications, and everything else necessary is far more effort than simply building one on the ground and testing it rigorously with known methods.
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/14/2019 04:59 am
Wouldn't it be quicker to build a Starlink sized EM drive demonstrator unit and have it tossed from a F9 during a regular Starlink mission to actually flight test a EM drive in space?
It sounds like the kind of crazy thing Musk would do; especially since the other 59 satellites (or so) in a Starlink mission would pay for the one off crazy experiment.
Some of them were proposed to work. Others didn't seem to work. Whose would you toss out the airlock? Question is what would make them work if they work in the first place. If we had ones that really worked then Investigate those to see why they work. What if they need air to work? Maybe air to make a sort of cold plasma. Toss them in a vacuum and maybe they stop working.
Other sources were possible thermal hydrodynamic propulsion via heating of air around the cavity. Magnetic torque with the Earth's magnetic field. Thermal baloon lift are all false signal sources that one has to weed through If one could be made to provide a signal above the noise floor or above other possible non-usedul thrust sources, it might help narrow things down but what is really wanted is a physical mechanism for propellantless thrust. You can't maximize something you don't understand.
Post by: mwvp on 09/15/2019 02:53 am
...
To ALL. Is there anyone with experience in calculating radiation pressure taking into account the doppler effect?
FYI...
"Cavity Optomechanics"
https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0733 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0733)
see fig. 14 pg 20. Consider that a hollow metallic frustrum will have inductive losses that are greater for lower frequencies than higher ones, especially when detuned. So that red-shifted energy will exhaust through a nozzle after delivering momentum to the frustrum. The cavity is anisotropically open to red-shifted energy.
You made a good point about high Q cavities. I don't see how much energy, more than a few milliwatts could be supplied to a superconducting cavity before the field strength would exceed vacuum-breakdown, then arcing and failure. Might make for a milli-newton thruster but not hover-car.
Also, since the cavity is full of radiation-pressure and can detune megahertz/micrometers, nonlinear instabilities would require some clever active measures. Just like the fusion folks have to deal with.
More interesting math can be found in http://onlyspacetime.com/OnlySpacetime.pdf at the end of chapter 1. I reference other works in my earlier posts, such as:
Bradshaw on dispersion in: http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.5467v1
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1674886#msg1674886
Post by: Alex_O on 09/17/2019 07:02 am
Hello mwvp!...
To ALL. Is there anyone with experience in calculating radiation pressure taking into account the doppler effect?
FYI...
"Cavity Optomechanics"
https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0733 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0733)
see fig. 14 pg 20. Consider that a hollow metallic frustrum will have inductive losses that are greater for lower frequencies than higher ones, especially when detuned. So that red-shifted energy will exhaust through a nozzle after delivering momentum to the frustrum. The cavity is anisotropically open to red-shifted energy.
You made a good point about high Q cavities. I don't see how much energy, more than a few milliwatts could be supplied to a superconducting cavity before the field strength would exceed vacuum-breakdown, then arcing and failure. Might make for a milli-newton thruster but not hover-car.
Also, since the cavity is full of radiation-pressure and can detune megahertz/micrometers, nonlinear instabilities would require some clever active measures. Just like the fusion folks have to deal with.
More interesting math can be found in http://onlyspacetime.com/OnlySpacetime.pdf at the end of chapter 1. I reference other works in my earlier posts, such as:
Bradshaw on dispersion in: http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.5467v1
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1674886#msg1674886
Thanks for the nice link. I read the article and noted that the authors did a good job of generalizing. I noticed that examples of mechanical oscillators with a GHz frequency are being discussed. It inspired me a little. I will continue to study the materials on your links, thanks again. In a post below I will try to show a small result of inspiration :)
Post by: Alex_O on 09/17/2019 07:08 am
Thank you dear meberbs for a very useful conversation, I will be three days without the Internet, allow me to agree:Agree would imply that you are agreeing with previous statements I made, but several of your points contradict things I have said. I appreciate you breaking things down step by step like this, it makes it easier to show exactly where you make incorrect assumptions.
..13. Clarification, the effect will manifest itself obviously in a shorter time interval when the reflected (but already changed by the Doppler) photons have not yet reached the small bottom. That is, the time interval is about 10-9 seconds.Now you are getting to assumptions that actually lead towards the correct answer.
...18. Clarify the likelihood that the side walls of the resonator, due to the curved surface of the large bottom — that there are such photons in the total photon flux — never act on the side walls.Likelihood of that is zero for an RF resonator. And if you came up with some setup where that was true, it would just mean that there is more pressure on the smaller end than the larger end, so that the forces balance.
Hello dear meberbs, please look at the new model?
I changed the model, used a cylindrical microwave cavity and installed artificial muscles on the outer surface of the cavity. Now the walls of the cavity can make small, independent movements to the right and left due to the operation of the drive according to an arbitrary algorithm. In this way, I built an example of a small worm. The worm compresses, unclenches the muscles, and controls the movement of the end walls of the resonator. In this case, the end walls can move relative to the side wall of the cavity independently.
I also launched a single (for example) microwave photon into the resonator and tuned the cavity to some resonance, I got a microwave cavity with a Q factor.
First I turned on the RF power and waited a bit. Then, he allowed the worm to squeeze / unclench its muscles. I mentally observed changes in the momentum on the walls of the cavity and the microwave photon with an interval of time of the order of 1 nanosecond. I recorded the results of the observations in a table.
I don’t know how it is right, if there is an error in the statement of the problem and the observation method, but it seems to me that I see that in this cavity the radiation pressure on the end walls is always different.
Then I go further in my mind and want to see how my worm is trying to use the difference in radiation pressure on the end walls to move in a given direction.
It seems to me that such an algorithm can be universal for the motion of a spaceship, for example, on the end walls, instead of radiation pressure, it is possible to create dynamic Casimir forces. And using fast switching, "crawl through the vacuum." It's like a submarine of Dr. Harold G. White of EW, but she does not swim, she crawls.
Post by: rq3 on 09/17/2019 02:24 pm
Quote
Hello dear meberbs, please look at the new model?
I changed the model, used a cylindrical microwave cavity and installed artificial muscles on the outer surface of the cavity. Now the walls of the cavity can make small, independent movements to the right and left due to the operation of the drive according to an arbitrary algorithm. In this way, I built an example of a small worm. The worm compresses, unclenches the muscles, and controls the movement of the end walls of the resonator. In this case, the end walls can move relative to the side wall of the cavity independently.
I also launched a single (for example) microwave photon into the resonator and tuned the cavity to some resonance, I got a microwave cavity with a Q factor.
First I turned on the RF power and waited a bit. Then, he allowed the worm to squeeze / unclench its muscles. I mentally observed changes in the momentum on the walls of the cavity and the microwave photon with an interval of time of the order of 1 nanosecond. I recorded the results of the observations in a table.
I don’t know how it is right, if there is an error in the statement of the problem and the observation method, but it seems to me that I see that in this cavity the radiation pressure on the end walls is always different.
Then I go further in my mind and want to see how my worm is trying to use the difference in radiation pressure on the end walls to move in a given direction.
It seems to me that such an algorithm can be universal for the motion of a spaceship, for example, on the end walls, instead of radiation pressure, it is possible to create dynamic Casimir forces. And using fast switching, "crawl through the vacuum." It's like a submarine of Dr. Harold G. White of EW, but she does not swim, she crawls.
Aha! The old "swimming in vacuum" trick!
https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/6706
Post by: meberbs on 09/17/2019 02:53 pm
Aha! The old "swimming in vacuum" trick!That "trick" requires an external gravitational potential that you interact with, which is not what the previous post was discussing.
https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/6706
I don’t know how it is right, if there is an error in the statement of the problem and the observation method, but it seems to me that I see that in this cavity the radiation pressure on the end walls is always different.Your table is completely wrong, you ignore direction entirely, and break things into multiple steps that shouldn't be.
First of all, you should start with the whole system having 0 net momentum like so, so it is easy to see if it can ever move anywhere.
| left wall | photon | right wall | total |
| -p/2 | p | -p/2 | 0 |
| -p/2 | -p-dp1 | -p/2+2p+dp1 | 0 |
| -p/2-2p-2dp1-dp2 | p+dp1+dp2 | -p/2+2p+dp1 | 0 |
| -p/2-2p-2dp1-dp2 | -p-dp1-dp2-dp3 | -p/2+4p+3dp1+2 dp2+dp3 | 0 |
At the end of the day, the net motion you could get from the cavity would be equal to taking a mass equal to E/c^2 where E is the energy in the photon, and moving that mass from one end of the cavity to the other. This is a very small motion of the outer walls of the cavity, and no montion of the center of mass of the system.
Post by: Bryan_Kelly on 09/17/2019 03:47 pm
And using fast switching, "crawl through the vacuum." It's like a submarine of Dr. Harold G. White of EW, but she does not swim, she crawls.
Your worm is also suspended in gravity, and perhaps she is rocking the boat.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/17/2019 04:23 pm
Aha! The old "swimming in vacuum" trick!That "trick" requires an external gravitational potential that you interact with, which is not what the previous post was discussing.
https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/6706I don’t know how it is right, if there is an error in the statement of the problem and the observation method, but it seems to me that I see that in this cavity the radiation pressure on the end walls is always different.Your table is completely wrong, you ignore direction entirely, and break things into multiple steps that shouldn't be.
First of all, you should start with the whole system having 0 net momentum like so, so it is easy to see if it can ever move anywhere.Each row shows the momentum after the next reflection. At all times momentum is balanced, so the cavity goes nowhere. With the 2 opposite walls moving in opposite directions, once the mechanical forces catch up, the whole thing will come to a stop. the net effect will not have the cavity make any progress anywhere. The dp's are small relative to p (also remember that dp may be negative), if they ever built up to equal -p, that would just mean the photon has been absorbed. You would have limited ability to control the values of dp, because of the already imparted momentum from previous reflections as well.
left wall photon right wall total -p/2 p -p/2 0 -p/2 -p-dp1 -p/2+2p+dp1 0 -p/2-2p-2dp1-dp2 p+dp1+dp2 -p/2+2p+dp1 0 -p/2-2p-2dp1-dp2 -p-dp1-dp2-dp3 -p/2+4p+3dp1+2 dp2+dp3 0
At the end of the day, the net motion you could get from the cavity would be equal to taking a mass equal to E/c^2 where E is the energy in the photon, and moving that mass from one end of the cavity to the other. This is a very small motion of the outer walls of the cavity, and no montion of the center of mass of the system.
Thank. Yes, this cavity has zero momentum at the beginning, and it cannot change in any way due to the work of internal forces. According to my table or yours, the total momentum of the system will always be zero.
But this is what seems important to me. It seemed to me that in this system there is a variable. The force of radiation pressure on the end walls, which has a period of oscillation at the level of a nanosecond. Or it can be matched at a lower frequency, by controlling the drive of the worm muscles.
Right? If so, this is very important.
Post by: meberbs on 09/17/2019 04:31 pm
But this is what seems important to me. It seemed to me that in this system there is a variable. The force of radiation pressure on the end walls, which has a period of oscillation at the level of a nanosecond. Or it can be matched at a lower frequency, by controlling the drive of the worm muscles.No, it isn't important, you keep just jumping to conclusions like that without doing the math. The momentum is balanced, so the device as a whole will not go anywhere. Nothing you do with the "worm muscles" will change that.
Right? If so, this is very important.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/17/2019 04:48 pm
QuoteHello dear meberbs, please look at the new model?
I changed the model, used a cylindrical microwave cavity and installed artificial muscles on the outer surface of the cavity. Now the walls of the cavity can make small, independent movements to the right and left due to the operation of the drive according to an arbitrary algorithm. In this way, I built an example of a small worm. The worm compresses, unclenches the muscles, and controls the movement of the end walls of the resonator. In this case, the end walls can move relative to the side wall of the cavity independently.
I also launched a single (for example) microwave photon into the resonator and tuned the cavity to some resonance, I got a microwave cavity with a Q factor.
First I turned on the RF power and waited a bit. Then, he allowed the worm to squeeze / unclench its muscles. I mentally observed changes in the momentum on the walls of the cavity and the microwave photon with an interval of time of the order of 1 nanosecond. I recorded the results of the observations in a table.
I don’t know how it is right, if there is an error in the statement of the problem and the observation method, but it seems to me that I see that in this cavity the radiation pressure on the end walls is always different.
Then I go further in my mind and want to see how my worm is trying to use the difference in radiation pressure on the end walls to move in a given direction.
It seems to me that such an algorithm can be universal for the motion of a spaceship, for example, on the end walls, instead of radiation pressure, it is possible to create dynamic Casimir forces. And using fast switching, "crawl through the vacuum." It's like a submarine of Dr. Harold G. White of EW, but she does not swim, she crawls.
Aha! The old "swimming in vacuum" trick!
https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/6706
Fine! But I am in a cursory reading (thanks for showing me a wonderful example of bold scientific thought from the treasury of knowledge of a great university) - I do not have time to find an understanding - what physical effect is used here? I will explain my thought. To increase the capacity of hard drives, people consistently applied different physical effects. In the history of the art of engineering, one example is described.
Suppose you want to build a car that can move freely in the thickness of the earth's crust with a speed of 100 km / h. It is clear that you must find a good physical effect for this. For example, a substance that well destroys intermolecular bonds in solid matter.
Is there a description in this paper of the desired physical effect?
Post by: Alex_O on 09/17/2019 05:04 pm
But this is what seems important to me. It seemed to me that in this system there is a variable. The force of radiation pressure on the end walls, which has a period of oscillation at the level of a nanosecond. Or it can be matched at a lower frequency, by controlling the drive of the worm muscles.No, it isn't important, you keep just jumping to conclusions like that without doing the math. The momentum is balanced, so the device as a whole will not go anywhere. Nothing you do with the "worm muscles" will change that.
Right? If so, this is very important.
I recently saw an insect (spider) running through the water. The spider's legs are on the surface of the water, and surface tension forces act on the spider's legs. Each foot, at the point of contact of water - it does not sink, since the force (and momentum) is balanced. But spiders, using their muscles, it repels from a small area of the space-continuum, where the forces (they are balanced), but where there is more (by analogy with our example) "field strength".
The starship must not violate the law of conservation of momentum. He must learn to build on what we now call physical emptiness.
In other words, our task consists of two stages.
1) We need to learn to create in the void - "field tension." I see a place at the ends of the worm with microwaves - where something is great different from zero. I do not know what is this. There is somehow more Lorentz forces, per unit volume.
Right?
2.) the second stage is to learn how to .. row, crawl, push .. Make a push in the direction of "emptiness".
That's why I turned my attention to Doppler. Subject to other ideas, in particular a report at the SSI 2017 conference -
An Epitaxial Device for Dynamic Interaction with the Vacuum State '
Dr. David C. Hyland
Post by: Alex_O on 09/17/2019 05:16 pm
And using fast switching, "crawl through the vacuum." It's like a submarine of Dr. Harold G. White of EW, but she does not swim, she crawls.
Your worm is also suspended in gravity, and perhaps she is rocking the boat.
Great idea - gravity shakes the boat. Usually, gravity is discussed using a curved trampoline as an example. the rubber fabric bends under the weight of the load. But in zero gravity, this does not work.
But if the surface of the trampoline experiences vibration in itself, like a vibrating table, then everything will work right away. Yes, while the vibrations of the “space-continuum metric” create a physical effect, which we see as a phenomenon - gravity. And yes, the boat will swing by itself. But any vibrator at the bottom of the boat .. there may be options. Where is the main question - about the frequency of vibration of the working body of the machine, the starship engine. It seems to be a very high frequency.
This is not a hypothesis. This is a reflection.
Post by: meberbs on 09/17/2019 05:17 pm
I recently saw an insect (spider) running through the water. The spider's legs are on the surface of the water, and surface tension forces act on the spider's legs. Each foot, at the point of contact of water - it does not sink, since the force (and momentum) is balanced. But spiders, using their muscles, it repels from a small area of the space-continuum, where the forces (they are balanced), but where there is more (by analogy with our example) "field strength".Spiders do not push on the space-time continuum, they push on the water, and make a bit of the water move in the opposite direction that they move.
The starship must not violate the law of conservation of momentum. He must learn to build on what we now call physical emptiness.If a spacecraft changes velocity, and obeys conservation of momentum, this means that it pushes on something else. Statements that "maybe it pushes on magic nothingness" are a waste of time.
1) We need to learn to create in the void - "field tension." I see a place at the ends of the worm with microwaves - where something is great different from zero. I do not know what is this. There is somehow more Lorentz forces, per unit volume.What you just said appears to be "I don't know what I am talking about, but maybe magic exists." (paraphrasing you, so the "I" represents you in that quote.) If that isn't what you were trying to say, I am not sure what you meant to say. And no, magic does not exist.
Right?
Post by: Alex_O on 09/17/2019 06:07 pm
I recently saw an insect (spider) running through the water. The spider's legs are on the surface of the water, and surface tension forces act on the spider's legs. Each foot, at the point of contact of water - it does not sink, since the force (and momentum) is balanced. But spiders, using their muscles, it repels from a small area of the space-continuum, where the forces (they are balanced), but where there is more (by analogy with our example) "field strength".Spiders do not push on the space-time continuum, they push on the water, and make a bit of the water move in the opposite direction that they move.The starship must not violate the law of conservation of momentum. He must learn to build on what we now call physical emptiness.If a spacecraft changes velocity, and obeys conservation of momentum, this means that it pushes on something else. Statements that "maybe it pushes on magic nothingness" are a waste of time.1) We need to learn to create in the void - "field tension." I see a place at the ends of the worm with microwaves - where something is great different from zero. I do not know what is this. There is somehow more Lorentz forces, per unit volume.What you just said appears to be "I don't know what I am talking about, but maybe magic exists." (paraphrasing you, so the "I" represents you in that quote.) If that isn't what you were trying to say, I am not sure what you meant to say. And no, magic does not exist.
Right?
No no, I did not use the term magic. Although I could show that it’s magic, that when wizards use fairy crystals in fairy tales and extract energy from them, it’s just high-quality resonators, with a quality factor of 1050, for example. And to support the argument by the example of a physical phenomenon, a gravitational wave that is poorly absorbed by matter - that if you build a resonator for gravitational waves - then there will be no energy loss of gravitational waves in the skin layer of the resonator, which means that the quality factor of the gravitational resonator will be many orders of magnitude higher than any microwave resonator. The recovered energy from a magic crystal that is charged with the energy of gravity waves will have the character of a power ray, the sword of the Jedi.
Using the Doppler effect, I saw a good idea for the practical use of the physical properties of a physical vacuum. We can discuss this a bit, it will not be offtopic?
Post by: meberbs on 09/17/2019 06:26 pm
No no, I did not use the term magic.It is a paraphrase. You talked about something that you "do not know what it is" and has properties contrary to established physics and experiments. Magic is an appropriate term. Most of the rest of your post is complete nonsense.
Using the Doppler effect, I saw a good idea for the practical use of the physical properties of a physical vacuum. We can discuss this a bit, it will not be offtopic?If you have an actual idea to explain the emDrive that can be explained in terms that actually have meaning that would be fine. If you are going to just make meaningless assertions that "the emDrive pushes off the physical vacuum" then you are just wasting time. "Physical vacuum" does not mean anything and could just as easily be replaced with "fairy dust."
Post by: Alex_O on 09/17/2019 08:07 pm
No no, I did not use the term magic.It is a paraphrase. You talked about something that you "do not know what it is" and has properties contrary to established physics and experiments. Magic is an appropriate term. Most of the rest of your post is complete nonsense.Using the Doppler effect, I saw a good idea for the practical use of the physical properties of a physical vacuum. We can discuss this a bit, it will not be offtopic?If you have an actual idea to explain the emDrive that can be explained in terms that actually have meaning that would be fine. If you are going to just make meaningless assertions that "the emDrive pushes off the physical vacuum" then you are just wasting time. "Physical vacuum" does not mean anything and could just as easily be replaced with "fairy dust."
OK, I agree with you. This is not politeness, I have been a reader of the NSF forum for a long time, and I have seen a lot of conversations and I understand well what is complete nonsense. I didn’t want to go into the topic of emptiness, magic, etc.
I studied the radiation pressure on the walls of Emdrive. And only that. I saw that the sum of the forces that act on the walls due to radiation pressure (I know that physics is the basis of the Lorentz forces, I gave lectures by Feyman and other textbooks) - that this sum of forces is zero. Moreover, when Shawyer says that the energy stored in the microwave cavity can be converted into the kinetic energy of the forward motion of Emdrive, then there is nothing strange for me. I made a calculation of a "pulsed photon of a rocket", it accumulates photons in the cavity (charging time) and emits a more powerful stream during discharge. (specific thrust is greater, and useful work is less, so there is timing - when the motor does not create thrust). If emdrive is a pulsed photon rocket, then there is nothing good here. Moreover, at the test bench this will be an artifact.
Let's not talk about magic, about emptiness, let's go back a little.
Quote
But this is what seems important to me. It seemed to me that in this system there is a variable. The force of radiation pressure on the end walls, which has a period of oscillation at the level of a nanosecond..
Right?
Post by: meberbs on 09/17/2019 08:18 pm
What are you trying to say here? It has been covered that there is a slight force from the photons opposed to externally applied accelerations, and anything else just cancels out.QuoteBut this is what seems important to me. It seemed to me that in this system there is a variable. The force of radiation pressure on the end walls, which has a period of oscillation at the level of a nanosecond..Right?
Taking some strange mechanism like motors rapidly moving the end walls won't get you anything.
It seems like the question you are asking is trying to get an answer that indicates there could be something useful there so that you can jump to some other conclusion. There is no potential for anything useful to come out of Doppler shifts and reflections of photons.
Post by: Ricvil on 09/17/2019 10:58 pm
No no, I did not use the term magic.It is a paraphrase. You talked about something that you "do not know what it is" and has properties contrary to established physics and experiments. Magic is an appropriate term. Most of the rest of your post is complete nonsense.Using the Doppler effect, I saw a good idea for the practical use of the physical properties of a physical vacuum. We can discuss this a bit, it will not be offtopic?If you have an actual idea to explain the emDrive that can be explained in terms that actually have meaning that would be fine. If you are going to just make meaningless assertions that "the emDrive pushes off the physical vacuum" then you are just wasting time. "Physical vacuum" does not mean anything and could just as easily be replaced with "fairy dust."
OK, I agree with you. This is not politeness, I have been a reader of the NSF forum for a long time, and I have seen a lot of conversations and I understand well what is complete nonsense. I didn’t want to go into the topic of emptiness, magic, etc.
I studied the radiation pressure on the walls of Emdrive. And only that. I saw that the sum of the forces that act on the walls due to radiation pressure (I know that physics is the basis of the Lorentz forces, I gave lectures by Feyman and other textbooks) - that this sum of forces is zero. Moreover, when Shawyer says that the energy stored in the microwave cavity can be converted into the kinetic energy of the forward motion of Emdrive, then there is nothing strange for me. I made a calculation of a "pulsed photon of a rocket", it accumulates photons in the cavity (charging time) and emits a more powerful stream during discharge. (specific thrust is greater, and useful work is less, so there is timing - when the motor does not create thrust). If emdrive is a pulsed photon rocket, then there is nothing good here. Moreover, at the test bench this will be an artifact.
Let's not talk about magic, about emptiness, let's go back a little.QuoteBut this is what seems important to me. It seemed to me that in this system there is a variable. The force of radiation pressure on the end walls, which has a period of oscillation at the level of a nanosecond..
Right?
Hi Alex_O
Take a look at equation 4.28 from this paper, page 31.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0501230v1
May be useful...or not. :)
Post by: Alex_O on 09/18/2019 08:10 am
What are you trying to say here? It has been covered that there is a slight force from the photons opposed to externally applied accelerations, and anything else just cancels out.QuoteBut this is what seems important to me. It seemed to me that in this system there is a variable. The force of radiation pressure on the end walls, which has a period of oscillation at the level of a nanosecond..Right?
Taking some strange mechanism like motors rapidly moving the end walls won't get you anything.
It seems like the question you are asking is trying to get an answer that indicates there could be something useful there so that you can jump to some other conclusion. There is no potential for anything useful to come out of Doppler shifts and reflections of photons.
Thank you, I will try again to make a list for approval:
1. I see the pressure drop on the walls, and remember how the lifting force of the wing is created.
2. I see how a photon changes its frequency, I recall the wave properties of a photon, the critical section of a waveguide and something else, and I have a problem. A photon (for example, reflected from the right wall), turned red or purple, and ... fell out of resonance.
What does it mean? What if he reaches the left wall (on average) his energy will be different? More precisely, it will not fly “in phase”, or maybe it just “will not creep” into a narrow / wide neck ?. A simple idea - everything was fine on the right wall, but a problem arose on the left. It will create more! more differential pressure drop.
3. I see a new wave in the resonator that betrays an additional impulse from the end walls, and I want to understand its parameters. Is that a standing wave too? Or can it be a traveling wave?
4. If the resonator is started (slowly) in motion once by an external force (hammer), then I mentally see how the "hump" moves. Well, all these photons, they are like a hump of a sea wave - they move slowly. Is this a real wave? On it you can .. ride?
5. I see the difference in radiation pressure on the walls of the resonator and I think to compare this with the Lorentz forces between two wires with current. I think there is a big difference. Very big. (The wires emitted EM waves when the Lorentz force changed "around them")
6. I remember the concept of a plane wave. Is there a plane photon wave in the cavity? Can it have a special reflection path between the walls?
7. I like Maxwell's demons, I remember plasma antennas and think about virtual mirrors, walls, etc. About the effects of total internal reflection, about Fedorov’s lateral shift .. In general, I don’t have a brake in my brain, I can come up with a plasma mirror that oscillates (left / right) without mechanical movement. Those. this mirror has no inertia / mass and I wonder - what next? I removed the harmful mechanical properties, but retained the EM properties.
7.1 No need for demons, what will happen if an electrode is added to Emdrive (grid from the triode). And quickly quickly turn on / off the potential of the electric field on the grid. For a fraction of a nanosecond. Photons will hit from the grid and will not be able to fly from the right wall to the left. Mentally, I see how this thing "starts up" and I will hear - boom!
Post by: meberbs on 09/18/2019 02:14 pm
1. I see the pressure drop on the walls, and remember how the lifting force of the wing is created.Wat pressure drop?
A wing is not a useful analogy for what is happening here.
You are being extremely vague to the point that you aren't stating anything meaningful.
2. I see how a photon changes its frequency, I recall the wave properties of a photon, the critical section of a waveguide and something else, and I have a problem. A photon (for example, reflected from the right wall), turned red or purple, and ... fell out of resonance.Still being vague where there appears to be almost no meaning in your statements.
What does it mean? What if he reaches the left wall (on average) his energy will be different? More precisely, it will not fly “in phase”, or maybe it just “will not creep” into a narrow / wide neck ?. A simple idea - everything was fine on the right wall, but a problem arose on the left. It will create more! more differential pressure drop.
To the extent that what you are saying has any meaning, it is simply incorrect. For a moving cavity, a redshift on one end matches with a blue shift on the other and there isn't actually problem with resonance.There doesn't seem to be a point in me going into any further detail since it seems you would just ignore it anyway.
3. I see a new wave in the resonator that betrays an additional impulse from the end walls, and I want to understand its parameters. Is that a standing wave too? Or can it be a traveling wave?Now you appear to be just completely making things up, and there appears to be no coherent connection from one bullet point to the next.
I won't go through the rest of your bullets in detail, because they are all just as wrong and/or meaningless as these were. Some are even worse where you describe things that are directly contradictory. Claiming that a "plasma" could move without moving. A plasma is still a physical state of matter, and if it moves that means it moves, saying otherwise is obviously contradictory.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/18/2019 08:18 pm
1. I see the pressure drop on the walls, and remember how the lifting force of the wing is created.Wat pressure drop?
A wing is not a useful analogy for what is happening here.
You are being extremely vague to the point that you aren't stating anything meaningful.2. I see how a photon changes its frequency, I recall the wave properties of a photon, the critical section of a waveguide and something else, and I have a problem. A photon (for example, reflected from the right wall), turned red or purple, and ... fell out of resonance.Still being vague where there appears to be almost no meaning in your statements.
What does it mean? What if he reaches the left wall (on average) his energy will be different? More precisely, it will not fly “in phase”, or maybe it just “will not creep” into a narrow / wide neck ?. A simple idea - everything was fine on the right wall, but a problem arose on the left. It will create more! more differential pressure drop.
To the extent that what you are saying has any meaning, it is simply incorrect. For a moving cavity, a redshift on one end matches with a blue shift on the other and there isn't actually problem with resonance.There doesn't seem to be a point in me going into any further detail since it seems you would just ignore it anyway.3. I see a new wave in the resonator that betrays an additional impulse from the end walls, and I want to understand its parameters. Is that a standing wave too? Or can it be a traveling wave?Now you appear to be just completely making things up, and there appears to be no coherent connection from one bullet point to the next.
I won't go through the rest of your bullets in detail, because they are all just as wrong and/or meaningless as these were. Some are even worse where you describe things that are directly contradictory. Claiming that a "plasma" could move without moving. A plasma is still a physical state of matter, and if it moves that means it moves, saying otherwise is obviously contradictory.
OK, I just could not describe everything simply and clearly, and you did not understand me. I will try again tomorrow. While I mention plasma mirrors, I was thinking about solid-state plasma antennas (for example
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827904-600-wireless-at-the-speed-of-plasma/)
Quote
PSiAN consists of thousands of diodes on a silicon chip. When activated, each diode generates a cloud of electrons - the plasma - about 0.1 millimetres across. At a high enough electron density, each cloud reflects high-frequency radio waves like a mirror.My thought sometimes works too fast, I mentally built a chip with legs of diodes of different lengths, for example, two types of lengths of legs. This will ignite the plasma layer at different distances from the surface of the chip. And then I screwed these microcircuits to Emdrive end. As a result, I mentally manage to create a plasma layer, like a mirror, at different distances from the end of the resonator and so on.
I turn on and off different plasma layers, and I do it quickly, so that the effective cavity length decreases in size faster than the speed of light, and I do not have the translational motion of large masses, thick walls, etc.
Just power on and off :)
In Section 3, I saw that photons after reflection with the Doppler effect carry an additional momentum dp, and these dp, if we compare it with a stationary resonator, look like the movement of a “wave over photons”, where the photons are carriers of this wave (from dp) . I don’t know if this can be useful, but there is a transfer of momentum and energy, which means it can do the job.
In Section 1 - everything is simple. Emdrive has two bottoms, if at any moment of time different radiation pressures arise on these surfaces, then we can discuss the lifting force of Zhukovsky (wing). (as in an old airplane, such as a biplane).
I remember the term - plasma instabilities and think about the term "photon instability." When the TT launches the emdrive in flight (with the initial push), photonic instabilities develop in it, and this creates an analogue of Zhukovsky’s force)
I would like to continue the search for an idea for Emdrive's work in the framework of ordinary physics. Since I saw a huge number of ideas in new physics, and these are all separate conversations, verification experiments there are complicated and expensive. I can show good theoretical work on new physics, but it is difficult to discuss.
Post by: meberbs on 09/18/2019 09:26 pm
OK, I just could not describe everything simply and clearly, and you did not understand me. I will try again tomorrow. While I mention plasma mirrors, I was thinking about solid-state plasma antennas (for exampleNo, the main issue is that you haven't seemed to understand a single thing I have said.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827904-600-wireless-at-the-speed-of-plasma/)
You most recent post both oversimplified (for example you talked about a "pressure drop" without explaining anything about the situation that c=would be causing this, such as whether there is a cavity that is moving or accelerating.) and you also overcomplicated things by bringing up things like these plasma antennas that do not work the way you seem to think, and even if they did, would not be needed for the things you are describing.
In Section 3, I saw that photons after reflection with the Doppler effect carry an additional momentum dp, and these dp, if we compare it with a stationary resonator, look like the movement of a “wave over photons”, where the photons are carriers of this wave (from dp) . I don’t know if this can be useful, but there is a transfer of momentum and energy, which means it can do the job.No, it cannot be useful, because the energy/momentum transfer is internal and to photons that are trapped inside the cavity. I am running out of ways to say this, no matter how much you try to obscure it with complicated examples, momentum will always be conserved which means that the center of energy (relativistic center of mass) will not change.
In Section 1 - everything is simple. Emdrive has two bottoms, if at any moment of time different radiation pressures arise on these surfaces, then we can discuss the lifting force of Zhukovsky (wing). (as in an old airplane, such as a biplane).1. That is nothing like a wing
2. Any difference simply transfers equivalent momentum to the photons inside the cavity, preventing this from providing self-acceleration.
I would like to continue the search for an idea for Emdrive's work in the framework of ordinary physics. Since I saw a huge number of ideas in new physics, and these are all separate conversations, verification experiments there are complicated and expensive. I can show good theoretical work on new physics, but it is difficult to discuss.The emDrive cannot work in existing physics. It is a self-contradictory statement, equivalent to claiming that 1+1 = 3. Existing physics all is known to perfectly conserve momentum. According to conservation of momentum the center of mass (or center of energy in special relativity) does not change velocity unless something external to the system pushes on it, or something leaves the system.
Post by: Mark7777777 on 09/19/2019 12:50 am
OK, I just could not describe everything simply and clearly, and you did not understand me. I will try again tomorrow. While I mention plasma mirrors, I was thinking about solid-state plasma antennas (for exampleNo, the main issue is that you haven't seemed to understand a single thing I have said.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827904-600-wireless-at-the-speed-of-plasma/)
You most recent post both oversimplified (for example you talked about a "pressure drop" without explaining anything about the situation that c=would be causing this, such as whether there is a cavity that is moving or accelerating.) and you also overcomplicated things by bringing up things like these plasma antennas that do not work the way you seem to think, and even if they did, would not be needed for the things you are describing.In Section 3, I saw that photons after reflection with the Doppler effect carry an additional momentum dp, and these dp, if we compare it with a stationary resonator, look like the movement of a “wave over photons”, where the photons are carriers of this wave (from dp) . I don’t know if this can be useful, but there is a transfer of momentum and energy, which means it can do the job.No, it cannot be useful, because the energy/momentum transfer is internal and to photons that are trapped inside the cavity. I am running out of ways to say this, no matter how much you try to obscure it with complicated examples, momentum will always be conserved which means that the center of energy (relativistic center of mass) will not change.In Section 1 - everything is simple. Emdrive has two bottoms, if at any moment of time different radiation pressures arise on these surfaces, then we can discuss the lifting force of Zhukovsky (wing). (as in an old airplane, such as a biplane).1. That is nothing like a wing
2. Any difference simply transfers equivalent momentum to the photons inside the cavity, preventing this from providing self-acceleration.I would like to continue the search for an idea for Emdrive's work in the framework of ordinary physics. Since I saw a huge number of ideas in new physics, and these are all separate conversations, verification experiments there are complicated and expensive. I can show good theoretical work on new physics, but it is difficult to discuss.The emDrive cannot work in existing physics. It is a self-contradictory statement, equivalent to claiming that 1+1 = 3. Existing physics all is known to perfectly conserve momentum. According to conservation of momentum the center of mass (or center of energy in special relativity) does not change velocity unless something external to the system pushes on it, or something leaves the system.
Hello meberbs
From all your post responses over the years in this an other NSF threads, I was thinking you seem to have exceptional knowledge of many of the topics discussed and also put in a lot of effort giving very timely and comprehensive responses which I think many people here would like to thank you for.
The next question I think people may guess is, is there any way to harness all that talent and effort into creating a solution to get high-speed (propellant-less?) space drives that you can see? Or have you, or are you currently working on anything either theoretically or in prototype?
Kind regards
Post by: meberbs on 09/19/2019 03:53 am
Hello meberbsThe number one best solution that is known for an interstellar drive would be a photon rocket powered by a matter/anti-matter reaction. A Bussard ramjet, which uses the hydrogen in the interstellar medium to both power a fusion reaction and as reaction mass could potentially compete, especially since we don't actually know how to efficiently make large quantities of anti-matter.
From all your post responses over the years in this an other NSF threads, I was thinking you seem to have exceptional knowledge of many of the topics discussed and also put in a lot of effort giving very timely and comprehensive responses which I think many people here would like to thank you for.
The next question I think people may guess is, is there any way to harness all that talent and effort into creating a solution to get high-speed (propellant-less?) space drives that you can see? Or have you, or are you currently working on anything either theoretically or in prototype?
Kind regards
Other things may be possible in the more near term, such as a laser using multiple reflections off a retroreflector on the moon, or possibly in some other orbit attached to a relatively large mass. A solar sail concept has already been demonstrated as well, though that is more limited in speed, but useful in some cases.
As for really new physics ideas, if we stumbled upon true negative mass (negative energy density over a finite region) there would be all sorts of applications, from straight up free-energy and self propelling devices to wormholes and the like. The shear number of crazy things this would allow makes this seem improbable, especially given what we know so far.
More plausible, if it turns out that there is a way to interact with dark matter other than through gravity, that could help, but the local density of dark matter isn't actually all that high, and right now it looks like there probably isn't any way to interact with it.
Relying even more on luck, it is possible that something new and useful is discovered from some high energy particle physics experiment. The standard model seems really stubborn though, so I don't think many physicists truly expect to find something new until we get to levels that actually test quantum gravity (I could be wrong here). Quantum gravity itself is too far from experimentally practical for me to make any predictions about.
Some completely unpredictable new effect could be discovered at some point, however pretty much anything that you can do at home is a realm of physics that has been tested to death, and there just isn't room for anything new. If something does come up for propellantless propulsion, what would be really needed is something that sets a universal reference frame, so that you can measure the speed of the Earth moving through it. The CMB is a real example, but all it can do is slow you down slightly if you are moving at relativistic speeds relative to it. We would need something to actually push off of.
I am not working on any of the above, the closest related thing I have is a personal side project to consider a potential Earth launch idea, which we probably are a couple decades away from being practical, and that may actually be obsolete before then due to other Earth launch advancements in reusability.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/19/2019 05:31 am
OK, I understand all your arguments, and it's hard for me to answer. I prepared a simulation, this is not a complete picture, but you can start. Look here please. This is the best model of emdrive, as there is a resonator (horizontal cavity), and a photon source, a vertical waveguide, is visible. When I change the length of the resonator, we see how everything changes. In figure e1 we see the E field. In Figure E1 we see the radiation pressure on the surface in the system.OK, I just could not describe everything simply and clearly, and you did not understand me. I will try again tomorrow. While I mention plasma mirrors, I was thinking about solid-state plasma antennas (for exampleNo, the main issue is that you haven't seemed to understand a single thing I have said.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827904-600-wireless-at-the-speed-of-plasma/)
You most recent post both oversimplified (for example you talked about a "pressure drop" without explaining anything about the situation that c=would be causing this, such as whether there is a cavity that is moving or accelerating.) and you also overcomplicated things by bringing up things like these plasma antennas that do not work the way you seem to think, and even if they did, would not be needed for the things you are describing.In Section 3, I saw that photons after reflection with the Doppler effect carry an additional momentum dp, and these dp, if we compare it with a stationary resonator, look like the movement of a “wave over photons”, where the photons are carriers of this wave (from dp) . I don’t know if this can be useful, but there is a transfer of momentum and energy, which means it can do the job.No, it cannot be useful, because the energy/momentum transfer is internal and to photons that are trapped inside the cavity. I am running out of ways to say this, no matter how much you try to obscure it with complicated examples, momentum will always be conserved which means that the center of energy (relativistic center of mass) will not change.In Section 1 - everything is simple. Emdrive has two bottoms, if at any moment of time different radiation pressures arise on these surfaces, then we can discuss the lifting force of Zhukovsky (wing). (as in an old airplane, such as a biplane).1. That is nothing like a wing
2. Any difference simply transfers equivalent momentum to the photons inside the cavity, preventing this from providing self-acceleration.I would like to continue the search for an idea for Emdrive's work in the framework of ordinary physics. Since I saw a huge number of ideas in new physics, and these are all separate conversations, verification experiments there are complicated and expensive. I can show good theoretical work on new physics, but it is difficult to discuss.The emDrive cannot work in existing physics. It is a self-contradictory statement, equivalent to claiming that 1+1 = 3. Existing physics all is known to perfectly conserve momentum. According to conservation of momentum the center of mass (or center of energy in special relativity) does not change velocity unless something external to the system pushes on it, or something leaves the system.
Post by: meberbs on 09/19/2019 05:48 am
OK, I understand all your arguments, and it's hard for me to answer. I prepared a simulation, this is not a complete picture, but you can start. Look here please. This is the best model of emdrive, as there is a resonator (horizontal cavity), and a photon source, a vertical waveguide, is visible. When I change the length of the resonator, we see how everything changes. In figure e1 we see the E field. In Figure E1 we see the radiation pressure on the surface in the system.This isn't what anyone would call aa "best" model of an emDrive, since there are models that have been made of shapes that actually resemble a conical frustum, like the emDrive.
All the model you provided shows is that more power ends up in the resonator when its length is adjusted to match the resonance frequency with the input frequency. This is neither new nor interesting information.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/19/2019 07:08 am
OK, I understand all your arguments, and it's hard for me to answer. I prepared a simulation, this is not a complete picture, but you can start. Look here please. This is the best model of emdrive, as there is a resonator (horizontal cavity), and a photon source, a vertical waveguide, is visible. When I change the length of the resonator, we see how everything changes. In figure e1 we see the E field. In Figure E1 we see the radiation pressure on the surface in the system.This isn't what anyone would call aa "best" model of an emDrive, since there are models that have been made of shapes that actually resemble a conical frustum, like the emDrive.
All the model you provided shows is that more power ends up in the resonator when its length is adjusted to match the resonance frequency with the input frequency. This is neither new nor interesting information.
SavePoint1
I saw simulations of conical resonators, and I want to agree on this option, where it seems to me that you can eliminate the problems of the side walls. When I change the length of the resonator, then the pressure on the end walls changes (but on the side walls too, but it doesn’t matter).
The next step is to make an asymmetric change in the cavity length relative to the waveguide. Then, go to the nanosecond scale. Then .. we should discuss that (I’ll try to formulate it, I’m not sure, correct me please)
1. emdrive - 4-dimensional system
2. emdrive - open system
3. emdrive - contains substance (photons), and this matter is not part of emdrive.
Post by: meberbs on 09/19/2019 01:18 pm
I saw simulations of conical resonators, and I want to agree on this option, where it seems to me that you can eliminate the problems of the side walls. When I change the length of the resonator, then the pressure on the end walls changes (but on the side walls too, but it doesn’t matter).This would be completely pointless. No matter what shape you make, things will still be balanced.
The next step is to make an asymmetric change in the cavity length relative to the waveguide. Then, go to the nanosecond scale. Then .. we should discuss that (I’ll try to formulate it, I’m not sure, correct me please)
1. emdrive - 4-dimensional systemWhat do you mean by this? 3 spatial dimensions plus time? That applies to literally everything.
2. emdrive - open systemFalse. The emDrive does not interact with anything external as described, and noting leaves the system.
3. emdrive - contains substance (photons), and this matter is not part of emdrive.Untrue. While you can technically define a system that doesn't include them, the photons are generated from the antenna attached to the cavity, and in the end are absorbed by the walls of the cavity, and they interact with nothing except the cavity at any point. Not including them would be like taking a box full of beads, and trying to work out the physics of its motion while not including the beads as part of the system. You can do so, but it just makes for more work and more confusion, without changing the fact that considered together they make a closed system.
Post by: Bryan_Kelly on 09/19/2019 04:56 pm
Great idea - gravity shakes the boat. Usually, gravity is discussed using a curved trampoline as an example. the rubber fabric bends under the weight of the load. But in zero gravity, this does not work.
But is gravity is ever really "zero", except perhaps in an argument about Lagrange points or metaphysics?
Personally, I prefer the graviton-gravitational wave and their related concepts over the good old trampoline. I can visualize gravity density around an object much easier than a curved fabric under one.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/19/2019 06:16 pm
I saw simulations of conical resonators, and I want to agree on this option, where it seems to me that you can eliminate the problems of the side walls. When I change the length of the resonator, then the pressure on the end walls changes (but on the side walls too, but it doesn’t matter).This would be completely pointless. No matter what shape you make, things will still be balanced.
The next step is to make an asymmetric change in the cavity length relative to the waveguide. Then, go to the nanosecond scale. Then .. we should discuss that (I’ll try to formulate it, I’m not sure, correct me please)1. emdrive - 4-dimensional systemWhat do you mean by this? 3 spatial dimensions plus time? That applies to literally everything.
The calculation of the total impulse in Emdrive should be studied taking into account the movement of energy-mass in 4-dimensional space. Taking into account physical phenomena in the past and future. At small intervals, any fluctuations are not a violation of conservation laws.
Emdrive is a vessel with holes, it is built of atoms, and between the atoms there is a void, it is an atomic sieve. Solar neutrinos, hypothetical gravitons, virtual vacuum plasma and an infinite number of physical agents freely penetrate through thin walls of copper. If Emdrive were a closed system, then the passage of time would stop in it, and any thermal photons could not go beyond the horizon of events. What is not observed.2. emdrive - open systemFalse. The emDrive does not interact with anything external as described, and noting leaves the system.
3. emdrive - contains substance (photons), and this matter is not part of emdrive.Untrue. While you can technically define a system that doesn't include them, the photons are generated from the antenna attached to the cavity, and in the end are absorbed by the walls of the cavity, and they interact with nothing except the cavity at any point. Not including them would be like taking a box full of beads, and trying to work out the physics of its motion while not including the beads as part of the system. You can do so, but it just makes for more work and more confusion, without changing the fact that considered together they make a closed system.
You said the antenna! The antenna can be turned off, and photons can then exist forever. If the photon flew out of the antenna, it no longer refers to the antenna. Not tied with a rope! . A 4-dimensional model helps to understand the nature of this paradox.
OK, I will continue to work on the simulation. A nanosecond interval awaits me.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/19/2019 06:30 pm
Hi Alex_O
Take a look at equation 4.28 from this paper, page 31.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0501230v1
May be useful...or not. :)
Hi Ricvil. I saw a lot of interesting links in your posts. And I want to say thank you for what you do. I can’t bang your formula, I was carried away by the simulation and I need to coordinate with the members. Can you tell this formula in simple words? What is the speech about?
Post by: meberbs on 09/19/2019 06:34 pm
It doesn't seem like you actually answered the question. "4-dimensional space" is sci-fi and not the universe we live in. 4 dimensional space-time is a valid way to describe the universe if that is what you meant to say, but again that is nothing special here.I saw simulations of conical resonators, and I want to agree on this option, where it seems to me that you can eliminate the problems of the side walls. When I change the length of the resonator, then the pressure on the end walls changes (but on the side walls too, but it doesn’t matter).This would be completely pointless. No matter what shape you make, things will still be balanced.
The next step is to make an asymmetric change in the cavity length relative to the waveguide. Then, go to the nanosecond scale. Then .. we should discuss that (I’ll try to formulate it, I’m not sure, correct me please)1. emdrive - 4-dimensional systemWhat do you mean by this? 3 spatial dimensions plus time? That applies to literally everything.
The calculation of the total impulse in Emdrive should be studied taking into account the movement of energy-mass in 4-dimensional space. Taking into account physical phenomena in the past and future. At small intervals, any fluctuations are not a violation of conservation laws.
Your last statement about "small fluctuations not being a violation of conservation laws is untrue. It seems like a statement that would be made based on an oversimplified interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Things like neutrinos which pass through something but don't interact with it do not make that thing an open system.Emdrive is a vessel with holes, it is built of atoms, and between the atoms there is a void, it is an atomic sieve. Solar neutrinos, hypothetical gravitons, virtual vacuum plasma and an infinite number of physical agents freely penetrate through thin walls of copper. If Emdrive were a closed system, then the passage of time would stop in it, and any thermal photons could not go beyond the horizon of events. What is not observed.2. emdrive - open systemFalse. The emDrive does not interact with anything external as described, and noting leaves the system.
Time does not stop inside a closed system, claiming that it would means that you have no idea what the words you are using mean.
It is a closed cavity and the photons have no way out. Eventually they will be absorbed by the walls. Also an antenna is an antenna, you can stop applying power to it, but it will still continue to interact with passing EM waves, absorbing some and transferring the energy to be absorbed, reflected, or whatever by the components attached to the antenna.3. emdrive - contains substance (photons), and this matter is not part of emdrive.Untrue. While you can technically define a system that doesn't include them, the photons are generated from the antenna attached to the cavity, and in the end are absorbed by the walls of the cavity, and they interact with nothing except the cavity at any point. Not including them would be like taking a box full of beads, and trying to work out the physics of its motion while not including the beads as part of the system. You can do so, but it just makes for more work and more confusion, without changing the fact that considered together they make a closed system.
You said the antenna! The antenna can be turned off, and photons can then exist forever. If the photon flew out of the antenna, it no longer refers to the antenna. Not tied with a rope! . A 4-dimensional model helps to understand the nature of this paradox.
There is no paradox here, just confusion of why you keep repeating nonsense.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/19/2019 06:38 pm
Hi, I entered the world of Emdrive from the side of grav. waves. I was told that Emdrive caught relict, high-frequency gravitational waves and I studied a lot on this topic. I even invented my own gravwave generator, having previously studied a lot of ideas already published. You can tell me about interesting gravity, I'm sure.Great idea - gravity shakes the boat. Usually, gravity is discussed using a curved trampoline as an example. the rubber fabric bends under the weight of the load. But in zero gravity, this does not work.
But is gravity is ever really "zero", except perhaps in an argument about Lagrange points or metaphysics?
Personally, I prefer the graviton-gravitational wave and their related concepts over the good old trampoline. I can visualize gravity density around an object much easier than a curved fabric under one.
Post by: meberbs on 09/19/2019 06:47 pm
You had to ask about how to calculate radiation pressure and Doppler shift, but then claim that you have studied gravitational waves?Hi, I entered the world of Emdrive from the side of gravwaves. I was told that Emdrive caught relict, high-frequency gravitational waves and I studied a lot on this topic. I even invented my own gravwave generator, having previously studied a lot of ideas already published. You can tell me about interesting gravity, I'm sure.Great idea - gravity shakes the boat. Usually, gravity is discussed using a curved trampoline as an example. the rubber fabric bends under the weight of the load. But in zero gravity, this does not work.
But is gravity is ever really "zero", except perhaps in an argument about Lagrange points or metaphysics?
Personally, I prefer the graviton-gravitational wave and their related concepts over the good old trampoline. I can visualize gravity density around an object much easier than a curved fabric under one.
Calculations in GR are indescribably more complicated than the ones you previously asked about. There is an order to things in physics, you have to understand the basics before you can properly understand advanced topics, studying GR when you don't understand radiation pressure and Doppler shift will not actually help you.
As has been stated by Elon Musk:
Quote
One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree — make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/19/2019 07:57 pm
No, I'm trying to find a solution for emdrive in the framework of well-known physics. About 4 dimensions - this is another new attempt. I asked a question, but I don’t have a good answer yet, I know that. I tried to say briefly. In details:It doesn't seem like you actually answered the question. "4-dimensional space" is sci-fi and not the universe we live in. 4 dimensional space-time is a valid way to describe the universe if that is what you meant to say, but again that is nothing special here.I saw simulations of conical resonators, and I want to agree on this option, where it seems to me that you can eliminate the problems of the side walls. When I change the length of the resonator, then the pressure on the end walls changes (but on the side walls too, but it doesn’t matter).This would be completely pointless. No matter what shape you make, things will still be balanced.
The next step is to make an asymmetric change in the cavity length relative to the waveguide. Then, go to the nanosecond scale. Then .. we should discuss that (I’ll try to formulate it, I’m not sure, correct me please)1. emdrive - 4-dimensional systemWhat do you mean by this? 3 spatial dimensions plus time? That applies to literally everything.
The calculation of the total impulse in Emdrive should be studied taking into account the movement of energy-mass in 4-dimensional space. Taking into account physical phenomena in the past and future. At small intervals, any fluctuations are not a violation of conservation laws.
Your last statement about "small fluctuations not being a violation of conservation laws is untrue. It seems like a statement that would be made based on an oversimplified interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Emdrive is connected to the source of the AC, then to the local hydroelectric station, which uses the potential energy of water as a result of the circulation of water on the planet due to the energy of the Sun and so on. The calculation of the total momentum in Emdrive should be studied taking into account the movement of energy-mass in the solar system over an interval of billions of years. Where does the debit-credit balance converge after calculating the movement of energy-mass both in the past and in the future. Over a shorter time interval, this balance can take on different values other than zero. And these local fluctuations of the total momentum (energy) in the local system will not be a violation of the law of conservation of momentum and energy in the 4-dimensional space-time continuum
Even if Emdrive is battery powered, it is still 4-dimensional, since the batteries store energy, which is .. In short, once, nature spent a good dozen Joules on the synthesis of the solar system from a primitive protostellar gas nebula due to the work of gravitational forces. Any battery on planet Earth holds the memory of that great work.
This is lyrics and you will say - complete nonsense, in response I will quote the famous essay about a butterfly that flaps its wings from a great science fiction novel (a very wide range of physical phenomena is shown on the example of the movement of a butterfly wing).
Things like neutrinos which pass through something but don't interact with it do not make that thing an open system.Emdrive is a vessel with holes, it is built of atoms, and between the atoms there is a void, it is an atomic sieve. Solar neutrinos, hypothetical gravitons, virtual vacuum plasma and an infinite number of physical agents freely penetrate through thin walls of copper. If Emdrive were a closed system, then the passage of time would stop in it, and any thermal photons could not go beyond the horizon of events. What is not observed.2. emdrive - open systemFalse. The emDrive does not interact with anything external as described, and noting leaves the system.
Time does not stop inside a closed system, claiming that it would means that you have no idea what the words you are using mean.
No, this is a problem with a thin skin layer. If Emdrive actually creates traction, then this is due to physics that flows in a thin skin layer, micron thick. This is not ideal from an engineering point of view. And if a neutrino flies freely through the walls of an emdrive, this does NOT mean that there is no physical interaction (neutrinos with copper atoms), on the contrary, it confirms the thesis of an open system. And what do you say, for example, about the study of Kozyrev? He caught these waves in a telescope with a closed lid.
I did the simulations, I will show them later. Everything is logical there, but a concept is required that photons are like a function, which is physically determined not in the emdrive vessel, but independently of it. I (and you, too) also know the hypothesis of Finnish scientists regarding the nature of photons. In addition, I did a physical experiment and launched an instance of a photon model in a trial model of the universe, in order to understand physics, what could happen when a photon is absorbed in the emdrive wall. In this experiment, I saw a reaction (a physical process) that occurs in nature after the absorption of a photon. This inspires me to think more broadly to explain how emdrive can work.It is a closed cavity and the photons have no way out. Eventually they will be absorbed by the walls. Also an antenna is an antenna, you can stop applying power to it, but it will still continue to interact with passing EM waves, absorbing some and transferring the energy to be absorbed, reflected, or whatever by the components attached to the antenna.3. emdrive - contains substance (photons), and this matter is not part of emdrive.Untrue. While you can technically define a system that doesn't include them, the photons are generated from the antenna attached to the cavity, and in the end are absorbed by the walls of the cavity, and they interact with nothing except the cavity at any point. Not including them would be like taking a box full of beads, and trying to work out the physics of its motion while not including the beads as part of the system. You can do so, but it just makes for more work and more confusion, without changing the fact that considered together they make a closed system.
You said the antenna! The antenna can be turned off, and photons can then exist forever. If the photon flew out of the antenna, it no longer refers to the antenna. Not tied with a rope! . A 4-dimensional model helps to understand the nature of this paradox.
There is no paradox here, just confusion of why you keep repeating nonsense.
Post by: meberbs on 09/19/2019 08:45 pm
No, I'm trying to find a solution for emdrive in the framework of well-known physics. About 4 dimensions - this is another new attempt. I asked a question, but I don’t have a good answer yet, I know that. I tried to say briefly. In details:Not how conservation laws work. Conservation means that the value does not change from one instant in time to the next. An instant in time is well defined even in relativity, because conservation laws need to be applied in a fixed inertial reference frame.
Emdrive is connected to the source of the AC, then to the local hydroelectric station, which uses the potential energy of water as a result of the circulation of water on the planet due to the energy of the Sun and so on. The calculation of the total momentum in Emdrive should be studied taking into account the movement of energy-mass in the solar system over an interval of billions of years. Where does the debit-credit balance converge after calculating the movement of energy-mass both in the past and in the future. Over a shorter time interval, this balance can take on different values other than zero. And these local fluctuations of the total momentum (energy) in the local system will not be a violation of the law of conservation of momentum and energy in the 4-dimensional space-time continuum
Go take an introductory physics course, or look up any of dozens of tutroials available online.
This is lyrics and you will say - complete nonsense, in response I will quote the famous essay about a butterfly that flaps its wings from a great science fiction novel (a very wide range of physical phenomena is shown on the example of the movement of a butterfly wing).So in other words, you don't care that you are wrong, and will ignore any explanation or definition of the terms that you are using?
No, this is a problem with a thin skin layer. If Emdrive actually creates traction, then this is due to physics that flows in a thin skin layer, micron thick. This is not ideal from an engineering point of view. And if a neutrino flies freely through the walls of an emdrive, this does NOT mean that there is no physical interaction (neutrinos with copper atoms), on the contrary, it confirms the thesis of an open system.The definition of a closed system is one that doesn't interact with anything else. Claiming that something doesn't interact with it, therefore it is an open system is equivalent to claiming that 1+1=3, it is wrong by definition.
And what do you say, for example, about the study of Kozyrev? He caught these waves in a telescope with a closed lid.No idea what you are talking about, I found an astronomer by that name on wikipedia, and it sounds like he did some decent work, but after being isolated (due to jail) from the science community for a decade, he refused to accept advancements that were made while he was in jail, and ended up doing some pseudoscience work on ESP.
I did the simulations, I will show them later. Everything is logical there, but a concept is required that photons are like a function, which is physically determined not in the emdrive vessel, but independently of it. I (and you, too) also know the hypothesis of Finnish scientists regarding the nature of photons.No clue what you are talking about. I have not heard of any hypothesis about photons specifically coming from Finland.
In addition, I did a physical experiment and launched an instance of a photon model in a trial model of the universe, in order to understand physics, what could happen when a photon is absorbed in the emdrive wall. In this experiment, I saw a reaction (a physical process) that occurs in nature after the absorption of a photon. This inspires me to think more broadly to explain how emdrive can work.A photon has momentum, when it is absorbed, that momentum is transferred to the thing that absorbs it. This is the clear result from standard physics that momentum is conserved. How can this possibly inspire you to think that the emDrive may actually work (which would break conservation of momentum.)
Post by: Alex_O on 09/20/2019 05:54 am
OK, considering all our conversations after SavePoint1, please return to the beginning. Rollback to SavePoint1, please. I tried to make an asymmetric emdrive model, and this is what I accidentally got from the first attempt. I think I proved that the radiation pressure on the end walls can be different if the "worm" will strain its muscles and move the side walls.SavePoint1OK, I understand all your arguments, and it's hard for me to answer. I prepared a simulation, this is not a complete picture, but you can start. Look here please. This is the best model of emdrive, as there is a resonator (horizontal cavity), and a photon source, a vertical waveguide, is visible. When I change the length of the resonator, we see how everything changes. In figure e1 we see the E field. In Figure E1 we see the radiation pressure on the surface in the system.This isn't what anyone would call aa "best" model of an emDrive, since there are models that have been made of shapes that actually resemble a conical frustum, like the emDrive.
All the model you provided shows is that more power ends up in the resonator when its length is adjusted to match the resonance frequency with the input frequency. This is neither new nor interesting information.
I saw simulations of conical resonators, and I want to agree on this option, where it seems to me that you can eliminate the problems of the side walls. When I change the length of the resonator, then the pressure on the end walls changes (but on the side walls too, but it doesn’t matter).
The next step is to make an asymmetric change in the cavity length relative to the waveguide. Then, go to the nanosecond scale. Then .. we should discuss that (I’ll try to formulate it, I’m not sure, correct me please)
1. emdrive - 4-dimensional system
2. emdrive - open system
3. emdrive - contains substance (photons), and this matter is not part of emdrive.
(Please click on the images below to download the animated image)
(https://d.radikal.ru/d22/1909/35/563ec32cbdb9.gif)
Post by: meberbs on 09/20/2019 06:10 am
OK, considering all our conversations after SavePoint1, please return to the beginning. Rollback to SavePoint1, please. I tried to make an asymmetric emdrive model, and this is what I accidentally got from the first attempt. I think I proved that the radiation pressure on the end walls can be different if the "worm" will strain its muscles and move the side walls.No, you are just ignoring the other part of the waveguide where the signal is coming from that has the balancing force. You can clearly see in your simulation that the fields in the other part of the T change in such a way that the total radiation pressure would still be balanced. You keep using the word "prove" for things that you have not shown, and generally are wrong about.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/20/2019 06:42 am
OK, considering all our conversations after SavePoint1, please return to the beginning. Rollback to SavePoint1, please. I tried to make an asymmetric emdrive model, and this is what I accidentally got from the first attempt. I think I proved that the radiation pressure on the end walls can be different if the "worm" will strain its muscles and move the side walls.No, you are just ignoring the other part of the waveguide where the signal is coming from that has the balancing force. You can clearly see in your simulation that the fields in the other part of the T change in such a way that the total radiation pressure would still be balanced. You keep using the word "prove" for things that you have not shown, and generally are wrong about.
I see this, but you yourself said that all that is outside the resonator (and there is somewhere nearby a local nuclear power plant) - that all this is not important. The vertical waveguide here has an auxiliary purpose, as an algorithm for the excitation of EM waves in the cavity. It can be removed and replaced, for example, with a loop antenna. And on the nanosecond interval, we must continue to study the issue.
But I do not mind, your argument can show that in the real version of the emdrive it creates an artifact. I do not know how to.
Post by: meberbs on 09/20/2019 01:57 pm
I see this, but you yourself said that all that is outside the resonatorNo, I never said that, and it is quite clear from you simulation that the banch of waeguide where the antenna is is part of the resonator.
(and there is somewhere nearby a local nuclear power plant) - that all this is not important.hypothetically, the power comes from batteries attached to the device to keep it a closed system.
The vertical waveguide here has an auxiliary purpose, as an algorithm for the excitation of EM waves in the cavity. It can be removed and replaced, for example, with a loop antenna.This would completely change your results, so no.
And on the nanosecond interval, we must continue to study the issue.There is no need to continue to study the issue, because it has been shown in general that electrodynamics conserves momentum. No amount of complications you add or changes you make to the shape of a resonator will change this fact. Therefore you are just wasting time on a complete wild goose chase.
Post by: Bryan_Kelly on 09/20/2019 04:00 pm
I tried to make an asymmetric emdrive model, and this is what I accidentally got from the first attempt. I think I proved that the radiation pressure on the end walls can be different if the "worm" will strain its muscles and move the side walls.
The symmetry of the object will effect the path photons take through gravitational field within it, and their interactions.
In an expanding universe, maybe conservation laws from the 1500s should not be guiding new developments, especially those involving photons and nanoseconds.
Keep tinkering and imagining, that's how innovation happens. Even a wild goose now knows that you actually can fly without feathers.
Post by: meberbs on 09/20/2019 04:22 pm
In an expanding universe, maybe conservation laws from the 1500s should not be guiding new developments, especially those involving photons and nanoseconds.Noether's theorem was published in 1918. Conservation laws are not just from the 1500s, but have improved from useful assumptions to provable facts that they must exist.
Keep tinkering and imagining, that's how innovation happens. Even a wild goose now knows that you actually can fly without feathers.Yet 1+1 =2 remains true, and trying to prove otherwise is a waste of time.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/20/2019 04:27 pm
Bravo! let me thank you with a beautiful song, at 1:28 we see an example of the operation of an emdrive in nanosecond scale :) While you are listening, I will prepare new simulations.I tried to make an asymmetric emdrive model, and this is what I accidentally got from the first attempt. I think I proved that the radiation pressure on the end walls can be different if the "worm" will strain its muscles and move the side walls.
The symmetry of the object will effect the path photons take through gravitational field within it, and their interactions.
In an expanding universe, maybe conservation laws from the 1500s should not be guiding new developments, especially those involving photons and nanoseconds.
Keep tinkering and imagining, that's how innovation happens. Even a wild goose now knows that you actually can fly without feathers.
https://youtu.be/Jm2kAvMhgxo?t=88
Post by: gaballard on 09/20/2019 07:49 pm
Post by: RotoSequence on 09/20/2019 07:51 pm
No one has been able to prove the device still works when on a self-contained power supply. Everyone is off making up new physics when everyone should be trying to rule out every other possible thing that could be affecting the results. The fact that no one has bothered to run them with batteries and without high-voltage wiring and its associated magnetic fields running across the whole setup is worrying. I think that people are afraid to verify that, because it might mean it's all bunk.
That's not entirely true. Monomorphic has done just that, and as you might have expected, there is no signal amidst the noise.
Post by: gaballard on 09/20/2019 07:53 pm
No one has been able to prove the device still works when on a self-contained power supply. Everyone is off making up new physics when everyone should be trying to rule out every other possible thing that could be affecting the results. The fact that no one has bothered to run them with batteries and without high-voltage wiring and its associated magnetic fields running across the whole setup is worrying. I think that people are afraid to verify that, because it might mean it's all bunk.
That's not entirely true. Monomorphic has done just that, and as you might have expected, there is no signal amidst the noise.
Gotcha, so it is bunk then. Kind of sad to see this thread still going. I wish it worked, I really did, holy crap that would change the world. But the laws of physics are a harsh mistress...
Post by: Bryan_Kelly on 09/20/2019 09:02 pm
Noether's theorem was published in 1918. Conservation laws are not just from the 1500s, but have improved from useful assumptions to provable facts that they must exist.
Thanks for the 1918 update and especially for that second one, but I'm more partial to Gödel's incompleteness theorems when it comes to thinking about the physical world.
Post by: meberbs on 09/20/2019 09:18 pm
All those basically say is that you can't prove everything. That does not change things that are proven.Noether's theorem was published in 1918. Conservation laws are not just from the 1500s, but have improved from useful assumptions to provable facts that they must exist.
Thanks for the 1918 update and especially for that second one, but I'm more partial to Gödel's incompleteness theorems when it comes to thinking about the physical world.
(Other equivalent statements are that you can always formulate self-contradictory statements like "this statement is false." And there are things which may be true which cannot be proven. Again, none of these change the fact that there are things which can be proven, and it has been proven that standard physics does not allow propellantless propulsion, and experimentally demonstrated that the emDrive does not work.)
Post by: Bryan_Kelly on 09/20/2019 09:38 pm
But this...
And there are things which may be true which cannot be proven.
...would seem to confirm the need for discussions on "New Physics" beyond the standard model, would it not?
Post by: meberbs on 09/20/2019 10:01 pm
I believe those say much more than you've "basically" described and allow even simple arithmetic, e.g., "1+1=2" to be questioned.Then you don't know what you are talking about, because that is not what they say. Wikipedia has a rather detailed article on them that you can use as a starting point.
No, the obvious things that fall into that category include things such as religion or philosophy which is not on topic here.And there are things which may be true which cannot be proven.
...would seem to confirm the need for discussions on "New Physics" beyond the standard model, would it not?
New physics is useful to consider when there are experimental observations that don't match the predictions, or limits where experimental predictions are expected to break down. (Or just generally regimes where a theory has not been tested yet.) It is not useful to look for new physics in places where known physics excludes the possibility of an effect, and known physics is well tested. The emDrive falls into those categories, it does not involve extreme energies, or anything else that make it a plausible candidate for new physics, and the best experiments show no signal, so you can't point to anomalous experiments as a reason to investigate either.
Post by: Bryan_Kelly on 09/20/2019 10:24 pm
Then you don't know what you are talking about, because that is not what they say.
Statements like that, where your opinion is stated as a fact about something you could not possibly know, do not lend credibility to the rest of your "mostly wrong" argument.
For example, "extreme energies" are typically aggregations of lots of infinitesimal energies, like the kind in photons. That you go on and state what's "plausible" and what isn't after an observation like that indicates to me that it might be time to get out of here and eat dinner.
So, like the talk show hosts say, "I'll let you have the last word"... for now.
Post by: meberbs on 09/20/2019 10:45 pm
So I take it you either refused to look up the theorems on Wikipedia, or did so and decided to just ignore what it says there. I am not arguing from authority based on my opinions of what the theorems mean, I provided a source that explains the theorems in great detail, which itself provides links to many sourcesThen you don't know what you are talking about, because that is not what they say.
Statements like that, where your opinion is stated as a fact about something you could not possibly know, do not lend credibility to the rest of your "mostly wrong" argument.
For example, "extreme energies" are typically aggregations of lots of infinitesimal energies, like the kind in photons. That you go on and state what's "plausible" and what isn't after an observation like that indicates to me that it might be time to get out of here and eat dinner.Extreme energies means things like approaching the energy per particle you see in the best particle colliders, or fields approaching the Schwinger limit. The emDrive does not fall into that category. The emDrive containing a huge number of very small photons does not change that. I assumed that definition would be obvious, but clearly I should have been more specific. Your judging of my statement based on your lack of understanding, just shows that you continue to overestimate your own knowledge.
So, like the talk show hosts say, "I'll let you have the last word"... for now.Please don't, you won't learn anything if you just make false accusations of arguments from authority, and then run away.
Post by: rfmwguy on 09/21/2019 03:20 pm
Bread Crumbs from Beyond:
Momentum from mass-less particles? No.
Momentum from Wavefronts in Space-Time? No.
The real answer will lead to the next generation of space transportation.
Post by: meberbs on 09/21/2019 04:36 pm
"Solar sails work by capturing the energy from light particles as they bounce off a reflective surface, according to the Department of Energy."Photons are massless (which means they have no rest mass, but they still carry energy). They have momentum. The possibility for this to exist comes straight from special relativity. The mass of photons has been shown to be 0 to within some extremely small margin of error (many orders of magnitude smaller than the mass of neutrinos.)
Bread Crumbs from Beyond:
Momentum from mass-less particles? No.
Radiation pressure has also been measured many different ways.
I am not sure what you intended the point of your post to be, solar sails have been demonstrated.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/21/2019 10:11 pm
This is a simulation at a fixed frequency. I removed the vertical waveguide, RF power went through the port and the side wall. I tried to simulate the power supply through the coaxial connector, but it still does not work well, so I left the port.
If we take into account the Doppler effect, then it seems to me that the asymmetry in the distribution of EM fields can even be enhanced (non-linear dependence). Now I don’t understand what is happening with the total momentum. The field strengths on the end walls are clearly different, the pressure on the end walls is different, this resonator should show emdrive thrust.
(https://b.radikal.ru/b19/1909/f0/c751ae854c1b.gif)
(https://c.radikal.ru/c32/1909/46/e93831deecde.gif)
Post by: meberbs on 09/21/2019 11:33 pm
The worm is crawling .... oops!It is literally mathematically impossible for there to be unbalanced forces from electromagnetism.
This is a simulation at a fixed frequency. I removed the vertical waveguide, RF power went through the port and the side wall. I tried to simulate the power supply through the coaxial connector, but it still does not work well, so I left the port.
If we take into account the Doppler effect, then it seems to me that the asymmetry in the distribution of EM fields can even be enhanced (non-linear dependence). Now I don’t understand what is happening with the total momentum. The field strengths on the end walls are clearly different, the pressure on the end walls is different, this resonator should show emdrive thrust.
There are a few possibilities for your simulation:
-You have it setup that energy can reflect off of your antenna. (So there is a balanced force on the antenna)
-The force on the ends actually is balanced, but you are being distracted by irrelevant things in the middle. (Your gifs simply don't contain the information required to tell if this is the case.)
-Your simulation is misconfigured and giving you nonsense results. (Tools like the one you are using are not foolproof.)
Post by: Alex_O on 09/22/2019 12:26 am
it seems to me a very similar example on the comsol website, please see the picture on page 6.
Post by: meberbs on 09/22/2019 04:52 am
https://www.comsol.ru/model/download/552841/models.rf.circulator.pdfNot really similar at all, it is showing a circulator which is a pass-through device. (i.e. the signal comes in one port and leaves through another.) the picture is there to demonstrate the lack of standing waves, and what your pictures show are only standing waves.
it seems to me a very similar example on the comsol website, please see the picture on page 6.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/22/2019 06:53 pm
https://www.comsol.ru/model/download/552841/models.rf.circulator.pdfNot really similar at all, it is showing a circulator which is a pass-through device. (i.e. the signal comes in one port and leaves through another.) the picture is there to demonstrate the lack of standing waves, and what your pictures show are only standing waves.
it seems to me a very similar example on the comsol website, please see the picture on page 6.
Hello dear meberbs!. Today was a good day, I learned a little how to simulate power supply to resonators.
I tried learning a Coaxial to Waveguide Coupling (https://www.comsol.ru/model/coaxial-to-waveguide-coupling-1863) case study. First, I repeated the case study for an open-wall infinite waveguide. I changed the connection point of the RF, violated the rule of a quarter wave. The animation shows that there is a moment when the EM field is very poorly transmitted to the waveguide. I also continued to think that on the walls of the waveguide I see traces of radiation pressure.
(https://b.radikal.ru/b27/1909/1f/a8d1d0239dfc.gif)
Then I closed the waveguide from the end, and turned it into an RF resonator. In practice, it is recommended (https://www.rfwireless-world.com/Terminology/cavity-resonator-basics.html) to assign the cavity length to half the wavelength, and the connection point to a quarter wavelength. I became interested and immediately looked at the 3 options, when the cavity length changed from a quarter to two lengths. It seems to me that the simulation turned out well, everything is logical.
(https://a.radikal.ru/a34/1909/ad/64ae260b9456.gif)
And finally, I tested the idea of a asymmetric connection, and got the expected result already. At the end walls, the radiation pressure can be different.
(https://b.radikal.ru/b06/1909/8d/c1ee19a09688.gif)
Then I read a number of theoretical materials, and it seems to me that I see a fundamental difference. The asymmetric resonator has "few standing waves." There are poor conditions for resonance. And Greg Egan discusses only Resonant Modes of a Conical Cavity (http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html#REF10).
I still do not understand what this means. There are no Doppler effects.
Post by: meberbs on 09/22/2019 07:24 pm
Hello dear meberbs!. Today was a good day, I learned a little how to simulate power supply to resonators.Of course there is radiation pressure on the walls of the waveuide. The net pressure is 0 though (accounting for the forces on the antenna itself and momentum leaving through one end.) The fact you find this worth noting makes it seem like you haven't been listening at all.
I tried learning a Coaxial to Waveguide Coupling (https://www.comsol.ru/model/coaxial-to-waveguide-coupling-1863) case study. First, I repeated the case study for an open-wall infinite waveguide. I changed the connection point of the RF, violated the rule of a quarter wave. The animation shows that there is a moment when the EM field is very poorly transmitted to the waveguide. I also continued to think that on the walls of the waveguide I see traces of radiation pressure.
Also, for a situation like what you have there (I think the near end being a metal wall, but I haven't looked at the case in detail) Poor coupling for the wire placed in the wrong spot is expected behavior that can be predicted without resorting to a simulation.
And finally, I tested the idea of a asymmetric connection, and got the expected result already. At the end walls, the radiation pressure can be different.Breaking conservation of momentum is not an "expected result" As I already explained it can only mean that you are making a mistake.
As I already stated, there would be forces on the antenna as well and you are ignoring them.
There are also problems with the configuration of your simulation:
-The pictures you are making are not directly equal to radiation pressure, they are based on just one piece of information that goes into the radiation pressure calculation.
-Your pictures have no scale, the different colors would correspond to different values in each frame and in each image.
Then I read a number of theoretical materials, and it seems to me that I see a fundamental difference. The asymmetric resonator has "few standing waves." There are poor conditions for resonance. And Greg Egan discusses only Resonant Modes of a Conical Cavity (http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html#REF10).Why would there be Doppler effects? For a cavity moving at constant velocity, it is always more straightforward to do the calculations in the rest frame, so there would be none. Doppler effects would only be meaningful in a cavity with a constant externally applied acceleration, and even then they are tiny.
I still do not understand what this means. There are no Doppler effects.
I could explain what terms like "standing waves" means to you, but it would be a waste of time, since you don't seem to be listening anyway. (And if you actually cared to learn any of this, there are many resources out there, though you would be best off taking a formal class, or at least picking up a decent textbook.)
Post by: Alex_O on 09/23/2019 03:43 am
For reference, it is generally preferred on this site to attach images rather than embedding them with img tags. (I don't actually remember the reasoning though.)And finally, I tested the idea of a asymmetric connection, and got the expected result already. At the end walls, the radiation pressure can be different.Breaking conservation of momentum is not an "expected result" As I already explained it can only mean that you are making a mistake.
As I already stated, there would be forces on the antenna as well and you are ignoring them.
There are also problems with the configuration of your simulation:
-The pictures you are making are not directly equal to radiation pressure, they are based on just one piece of information that goes into the radiation pressure calculation.
-Your pictures have no scale, the different colors would correspond to different values in each frame and in each image.
And only feathers flew in all directions. Doc, there are still a lot of feathers in my wild goose, you won’t be able to pluck them at one time :) I don’t forget anything you told me, moreover, I re-read more than once every day all that you told me, and I find every time more and more important.
Please note, I shared the technical contradictions. I was looking for the pressure drop, the gradient at the edge of the "wing" without writing the balance in the calculation of the momentum. Since I'm going to sink to the bottom of the nanosecond interval. (You said that my model may contain errors, I still check this).
So the antenna. Here the antenna is a thin stump with a diameter of 1 mm. The hemp surface area is very small and I know that physicists like to neglect small quantities. The antenna is also located on the horizontal side surface. The simulation shows that there are two horizontal surfaces, the top and the bottom, and the pressure on these surfaces balances each other well. I looked at the stump of the antenna in the speaker, and there almost nothing changes. The level of the reflected signal in the antenna changes, but since the antenna is made of coaxial, these changes in the projection onto the horizontal axis give a zero contribution. Further, I am still thinking that if a photon has flown out of the antenna, then this photon does not already belong to the emdrive (see point 1).
See what I came up with a picture with wild geese. The hunter sat in a balloon and fed a flock of geese from his hands. The geese ate, gathered in a flock and flew away (like photons). But the hunter and the balloon remained at rest (like an antenna). But the hunter was not at a loss, and threw a weightless net into a flock of wild geese, and caught them. Geese fluttered their wings, and the balloon flew behind the geese in a horizontal direction. After a short time, the geese were tired of flapping their wings, and returned to the hunter for food. Traction power of a flock of geese is the quality of the quality factor of the resonator.
Post by: meberbs on 09/23/2019 04:14 am
And only feathers flew in all directions. Doc, there are still a lot of feathers in my wild goose, you won’t be able to pluck them at one time :) I don’t forget anything you told me, moreover, I re-read more than once every day all that you told me, and I find every time more and more important.Then why do I have to keep repeating the same things?
Please note, I shared the technical contradictions. I was looking for the pressure drop, the gradient at the edge of the "wing" without writing the balance in the calculation of the momentum. Since I'm going to sink to the bottom of the nanosecond interval. (You said that my model may contain errors, I still check this).You still clearly don't understand: If you conclude any assymetric force, then you made a mistake somewhere. period.
So the antenna. Here the antenna is a thin stump with a diameter of 1 mm. The hemp surface area is very small and I know that physicists like to neglect small quantities. The antenna is also located on the horizontal side surface. The simulation shows that there are two horizontal surfaces, the top and the bottom, and the pressure on these surfaces balances each other well. I looked at the stump of the antenna in the speaker, and there almost nothing changes. The level of the reflected signal in the antenna changes, but since the antenna is made of coaxial, these changes in the projection onto the horizontal axis give a zero contribution. Further, I am still thinking that if a photon has flown out of the antenna, then this photon does not already belong to the emdrive (see point 1).100% of the power inside the resonator came through the antenna, you cannot neglect its effect. Your entire attempt at ignoring the effects of the antenna is completely wrong, and has no relationship to how radiation pressure actually works. You have not actually done a single calculation of radiation pressure.
I have lost count of how many times I have explained to you that your attempts to claim that a photon, which never leaves the cavity, actually leaves the cavity are nonsensical. It is simply self-contradictory, and while you can treat them separately, it does not change the result.
I am tired of saying the same basic fact over and over, with you ignoring it , and now you claim that you have been reading and paying attention to what I have said, when your repetition of something completely illogical and equivalent to 1+1=3 demonstrates otherwise.
See what I came up with a picture with wild geese. The hunter sat in a balloon and fed a flock of geese from his hands. The geese ate, gathered in a flock and flew away (like photons). But the hunter and the balloon remained at rest (like an antenna). But the hunter was not at a loss, and threw a weightless net into a flock of wild geese, and caught them. Geese fluttered their wings, and the balloon flew behind the geese in a horizontal direction. After a short time, the geese were tired of flapping their wings, and returned to the hunter for food. Traction power of a flock of geese is the quality of the quality factor of the resonator.Your analogy fails, the geese you describe push against air to fly away. Photons in a cavity can't leave the cavity, and don't interact with anything outside the cavity.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/23/2019 11:29 am
And only feathers flew in all directions. Doc, there are still a lot of feathers in my wild goose, you won’t be able to pluck them at one time :) I don’t forget anything you told me, moreover, I re-read more than once every day all that you told me, and I find every time more and more important.Then why do I have to keep repeating the same things?
Thank. I'm just taking slow steps to go through my nanoseconds. I wrote the words - the radiation pressure on the end walls is different, but I did not do it to calculate the impulse balance. I'm still on the first nanosecond.
Please note, I shared the technical contradictions. I was looking for the pressure drop, the gradient at the edge of the "wing" without writing the balance in the calculation of the momentum. Since I'm going to sink to the bottom of the nanosecond interval. (You said that my model may contain errors, I still check this).You still clearly don't understand: If you conclude any assymetric force, then you made a mistake somewhere. period.
Thank you, I am preparing a question about the period, based on an article by Greg Egan, next post.
So the antenna. Here the antenna is a thin stump with a diameter of 1 mm. The hemp surface area is very small and I know that physicists like to neglect small quantities. The antenna is also located on the horizontal side surface. The simulation shows that there are two horizontal surfaces, the top and the bottom, and the pressure on these surfaces balances each other well. I looked at the stump of the antenna in the speaker, and there almost nothing changes. The level of the reflected signal in the antenna changes, but since the antenna is made of coaxial, these changes in the projection onto the horizontal axis give a zero contribution. Further, I am still thinking that if a photon has flown out of the antenna, then this photon does not already belong to the emdrive (see point 1).
100% of the power inside the resonator came through the antenna, you cannot neglect its effect. Your entire attempt at ignoring the effects of the antenna is completely wrong, and has no relationship to how radiation pressure actually works. You have not actually done a single calculation of radiation pressure.
I have lost count of how many times I have explained to you that your attempts to claim that a photon, which never leaves the cavity, actually leaves the cavity are nonsensical. It is simply self-contradictory, and while you can treat them separately, it does not change the result.
I am tired of saying the same basic fact over and over, with you ignoring it , and now you claim that you have been reading and paying attention to what I have said, when your repetition of something completely illogical and equivalent to 1+1=3 demonstrates otherwise.
I realized this is a problem, let's discuss it a bit later. The antenna does not interfere yet. It is welded to the resonator body and can even be inside the body, with an RF and DС source, and is located in the center of mass, (for interest.) And we need a good antenna, with the correct radiation pattern, I don’t know which one. I have the temptation to place the antenna in the body of a large or small bottom, I have seen such simulations. As a result, it can be even better for the worm.
See what I came up with a picture with wild geese. The hunter sat in a balloon and fed a flock of geese from his hands. The geese ate, gathered in a flock and flew away (like photons). But the hunter and the balloon remained at rest (like an antenna). But the hunter was not at a loss, and threw a weightless net into a flock of wild geese, and caught them. Geese fluttered their wings, and the balloon flew behind the geese in a horizontal direction. After a short time, the geese were tired of flapping their wings, and returned to the hunter for food. Traction power of a flock of geese is the quality of the quality factor of the resonator.Your analogy fails, the geese you describe push against air to fly away. Photons in a cavity can't leave the cavity, and don't interact with anything outside the cavity.
I came up with a new version of the analogy,
1. The captain sits in the boat and throws a stone along the keel of the boat in the direction of the stern.
2. The boat moves forward. Why?? Why is this possible? Because the stone left the boat, it does not already belong to the boat, it is now part of the universe, and already exists there, in the universe, separately from the boat. The stone has no connection with the boat. He knows nothing about her now.
3. The stone accidentally hit the stern of the boat and stuck.
4. The boat stopped.
Why?? Why is this possible? Because from the universe, a portion of the matter of the universe (stone) flew onto the boat, which is part of the universe.
We see evidence that if a photon flew out of the antenna, then it is on its own. You can throw a weightless net into it and catch it (or he himself will return if he wants).
===
5. The stone suddenly divided into two parts and, like a frog, jumped up and down.
6. The boat remained in place, since its center of gravity can no longer change.
7. The stone exploded cleanly with IR photons, and heated the boat at 10 degrees.
8. The boat remained in place, since the heating was uniform, the center of gravity did not change. A slight forward movement of the boat is allowed (like a solar sail).
9. The captain turned on the refrigerator, evenly cooled the boat and pulled ice from the refrigerator in the equivalent of a mass of stone. He will add to this masa, from the stock, from the source of DS. This operation does not create movement for the boat.
10. The captain throws a stone again, the boat moves forward again.
In total, there is a closed cycle, the boat moves forward all the time, in small jerks, but forward. The speed of the boat depends on the power of the captain. The trick worked because the stone lost its physical connection with the boat three times, the boat and the stone went along different "geodesic lines".
Post by: meberbs on 09/23/2019 02:56 pm
"Thanks?" When you ignore me, the word that you should be using is "sorry." Thanking me for my words which you keep throwing in the trash just sounds insincere. Nothing you said here justifies you ignoring me.Then why do I have to keep repeating the same things?Thank. I'm just taking slow steps to go through my nanoseconds. I wrote the words - the radiation pressure on the end walls is different, but I did not do it to calculate the impulse balance. I'm still on the first nanosecond.
I realized this is a problem, let's discuss it a bit later. The antenna does not interfere yet.The antenna has an effect in your simulations, ignoring that is just a way to get wrong answers.
7. The stone exploded cleanly with IR photons, and heated the boat at 10 degrees.These steps are wrong.
8. The boat remained in place, since the heating was uniform, the center of gravity did not change. A slight forward movement of the boat is allowed (like a solar sail).
First of all, a rock weighing 0.5 kg would release something like 4.5*10^19 J of energy. This is enough to heat a 10 ton aluminum boat by about 5 billion degrees.
Assuming for simplicity that half of the energy hits the back of the boat and half hits the front (and ignoring that the boat should vaporize.) The rock is at the back of the boat, so the energy hits there first, pushing the boat backwards very hard. The boat will stop moving backwards when the other half of the energy reaches the front of the boat. The center of mass of the boat does change during this step, moving the boat backwards. If the rock before it was thrown was in the middle of the ship, then the boat is exactly back to where it started.
The final mass of the boat includes the mass of the stone, because the heating of the boat increases the mass of the boat by an amount equivalent to the energy that was added, which is the mass of the stone by E= m*c^2.
There are an infinite number of ways to be wrong, but only one correct answer. If you start from momentum conservation (which you are doing) then there is no self contained way to get something to move its own center of mass.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/23/2019 06:18 pm
"Thanks?" When you ignore me, the word that you should be using is "sorry." Thanking me for my words which you keep throwing in the trash just sounds insincere. Nothing you said here justifies you ignoring me.Then why do I have to keep repeating the same things?Thank. I'm just taking slow steps to go through my nanoseconds. I wrote the words - the radiation pressure on the end walls is different, but I did not do it to calculate the impulse balance. I'm still on the first nanosecond.
Dear meberbs, please accept my sincere apologies. I'm in a hurry, I want to check out a lot of different ideas, and I break the rules of dialogue, jump from one topic to another. You point out errors to me, I agree with you, but then again I have new questions - and again I'm in a hurry. Let's go back to the starting position. I suggested testing the idea of whether the Doppler effect could be useful for creating the thrust of an emdrive rocket and set about building a model. But I am very grateful to you for the fact that I was able to show you my problem (open drive open system, etc. from Point 1) and you informed me of important criticism. I sincerely thank you for spending your time explaining the problems. I will continue to build a model of the Doppler effect, and will return to this question when I get the result.
I also ask your consent to look at, discuss a few more issues that have arisen in me as a result of studying the topic of emdrive for several years.
Post by: sghill on 09/23/2019 07:41 pm
https://www.comsol.ru/model/download/552841/models.rf.circulator.pdfNot really similar at all, it is showing a circulator which is a pass-through device. (i.e. the signal comes in one port and leaves through another.) the picture is there to demonstrate the lack of standing waves, and what your pictures show are only standing waves.
it seems to me a very similar example on the comsol website, please see the picture on page 6.
Hello dear meberbs!. Today was a good day, I learned a little how to simulate power supply to resonators.
I tried learning a Coaxial to Waveguide Coupling (https://www.comsol.ru/model/coaxial-to-waveguide-coupling-1863) case study. First, I repeated the case study for an open-wall infinite waveguide. I changed the connection point of the RF, violated the rule of a quarter wave. The animation shows that there is a moment when the EM field is very poorly transmitted to the waveguide. I also continued to think that on the walls of the waveguide I see traces of radiation pressure.
(https://b.radikal.ru/b27/1909/1f/a8d1d0239dfc.gif)
Even if there are accuracy issues, these are very nice and informative animations. Thank you for taking the time to create and share them.
Post by: X_RaY on 09/23/2019 09:53 pm
Of course, this kind of visualization helps the mind to think. However, meberbs is right. The framework conditions visible in the FEM can be calculated analytically, at least approximately. This simulation contains nothing special, it has a rather primitive character. But Alex_O is very enthusiastic and maybe he has a crazy idea that will really help in the future, so listen to what he thinks.https://www.comsol.ru/model/download/552841/models.rf.circulator.pdfNot really similar at all, it is showing a circulator which is a pass-through device. (i.e. the signal comes in one port and leaves through another.) the picture is there to demonstrate the lack of standing waves, and what your pictures show are only standing waves.
it seems to me a very similar example on the comsol website, please see the picture on page 6.
Hello dear meberbs!. Today was a good day, I learned a little how to simulate power supply to resonators.
I tried learning a Coaxial to Waveguide Coupling (https://www.comsol.ru/model/coaxial-to-waveguide-coupling-1863) case study. First, I repeated the case study for an open-wall infinite waveguide. I changed the connection point of the RF, violated the rule of a quarter wave. The animation shows that there is a moment when the EM field is very poorly transmitted to the waveguide. I also continued to think that on the walls of the waveguide I see traces of radiation pressure.
(https://b.radikal.ru/b27/1909/1f/a8d1d0239dfc.gif)
Even if there are accuracy issues, these are very nice and informative animations. Thank you for taking the time to create and share them.
At the moment there seems no relevant information, because every simulation is done in a way that is based on Maxwell only. The underlying principles are well understood, which makes these simulations possible. ;)
This means that the calculated result cannot be a net thrust generated by the resonator, which is calculated based on the equations used and taking CoE/CoM into account. Because nothing escapes the system that could give it impulse.
Assuming Shawyer's experimental results are not based on experimental artifacts, new physical correlations are needed to explain the thrust signals conclusively. For example some interaction principles on dark matter particles or something like that. The chances of finding an answer only in the field of electromagnetism tend towards zero.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/24/2019 02:42 am
Post by: Alex_O on 09/24/2019 03:16 am
Look to develop a creative imagination on my silver photon rocket story. It's simple, this rocket leaves silvery dust behind the stern, which reflects photons well back onto the rocket’s mirror, many times and the thrust of such a photon rocket can increase by a billion times. Surprised? Now try mentally producing this silver mirror dust from .. virtual quantum particles in the synthesis reaction as electron-positron pairs. Say wow! Since all you need is powerful photons, and the photon rocket already has them.
This is a cool method of creative thinking, we came up with the idea of using silver mirror dust to increase the traction of the photonic rocket, it is cooler than magic powder, and this is not magic. But if your scientific opponents scold you and try to break you up with the help of magic powder - please recall my story about a silver photonic rocket.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/25/2019 03:45 am
"Solar sails work by capturing the energy from light particles as they bounce off a reflective surface, according to the Department of Energy."Photons are massless (which means they have no rest mass, but they still carry energy). They have momentum. The possibility for this to exist comes straight from special relativity. The mass of photons has been shown to be 0 to within some extremely small margin of error (many orders of magnitude smaller than the mass of neutrinos.)
Bread Crumbs from Beyond:
Momentum from mass-less particles? No.
Radiation pressure has also been measured many different ways.
I am not sure what you intended the point of your post to be, solar sails have been demonstrated.
Dear meberbs, please see a small presentation? I made it two years ago, I do not see a mistake. This is an animated gif. I also duplicate the 5 slide.
(Yesterday I searched the forum for the term Doppler, I see that it has been discussed for almost 10 years. I'll take a short pause to clarify the model)
How it works. (total 9 slides)
Quote
SavePoint15 slide
1. emdrive - 4-dimensional system
..
3. emdrive - contains substance (photons), and this matter is not part of emdrive.
1. The photon flew out of the lamp - the lamp remains motionless.
2. After 1 nanosecond, the photon flew to the end sails - the walls.
3. After 1 nanosecond, the photon is reflected a million times between the wall-sails, during 1 nanosecond. At the same time, he could not act on the lamp, "there is no lamp, as it were."
4. The external observer saw that as a result of photon reflections, photon pressure appeared on the side walls, and this pressure is very large.
5. He thought it was a photon rocket that flies due to the large pressure forces on the big sail, and the small sail - it’s like a parachute, like a water brake - it just slows down. But since its size is smaller, it does not interfere with the flight of a photonic rocket.
6. And the other side walls - they simply interfere with the drive. "Cut and discard".
7. There is a flux of photons up and down. Through the "hole in the casing." This photon flux does not interfere with the creation of traction. Because Emdrive is a 4-dimensional being. See physics for 1 nanosecond. At this point in time, the lateral (up and down) photons in total created completely zero, balanced traction for emdrive. And they "did not know, did not see any sails.
This can be seen on slide 1. This is the first nanosecond. All photons flew out of the lamp evenly, and they still do not know, they do not see any side walls, sails, and so on. At this point in time - there is no rocket thrust, all forces and impulses are balanced. On the second nanosecond, something goes wrong. Photons, “suddenly” find their " alyye parusa :) " sails and begin to benefit people.
7 slide
8. The hole in the casing can be closed so that the photons cannot create pressure in the projection onto the horizontal axis. Using a set of concentric, cylindrical sails of different sizes. Since the photon has wave properties, you can leave gaps between the sails, or come up with something else. As a result, the harmful role of the side walls can be completely removed from the system.
8-9 slide
9. The conical shape of the emdrive is not ideal, it is a bad idea.
Post by: meberbs on 09/25/2019 04:33 pm
1. The photon flew out of the lamp - the lamp remains motionless.False, equal and opposite reactions, lamp moves in opposite direction of photon, unless you say the lamp also emits a photon in the opposite direction at the same time.
2. After 1 nanosecond, the photon flew to the end sails - the walls.You are assuming a high Q, which means something concentrates the energy reflected off the large end to all reflect off the small end. Without that a large fraction of the energy misses the small end, and the drive works as a poor photon rocket. Most likely some force is applied to the concentration mechanism (sidewalls), so the force on the small end will be smaller than the large end with the sidewalls balancing the difference, but hypothetically, there could be no net force on the side walls with an equal force on the 2 ends.
3. After 1 nanosecond, the photon is reflected a million times between the wall-sails, during 1 nanosecond. At the same time, he could not act on the lamp, "there is no lamp, as it were."
4. The external observer saw that as a result of photon reflections, photon pressure appeared on the side walls, and this pressure is very large.
5. He thought it was a photon rocket that flies due to the large pressure forces on the big sail, and the small sail - it’s like a parachute, like a water brake - it just slows down. But since its size is smaller, it does not interfere with the flight of a photonic rocket.
6. And the other side walls - they simply interfere with the drive. "Cut and discard".Literally impossible to build a high Q drive without them. (Unless you have a tight laser beam reflecting between large retroreflectors. In that case your argument about the size having any relation to the force is bogus. Both ends would already catch basically all of the energy by definition, so making one end larger would not change anything.)
7. There is a flux of photons up and down. Through the "hole in the casing." This photon flux does not interfere with the creation of traction. Because Emdrive is a 4-dimensional being. See physics for 1 nanosecond. At this point in time, the lateral (up and down) photons in total created completely zero, balanced traction for emdrive. And they "did not know, did not see any sails.Nothing in this bullet point makes any sense that I can tell.
This can be seen on slide 1. This is the first nanosecond. All photons flew out of the lamp evenly, and they still do not know, they do not see any side walls, sails, and so on. At this point in time - there is no rocket thrust, all forces and impulses are balanced. On the second nanosecond, something goes wrong. Photons, “suddenly” find their " alyye parusa :) " sails and begin to benefit people.Under this assumption all you get is the net force from photons that are allowed to radiate away, and there are more efficient ways to do this, like just taking a laser and pointing it in the opposite direction of where you want to go.
8. The hole in the casing can be closed so that the photons cannot create pressure in the projection onto the horizontal axis. Using a set of concentric, cylindrical sails of different sizes. Since the photon has wave properties, you can leave gaps between the sails, or come up with something else. As a result, the harmful role of the side walls can be completely removed from the system.Completely untrue. This assertion is equivalent to assuming that you wave a magic wand and turn off conservation of momentum.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/25/2019 06:01 pm
Sorry, this is not one photon, many photons.1. The photon flew out of the lamp - the lamp remains motionless.False, equal and opposite reactions, lamp moves in opposite direction of photon, unless you say the lamp also emits a photon in the opposite direction at the same time.
1st nanosecond. The o_sail_gif.gif showed the movement of photons that flew out of the lamp. Evenly, in all directions.
You are assuming a high Q, which means something concentrates the energy reflected off the large end to all reflect off the small end. Without that a large fraction of the energy misses the small end, and the drive works as a poor photon rocket. Most likely some force is applied to the concentration mechanism (sidewalls), so the force on the small end will be smaller than the large end with the sidewalls balancing the difference, but hypothetically, there could be no net force on the side walls with an equal force on the 2 ends.I think it can be a simple two-mirror system with parabolic mirrors. In the basic diagram, parabolic mirrors are conventionally shown as straight lines. I already showed an approximate simulation (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1980900#msg1980900) of such a thing.
This can now be stopped and discussed - will there be at least any Q factor >> 1. See 2_parab_ant.jpeg
I described the process very poorly. You are right, this text does not make sense. I wanted to discuss the problem of photons (electromagnetic waves) that can be emitted outside of two mirror antennas. I want to prove that these waves do not create any unbalanced forces in the system. Help me prove this statement.7. There is a flux of photons up and down.Nothing in this bullet point makes any sense that I can tell.
The laser is not suitable, since it is necessary to use microwaves with long waves, so that the wavelength is larger than the size of the emitter (antenna, for example, a horn). This will allow microwaves to go around the obstacle (antenna) and reduce the absorption (harmful effect) of the photon pulse in the cavity. In figure 2_parab_ant.jpeg we see quite long waves.This can be seen on slide 1. This is the first nanosecond.Under this assumption all you get is the net force from photons that are allowed to radiate away, and there are more efficient ways to do this, like just taking a laser and pointing it in the opposite direction of where you want to go.
SavePoint 2.
A simple two-mirror system with parabolic mirrors with a Q factor >> 1. It can be built with a Q factor >> 1
Agreed?
8. The hole in the casing can be closed so that the photons cannot create pressure in the projection onto the horizontal axis. Using a set of concentric, cylindrical sails of different sizes. Since the photon has wave properties, you can leave gaps between the sails, or come up with something else. As a result, the harmful role of the side walls can be completely removed from the system.Completely untrue. This assertion is equivalent to assuming that you wave a magic wand and turn off conservation of momentum.
In fact, the concept of a rotating waveguide connection is discussed here. Used in radars to rotate the antenna relative to the main waveguide. The NRL group also used this idea in their booth to separate emdrive from the RF source. Remember their drawing? (See articulations.jpg and articulations_2.jpg and 2017_US_Navy.jpg)
There is simple physics. Quarter wave rule for wave transformer and so on. This is the bottleneck in my construction, since:
1) To create a high quality factor, the side walls of a closed type microwave cavity are needed
2) But these side walls break the whole idea, so create harmful forces that reduce the effect of two mirror systems.
Need a tricky trick. I thought it was possible to use something like a glass mesh on micro-shafts. Or simply, I looked at the Chinese versions of resonators with vertical concentric cylinders, and thought it was suitable. It seems you can come up with a lot of different ideas. Basically, the slide in the main animation (N1_sail_rocket_Q factor.jpg) discusses this, if we assume that microwaves cannot effectively bounce off vertical walls (steps) if their size is less than the wavelength. See N1_sail_rocket_Q factor.jpg
Upd. Add 2017_US_Navy.jpg
Post by: Vladimir_Leonov on 09/25/2019 06:17 pm
Interesting article....
https://aetux.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Non-rocket-non-reactive-quantum-engine.pdf (https://aetux.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Non-rocket-non-reactive-quantum-engine.pdf)
For what it's worth....
http://leonov-leonovstheories.blogspot.com/
Dear colleagues!
I saw a link to my article on LeonDrive tests in Russian journal in Russian:
Леонов В.С., Бакланов О.Д., Саутин М.В., Костин Г.В., Кубасов А.А., Алтунин С.Е., Кулаковский О.М. Неракетный нереактивный квантовый двигатель: технология, результаты, перспективы. // Воздушно-космическая сфера. 2019. №1. С. 68-75.
DOI: 10.30981/2587-7992-2019-98-1-68-75.
http://www.vesvks.ru/vks/article/neraketnyy-nereaktivnyy-kvantovyy-dvigatel-ideya-t-16397
We have an article published in a Russian journal in English:
Leonov V.S., Baklanov O.D., Sautin M.V., Kostin G.V., Kubasov A.A., Altunin S.E., Kulakovsky O.M. Non-rocket, non-reactive quantum engine: idea, technology, results, prospects. Наука и образование сегодня, № 8 (43), 2019, pp. 5-11. DOI: 10.24411/2414-5718-2019-10802.
https://publikacija.ru/nashi-avtory/tekhnicjrkheskie-nauki/855-non-rocket.html
I ask you to read these articles and if you have any questions for me then I am ready to answer them.
Post by: meberbs on 09/25/2019 06:55 pm
Again, as I just said, either you don't get many reflections because much of the power radiates away, or you do, but the forces are equal and opposite, because you are just concentrating the power more on the small end. As your picture shows, parabolic mirrors would have significant radiation away from the system, and the difference in force between the ends would simply be equal to what is radiated away.You are assuming a high Q, which means something concentrates the energy reflected off the large end to all reflect off the small end. Without that a large fraction of the energy misses the small end, and the drive works as a poor photon rocket. Most likely some force is applied to the concentration mechanism (sidewalls), so the force on the small end will be smaller than the large end with the sidewalls balancing the difference, but hypothetically, there could be no net force on the side walls with an equal force on the 2 ends.I think it can be a simple two-mirror system with parabolic mirrors. In the basic diagram, parabolic mirrors are conventionally shown as straight lines. I already showed an approximate simulation (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1980900#msg1980900) of such a thing.
This can now be stopped and discussed - will there be at least any Q factor >> 1. See 2_parab_ant.jpeg
The force on the system is equal to the rate of momentum carried away by whatever photons are emitted outside. This is a well known fact of electromagnetism proven in any decent textbook.I described the process very poorly. You are right, this text does not make sense. I wanted to discuss the problem of photons (electromagnetic waves) that can be emitted outside of two mirror antennas. I want to prove that these waves do not create any unbalanced forces in the system. Help me prove this statement.7. There is a flux of photons up and down.Nothing in this bullet point makes any sense that I can tell.
You missed the point, this example was just for pointing a laser out the back of a spacecraft (there would be no obstacles or reflections.) This is the best thrust per input power you can ever get by radiating away photons.The laser is not suitable, since it is necessary to use microwaves with long waves, so that the wavelength is larger than the size of the emitter (antenna, for example, a horn). This will allow microwaves to go around the obstacle (antenna) and reduce the absorption (harmful effect) of the photon pulse in the cavity. In figure 2_parab_ant.jpeg we see quite long waves.This can be seen on slide 1. This is the first nanosecond.Under this assumption all you get is the net force from photons that are allowed to radiate away, and there are more efficient ways to do this, like just taking a laser and pointing it in the opposite direction of where you want to go.
For the case I described earlier in my post with a laser going between 2 reflectors, the emission location of the laser does not need to be an obstacle. See the example in the video in this post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1973837#msg1973837) which shows a recycling photon rocket (the reflector on one end is fixed to the Earth, so effectively the decelerating object is just repeatedly using the photons to push off the Earth, which is why momentum is still conserved.)
A simple two-mirror system with parabolic mirrors with a Q factor >> 1. It can be built with a Q factor >> 1No, RF simply doesn't allow that, and if you did come up with a situation that allowed something comparable to that, you would get equal and opposite force on the mirrors.
Agreed?
There is simple physics. Quarter wave rule for wave transformer and so on. This is the bottleneck in my construction, since:It is in fact simple physics, which is why there is no "tricky trick." Any and everything you do to try to work around the need for sidewalls will create exactly the same problem of having equivalent force as the sidewalls, or just concentrating the power so that the force is equal between the mirrors. Otherwise, you will just be radiating power away and get a simple photon rocket worth of force at best.
1) To create a high quality factor, the side walls of a closed type microwave cavity are needed
2) But these side walls break the whole idea, so create harmful forces that reduce the effect of two mirror systems.
Need a tricky trick.
Post by: meberbs on 09/25/2019 06:57 pm
The next post after the one you quoted describes apparent problems with your setup.Interesting article....
https://aetux.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Non-rocket-non-reactive-quantum-engine.pdf (https://aetux.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Non-rocket-non-reactive-quantum-engine.pdf)
For what it's worth....
http://leonov-leonovstheories.blogspot.com/
Dear colleagues!
I saw a link to my article on LeonDrive tests in Russian journal in Russian:
Леонов В.С., Бакланов О.Д., Саутин М.В., Костин Г.В., Кубасов А.А., Алтунин С.Е., Кулаковский О.М. Неракетный нереактивный квантовый двигатель: технология, результаты, перспективы. // Воздушно-космическая сфера. 2019. №1. С. 68-75.
DOI: 10.30981/2587-7992-2019-98-1-68-75.
http://www.vesvks.ru/vks/article/neraketnyy-nereaktivnyy-kvantovyy-dvigatel-ideya-t-16397
We have an article published in a Russian journal in English:
Leonov V.S., Baklanov O.D., Sautin M.V., Kostin G.V., Kubasov A.A., Altunin S.E., Kulakovsky O.M. Non-rocket, non-reactive quantum engine: idea, technology, results, prospects. Наука и образование сегодня, № 8 (43), 2019, pp. 5-11. DOI: 10.24411/2414-5718-2019-10802.
https://publikacija.ru/nashi-avtory/tekhnicjrkheskie-nauki/855-non-rocket.html
I ask you to read these articles and if you have any questions for me then I am ready to answer them.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/25/2019 08:10 pm
You are assuming a high Q, which means something concentrates the energy reflected off the large end to all reflect off the small end. Without that a large fraction of the energy misses the small end, and the drive works as a poor photon rocket. Most likely some force is applied to the concentration mechanism (sidewalls), so the force on the small end will be smaller than the large end with the sidewalls balancing the difference, but hypothetically, there could be no net force on the side walls with an equal force on the 2 ends.....
Thank you, I understood all your comments very well, and I want to show tomorrow a new argument, which seems to me to be important. I’m also studying the possibility of calculating the Q-factor graph in my simulation (there are still difficulties that are not clear to me, I can clearly see this in closed resonators, in the first attempt I saw a value of about 240)
(about lasers and a mirror at the spaceport - I am familiar with these works, where they saw a thrust of the order of 3 mN)
So far I want to note one point - it seems to me I need an ideal, spherical source of microwaves, which is located in the center of two mirrors (not like in emdrive). I don’t know what it is yet.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/26/2019 05:55 am
I was inspired by this article, which discusses mirrors for microwaves with a high quality factor, but I don’t know the details and the possibility of constructing an asymmetric resonator with mirrors of different diameters, to create a non-zero axial force in the system, due to the pressure of microwave photons and I don’t understand how In this case, the photon momentum between the mirrors is summed, can we expect a value greater than zero.????You are assuming a high Q, which means something concentrates the energy reflected off the large end to all reflect off the small end. Without that a large fraction of the energy misses the small end, and the drive works as a poor photon rocket. Most likely some force is applied to the concentration mechanism (sidewalls), so the force on the small end will be smaller than the large end with the sidewalls balancing the difference, but hypothetically, there could be no net force on the side walls with an equal force on the 2 ends.I think it can be a simple two-mirror system with parabolic mirrors. In the basic diagram, parabolic mirrors are conventionally shown as straight lines.
Ultrahigh finesse Fabry-Pérot superconducting resonator
S. Kuhr, S. Gleyzes, C. Guerlin, J. Bernu, U. B. Hoff et al.
Citation: Appl. Phys. Lett. 90, 164101 (2007); doi: 10.1063/1.2724816
https://elementy.ru/images/news/nobel2012_fig2_cavity_600.jpg
Post by: meberbs on 09/26/2019 05:14 pm
I was inspired by this article, which discusses mirrors for microwaves with a high quality factor, but I don’t know the details and the possibility of constructing an asymmetric resonator with mirrors of different diameters, to create a non-zero axial force in the system, due to the pressure of microwave photons and I don’t understand how In this case, the photon momentum between the mirrors is summed, can we expect a value greater than zero.????The answer is the same as always, there is either no additional force by making a mirror larger because the mirrors are both already catching essentially all of the energy, or there is asymmetric force at most equal only to the radiation that is escaping. These are generic rules, that
Ultrahigh finesse Fabry-Pérot superconducting resonator
S. Kuhr, S. Gleyzes, C. Guerlin, J. Bernu, U. B. Hoff et al.
Citation: Appl. Phys. Lett. 90, 164101 (2007); doi: 10.1063/1.2724816
https://elementy.ru/images/news/nobel2012_fig2_cavity_600.jpg
In this case specifically, their primary loss mechanism from the radiator is "diffraction" which refers to the energy that escapes past the mirrors, because you can't perfectly contain RF energy at these scales without sidewalls (though they do an impressively good job.) You would get only a tiny amount of additional force that is based on the photons that were already radiating away and escaping now going more in one direction than the other. There is actually a chance that one reflector being larger than the other increases the rate of loss (due to some of the less intuitive properties of EM waves), but that just lowers the Q value, and you still only get force to the extent that the photons that escape preferentially go in one direction.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/26/2019 07:10 pm
I was inspired by this article, which discusses mirrors for microwaves with a high quality factor, but I don’t know the details and the possibility of constructing an asymmetric resonator with mirrors of different diameters, to create a non-zero axial force in the system, due to the pressure of microwave photons and I don’t understand how In this case, the photon momentum between the mirrors is summed, can we expect a value greater than zero.????The answer is the same as always, there is either no additional force by making a mirror larger because the mirrors are both already catching essentially all of the energy, or there is asymmetric force at most equal only to the radiation that is escaping. These are generic rules, that
Ultrahigh finesse Fabry-Pérot superconducting resonator
S. Kuhr, S. Gleyzes, C. Guerlin, J. Bernu, U. B. Hoff et al.
Citation: Appl. Phys. Lett. 90, 164101 (2007); doi: 10.1063/1.2724816
https://elementy.ru/images/news/nobel2012_fig2_cavity_600.jpg
In this case specifically, their primary loss mechanism from the radiator is "diffraction" which refers to the energy that escapes past the mirrors, because you can't perfectly contain RF energy at these scales without sidewalls (though they do an impressively good job.) You would get only a tiny amount of additional force that is based on the photons that were already radiating away and escaping now going more in one direction than the other. There is actually a chance that one reflector being larger than the other increases the rate of loss (due to some of the less intuitive properties of EM waves), but that just lowers the Q value, and you still only get force to the extent that the photons that escape preferentially go in one direction.
Thank you dear meberbs, I understand physics in general, and with your help I began to better understand what my simulation could mean.
1. an example of my understanding of basic physics
Quote
In Resonant Modes of a Conical Cavity http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html#REF10
Greg Egan leads Proof of zero force for any shape of cavity
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.
∫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.
This means that there is no flow of energy in a standing wave. A periodic change in the sign of the Poynting vector shows that the direction of energy movement periodically changes. Energy oscillates between the antinodes of the electric and the antinodes of the magnetic field.
2 example of my understanding of additional physics is based on studies "SRF cavity resonator" of a number of works in Russian, and today I accidentally found a good example in English, I just want to show
https://lss.fnal.gov/archive/2018/pub/fermilab-pub-18-120-td.pdfQuoteAbstract: The Lorentz Force Detuning (LFD) and the pressure sensitivity are two critical concerns
during the design of a Superconducting Radio Frequency (SRF) cavity resonator. The mechanical
deformation of the bare Niobium cavity walls, due to the electromagnetic fields and fluctuation of
the external pressure in the Helium bath, can dynamically and statically detune the frequency of the
cavity and can cause beam phase errors. The frequency shift can be compensated by additional RF
power, that is required to maintain the accelerating gradient, or by sophisticated tuning mechanisms
and control-compensation algorithms. Passive stiffening is one of the simplest and most effective
tools that can be used during the early design phase, capable of satisfying the Radio Frequency (RF)
requisites. This approach requires several multiphysics simulations as well as a deep mechanical
and RF knowledge of the phenomena involved. In this paper, is presented a new numerical model
for a pillbox cavity that can predict the frequency shifts caused by the LFD and external pressure.
This method allows to greatly reduce the computational effort, which is necessary to meet the
RF requirements and to keep track of the frequency shifts without using the time consuming
multiphysics simulations
Post by: rfmwguy on 09/27/2019 12:57 am
"Solar sails work by capturing the energy from light particles as they bounce off a reflective surface, according to the Department of Energy."Photons are massless (which means they have no rest mass, but they still carry energy). They have momentum. The possibility for this to exist comes straight from special relativity. The mass of photons has been shown to be 0 to within some extremely small margin of error (many orders of magnitude smaller than the mass of neutrinos.)
Bread Crumbs from Beyond:
Momentum from mass-less particles? No.
Radiation pressure has also been measured many different ways.
I am not sure what you intended the point of your post to be, solar sails have been demonstrated.
Definition of momentum
A property of a moving body that the body has by virtue of its mass and motion and that is equal to the product of the body's mass and velocity
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/momentum
Special Relativity is incomplete (in the public sector).
Post by: meberbs on 09/27/2019 04:46 am
Looking at a non-relativistic definition of momentum cannot be used to determine whether relativity is complete."Solar sails work by capturing the energy from light particles as they bounce off a reflective surface, according to the Department of Energy."Photons are massless (which means they have no rest mass, but they still carry energy). They have momentum. The possibility for this to exist comes straight from special relativity. The mass of photons has been shown to be 0 to within some extremely small margin of error (many orders of magnitude smaller than the mass of neutrinos.)
Bread Crumbs from Beyond:
Momentum from mass-less particles? No.
Radiation pressure has also been measured many different ways.
I am not sure what you intended the point of your post to be, solar sails have been demonstrated.
Definition of momentum
A property of a moving body that the body has by virtue of its mass and motion and that is equal to the product of the body's mass and velocity
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/momentum
Special Relativity is incomplete (in the public sector).
The relativistic definition of momentum adds in a factor of gamma. Gamma goes towards infinity as velocity approaches c, so that definition is only the one for particles with non-zero rest mass. As I said in my previous post, photons have zero rest mass, but they still have energy, and you can calculate a relativistic mass through mass-energy equivalence (E = m*c^2) if you use relativistic mass in the formula stated in the definition you provided, you get the right answer. Same for massive particles, since relativistic mass is just gamma*m_0, consistent with the initial relativistic definition I started with.
Understanding of the difference between rest mass and relativistic mass, and when each applies is important. (In general, relativistic mass is what actually fits common use, but rest mass is the relativistic invariant that is needed when talking about fundamental properties of a particle or object.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/27/2019 07:20 pm
I did a thought experiment on the nanosecond time scale. This is a set of points that can be criticized. I wrote down theses in the order of experiment, brainstorming. I know that some theses look very unusual, but it is very important for brainstorming. Please look, OK? .
1. Take a vessel with thick walls and pump gas under high pressure into the vessel.
2. Place the vessel horizontally on the trolley.
3. Mentally see how the gas molecules make a Brownian motion and create gas pressure on the walls of the vessel. The vessel is in a state without movement, since the pressure in the vessel is evenly distributed along its walls. .
4. Make a small hole in the vessel (in the wall on the right). We see how several gas molecules flew out of the vessel, which are close to the hole. But the vessel still remains in a state without movement, during the first nanoseconds.
5. Why? Because other gas molecules did not have time to "react", and make their Brownian motion along the old trajectories.
6. After 1 nanosecond, the molecules “understood this,” and at the left end of the vessel the pressure of the gas molecules became greater than on the right.
7. As soon as there is a difference in the pressure of the molecules on the end walls on the walls of the vessel, the vessel immediately begins to move.
8. Since there are no rigid bonds between gas molecules, and there are a lot of molecules, several molecules cannot “know” that there is a hole in the vessel and that several molecules have already escaped from the vessel. The pressure on the end walls just changed. For example, the yellow washer (in the picture below) for several nanosecond seconds may not know for sure that there is already a nozzle hole and gas is coming out of it. So (pay attention to the term), the information about the nozzle-hole has not yet arrived, "fly" before the yellow washer.
9. Conclusion. The reactive movement of the vessel / rocket is completely dependent on the pressure drop across its end walls.
10. The fact that there is a nozzle hole in the bottom and reactive gases flow out through this hole is not important. It is important that there is a gradient, the pressure drop at the ends of the vessel. A vessel does not move because reactive gases flow from it. And because in the vessel there is a differential pressure of gas specially created by the captain of the rocket.
11. It is thought that you can call a demon, which will change the distribution of molecules in the vessel asymmetrically and unevenly. This will immediately create a movement of the vessel, even if there is no opening for the outflow of gas. The demon can be made artificially using technical tools.
12. The fact that the outflow of the molecule from the vessel is not a prerequisite for creating reactive motion at small time intervals.
13. For example, a rocket captain can effectively and remotely change the geometric shape of gas molecules so quickly that the trajectory of the molecules, when they collide, will already differ from a completely random Brownian motion in a short time interval.
For example, molecules can be polyhedron figures, if the captain can flexibly control the shape of polyhedral bodies - molecules, everything becomes simple. The conditions for the collision of molecules in a Brownian motion will depend on the strength of the captain’s thought and its adaptation to program the shape of the molecules. (Do you understand? Mentally install special muscles on each molecule and control the shape of each molecule according to an arbitrary algorithm, and do it very quickly.)
14. The coordinates of the center of gravity in the system. You can come up with a simple setup when it does not depend on the distribution of mobile molecules in the vessel.
15. Thus, if in a closed vessel, using tools for remote control of the form of molecules (which will provide special conditions for the collision of molecules), you can create an effect that completely coincides with the jet movement, but without the release of a jet stream.
16. The closest analogy is the motion of EM fields in a microwave cavity, where EM fields have different “densities”. If at the same time, the EM fields themselves are created by short pulses, then this is very useful. The effect will be more powerful, since the rocket's captan can more effectively control the EM field in a pulsed mode.
All of the above can be explained with an example of simulation, where the rocket captain controlled the distribution of standing waves in the cavity in a pulsed mode using different settings of the frequency of the microwave generator. Something like this, please discuss. See the gif file, please.
Post by: meberbs on 09/27/2019 07:45 pm
4. Make a small hole in the vessel (in the wall on the right). We see how several gas molecules flew out of the vessel, which are close to the hole. But the vessel still remains in a state without movement, during the first nanoseconds.False, in the pressure (force per area) remains the same on all surfaces inside the box, but as soon as you cut the hole in one side of the box, the box starts moving because there is less force on that wall because the area of the wall decreased by this size of the hole while the pressure remained the same.
5. Why? Because other gas molecules did not have time to "react", and make their Brownian motion along the old trajectories.
The rest of your points after this are backwards and inside out because of your false assertion here.
Everything after the conclusion in point 9 is even worse, because you appear to have entirely abandoned logic, and none of those statements would be true, even if your "conclusion" was not wrong.
You start assuming complete nonsense, such as that individual molecules can change their own velocity just by changing their shape. This is not true, and completely breaks conservation of momentum. I have no idea what your attached gif is supposed to be showing, but you have a variety of assumptions equivalent to "magically apply reactionless forces to molecules so that they all tend to move in one direction. If you assume that conservation of momentum is broken, then it is unsurprising when you get nonsensical results that break conservation of momentum.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/27/2019 08:20 pm
4. Make a small hole in the vessel (in the wall on the right). We see how several gas molecules flew out of the vessel, which are close to the hole. But the vessel still remains in a state without movement, during the first nanoseconds.False, in the pressure (force per area) remains the same on all surfaces inside the box, but as soon as you cut the hole in one side of the box, the box starts moving because there is less force on that wall because the area of the wall decreased by this size of the hole while the pressure remained the same.
5. Why? Because other gas molecules did not have time to "react", and make their Brownian motion along the old trajectories.
The rest of your points after this are backwards and inside out because of your false assertion here.
Everything after the conclusion in point 9 is even worse, because you appear to have entirely abandoned logic, and none of those statements would be true, even if your "conclusion" was not wrong.
You start assuming complete nonsense, such as that individual molecules can change their own velocity just by changing their shape. This is not true, and completely breaks conservation of momentum. I have no idea what your attached gif is supposed to be showing, but you have a variety of assumptions equivalent to "magically apply reactionless forces to molecules so that they all tend to move in one direction. If you assume that conservation of momentum is broken, then it is unsurprising when you get nonsensical results that break conservation of momentum.
My idea in brainstorming mode has no limits :). Look at the yellow washer. Let's flexibly change its shape using the remote control (without supplying energy from outside, the washer has a built-in battery). It is clear that her tactorium may already be completely different, for example, the puck can, like a ballerina on the stage, create a beautiful dance of movement in this Brownian stream of other molecules.
2. Why should I break the law of conservation of momentum? there are 10 ^ 26 molecules in 1 mole of gas, please enjoy the law of conservation of momentum between them 10 ^ 26 times.
3. What is gas pressure? This is the number of molecular hits on the walls of the vessel. Using the demon with remote control, you can easily change the distribution law of the number of hits of molecules on the walls. The animation shows that at every moment of time, on the walls of the vessel there are special points where the molecules do not hit the walls of the vessel. For example, I can create holes at these points using quick algorithms, and at the same time, the total gas pressure on the walls will not change.
4. Mentally, we will make the molecules multifaceted, and we will install electromagnets with remote control in each face. This will open up amazing opportunities to create entire flows of certain molecules in a vessel, so that the number of their hits of all other molecules against the walls does not change.
There seems to be a new term here. The propagation speed of control signals, information in the system. Imagine that each molecule has a built-in computer, with a pre-recorded program and a neural network. This method allows you to very well control the frequency and number of molecular hits on the walls of the vessel. Permissible? A new element has appeared in the momentum calculation formula - program code, information, firmware in ROM .. At the time of Newton, it seems that such opportunities simply did not exist?
Post by: Alex_O on 09/27/2019 08:41 pm
Quote
Вы начинаете предполагать полную чепуху, например, что отдельные молекулы могут изменять свою собственную скорость, просто изменяя свою форму. Это неправда и полностью нарушает сохранение импульса.
It seems here you can say that you can simply create a vortex, the center of the vessel (since changing the shape of the molecules we will effectively control the trajectory of the molecules after their collisions). Remember the video where the foam balls danced in a standing sound wave that was created in a closed vessel by a sound speaker?
https://youtu.be/cBZmyG-WqNo
Post by: meberbs on 09/27/2019 08:46 pm
My idea in brainstorming mode has no limits :). Look at the yellow washer. Let's flexibly change its shape using the remote control (without supplying energy from outside, the washer has a built-in battery). It is clear that her tactorium may already be completely different, for example, the puck can, like a ballerina on the stage, create a beautiful dance of movement in this Brownian stream of other molecules.I am not sure what you are showing with the yellow circle? motion of a specific particle? It doesn't really matter, because no amount of deforming the shapes of the bouncing balls can make them start moving en masse in some preferred direction.
2. Why should I break the law of conservation of momentum? there are 10 ^ 26 molecules in 1 mole of gas, please enjoy the law of conservation of momentum between them 10 ^ 26 times.You tell me, you are the one who keeps coming up with various scenarios and then making false assumptions midway through that violate conservation of momentum, in this case you bring up a "demon" to do the magic.
3. What is gas pressure? This is the number of molecular hits on the walls of the vessel. Using the demon with remote control, you can easily change the distribution law of the number of hits of molecules on the walls. The animation shows that at every moment of time, on the walls of the vessel there are special points where the molecules do not hit the walls of the vessel. For example, I can create holes at these points using quick algorithms, and at the same time, the total gas pressure on the walls will not change.Not exactly a good definition for pressure, since the velocity and angle of the hits also matter. Even if you magically made holes everywhere a molecule didn't strike, it would change nothing as the forces wouldn't change.
4. Mentally, we will make the molecules multifaceted, and we will install electromagnets with remote control in each face. This will open up amazing opportunities to create entire flows of certain molecules in a vessel, so that the number of their hits of all other molecules against the walls does not change.Again, you are just assuming that you can magically align the motion of the molecules without external forces. This is impossible to do.
There seems to be a new term here. The propagation speed of control signals, information in the system. Imagine that each molecule has a built-in computer, with a pre-recorded program and a neural network. This method allows you to very well control the frequency and number of molecular hits on the walls of the vessel. Permissible? A new element has appeared in the momentum calculation formula - program code, information, firmware in ROM .. At the time of Newton, it seems that such opportunities simply did not exist?You can assume all of the perfect knowledge of the system and predictions that you want, you cannot magically align the motions to get anything useful out of the system.
Your end goal (net motion of center of mass without external forces) is contradicted by the starting assumption of conservation of momentum. No matter how much complexity you put in the middle, you cannot get to your desired result. How many times does this need to be repeated before you stop trying to prove the equivalent of 1+1=3?
Post by: Alex_O on 09/29/2019 08:42 am
4. Mentally, we will make the molecules multifaceted, and we will install electromagnets with remote control in each face. This will open up amazing opportunities to create entire flows of certain molecules in a vessel, so that the number of their hits of all other molecules against the walls does not change.Again, you are just assuming that you can magically align the motion of the molecules without external forces. This is impossible to do.
...
You can assume all of the perfect knowledge of the system and predictions that you want, you cannot magically align the motions to get anything useful out of the system.
Your end goal (net motion of center of mass without external forces) is contradicted by the starting assumption of conservation of momentum. No matter how much complexity you put in the middle, you cannot get to your desired result. How many times does this need to be repeated before you stop trying to prove the equivalent of 1+1=3?
Thank you, I am advancing in simulations, I would like to discuss for now.
You said that I am trying to change the center of mass without external forces. I do not want it. I thought that the rocket has an internal source of energy, and I want to convert this energy into the kinetic energy of the rocket's motion. I thought, let's look from an unusual side to a simple jet engine. Why does it work at all? I immediately found two types of jet engines.
1 type. A vessel, a piston in it, a motor pushing a piston, a piston pushing a consumable mass - everything is very simple. The piston will receive energy from the motor, the piston has mass, speed and we see a classic example of momentum conservation, this is a real rocket.
2 type. The vessel, high pressure gas in it, made a hole in the vessel. There is no piston, no motor .. there is only a theory of probability that in the first instant several gas molecules accidentally pass through an opening in the housing. Moreover, if several molecules pass through the hole, they will do it on their own, of their own free will, without human help. (the moment of time the first nanosecond after drilling a hole in a vessel with gas pressure is discussed)
And only then, as a result of the most complex physics, the concentration of molecules will redistribute in the vessel, different walls of the vessel will experience a different number of vector impacts of gas molecules ...
But that doesn’t mean anything. The pressure on its walls has changed in the vessel. With what fright, this vessel will fly like a rocket? After all, there is no piston in it, a hand that really throws a stone, like the captain of a boat from an episode on another page?
==
In short, after drilling a hole in the end wall, a different gas pressure force is created on the upper and lower walls of the vessel. And on the vessel, from the side of the gas molecules, a simple mechanical force acts, which creates the acceleration of the vessel. This rocket works due to the fact that at its ends, it creates a pressure drop. And it works as long as there is a pressure drop.
In this case, in fact, a hole in the wall and the expiration of gas molecules from it - this is not an important and necessary condition. Something like this, an unusual look at jet propulsion, in principle.
Further, I mentally change gas molecules into portions of photons, which differ very fundamentally from gas molecules. Photons have no mass. They can be turned on and off. But photons can create pressure on the cavity walls. If we learn how to build the differential pressure of photons on the walls of the resonator, we will get a missile, type 2.
Question. Clarify what happens to the center of mass of the EMdrive if the RF power is turned on and off?
Post by: meberbs on 09/29/2019 02:38 pm
You said that I am trying to change the center of mass without external forces. I do not want it.Which part of that statement is wrong, and what are you actually trying to do if not that?
"accelerate the center of mass" is the only way to get something to go from point A to point B by definition, so without that you aren't trying for anything. (For a rocket, the propellant leaves the rocket forever, carrying away momentum.)
You have proposed multiple systems that have no interactions with anything outside a cavity, and apply no force.
2 type. The vessel, high pressure gas in it, made a hole in the vessel. There is no piston, no motor .. there is only a theory of probability that in the first instant several gas molecules accidentally pass through an opening in the housing. Moreover, if several molecules pass through the hole, they will do it on their own, of their own free will, without human help. (the moment of time the first nanosecond after drilling a hole in a vessel with gas pressure is discussed)[/quote]
I already explained why your statements here are nonsense, again you are making me repeat myself. The pressure on the walls doesn't change because that is force per area, but the force on the walls changes because the area of the wall changed. Force is what matters. For a small enough hole, the pressure on all of the walls of the box can even remain essentially uniform, and the rocket motion only coming from the change in area.
Or you could take the easy route and just add up the momentum of the molecules leaving the box because that is how much momentum the box gains. Claiming otherwise would just be doing exactly the thing you said at the beginning of this post that you weren't trying to do.
Further, I mentally change gas molecules into portions of photons, which differ very fundamentally from gas molecules. Photons have no mass. They can be turned on and off. But photons can create pressure on the cavity walls. If we learn how to build the differential pressure of photons on the walls of the resonator, we will get a missile, type 2.Again, you make false assertions equivalent to invoking magic. Photons have energy (remember mass-energy equivalence) and they have momentum. Photons obey conservation laws. You cannot get them to give you any assymetric force except by ejecting them from the cavity entirely just like a rocket and its exhaust, but photons only give you a miniscule amount of force, because they have a poor energy/momentum ratio. There are known better ways to emit them all in one direction, such as a laser.
Question. Clarify what happens to the center of mass of the EMdrive if the RF power is turned on and off?Nothing, because the emDrive does not work. There is no consistent theory that says it should work, and the best experiments all say that it doesn't.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/29/2019 05:16 pm
You said that I am trying to change the center of mass without external forces. I do not want it.Which part of that statement is wrong, and what are you actually trying to do if not that?
"accelerate the center of mass" is the only way to get something to go from point A to point B by definition, so without that you aren't trying for anything. (For a rocket, the propellant leaves the rocket forever, carrying away momentum.)
You have proposed multiple systems that have no interactions with anything outside a cavity, and apply no force.
My problem is that I am discussing the idea of changing the position of the center of mass through the work of internal forces. Which according to modern physics is impossible. But I do not want to invent new physics (for example, to control inertia, gravity or virtual quantum plasma, etc.), the only thing I allow myself is to look at the already known properties of the EM field from a new perspective. I want to create different radiation pressure in the microwave cavity on its inner walls. The pressure drop will create a force that will be multiplied by the value of the quality factor of the resonator.
2 type. The vessel, high pressure gas in it, made a hole in the vessel. There is no piston, no motor .. there is only a theory of probability that in the first instant several gas molecules accidentally pass through an opening in the housing. Moreover, if several molecules pass through the hole, they will do it on their own, of their own free will, without human help. (the moment of time the first nanosecond after drilling a hole in a vessel with gas pressure is discussed)
I already explained why your statements here are nonsense, again you are making me repeat myself. The pressure on the walls doesn't change because that is force per area, but the force on the walls changes because the area of the wall changed. Force is what matters. For a small enough hole, the pressure on all of the walls of the box can even remain essentially uniform, and the rocket motion only coming from the change in area.
Or you could take the easy route and just add up the momentum of the molecules leaving the box because that is how much momentum the box gains. Claiming otherwise would just be doing exactly the thing you said at the beginning of this post that you weren't trying to do.
About gas pressure. I wanted to show an example of a rocket that can make a small flight, due to the work of internal forces. I took a vessel with gas and wanted to quickly change the gas pressure on one wall of the rocket. You are right, I didn’t show physics well what happens after drilling a hole in a wall. But I used the term gas pressure force (and I also had viscous gas). This force, measured in Newtons, depends on the wall area, gas pressure and its density. Obviously, when I drilled a hole, I reduced the density of the gas at the stern of the rocket, and on the bow of the rocket the density and pressure of the gas remained the same (for a very short period of time).
If it is possible to create a different force of (radiation) pressure on the stern and on the bow, then the rocket will be able to make a movement due to internal forces.
I’m also trying to take a fresh look at the principle of operation of a conventional rocket engine, which makes the movement due to the internal gradient (energy), due to the pressure drop in the main vessel (and the physical process of ejecting the propellant is not the most important, secondary, consequence).
Nothing, because the emDrive does not work. There is no consistent theory that says it should work, and the best experiments all say that it doesn't.
Emdrive does not work in well-known replicas because the test bench was not built correctly. The drive was not allowed, banned, limited to create the effect of the difference in radiation pressure on the walls. Since the stand developers did not set such a task for themselves. They thought that it was necessary to build a resonator with a very good standing wave. And they did not foresee physics, which would allow creating a special protocol, transport, for traveling internal energy “on top of a standing wave”.
Sorry, this is intuition. The right Emdrive is a device that creates “wave hump movement” in its path and at the same time, creating a wave, tries to ride this wave like a surfer (like a person with a board that rides on waves).
Emdrive - it can be like a climber that throws a rope with an “anchor” in front of himself, and then pulls himself on an rope to an anchor.
Post by: Alex_O on 09/29/2019 06:26 pm
Nothing, because the emDrive does not work. There is no consistent theory that says it should work, and the best experiments all say that it doesn't.
Here is a good example when, when designing a Niobium cavity, they see the Lorentz forces that create a harmful effect and model special engineering solutions (increasing the stiffness of the thin walls of the resonator due to the use of stiffeners). This is guaranteed to reduce the ability of emdrive to fly "on the crest of a wave." (intuition, guess)
Here, the Lorentz forces reduce the quality of the resonator, since they create deformations of the wall geometry.
LORENTZ FORCE DETUNING SIMULATIONS OF SPOKE CAVITIES WITH DIFFERENT STIFFENING ELEMENTS
(http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/AccelConf/SRF2013/papers/thp024.pdf)
Quote
Lorentz force detuning caused by radiation pressure on the Niobium cavity walls is of concern in cavity design and operation since its magnitude can approach the cavity bandwidth. This effect can be reduced using passive stiffening elements in the cavity. In this work, Lorentz force detuning has been studied by numerical simulations for spoke cavities. Different stiffening elements have been considered. Static and dynamic behaviour have been analysed by means of 3D static and transient coupled electromagnetic
and mechanical finite elements simulations.
Post by: meberbs on 09/29/2019 11:38 pm
My problem is that I am discussing the idea of changing the position of the center of mass through the work of internal forces. Which according to modern physics is impossible. But I do not want to invent new physics (for example, to control inertia, gravity or virtual quantum plasma, etc.), the only thing I allow myself is to look at the already known properties of the EM field from a new perspective. I want to create different radiation pressure in the microwave cavity on its inner walls. The pressure drop will create a force that will be multiplied by the value of the quality factor of the resonator.No "new perspective" can change that it has been proven that electrodynamics always obeys conservation of momentum and is fully included in the "according to modern physics is impossible" statement. Anything that changes this would be new physics.
About gas pressure. I wanted to show an example of a rocket that can make a small flight, due to the work of internal forces. I took a vessel with gas and wanted to quickly change the gas pressure on one wall of the rocket. You are right, I didn’t show physics well what happens after drilling a hole in a wall. But I used the term gas pressure force (and I also had viscous gas). This force, measured in Newtons, depends on the wall area, gas pressure and its density. Obviously, when I drilled a hole, I reduced the density of the gas at the stern of the rocket, and on the bow of the rocket the density and pressure of the gas remained the same (for a very short period of time).Again it isn't possible the full proof for electrodynamics can be found in textbooks.
If it is possible to create a different force of (radiation) pressure on the stern and on the bow, then the rocket will be able to make a movement due to internal forces.
I’m also trying to take a fresh look at the principle of operation of a conventional rocket engine, which makes the movement due to the internal gradient (energy), due to the pressure drop in the main vessel (and the physical process of ejecting the propellant is not the most important, secondary, consequence).Which is "most important" is not a logical question to ask out of physics in this context. Without the propellant exiting, there would be no difference in forces. Without the difference in forces, there would be nothing leaving. Looking from different perspectives can make solving certain problems easier or harder, but it doesn't change the result.
Emdrive does not work in well-known replicas because the test bench was not built correctly. The drive was not allowed, banned, limited to create the effect of the difference in radiation pressure on the walls. Since the stand developers did not set such a task for themselves. They thought that it was necessary to build a resonator with a very good standing wave. And they did not foresee physics, which would allow creating a special protocol, transport, for traveling internal energy “on top of a standing wave”.The experimenters cannot "allow the device to create a difference in radiation pressure." Because they cannot directly control the distribution of radiation pressure. They can control the shape of the box and the signal they put in, but no shape or input signal will create an asymmetric force.
Sorry, this is intuition.Your intuition on this is wrong, and you aren't providing an suggestions for a different experiment that can actually be implemented.
Emdrive - it can be like a climber that throws a rope with an “anchor” in front of himself, and then pulls himself on an rope to an anchor.Which doesn't work at all when there is nothing for the anchor to catch on.
Here is a good example when, when designing a Niobium cavity, they see the Lorentz forces that create a harmful effect and model special engineering solutions (increasing the stiffness of the thin walls of the resonator due to the use of stiffeners). This is guaranteed to reduce the ability of emdrive to fly "on the crest of a wave." (intuition, guess)This does not show that any emDrives test units ever would have had this type of problem, though it does show that all kinds of complex caities have been designed and built, so this does not seem like a probable place to fid new physics.
Also, if it is just a guess based on intuition, then it is not "guaranteed."
Post by: Alex_O on 09/30/2019 05:45 pm
This does not show that any emDrives test units ever would have had this type of problem, though it does show that all kinds of complex caities have been designed and built, so this does not seem like a probable place to fid new physics.
Also, if it is just a guess based on intuition, then it is not "guaranteed."
Thank you dear meberbs, I understand all your arguments, I have no criticism of your arguments, I want to go further. I want to thank you that you are so carefully and patiently discussing all these subtle issues, which I repeat many times, thank you, dear meberbs for that.
(I continue to tune my simulation, I already see the integral sums of Lorentz forces on the surface today, but I still don’t understand everything and I’m testing my model.)
With your permission, I want to discuss the issue of electrodynamics. I will repeat the quote. I will also ask stupid questions, and I will do it on purpose, which will expand my ability to think. Do not scold me for stupid questions please.
Quote
Resonant Modes of a Conical Cavity http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html#REF10There is a term 2π / ω. It seems that all the problems are in this term. What does it mean? Is it possible practically (in real designs of resonators, RF sources and antennas) to change something strongly?
Greg Egan leads Proof of zero force for any shape of cavity
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.
∫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.
This means that there is no flow of energy in a standing wave. A periodic change in the sign of the Poynting vector shows that the direction of energy movement periodically changes. Energy oscillates between the antinodes of the electric and the antinodes of the magnetic field.
Quote
This means that there is no flow of energy in a standing wave. A periodic change in the sign of the Poynting vector shows that the direction of energy movement periodically changes. Energy oscillates between the antinodes of the electric and the antinodes of the magnetic field.
If there is no 2π / ω, then the energy will be able to perform asymmetric oscillations, and if there are solid walls in the path of the energy flow that can absorb / reflect energy in different ways, what does this mean?
What are asymmetric vibrations? Could this be, or is it a fantasy? Can we talk about oscillations and about 2π / ω?
I can formulate a possible end result. The resonator accumulates radio waves, enhances the amplitude of the oscillations of the radio waves, but so that the 2π / ω rule does not work.
If field fluctuations in Emdrive do not obey the 2π / ω rule, what does this mean? Emdrive reports have strange things. Maximum thrust is created at a lower quality factor. There is the term traveling wave, the term reflected signal, the author adjusts the system so that the values of Q, the term of the traveling wave and the term level of the reflected signal have important, correct values. Don't you think this is an important clue, a very important clue ? Maybe the Emdrive thrust is created when the correct “2π / ω” (not like 2π / ω?) Is created in the system (RF source, waveguide, antenna, resonator)?
UPd 1:
I’ll try to show a couple of animated simulations, it seems to me that I began to better understand them, after thinking about the factor 2π /ω .
1 sim - I found somewhere on the Internet. I don’t know how to do such things. I don’t know who the author is. Perhaps here we see the work of the factor 2π / ω , but as it seems to me now - it’s a bad job, it won’t create thrust drive in the “easy and good” mode,
2 sim is from my first post on the forum, here I still see (virtual, real?) Movement of the energy flow along the axis of the drive, but this (as I understand it now) is not enough to create a real rocket thrust. Although here you can think about the movement of the center of mass taking into account the concept of variable mass and the MAX effect (literally a variable mass of the EM field, this is a small quantity, but it turns on and off if you put it horizontally on the balancer - the balance will show the drift of the center of mass, the velocity of the center of mass depends on the speed of the switch, it can be faster than the speed of light, at a frequency of THz, this movement can become a strong source of high-frequency gravitational waves and a demonstration of new physics).
3 sim - from an article discussing the role of a traveling wave in creating traction in a cylindrical resonator.
4 sim - we see the idea of EM field rotation in the Emdrive resonator. I don’t know if this can be physically possible, if so, then there is a rotation of a variable mass at a frequency in THz. Moreover, the rotation - jerky. From these sims, you can come up with some kind of hybrid, what of this will be - I do not know. In general, you need to combine all 4 sims. And compare with the distribution of EM fields in the famous replicas of Emdrive. Given the still incomprehensible concept of taking into account the Doppler effect, the microphone effect (see 5 sim), thermal deformations, etc.
Post by: meberbs on 09/30/2019 10:57 pm
Thank you dear meberbs, I understand all your arguments, I have no criticism of your arguments, I want to go further. I want to thank you that you are so carefully and patiently discussing all these subtle issues, which I repeat many times, thank you, dear meberbs for that.I am not sure what you are saying here, because this is what it sounds like you are saying to me:
You understand that you are in a dead end surrounded by solid walls, and you know that there is no way to walk through them, but you are going to waste time and probably hurt yourself by trying to walk through the solid brick wall anyway.
If this is not what you were trying to say, then there has been a miscommunication somewhere, perhaps you haven't understood what I have been saying, although I don't know how else to say it, possibly a language barrier issue.
With your permission, I want to discuss the issue of electrodynamics. I will repeat the quote. I will also ask stupid questions, and I will do it on purpose, which will expand my ability to think. Do not scold me for stupid questions please.It is often said that there are no stupid questions. I don't think that is actually true, for example if a question is simply irrelevant to the context. Another bad type of question is if you know the answer to something but pretend not to, or base your question on an assumption that you know is wrong. Otherwise there is no such thing as a stupid question, because questions are how you learn.
If you simply did not know that 2π / ω is simply the period of the oscillations (1/frequency), then you now know that, and should be able to recognize that everything else you said was completely nonsensical (starting with statements like "if there is no period," which makes no sense, because by definition we are working with oscillating signals.) If you knew that 2π / ω was simply the period, and you wrote nonsensical statements on purpose, saying "2π / ω" rather than "the period" to disguise how wrong your statements were, then that would be a problem. I obviously assume that it is the first case and you simply didn't know.
Post by: Alex_O on 10/01/2019 05:04 am
Period of oscillation the time during which the pendulum makes a movement and returns to the starting point. To the starting point, doc! oThank you dear meberbs, I understand all your arguments, I have no criticism of your arguments, I want to go further. I want to thank you that you are so carefully and patiently discussing all these subtle issues, which I repeat many times, thank you, dear meberbs for that.I am not sure what you are saying here, because this is what it sounds like you are saying to me:
You understand that you are in a dead end surrounded by solid walls, and you know that there is no way to walk through them, but you are going to waste time and probably hurt yourself by trying to walk through the solid brick wall anyway.
If this is not what you were trying to say, then there has been a miscommunication somewhere, perhaps you haven't understood what I have been saying, although I don't know how else to say it, possibly a language barrier issue.With your permission, I want to discuss the issue of electrodynamics. I will repeat the quote. I will also ask stupid questions, and I will do it on purpose, which will expand my ability to think. Do not scold me for stupid questions please.It is often said that there are no stupid questions. I don't think that is actually true, for example if a question is simply irrelevant to the context. Another bad type of question is if you know the answer to something but pretend not to, or base your question on an assumption that you know is wrong. Otherwise there is no such thing as a stupid question, because questions are how you learn.
If you simply did not know that 2π / ω is simply the period of the oscillations (1/frequency), then you now know that, and should be able to recognize that everything else you said was completely nonsensical (starting with statements like "if there is no period," which makes no sense, because by definition we are working with oscillating signals.) If you knew that 2π / ω was simply the period, and you wrote nonsensical statements on purpose, saying "2π / ω" rather than "the period" to disguise how wrong your statements were, then that would be a problem. I obviously assume that it is the first case and you simply didn't know.
On all sim above, all coordinates, values, etc. always return to the starting point. Is this a prerequisite? Look at the bird flight. Its pendulum, an oscillating element, with a period of oscillation, right? Its pendulum never returns to its starting point, the integral over the energy vector is not equal to zero.
Post by: meberbs on 10/01/2019 05:15 am
Period of oscillation the time during which the pendulum makes a movement and returns to the starting point. To the starting point, doc! oFor the countless time, it is inherent to electromagnetism that momentum is conserved so the only unbalanced force would be the very tiny one from radiating away photons. The proportional to Q fields are only those that are nicely symmetric and cancel out, which is what is described by Egan. The general case that includes transient fields is covered by the textbook proof of conservation of momentum.
On all sim above, all coordinates, values, etc. always return to the starting point. Is this a prerequisite? Look at the bird flight. Its pendulum, an oscillating element, with a period of oscillation, right? Its pendulum never returns to its starting point, the integral over the energy vector is not equal to zero.
Again, birds push off air, but the emDrive has nothing to push off of. There is nothing else for it to interact with to balance the momentum, and if you aren't looking to propose new physics that would include such a thing, then you aren't going anywhere.
Post by: Alex_O on 10/01/2019 06:02 am
I have a very good answer I will show in the evening. let's not get distracted by the momentum problem yet. let it be the variable X in the equation with one variable. The above analysis gives a very clear indication. in the Emdrive resonator, in addition to the photon gas, which is created using harmonious photon vibrations, an additional process is needed, an energy flow, so that no one can ever return to the original coordinate. I do not see in the famous replicas of Emdrive any engineering solutions or technical systems to support this function. Example, a bird flaps its wings in a vacuum. She first released her gases, and then quickly quickly fluttered her wings.Period of oscillation the time during which the pendulum makes a movement and returns to the starting point. To the starting point, doc! oFor the countless time, it is inherent to electromagnetism that momentum is conserved so the only unbalanced force would be the very tiny one from radiating away photons. The proportional to Q fields are only those that are nicely symmetric and cancel out, which is what is described by Egan. The general case that includes transient fields is covered by the textbook proof of conservation of momentum.
On all sim above, all coordinates, values, etc. always return to the starting point. Is this a prerequisite? Look at the bird flight. Its pendulum, an oscillating element, with a period of oscillation, right? Its pendulum never returns to its starting point, the integral over the energy vector is not equal to zero.
Again, birds push off air, but the emDrive has nothing to push off of. There is nothing else for it to interact with to balance the momentum, and if you aren't looking to propose new physics that would include such a thing, then you aren't going anywhere.
Post by: meberbs on 10/01/2019 07:44 am
an additional process is needed, an energy flow, so that no one can ever return to the original coordinate.2 best case scenarios for this:
1. You gather a bunch of energy at one side of a closed cavity, and send it to the other side to be absorbed. This results in exactly as much motion as if you had a ball of mass equivalent to the amount of energy (E=m*c^2) move from one end of the cavity to the other. The outer walls of the cavity will move just enough to keep the center of mass in the same place. Trying to do this repeatedly either requires moving the energy back to the starting point, undoing the motion in the process, or just consuming all of the mass-energy in the cavity repeating the process, until the second end of the cavity contains all of the mass of the cavity and sits at the center of mass.
2. You radiate the energy away and all you have is a photon rocket.
I do not see in the famous replicas of Emdrive any engineering solutions or technical systems to support this function.Because other than the 2 useless cases I just described, there is no such thing as a useful system that does this.
Example, a bird flaps its wings in a vacuum. She first released her gases, and then quickly quickly fluttered her wings.You are just describing the equivalent of a rocket. Release some mass, and have it move away with some velocity, so you go in the other direction at a speed proportional to the relative mass and the exhaust velocity.
Post by: Alex_O on 10/01/2019 09:05 pm
an additional process is needed, an energy flow, so that no one can ever return to the original coordinate.2 best case scenarios for this:
1. You gather a bunch of energy at one side of a closed cavity, and send it to the other side to be absorbed. This results in exactly as much motion as if you had a ball of mass equivalent to the amount of energy (E=m*c^2) move from one end of the cavity to the other. The outer walls of the cavity will move just enough to keep the center of mass in the same place. Trying to do this repeatedly either requires moving the energy back to the starting point, undoing the motion in the process, or just consuming all of the mass-energy in the cavity repeating the process, until the second end of the cavity contains all of the mass of the cavity and sits at the center of mass.
2. You radiate the energy away and all you have is a photon rocket.I do not see in the famous replicas of Emdrive any engineering solutions or technical systems to support this function.Because other than the 2 useless cases I just described, there is no such thing as a useful system that does this.Example, a bird flaps its wings in a vacuum. She first released her gases, and then quickly quickly fluttered her wings.You are just describing the equivalent of a rocket. Release some mass, and have it move away with some velocity, so you go in the other direction at a speed proportional to the relative mass and the exhaust velocity.
I tried to look at this idea - to collect energy in a limited place. I wanted to build a small pressure vessel, but this vessel has an attached tube through which gas / energy can exit almost freely.
New version after discussion yesterday
Quote
Gas, molecules can exit freely, and photons cannot exit freely, they "do not creep through." And the "poor" photons gather in a heap on one wall of the vessel and create pressure on this wall, and on the opposite wall - where there is a hole in the vessel - they simply can not create pressure, so there is a hole.The old version of the topic below
But!!! The wave properties of photons, by design (intuition), multiply by the quality factor of quality their pressure force on one wall. At the same time, a weak photon flux will come out of the hole, which can be compared with the volume of electric losses in the resonator. And the task of the RF generator
1) pump gas, create pressure
2) to compensate for losses due to gas leakage.
The simulation below, a spherical resonator, energy enters the resonator through a round waveguide. I changed the diameter of the waveguide and searched for resonant frequencies using the built-in solver. It was interesting to see how much the EM field distribution in the system changes. (E fields, B fields ).
Then I looked at the dipole antenna system (1/2 wave) and a solid screen, a large flat reflector. I saw that the field energy can be localized in a limited area of the near and far zones.
But I did not see the idea for the drive, until I paid attention to the thesis that Emdrive should be allowed to accelerate. The idea of the Doppler effect does not inspire me at all, but it seems, while discussing the thesis - an additional process is needed, an energy flow, so that no one can ever return to the original coordinate.
I intuitively thought that with the progressive movement of any box with photons - this happens automatically. Especially if the box is not an ideal resonator. Where a lot of “rays”, flows of EM waves come from a non-ideal RF source, which differ in phase, frequency, amplitude, are modulated differently (by noise), different polarizations and create EM fields in the resonator with different modes (TE, TM, TEM. .).
As a result, in a non-ideal resonator, there is a pendulum, how is the total power = power of the source cell * Q factor and this pendulum does not harmonic ?? (correct me please in the used term) fluctuations.
This pendulum, in each period, never returns to its original position, its "integral of energy by volume" is not equal to zero. The translational or accelerated movement of the resonator in free space - only either makes it worse (for the integral) or makes it better randomly (for zero the effect of a missile edray missile)
The situation is getting worse, since there is a process of absorption of photons on the walls. This is a random process. It looks like a free pendulum hit a wall that was not next to it at the last nanosecond. This further strengthens the problem of non-zero energy integral.
==
Sorry, I still have to think about an example where photons are a flock of wild geese that were caught in a network, and this network made the geese show the wave properties of photons, they stray into a dense flock, but there is a big hole in the network, but the wave properties of geese do not allow you to fly free. They behave like a pendulum that cannot return to the origin. It seems I immediately figured out how to build a simulation.
In order to strengthen the model, we will suspend an electromagnet for each goose and allow it to be turned on and off in the right way, in order to act on the electrons of the conducting wall of the cell in a very correct way. "And the electrons themselves, we will preliminarily build like a soldier on the parade ground - into slender marching columns of soldiers on the march."
Post by: meberbs on 10/02/2019 03:40 am
New version after discussion yesterdayI am not sure what you are even describing for half of this, you describe nonsensical hypothetical materials (if gas can pass through, why can't photons? A glass jar would be an example of the opposite, but there is no such thing as what you described.)QuoteGas, molecules can exit freely, and photons cannot exit freely, they "do not creep through." And the "poor" photons gather in a heap on one wall of the vessel and create pressure on this wall, and on the opposite wall - where there is a hole in the vessel - they simply can not create pressure, so there is a hole.
But!!! The wave properties of photons, by design (intuition), multiply by the quality factor of quality their pressure force on one wall. At the same time, a weak photon flux will come out of the hole, which can be compared with the volume of electric losses in the resonator. And the task of the RF generator
1) pump gas, create pressure
2) to compensate for losses due to gas leakage.
As usual every time you say "intuition" it can be replaced with "unsupported and incorrect assumption."
By the end of this most recent post, you seem to have started talking about complete gibberish with some sort of completely incorrect analogy between geese and photons.
Post by: Alex_O on 10/02/2019 11:03 am
New version after discussion yesterdayI am not sure what you are even describing for half of this, you describe nonsensical hypothetical materials (if gas can pass through, why can't photons? A glass jar would be an example of the opposite, but there is no such thing as what you described.)QuoteGas, molecules can exit freely, and photons cannot exit freely, they "do not creep through." And the "poor" photons gather in a heap on one wall of the vessel and create pressure on this wall, and on the opposite wall - where there is a hole in the vessel - they simply can not create pressure, so there is a hole.
But!!! The wave properties of photons, by design (intuition), multiply by the quality factor of quality their pressure force on one wall. At the same time, a weak photon flux will come out of the hole, which can be compared with the volume of electric losses in the resonator. And the task of the RF generator
1) pump gas, create pressure
2) to compensate for losses due to gas leakage.
As usual every time you say "intuition" it can be replaced with "unsupported and incorrect assumption."
By the end of this most recent post, you seem to have started talking about complete gibberish with some sort of completely incorrect analogy between geese and photons.
Thank. These are very difficult thoughts, I don’t even have any right to talk about physical processes that can occur at the boundary of the media, in the thickness of the skin layer and in the near zone during reflection / absorption of EM photons in the EM resonator or mirror system. Maybe I can ask you hold a short description of possible physics here? (this is complex physics, I read about it in fragments in different applications)
Let me show you the source of my intuition, the attached link discusses the problems of emission of photons by atoms that are in the microwave cavity. Please use google translator, as the material is in Russian.
"Nobel Prize in Physics - 2012" - https://elementy.ru/novosti_nauki/431910/Nobelevskaya_premiya_po_fizike_2012
Please see the explanations for Figure 4.
quotes
Quote
One of the striking examples of such experiments, performed in the group of Serge Arosh, is an experimental demonstration that the lifetime of a single excited atom can be strongly changed by placing it in such a resonator.What are you talking about? That there can be conditions in the resonator when photons cannot be reflected in a timely manner, re-emitted since the dimensions of the resonator (the distance between the walls) suppress the ability of the cavity walls to reflect the photon, creating, for example, time delays
..
The resonator used by Arosh was of a comparable size, and this allowed him to influence the decay rate. For example, an emitted photon simply would not fit in a very small resonator - and this fact alone prevents its emission, stabilizes the excited state.
Post by: Alex_O on 10/02/2019 03:58 pm
https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/52085/158289418.368/0_165295_55731a2f_XL.jpg
https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/29984/158289418.36a/0_165302_76c2da00_XL.jpg
I was curious, I quickly built a simulation of the microwave and decided to see what's inside. At first I saw a field in an empty chamber, then I loaded two disks into the camera, then I caught a resonance between them. Interesting picture.
The question arose about discs and antennas, and after half an hour I enjoyed reading the ancient manuscript from NASA itself !! how BACKFIRE YAGI ANTENNA MEASUREMENTS was studied. N.pdf
Quote
ABSTRACTI found this manuscript on the Internet in 5 minutes.
Radiation patterns and gain measurements on 1.0, 1.5, and 2. Oh backfire Yagi antennas are given. The backfire antenna was tested for two dipole feed locations, and variations in the diameters
of the two planar reflectors forming the backfire cavity. The optimum dimensions of the three test antennasare tabulated. The frequency bandwidth of the backfire antenna is limited to several percent due to impedance matching. The backfire antenna should find application in broadside arrays where conventional endfire antennas are presently used.
I even wanted to mount a stand in the microwave chamber for studying the Emdrive concept, which is different in that there are no problems with wires, magnetrons .. I thought in a small Faraday cage to hide a micromotor on a battery with remote control on IR to adjust the resonance between asymmetric disks . And measure the effect of Emdrive without errors from thermal loads from the RF source and its wires.
The development of history was the question of the effect of total internal reflection. What happens to a pulse in the photon waveguide system, does the photon transmit any pulse to the walls of the waveguide. I thought to build a horn behind the photon of the rocket, catch the photons and send them back through the waveguide for recovery. It seemed to me that if a photon almost does not lose energy in air defense, then the trick will work.
Who can help if a good study of the law of conservation of momentum in the effect of total reflection?
Post by: meberbs on 10/02/2019 05:52 pm
Thank. These are very difficult thoughts, I don’t even have any right to talk about physical processes that can occur at the boundary of the media, in the thickness of the skin layer and in the near zone during reflection / absorption of EM photons in the EM resonator or mirror system. Maybe I can ask you hold a short description of possible physics here? (this is complex physics, I read about it in fragments in different applications)The theory of this is covered in textbooks, and if you are really interested you should take a course in electrodynamics.
There are various approximations used when dealing with materials so that every nucleus and electron in the material does not need to be modeled. Different approximations are appropriate depending on the type of material, whether it is conductive, behaves in a linear or non-linear manner, and what kind of frequency dependence its properties have. No matter which of these cases it is, it does not change the fact that it all boils down to interactions between charged particles and electromagnetic fields, which are proven in general to conserve momentum. So the possible physics here is nothing useful for the conservation of momentum breaking idea of propellantless propulsion.
What are you talking about? That there can be conditions in the resonator when photons cannot be reflected in a timely manner, re-emitted since the dimensions of the resonator (the distance between the walls) suppress the ability of the cavity walls to reflect the photon, creating, for example, time delaysThat was my question to you, and rather than answer it you brought up a Nobel prize that was awarded for measuring quantum mechanical systems, which really is not relevant for anything we are discussing. You seem confused by this, because they do not propose a container that atoms can pass through but photons can't, but a container that has open sides so anything can pass through in one direction, but nothing in another. This is not helpful or relevant to the magical device you had been describing.
We live in interesting times. I saw people putting a large ruby crystal in a microwave and waiting for energy (magic!) To come out of a solid open-type dielectric resonator with a whispering gallery resonance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whispering-gallery_wave)This appears to be a series of random unrelated references and statements.
https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/52085/158289418.368/0_165295_55731a2f_XL.jpg
https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/29984/158289418.36a/0_165302_76c2da00_XL.jpg
I was curious, I quickly built a simulation of the microwave and decided to see what's inside. At first I saw a field in an empty chamber, then I loaded two disks into the camera, then I caught a resonance between them. Interesting picture.
The question arose about discs and antennas, and after half an hour I enjoyed reading the ancient manuscript from NASA itself !! how BACKFIRE YAGI ANTENNA MEASUREMENTS was studied. N.pdf
The development of history was the question of the effect of total internal reflection. What happens to a pulse in the photon waveguide system, does the photon transmit any pulse to the walls of the waveguide. I thought to build a horn behind the photon of the rocket, catch the photons and send them back through the waveguide for recovery. It seemed to me that if a photon almost does not lose energy in air defense, then the trick will work.Total internal reflection, like everything else in electrodynamics perfectly conserves momentum. It is simply a case where a dielectric material reflects all light that comes from certain angles rather than allowing some of it to pass through the material.
Who can help if a good study of the law of conservation of momentum in the effect of total reflection?
Post by: meberbs on 10/02/2019 06:39 pm
When a photon strikes a mass, is a Z boson created to mediate/effectuate the momentum transfer?I am not sure why you would ask that, photons mediate electrodynamic forces, and the Z boson is a mediator for the weak force. The Z boson has no charge so photons would not interact with it.
Post by: Alex_O on 10/03/2019 09:14 am
Thank. These are very difficult thoughts, I don’t even have any right to talk about physical processes that can occur at the boundary of the media, in the thickness of the skin layer and in the near zone during reflection / absorption of EM photons in the EM resonator or mirror system. Maybe I can ask you hold a short description of possible physics here? (this is complex physics, I read about it in fragments in different applications)The theory of this is covered in textbooks, and if you are really interested you should take a course in electrodynamics.
There are various approximations used when dealing with materials so that every nucleus and electron in the material does not need to be modeled. Different approximations are appropriate depending on the type of material, whether it is conductive, behaves in a linear or non-linear manner, and what kind of frequency dependence its properties have. No matter which of these cases it is, it does not change the fact that it all boils down to interactions between charged particles and electromagnetic fields, which are proven in general to conserve momentum. So the possible physics here is nothing useful for the conservation of momentum breaking idea of propellantless propulsion.What are you talking about? That there can be conditions in the resonator when photons cannot be reflected in a timely manner, re-emitted since the dimensions of the resonator (the distance between the walls) suppress the ability of the cavity walls to reflect the photon, creating, for example, time delaysThat was my question to you, and rather than answer it you brought up a Nobel prize that was awarded for measuring quantum mechanical systems, which really is not relevant for anything we are discussing. You seem confused by this, because they do not propose a container that atoms can pass through but photons can't, but a container that has open sides so anything can pass through in one direction, but nothing in another. This is not helpful or relevant to the magical device you had been describing.
That was my question to you -(there was a translator mistake, I did not ask a question), Sorry.
Thank. The work of the Nobel laureate showed that the process of emission of a photon by an excited atom can depend on environmental parameters - for example, on the size of the resonator (note, I used the term "for example", that there may be additional options)
In this case, if I understand correctly, there may be time delays. I also saw descriptions of the effects of signal delays in fiber optic technology, where there is a term - delay line. Since I drew attention to the term period of fluctuations, I began to think - how to break it.
I thought that there could be “delays” in the resonator, in the physics of the reflection of EM waves from a conductor. I remember two terms - the phase velocity of propagation of an EM wave in a waveguide and the group velocity. Phase - the speed of movement of the crests of the wave - it does not transfer energy. Group velocity is the velocity of a wave packet — it transfers energy.
My thought has no boundaries, I specifically remove the boundaries for thought and try to come up with the most stupid questions. (I was taught this at the university).
I am creating a stupid new question - is it possible to use group velocity (delay algorithm) to create different radiation pressure on the end walls of the resonator.
Is it possible to intervene in the physics of reflection from the conductor of the incident wave, so as to create stronger asymmetry in the flows of incident and reflected energy. Above I see an example of such an intervention - using "geometry". What is radiation pressure? This is the force acting on free charges in a conductor from the side of an electric and magnetic field.
1. If, as a result of “energy retention on the surface”, the intensities of these fields are greater, the pressure force will also be greater.
2. If, as a result of "energy retention on the surface", the intensities of these fields are less, the pressure force will also be less.
3. There are two end walls in the resonator - if there is more energy on one and less on the other, then there will be a rocket thrust.
Am I reasoning right? Am I not trying to deceive the law of conservation of momentum?
The experiments with a dielectric resonator drew my attention to the effects of reflection at the interface of media, then I saw the idea that if there are thick oxide films (also dielectric) on the surface of copper (foil), then there can be very interesting physics. I plan to discuss this issue a bit later.We live in interesting times. I saw people putting a large ruby crystal in a microwave and waiting for energy (magic!) To come out of a solid open-type dielectric resonator with a whispering gallery resonance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whispering-gallery_wave)This appears to be a series of random unrelated references and statements.
https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/52085/158289418.368/0_165295_55731a2f_XL.jpg
https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/29984/158289418.36a/0_165302_76c2da00_XL.jpg
I was curious, I quickly built a simulation of the microwave and decided to see what's inside. At first I saw a field in an empty chamber, then I loaded two disks into the camera, then I caught a resonance between them. Interesting picture.
The question arose about discs and antennas, and after half an hour I enjoyed reading the ancient manuscript from NASA itself !! how BACKFIRE YAGI ANTENNA MEASUREMENTS was studied. N.pdf
Please look at the two pictures below? This is the idea of a rocket from a thin waveguide that floats in the rays of light. What could be here? Where will such a rocket fly? I have more stupid questions for these rockets:).The development of history was the question of the effect of total internal reflection. What happens to a pulse in the photon waveguide system, does the photon transmit any pulse to the walls of the waveguide. I thought to build a horn behind the photon of the rocket, catch the photons and send them back through the waveguide for recovery. It seemed to me that if a photon almost does not lose energy in air defense, then the trick will work.Total internal reflection, like everything else in electrodynamics perfectly conserves momentum. It is simply a case where a dielectric material reflects all light that comes from certain angles rather than allowing some of it to pass through the material.
Who can help if a good study of the law of conservation of momentum in the effect of total reflection?
Post by: meberbs on 10/03/2019 03:10 pm
That was my question to you -(there was a translator mistake, I did not ask a question), Sorry.It happens, no problem. I think I see what you meant there now.
Thank. The work of the Nobel laureate showed that the process of emission of a photon by an excited atom can depend on environmental parameters - for example, on the size of the resonator (note, I used the term "for example", that there may be additional options)No, that Nobel prize is about a single atom with a single electron in an excited state placed in a small quantum mechanical system, it has no application or relevance to what we are discussing here. The delays you are talking about have nothing to do with that research.
In this case, if I understand correctly, there may be time delays. I also saw descriptions of the effects of signal delays in fiber optic technology, where there is a term - delay line. Since I drew attention to the term period of fluctuations, I began to think - how to break it.
I thought that there could be “delays” in the resonator, in the physics of the reflection of EM waves from a conductor. I remember two terms - the phase velocity of propagation of an EM wave in a waveguide and the group velocity. Phase - the speed of movement of the crests of the wave - it does not transfer energy. Group velocity is the velocity of a wave packet — it transfers energy.
My thought has no boundaries, I specifically remove the boundaries for thought and try to come up with the most stupid questions. (I was taught this at the university).There are situations where that is helpful, but not when you let it get to the point of 1+1=3, and the next step you need to do (which you should be able to do without bouncing every idea off me) is check if what you came up with makes any sense at all.
I am creating a stupid new question - is it possible to use group velocity (delay algorithm) to create different radiation pressure on the end walls of the resonator.No, delays would not change the forces. Your end result of asymmetric forces with no exhaust still breaks conservation of momentum by definition.
Is it possible to intervene in the physics of reflection from the conductor of the incident wave, so as to create stronger asymmetry in the flows of incident and reflected energy. Above I see an example of such an intervention - using "geometry". What is radiation pressure? This is the force acting on free charges in a conductor from the side of an electric and magnetic field.
1. If, as a result of “energy retention on the surface”, the intensities of these fields are greater, the pressure force will also be greater.
2. If, as a result of "energy retention on the surface", the intensities of these fields are less, the pressure force will also be less.
3. There are two end walls in the resonator - if there is more energy on one and less on the other, then there will be a rocket thrust.
Am I reasoning right? Am I not trying to deceive the law of conservation of momentum?
Please look at the two pictures below? This is the idea of a rocket from a thin waveguide that floats in the rays of light. What could be here? Where will such a rocket fly? I have more stupid questions for these rockets:).The first one as drawn would not produce any force, however in reality, the exit being smaller than the entrance means that the exiting photons would not leave in a straight line, but would be spread out across a range of angles. A bit of momentum would therefore transfer to the device, but there is an existing device called a solar sail (basically a giant mirror) that would be much more effective.
The second one would work, although the force would be close to equal in the horizontal and vertical directions, with the horizontal force being slightly stronger if anything (for same reasons as why the previous picture would generate a tiny bit of force). The second one would actually generate comparable force to a solar sail, but a solar sail would be lighter for collecting the same amount of energy.
Post by: Alex_O on 10/03/2019 07:37 pm
==That was my question to you -(there was a translator mistake, I did not ask a question), Sorry.It happens, no problem. I think I see what you meant there now.Thank. The work of the Nobel laureate showed that the process of emission of a photon by an excited atom can depend on environmental parameters - for example, on the size of the resonator (note, I used the term "for example", that there may be additional options)No, that Nobel prize is about a single atom with a single electron in an excited state placed in a small quantum mechanical system, it has no application or relevance to what we are discussing here. The delays you are talking about have nothing to do with that research.
In this case, if I understand correctly, there may be time delays. I also saw descriptions of the effects of signal delays in fiber optic technology, where there is a term - delay line. Since I drew attention to the term period of fluctuations, I began to think - how to break it.
I thought that there could be “delays” in the resonator, in the physics of the reflection of EM waves from a conductor. I remember two terms - the phase velocity of propagation of an EM wave in a waveguide and the group velocity. Phase - the speed of movement of the crests of the wave - it does not transfer energy. Group velocity is the velocity of a wave packet — it transfers energy.
The Russian article discusses the phenomenon of delayed emission of an excited atom due to the cavity walls. I see this simply as algorithm number 1. Yes, it’s somehow not right, but it’s just a source of inspiration, silly thoughts and new (possibly even progressive) ideas.
Quote
I immediately go on, I have a solid wall of the drive, and said wow, it turns out there is solid physics, which will allow us to build a special machine on the surface of this wall, the device - what will happenQuoteI suggest once again to ponder this situation. An excited atom is in a vacuum, no one “touches” it (the cavity walls are a centimeter away from the atom!), We are not exposed to it by any external electromagnetic fields. We only limit the vacuum around it - and this is already enough to prevent or, conversely, contribute to the emission of a photon.
1) to catch the photons incident on the walls that are about to create eddy currents on the free electrons in the wall.
2) magically slow down / accelerate (freeze) these electrons and create a time delay (I don’t know why :) and maybe come up with something else.
3) to hold in a temporary trap a portion of photons that has already come to the wall, and a portion of photons that already wants to bounce off the wall.
4) the goal is to catch a few photons and increase the EM field strength at the wall boundary several times.
5) I don’t know how, maybe just in a thin layer of the cavity wall to take and slow down the speed of light. I immediately remembered that F = 2P/c , and said - I found an algorithm on how to increase the pressure on the wall on one wall of the resonator, without spending additional energy from the side of the RF source, without violating the conservation of momentum. All you need to catch and hold the photons for a split second by changing the group velocity in the "thin layer".
What does it all mean. Let's divide the general task into two parts. Part 1 - learn how to create increased radiation pressure on the cavity walls. Learning to create on the same walls, in a symmetric resonator, is just a different pressure. I even once drew a photon rocket project where there is a trap for photons. (See picture 1)
Then Part 2 is to find an algorithm, the idea is how to build a car that will work on a pressure differential We don't have this idea yet, so what? We solve the problem in stages. The main thing is to prove that you can create higher pressure in the local area.
Comment. In a simulation of an antenna with a dipole with two reflectors, I see that if the reflectors are very close to the antenna - that the antenna is "unlucky and unable" to emit EM waves in the far zone. It looks like a complete analog of the passing atom from the Nobel Prize.
=====My thought has no boundaries, I specifically remove the boundaries for thought and try to come up with the most stupid questions. (I was taught this at the university).There are situations where that is helpful, but not when you let it get to the point of 1+1=3, and the next step you need to do (which you should be able to do without bouncing every idea off me) is check if what you came up with makes any sense at all.
I read 10 volumes of the most complete physics and 300 more speculative works in physics. I did not see in the textbooks a working idea for building a motor for a spaceship. Therefore, we should discuss as much as possible even the most stupid thoughts, even if 1 + 1 = 3.
I am creating a stupid new question - is it possible to use group velocity (delay algorithm) to create different radiation pressure on the end walls of the resonator.No, delays would not change the forces. Your end result of asymmetric forces with no exhaust still breaks conservation of momentum by definition.
Is it possible to intervene in the physics of reflection from the conductor of the incident wave, so as to create stronger asymmetry in the flows of incident and reflected energy. Above I see an example of such an intervention - using "geometry". What is radiation pressure? This is the force acting on free charges in a conductor from the side of an electric and magnetic field.
1. If, as a result of “energy retention on the surface”, the intensities of these fields are greater, the pressure force will also be greater.
2. If, as a result of "energy retention on the surface", the intensities of these fields are less, the pressure force will also be less.
3. There are two end walls in the resonator - if there is more energy on one and less on the other, then there will be a rocket thrust.
Am I reasoning right? Am I not trying to deceive the law of conservation of momentum?
OK item until 3 omitted. Let's first build a tube or box and learn how to simply change the pressure of a photon gas in it, where the resonance geometry is just an important, but not the last condition. (It’s immediately clear why Emdrive failed in replicas, right?)
Let's discuss the first picture. Photons fly out of the waveguide and create reactive traction. I want (a silly thought) that this thing does not fly backwards (like a sail) but forward (with a mouthpiece forward). Like the Sun, it is such an optical tweezers that it attracts the solar sail, and does not repel it. Can you come up with this? if so, it will be very cool. It somehow can be connected with metamaterials, as the 1st option.Please look at the two pictures below? This is the idea of a rocket from a thin waveguide that floats in the rays of light. What could be here? Where will such a rocket fly? I have more stupid questions for these rockets:).The first one as drawn would not produce any force, however in reality, the exit being smaller than the entrance means that the exiting photons would not leave in a straight line, but would be spread out across a range of angles. A bit of momentum would therefore transfer to the device, but there is an existing device called a solar sail (basically a giant mirror) that would be much more effective.
The second one would work, although the force would be close to equal in the horizontal and vertical directions, with the horizontal force being slightly stronger if anything (for same reasons as why the previous picture would generate a tiny bit of force). The second one would actually generate comparable force to a solar sail, but a solar sail would be lighter for collecting the same amount of energy.
And in the second picture - I added another knee, and I want this thing to be motionless or almost motionless (in zero gravity), that if it is like a sail, then this sail almost does not work. But reliably emits photons back to the Sun. (See picture 2)
Post by: meberbs on 10/03/2019 11:45 pm
I immediately go on, I have a solid wall of the drive, and said wow, it turns out there is solid physics, which will allow us to build a special machine on the surface of this wall, the device - what will happen
1) to catch the photons incident on the walls that are about to create eddy currents on the free electrons in the wall.
2) magically slow down / accelerate (freeze) these electrons and create a time delay (I don’t know why :) and maybe come up with something else.
3) to hold in a temporary trap a portion of photons that has already come to the wall, and a portion of photons that already wants to bounce off the wall.
4) the goal is to catch a few photons and increase the EM field strength at the wall boundary several times.
5) I don’t know how, maybe just in a thin layer of the cavity wall to take and slow down the speed of light. I immediately remembered that F = 2P/c , and said - I found an algorithm on how to increase the pressure on the wall on one wall of the resonator, without spending additional energy from the side of the RF source, without violating the conservation of momentum. All you need to catch and hold the photons for a split second by changing the group velocity in the "thin layer".
The magic device (could just be a dielectric material with an extreme dielectric constant) in this case is attached to the wall and absorbs momentum from the photons as soon as it "stops" them. There are different ways to add up the momentum between the fields that are from photons, and the fields that are from the charged particles in the mirror interfering with the photon motion, as well as the momentum of the particles themselves, however any correct result still conserves momentum (remember that has been proven for the general case.) That means you can simply consider the photons as part of the wall until they get reflected and are freely emitted. This in no way increases the force on the wall. Concentrating energy towards one end of the cavity is a situation that I already explained why it is useless, please don't waste my time by making me explain it again for your newest minor variation.
What does it all mean. Let's divide the general task into two parts. Part 1 - learn how to create increased radiation pressure on the cavity walls. Learning to create on the same walls, in a symmetric resonator, is just a different pressure. I even once drew a photon rocket project where there is a trap for photons. (See picture 1)Total internal reflection does not work in the manner depicted in that picture, but ignoring that and assuming you made something where photons followed a similar path to what you drew, there is a bigger problem.
Your formula F=N*W/c is wrong in such an obvious way that it seems that you made no attempt to apply even the most basic critical thinking to what you wrote. At this point in the conversation, I find it rude that you keep wasting time without even trying to think about what you wrote. You are simply ignoring that half of the reflections are in one direction, and half are in the opposite direction, with the total being an odd number, so with one left over, you just get a simple photon rocket, no factor of N.
Comment. In a simulation of an antenna with a dipole with two reflectors, I see that if the reflectors are very close to the antenna - that the antenna is "unlucky and unable" to emit EM waves in the far zone. It looks like a complete analog of the passing atom from the Nobel Prize.The Nobel prize is about quantum mechanics, you refuse to acknowledge basic facts about electromagnetism and simple mechanics, please just drop the Nobel prize, even if there is an analogue there, it will not help your understanding and is a waste of time to discuss here.
This is the new physics section. If you are going to insist on assuming something that is straight wrong, you have given up on physics and logic, and are living in a magical fantasy land.There are situations where that is helpful, but not when you let it get to the point of 1+1=3, and the next step you need to do (which you should be able to do without bouncing every idea off me) is check if what you came up with makes any sense at all.=====
I read 10 volumes of the most complete physics and 300 more speculative works in physics. I did not see in the textbooks a working idea for building a motor for a spaceship. Therefore, we should discuss as much as possible even the most stupid thoughts, even if 1 + 1 = 3.
Let's discuss the first picture. Photons fly out of the waveguide and create reactive traction. I want (a silly thought) that this thing does not fly backwards (like a sail) but forward (with a mouthpiece forward). Like the Sun, it is such an optical tweezers that it attracts the solar sail, and does not repel it. Can you come up with this? if so, it will be very cool. It somehow can be connected with metamaterials, as the 1st option.Assuming you mean the first picture of your previous post, then the answer is simply no, that would break conservation of momentum. If you wanted to use a solar sail to get to Mercury you could, but this would be related to sailing techniques of how to sail into the wind (taking zig zag angles) combined with orbital mechanics. The sail boat requires reaction from the water to make that work, a spacecraft would use the fact that for orbital mechanics, to lower your perigee, it is best to apply a force against the direction of orbital motion, rather than straight at where you want to go.
And in the second picture - I added another knee, and I want this thing to be motionless or almost motionless (in zero gravity), that if it is like a sail, then this sail almost does not work. But reliably emits photons back to the Sun. (See picture 2)No, it certainly does work, solar sails have been tested, and your new picture behaves just like one, minus the fact that it would be less mass efficient than a big flat mirror, and the waveguide pieces would induce a bit of loss. You changed the direction of momentum of the photons, so to conserve momentum, your device must take on the difference in momentum.
Post by: Alex_O on 10/04/2019 04:45 pm
Please excuse me. This was an old picture created to discuss the possibility of photon reflection without transmitting momentum from a photon to a reflective surface. The trajectories of photons are shown conditionally, the formula for calculating the force uses magic. I just forgot about it, and I apologize for offering this magic, I promised not to do it. This picture is like a flag on a hill (a flag that serves as a signal for the gathering place of soldiers before and during the battle). Of course, in known physics such an algorithm is not possible in principle. But I still like this picture. Since it inspires erosion in a wide range of new ideas. How to get no from 1 + 2 = 3, not a new physics. And how a star motor can work.What does it all mean. Let's divide the general task into two parts. Part 1 - learn how to create increased radiation pressure on the cavity walls. Learning to create on the same walls, in a symmetric resonator, is just a different pressure. I even once drew a photon rocket project where there is a trap for photons. (See picture 1)Total internal reflection does not work in the manner depicted in that picture, but ignoring that and assuming you made something where photons followed a similar path to what you drew, there is a bigger problem.
Your formula F=N*W/c is wrong in such an obvious way that it seems that you made no attempt to apply even the most basic critical thinking to what you wrote. At this point in the conversation, I find it rude that you keep wasting time without even trying to think about what you wrote. You are simply ignoring that half of the reflections are in one direction, and half are in the opposite direction, with the total being an odd number, so with one left over, you just get a simple photon rocket, no factor of N.
Here is a small part of this thinking. I will just set an example, and this is a scientific method. The photon flew out of the photon rocket and .. flew away. He can no longer benefit people. If people come up with a way to bring the photon back, for energy recovery - it will be beautiful and elegant. (The term recuperation is widely used in technology, for example, for charging electric car batteries during braking, there is an example of an eDumper electric hauler with a lifting capacity of 121 tons (https://www.businessinsider.com/edumper-121-ton-electric-dump-truck-2019-8), which you never need to charge ).
How to return a photon? very simple, you need to think about, for example, the 5th dimension of Kaluza (let me thank Dr. L. L. Williams for his excellent report EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION OF THE KALUZA THEORY OF GRAVITY AND ELECTROMAGNETISM at the 2016 BREAKTHROUGH PROPULSION WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS conference)
Or here's an even simpler way. Suppose any body exists in 4 or more dimensions. Suppose any body is presented in nature as a multidimensional quantity, and there are versions, copies, manifestations of the body in different dimensions. To rotate a photon 180 degrees in three dimensions of a photon rocket, you can try to use as a mirror that part of a multidimensional mirror (a copy of the mirror) that is available in another dimension. For example, a mirror can exist in the present tense, in the past tense and in the future. Please, this is a question about technology - to use the idea of pushing away from a mirror for a photon reversal, which is already in the past. Moreover, there is already evidence that in experiments with quantum mechanics they saw something that is very similar to the strange movement of a photon in time; (If it is convenient, I can simply show the original theoretical support at the concept level, but with falsification).
Thanks dear meberbs, I gathered a lot of ideas for conducting special simulations during our conversation, I now have to spend a lot of time building simulations. Accept my gratitude, our conversation was very useful. I would like to go into the world of the simulator, and return already with the results. Thank.
Post by: X_RaY on 10/08/2019 07:20 pm
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334987450_A_sceptical_analysis_of_Quantized_Inertia
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/09/2019 05:15 pm
http://www.emdrive.com/IAC2019Abstract.pdf
Post by: SeeShells on 10/11/2019 04:26 pm
Quote
Burns, David (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL, United States)https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20190029657
Abstract: A new concept for in-space propulsion is proposed in which propellant is not ejected from the engine, but instead is captured to create a nearly infinite specific impulse. The engine accelerates ions confined in a loop to moderate relativistic speeds, and then varies their velocity to make slight changes to their mass. The engine then moves ions back and forth along the direction of travel to produce thrust. This in-space engine could be used for long-term satellite station-keeping without refueling. It could also propel spacecraft across interstellar distances, reaching close to the speed of light. The engine has no moving parts other than ions traveling in a vacuum line, trapped inside electric and magnetic fields.
Publication Date: August 19, 2019
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20190029657.pdf
Shell
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/11/2019 04:51 pm
Something like Woodward and his team envisions but with a little twist.QuoteBurns, David (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL, United States)https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20190029657
Abstract: A new concept for in-space propulsion is proposed in which propellant is not ejected from the engine, but instead is captured to create a nearly infinite specific impulse. The engine accelerates ions confined in a loop to moderate relativistic speeds, and then varies their velocity to make slight changes to their mass. The engine then moves ions back and forth along the direction of travel to produce thrust. This in-space engine could be used for long-term satellite station-keeping without refueling. It could also propel spacecraft across interstellar distances, reaching close to the speed of light. The engine has no moving parts other than ions traveling in a vacuum line, trapped inside electric and magnetic fields.
Publication Date: August 19, 2019
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20190029657.pdf
Shell
Thanks. As they say hope springs eternal but I have to say not very much hope in this case....
Post by: demofsky on 10/12/2019 06:33 am
Something like Woodward and his team envisions but with a little twist.QuoteBurns, David (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL, United States)https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20190029657 (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20190029657)
Abstract: A new concept for in-space propulsion is proposed in which propellant is not ejected from the engine, but instead is captured to create a nearly infinite specific impulse. The engine accelerates ions confined in a loop to moderate relativistic speeds, and then varies their velocity to make slight changes to their mass. The engine then moves ions back and forth along the direction of travel to produce thrust. This in-space engine could be used for long-term satellite station-keeping without refueling. It could also propel spacecraft across interstellar distances, reaching close to the speed of light. The engine has no moving parts other than ions traveling in a vacuum line, trapped inside electric and magnetic fields.
Publication Date: August 19, 2019
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20190029657.pdf (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20190029657.pdf)
Shell
Thanks. As they say hope springs eternal but I have to say not very much hope in this case....
FWIW I see this approach as being more tuneable than a stack of piezoelectric materials. VERY early days for this though.
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/12/2019 06:53 am
EVERY build was a GUESS at how to build, excite and test an EmDrive.
That situation has now changed.
Roger has released very detailed information on how to build, excite and test a Flight Thruster.
http://www.emdrive.com/flighthrusterreportissue2.pdf
Plus now Roger has detailed a simple to build Balance Beam test rig which he 1st mentioned in his Shrivenham paper and he references in his IAC abstract.
http://www.emdrive.com/IAC2019Abstract.pdf
http://www.emdrive.com/shrivenhampresentation2019.pdf
My verification plans are moving forward.
I'm working with Yonlit to supply the Rf amp.
1 x 150W 3.5-3.6GHz Rf amp with both DB9 RS485 comms, they supply PC software to control the apm, and DB15 with direct controls. The DB15 is needed for pulse width & reputation rate control.
https://www.yonlit.com/productinfo/290920.html
2 x 100W thermal heat sinks with dual fans.
https://www.yonlit.com/newsinfo/269749.html
1 x Suitable 110/240 50/60Hz power supply.
Similar to those used in their dual amp 19" rack mount.
https://www.yonlit.com/productinfo/334721.html
To be clear I'm not ordering the dual amp 19" rack mount.
Just asked them to supply a suitable PSU for the 150W amp.
Test rig is designed to be KISS, yet follow Roger's balance beam build.
So guys please throw stones at the KISS test rig as to how false positives can be generated.
Not nice to hold back now and do it after the test data is released.
Yes testing will be done with the EmDrive in both small end Up & Down positions.
And YES the Rf amp's position will be adjusted so it's N type is in line with the thrusters N type.
Remember we are talking 50mN / 5g of thrust, not 100uN / 0.01g.
BTW thruster resonance freq tracking is done via a PC program I wrote.
The Rf amp has inbuilt forward & reflected power detection plus RS485 comms to get that data back to the laptop.
Additionally the freq generator can be controlled from the PC in +- 1kHz steps.
As the Rf amp has a 31dBm attenuator in +- 1dBm steps, fairly simple to do initial resonance freq adjustment at say 1W and then ramp up the power, while ensuring resonance lock is maintained.
This eliminates the need for a circulator and the added losses.
Plus the RF amp can handle a VSWR <= 3:1, after which it self protects & shuts down.
Same effect for thermal overload, self protects itself.
Nice amp.
Post by: Star One on 10/12/2019 03:29 pm
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49246.msg2003947#msg2003947
Post by: Vlad Kri on 10/12/2019 03:43 pm
Design and operation features of the engine of unsupported movement of the "gravitsup" class design.
Free access. It can not be patented and is the property of mankind.
Hello, friends.
I am an independent researcher and I want to share with you the results of my work.
Having built dozens of laboratory facilities and conducted hundreds of experiments, I got confirmation of my theory.
https://www.youtube.com/user/KrivirotkoVV
https://gravitsup.ucoz.net/photo/1
And today I will introduce you to the basic principles of designing an unsupported motion engine using electromagnetic waves in a closed cavity.
1. Mandatory elements of GRAVITSUP is the receiver of electromagnetic waves and an additional screen adjacent to one of its sides. (picture 1)
2. The shape of the receiver should provide the maximum possible total energy of electromagnetic waves, at a minimum distance from the screen. (picture 2)
3. All other structural elements of the GRAVITSUP and the mechanism to which it belongs may affect its operation. To reduce the negative impact, they should either be hidden from the receiver behind the screen, or taken to the maximum possible distance from the receiver, or balanced by other elements relative to the receiver. (picture 3)
4. The thrust in the GRAVITSUP is directed from the screen towards the receiver, increasing with increasing amount of electromagnetic radiation in the receiver.
5. GRAVITSUP and does not consume energy to create traction. Energy is consumed for the initial filling of the receiver and to compensate for losses during reflections.
Explanations and illustrations.
https://gravitsup.ucoz.net/photo/?photo=151
https://gravitsup.ucoz.net/photo/?photo=152
https://gravitsup.ucoz.net/photo/?photo=153
https://gravitsup.ucoz.net/photo/?photo=154
https://gravitsup.ucoz.net/photo/?photo=155
https://gravitsup.ucoz.net/photo/?photo=156
About EM Driver:
EM Driver cannot be made to work. That scanty thrust, which find out by highly sensitive devices, is the maximum that you can get from such a design. The cause of thrust in EM Driver is the difference in disk area on the wide and narrow sides of the cone. On both discs there is a thrust directed inside the receiver. And the large disk pulls harder (picture 4). But this difference is so small that the EM Driver design does not make sense to use for traction. EM Driver is just a laboratory device that shows the possibility of using electromagnetic waves to obtain an unsupported pulse.
If you want to convert your EM Driver into GRAVITSUP, cover the wide disk with a lead screen (picture 5). To increase power, reduce the height of the receiver.
The influence of foreign objects is clearly visible in the experiments of Martin Tajmar, Dresden University of Technology. The steel plate, which is part of the balance, affects the operation of the laboratory sample (picture 6 and 7). You can check. If this plate is made of porous plastic, then the results will change radically. Thrust => 0
Post by: meberbs on 10/12/2019 06:16 pm
GRAVITSUPYou have not actually provided any "theory" that I can find, certainly nothing in your post other than an apparent claim that lead is magical and defies momentum conservation if added to one end of an emDrive.
Design and operation features of the engine of unsupported movement of the "gravitsup" class design.
Free access. It can not be patented and is the property of mankind.
Hello, friends.
I am an independent researcher and I want to share with you the results of my work.
Having built dozens of laboratory facilities and conducted hundreds of experiments, I got confirmation of my theory.
Your videos show lots of wires that can result in false positive signals from interaction with magnetic fields.
EM Driver cannot be made to work. That scanty thrust, which find out by highly sensitive devices, is the maximum that you can get from such a design. The cause of thrust in EM Driver is the difference in disk area on the wide and narrow sides of the cone. On both discs there is a thrust directed inside the receiver. And the large disk pulls harder (picture 4). But this difference is so small that the EM Driver design does not make sense to use for traction. EM Driver is just a laboratory device that shows the possibility of using electromagnetic waves to obtain an unsupported pulse.Your first sentence here is correct, but towards the end you make the mistaken assumption that the emDrive demonstrates any useful force at all. This has not been shown by experiments, and there is no consistent theory that expects any force to be produced by the emDrive. (You, like Shawyer, ignore the sidewalls)
Post by: Vlad Kri on 10/12/2019 07:16 pm
Post by: meberbs on 10/12/2019 08:41 pm
I was not going to provide any theory.What most people hear when you say this is that there actually isn't any theory, because you have no reason to hide the theory especially after statements like "Free access. It can not be patented and is the property of mankind.."
These are rules that anyone can verify and only after verification can we talk about theory.This is backwards, you can't verify a theory when you don't know what it is.
And Yes, of course I see a lot of false signals in my laboratory research.I have learned to distinguish false positives from true results.That is not how it works, you don't magically "distinguish" them, many are indistinguishable unless you understand exactly what they are and eliminate them. You do not appear to have done this.
I am grateful to you for the attention you have given me.But to continue the conversation does not make sense until other researchers confirm the correctness of my rules.All the best to you And thank you for your time.In that case there is no conversation to have because there is nothing to confirm the correctness of, you have provided no theory to confirm and the "rules" you listed (#1-5 in your first post) are either too qualitative to mean anything (emDrive experiments already have used high Q cavities, but they don't work) or they are meaningless unverifiable statements about a magic "screen." None of them are verifiable due to either vagueness or the lack of numbers. Either you need to provide an actual theory or you are just wasting time.
Post by: Vlad Kri on 10/12/2019 11:12 pm
We can talk about theory only when they listen to us, and not invent objections. Therefore, when everyone is tired of dancing with a tambourine around the wastebasket Someone will build GRAVITSUP. And then we continue the conversation.
Post by: meberbs on 10/13/2019 12:46 am
My photos and videos are no worse than from Roger.No worse than useless is not a helpful statement. Shawyer is an example of how not do do science.
We can talk about theory only when they listen to us, and not invent objections. Therefore, when everyone is tired of dancing with a tambourine around the wastebasket Someone will build GRAVITSUP. And then we continue the conversation.No one can listen because you are refusing to talk, and if you refuse to listen to any objections, then your complaint here would be hypocritical.
Post by: Mark7777777 on 10/13/2019 02:24 am
GRAVITSUP
Design and operation features of the engine of unsupported movement of the "gravitsup" class design.
[snip]
1. What was the maximum amount if thrust you recorded?
2. Do you think you could add voice-over voice narration to your YouTube videos so people can hear from you about what you showing?
Post by: Vlad Kri on 10/13/2019 03:05 am
In the best experiments without interference, the angle of rotation of the torsion balance is 2-3 degrees for GRAVITSUP 2-6 small volume series . And the rotation angle for the large GRAVITSUP series 1.2 is 5-7 degrees. False signals were recorded on video with more powerfu. Part of the magnetic fields part of the thermal expansion.GRAVITSUP
Design and operation features of the engine of unsupported movement of the "gravitsup" class design.
[snip]
1. What was the maximum amount if thrust you recorded?
2. Do you think you could add voice-over voice narration to your YouTube videos so people can hear from you about what you showing?
And also the video on which there are measurements on the scales also captures false signals. False waveform videos have also been added for the experiment archive .
Post by: Vlad Kri on 10/13/2019 03:10 am
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/13/2019 03:01 pm
If I resume experiments in the spring, I will record a video with comments.
There are a few issues with the design of the test rig that I can see.
First, you are not using liquid metal contacts for main power. This is a big no no as flexing and twisting of the wires can cause a false positive. It also looks like you may not have twisted all of your pairs. This can lead to lorenzt forces on the wires.
You are also using a bare magnetron with heat sink interacting with the air. Best to cover the heat sink, but then you will have overheating problems.
Have you confirmed resonance inside the cavity with an infrared camera?
Post by: Vlad Kri on 10/13/2019 05:01 pm
Hello dear colleague.If I resume experiments in the spring, I will record a video with comments.
There are a few issues with the design of the test rig that I can see.
First, you are not using liquid metal contacts for main power. This is a big no no as flexing and twisting of the wires can cause a false positive. It also looks like you may not have twisted all of your pairs. This can lead to lorenzt forces on the wires.
You are also using a bare magnetron with heat sink interacting with the air. Best to cover the heat sink, but then you will have overheating problems.
Have you confirmed resonance inside the cavity with an infrared camera?
I did not understand the last question. What kind of infrared camera are you talking about .I would be grateful for your clarification.
The other of the problems you have indicated are relevant only for working with EMdrive. Not for GRAVITSUP.
Firstly, the GRAVITSUP has a lot more mass than EMDriver and it develops a lot more traction.
The lightest screen weighed 6.5 kg. And the heaviest GRAVITSUP weighed 20 kg. Add to that a mass of counterweight on the other arm of the lever. And you will understand that the Lorentz force for such current capacities can be neglected. And I do not twist the wires so as not to make the suspension stiffer. And besides this, I hang GRAVITSUP so that it rotates in one and then in the other direction. And convection currents of hot air from the magnetron are also weak.
Post by: meberbs on 10/13/2019 06:44 pm
Please consider that in the public arena no one has built, excited and tested an EmDrive as per Roger's detailed information.Yet there is no specific information of anything sufficiently different to change the result from absolutely nothing to large forces, even without accounting for the nonsensical backwards claims from Shawyer about forces moving things in the opposite direction which is wrong by definition.
EVERY build was a GUESS at how to build, excite and test an EmDrive.
So guys please throw stones at the KISS test rig as to how false positives can be generated.Many things can't be judged without seeing the data, as there are countless ways that things might be wrong and you can only tell from the data being strange.
Not nice to hold back now and do it after the test data is released.
Some specific comments are:
-A balance beam like you are suggesting has been shown to be susceptible to all sorts of errors in a way that is hard to remove them.
-There are probably at least half a dozen different ways for spurious forces to be transmitted along the RF connection that you show depending on the details (and flipping the drive upside down would change enough that that would not eliminate this possibility.)
-There are multiple ways that thermal effects could mess with the experiment, from thermal expansion to air currents, etc.
-And to reiterate, it is simply not possible to make an exhaustive list just based on your sketches.
Also, there are potential issues with data analysis, some of which are mistakes you have demonstrated in the past:
-picking the overshoot peak as an indication of force value
-making claims about the force generation "stopping" misrepresenting the nature of the oscillations, when if your claims were correct, the data shape would be entirely different
-treating as real a force that looks to be purely a thermal or other drift effect
-ignoring strange shifts in the zero position before and after a test
-Arbitrarily flipping the signs of data due to SHawyer's self-contradictory nonsense about reaction force
-And again, Shawyer's claims about needing a preload are self-contradictory. The only way an experiment can match his claims would be to have significant errors in the experiment.
Edit: delete excess /quote tag before it breaks something.
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/13/2019 09:45 pm
[/quote]Please consider that in the public arena no one has built, excited and tested an EmDrive as per Roger's detailed information.Yet there is no specific information of anything sufficiently different to change the result from absolutely nothing to large forces, even without accounting for the nonsensical backwards claims from Shawyer about forces moving things in the opposite direction which is wrong by definition.
EVERY build was a GUESS at how to build, excite and test an EmDrive.So guys please throw stones at the KISS test rig as to how false positives can be generated.Many things can't be judged without seeing the data, as there are countless ways that things might be wrong and you can only tell from the data being strange.
Not nice to hold back now and do it after the test data is released.
Some specific comments are:
-A balance beam like you are suggesting has been shown to be susceptible to all sorts of errors in a way that is hard to remove them.
-There are probably at least half a dozen different ways for spurious forces to be transmitted along the RF connection that you show depending on the details (and flipping the drive upside down would change enough that that would not eliminate this possibility.)
-There are multiple ways that thermal effects could mess with the experiment, from thermal expansion to air currents, etc.
-And to reiterate, it is simply not possible to make an exhaustive list just based on your sketches.
Also, there are potential issues with data analysis, some of which are mistakes you have demonstrated in the past:
-picking the overshoot peak as an indication of force value
-making claims about the force generation "stopping" misrepresenting the nature of the oscillations, when if your claims were correct, the data shape would be entirely different
-treating as real a force that looks to be purely a thermal or other drift effect
-ignoring strange shifts in the zero position before and after a test
-Arbitrarily flipping the signs of data due to SHawyer's self-contradictory nonsense about reaction force
-And again, Shawyer's claims about needing a preload are self-contradictory. The only way an experiment can match his claims would be to have significant errors in the experiment.
It's possible Shawyer and team have shown large forces not made public yet. I'm waiting to see what's been going on
in private.
Post by: meberbs on 10/14/2019 12:06 am
I did not understand the last question. What kind of infrared camera are you talking about .I would be grateful for your clarification.Monomorphic can probably suggest a specific model, but the speific model isn't very important, most infrared cameras should be able to take the appropriate thermal images.
The other of the problems you have indicated are relevant only for working with EMdrive. Not for GRAVITSUP.No, they were mostly general suggestions for any force measurement with a setup similar to yours.
Firstly, the GRAVITSUP has a lot more mass than EMDriver and it develops a lot more traction.The word traction simply does not apply to anything in this situation. I am going to assume that it is a translation error and you meant inertia. Unfortunately for your experiment, inertia is essentially irrelevant to force measurement on a torsion pendulum. The inertia affects the shape of the curve for a dynamic force versus time, but the steady state displacement is not affected. This means that Lorentz forces will not be negligible.
The lightest screen weighed 6.5 kg. And the heaviest GRAVITSUP weighed 20 kg. Add to that a mass of counterweight on the other arm of the lever. And you will understand that the Lorentz force for such current capacities can be neglected.
And I do not twist the wires so as not to make the suspension stiffer.If whether the wires are twisted affects the suspension, your setup needs to be changed so that this is not the case.
And besides this, I hang GRAVITSUP so that it rotates in one and then in the other direction. And convection currents of hot air from the magnetron are also weak.Again, asserting that an error source is weak with no evidence does not matter when you have a high sensitivity force measurement setup, and even Lorentz forces can change direction when you flip things because what matters is the orientation of the current loop that forms, and that can flip when you flip your device.
Post by: Vlad Kri on 10/14/2019 06:32 am
Quote
Monomorphic can probably suggest a specific model, but the speific model isn't very important, most infrared cameras should be able to take the appropriate thermal images.I do not need an infrared camera because the height of the cavity is not more than the wavelength
Quote
Firstly, the GRAVITSUP has a lot more mass than EMDriver and it develops a lot more traction.I meant the GRAVITSUP has a much larger mass and, accordingly, a greater inertia and also develops a lot more traction. And is therefore much less sensitive to interference.
The lightest screen weighed 6.5 kg. And the heaviest GRAVITSUP weighed 20 kg. Add to that a mass of counterweight on the other arm of the lever. And you will understand that the Lorentz force for such current capacities can be neglected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The word traction simply does not apply to anything in this situation. I am going to assume that it is a translation error and you meant inertia. Unfortunately for your experiment, inertia is essentially irrelevant to force measurement on a torsion pendulum. The inertia affects the shape of the curve for a dynamic force versus time, but the steady state displacement is not affected. This means that Lorentz forces will not be negligible.
Post by: meberbs on 10/14/2019 07:15 am
Complete non-sequiter. One of the design guidelines for your system involves the location of concentration of energy in the cavity. The purpose of an infrared camera is to show where the energy is.QuoteMonomorphic can probably suggest a specific model, but the speific model isn't very important, most infrared cameras should be able to take the appropriate thermal images.I do not need an infrared camera because the height of the cavity is not more than the wavelength
Again, the word traction literally has no relevance to your setup. The statement that more mass mean more inertia is correct, but your use of the word traction again is wrong, and you insisting on using it again makes it seem like you didn't even read my post.QuoteFirstly, the GRAVITSUP has a lot more mass than EMDriver and it develops a lot more traction.I meant the GRAVITSUP has a much larger mass and, accordingly, a greater inertia and also develops a lot more traction. And is therefore much less sensitive to interference.
The lightest screen weighed 6.5 kg. And the heaviest GRAVITSUP weighed 20 kg. Add to that a mass of counterweight on the other arm of the lever. And you will understand that the Lorentz force for such current capacities can be neglected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The word traction simply does not apply to anything in this situation. I am going to assume that it is a translation error and you meant inertia. Unfortunately for your experiment, inertia is essentially irrelevant to force measurement on a torsion pendulum. The inertia affects the shape of the curve for a dynamic force versus time, but the steady state displacement is not affected. This means that Lorentz forces will not be negligible.
Also, as I already explained the amount of mass you put on a torsion pendulum has no effect on its sensitivity to interference from things like magnetic forces, air currents, etc. You repeating you incorrect statement again is another point of evidence that you don't know what you are talking about, and have no interest in listening, learning, or communicating in general. Please prove me wrong on this with your next post, by acknowledging your mistakes rather than repeating them louder. (People have been posting results from torsion pendulums on this site for years, and my statements about what effect mass has on them are solidly rooted in their results and basic theory of how they work.)
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/14/2019 10:13 am
Very KISS.
Which is due to Flight Thruster thrust in the 10-60mN or 100-600mg range.
Eagleworks achieved 100uN or 1mg.
The massive difference in thrust is what makes the SPR KISS balance beam possible.
BTW the 3 verifiers will be supplied the same build of the SPR balance beam.
This helps to keep variables to a minimum.
Plus I will be present to assist the setup, explain how I did the required adjustments & measurements.
Sure they can also use their own thrust measurement system.
But 1st they need to complete the agreed verification process, using the supplier Flight Thruster, Rf system & test rig without introducing local variables.
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/14/2019 11:36 am
All totally classic physics.
And YES an EmDrive can accelerate in space without what Roger calls "A Load".
Wonder if anyone here can figure it out?
Clue?
EmDrive needs an external force to be applied small end forward before/when it initially accelerates.
Cavity thermal expansion, as used in the original test rig with 2 springs, is not involved.
Post by: JohnFornaro on 10/14/2019 12:27 pm
For meberbs
Unfortunately I read your post. Fortunately, I read your post for the last time
Fortunately, you read his post. Unfortunately, your experiment will not work.
**************************
Here's one reason why:
And I do not twist the wires so as not to make the suspension stiffer.If whether the wires are twisted affects the suspension, your setup needs to be changed so that this is not the case.
Post by: Vlad Kri on 10/14/2019 01:28 pm
Not everything happens only in the way you know about. I took accessories for my experiments from microwave ovens. If I plug in an 850 watt grill then nothing happens. It is from this that I conclude that the Lorentz force is not enough to cause the observed effects.
Post by: meberbs on 10/14/2019 03:17 pm
Updated SPR Flight Thruster EmDrive balance beam test rig.The only reason to impose requirements such as these are if you are confident that the force is an experimental artifact rather than a real force, and you want to hide that fact.
Very KISS.
Which is due to Flight Thruster thrust in the 10-60mN or 100-600mg range.
Eagleworks achieved 100uN or 1mg.
The massive difference in thrust is what makes the SPR KISS balance beam possible.
BTW the 3 verifiers will be supplied the same build of the SPR balance beam.
This helps to keep variables to a minimum.
Plus I will be present to assist the setup, explain how I did the required adjustments & measurements.
Sure they can also use their own thrust measurement system.
But 1st they need to complete the agreed verification process, using the supplier Flight Thruster, Rf system & test rig without introducing local variables.
Also it has already been explained that the slide from Shawyer you show in your next post is is pure nonsense. It is illogical to claim that the drive doesn't move until the extra bit of mass is added on top. The drive already has its own mass being pulled down by gravity. Also, with the mass already there before the drive is turned on, the drive is being supported from underneath by the balance and is experienced no acceleration (other than the 1 g due to the equivalence principle in GR, but that is also present in all of the other cases too.)
And just because you aren't intentionally using thermal expansion does not mean that the balance would not be impacted.
This has all already been explained the last time you posted this slide, making your current post nothing but spam.
Post by: kenny008 on 10/14/2019 03:27 pm
Updated SPR Flight Thruster EmDrive balance beam test rig.
Very KISS.
Which is due to Flight Thruster thrust in the 10-60mN or 100-600mg range.
Eagleworks achieved 100uN or 1mg.
The massive difference in thrust is what makes the SPR KISS balance beam possible.
Can you please explain where your 10-60mN force numbers come from? Are these measured values? Estimates?
If they are measured values, can you supply the data from that experiment, now that there is no embargo of the data? Is there a video or pictures of the experiment somewhere?
If they are estimates, can you explain what these estimates are based on?
It's tough to understand your post when numbers just seem to appear out of nowhere. Like any real science, there needs to be at least some kind of data to support claimed values. Sorry if I missed the post with your explanations.
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/14/2019 06:02 pm
Updated SPR Flight Thruster EmDrive balance beam test rig.
Very KISS.
Which is due to Flight Thruster thrust in the 10-60mN or 100-600mg range.
Eagleworks achieved 100uN or 1mg.
The massive difference in thrust is what makes the SPR KISS balance beam possible.
Can you please explain where your 10-60mN force numbers come from? Are these measured values? Estimates?
If they are measured values, can you supply the data from that experiment, now that there is no embargo of the data? Is there a video or pictures of the experiment somewhere?
If they are estimates, can you explain what these estimates are based on?
It's tough to understand your post when numbers just seem to appear out of nowhere. Like any real science, there needs to be at least some kind of data to support claimed values. Sorry if I missed the post with your explanations.
Hi Kenny,
Data is coming.
The number were supplied to show why a very simple balance beam could replace others ultra sensitive torsion balances.
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/14/2019 06:08 pm
This has all already been explained the last time you posted this slide, making your current post nothing but spam.
What happens when you put a weight on a scale?
Potential energy gets stored in the compressed spring of the scale.
What happens to that stored potential energy / compressed spring if the weight of the object is momentarily reduced?
Think about it.
Post by: meberbs on 10/14/2019 06:17 pm
You asked all the wrong questions, the real question is what happens in the case without the mass on top. If the weight of the drive was actually being reduced, the result of the test without an extra small mass on it would have the also cause deflection to max out. Nothing internal to the drive can tell that there is a small extra mass on top, which is being balanced by the force from the scale. Claiming different results in these cases is nonsensical.This has all already been explained the last time you posted this slide, making your current post nothing but spam.
What happens when you put a weight on a scale?
Potential energy gets stored in the compressed spring of the scale.
What happens to that stored potential energy / compressed spring if the weight of the object is momentarily reduced?
Think about it.
Please try applying critical thinking yourself.
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/14/2019 06:20 pm
Updated SPR Flight Thruster EmDrive balance beam test rig.The only reason to impose requirements such as these are if you are confident that the force is an experimental artifact rather than a real force, and you want to hide that fact.
Very KISS.
Which is due to Flight Thruster thrust in the 10-60mN or 100-600mg range.
Eagleworks achieved 100uN or 1mg.
The massive difference in thrust is what makes the SPR KISS balance beam possible.
BTW the 3 verifiers will be supplied the same build of the SPR balance beam.
This helps to keep variables to a minimum.
Plus I will be present to assist the setup, explain how I did the required adjustments & measurements.
Sure they can also use their own thrust measurement system.
But 1st they need to complete the agreed verification process, using the supplier Flight Thruster, Rf system & test rig without introducing local variables.
Also it has already been explained that the slide from Shawyer you show in your next post is is pure nonsense. It is illogical to claim that the drive doesn't move until the extra bit of mass is added on top. The drive already has its own mass being pulled down by gravity. Also, with the mass already there before the drive is turned on, the drive is being supported from underneath by the balance and is experienced no acceleration (other than the 1 g due to the equivalence principle in GR, but that is also present in all of the other cases too.)
And just because you aren't intentionally using thermal expansion does not mean that the balance would not be impacted.
This has all already been explained the last time you posted this slide, making your current post nothing but spam.
The only reason...It has been explained to you...Slide from Shawyer pure nonsense.... Your current post is spam....
Just because TT doesn't accept your arguments doesn't make his arguments spam. And while you have a perfect right to say Shawyer's slide is nonsense, that's not an argument everyone has to accept.
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/14/2019 06:25 pm
It depends on the reference frame regardless of the drive type (i.e. even ignoring the P-P part).
I don't believe this is correct. Different reference frames will disagree on how much work was done on the ship and how much on the exhaust but all should agree with the total amount of work done.
A true PP machine would also be an energy generation machine. At least locally. There is no way around it. Energy and momentum could be conserved globally if something like the Mach Effect worked. If it worked, you could have your cake and eat it too.
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/14/2019 06:29 pm
Please try applying critical thinking yourself.
EmDrive needs an external force to accelerate it, for a short time, small end forward.
Wonder where there is an external force that can make that happen when the drive is sitting on the scale?
When there is 0 weight on the drive, it is not compressing the scales spring.
Nor it is experiencing vibrations transmitted to it through the scale.
Note the scale is directly under the drive.
As Roger has stated before:
Quote
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.
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/14/2019 06:35 pm
It depends on the reference frame regardless of the drive type (i.e. even ignoring the P-P part).
I don't believe this is correct. Different reference frames will disagree on how much work was done on the ship and how much on the exhaust but all should agree with the total amount of work done.
A true PP machine would also be an energy generation machine. At least locally. There is no way around it. Energy and momentum could be conserved globally if something like the Mach Effect worked. If it worked, you could have your cake and eat it too.
Hi Bob,
Not correct, at least for the EmDrive.
The Kinetic Energy gain of the accelerating EmDrive mass comes from the Input RF Energy.
Plus like any machine, there are thermal losses that are also supplied by the Input RF Energy.
So not even close to OU.
Post by: meberbs on 10/14/2019 07:11 pm
It happens in none of the pictured scenarios in all of them the emDrive has net 0 external force applied to it. the force from the spring in the scale is exactly equal to the force downwards from the mass. This does not magically change when the drive is turned on.Please try applying critical thinking yourself.
EmDrive needs an external force to accelerate it, for a short time, small end forward.
Wonder where there is an external force that can make that happen when the drive is sitting on the scale?
When there is 0 weight on the drive, it is not compressing the scales spring.The amount of vibrations experienced would not be affected in either case (actually it might feel slightly more with the nearly balanced balance beam.)
Nor it is experiencing vibrations transmitted to it through the scale.
As Roger has stated before:Shawyer has repeatedly demonstrated no understanding of the definition of force, or how to set up a decent experiment. The provided quote basically boils down to "there is no force detected except when there is an error source that prevents meaningful measurements from being taken."
Post by: Alex_O on 10/14/2019 07:15 pm
Wonder if anyone here can figure it out?
Hi TT. For some reason I don’t really like your stand. A lot of wires. Look at this sketch? This is a waveguide assembly, a waveguide contactless connection is also used. With interface devices, not shown in the diagram. There are two Emdrive resonators (or one + layout). there are no wires, the RF source is far away from the resonator and a good balancer assembly (strong and rigid structure, with good support).
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/14/2019 07:27 pm
Hi TT. For some reason I don’t really like your stand. A lot of wires. Look at this sketch? This is a waveguide assembly, a waveguide contactless connection is also used. With interface devices, not shown in the diagram. There are two Emdrive resonators (or one + layout). there are no wires, the RF source is far away from the resonator and a good balancer assembly (strong and rigid structure, with good support).
Hi Alex,
The rotating contactless RF coupler is an interesting idea.
Test data will show the coax does not introduce any significant forces.
Pumping Rf through the waveguides will introduce heating and related expansion.
Could be difficult if there is differential expansion in each of the wave guide arms.
Plus these thrusters are not cheap.
I'm getting quotes of around $20k with +-10 micron tolerance.
Please understand I'm trying not to introduce anything new.
Desire is to replicate the test rig as used by Roger as closely as possible.
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/14/2019 07:30 pm
Shawyer has repeatedly demonstrated no understanding of the definition of force, or how to set up a decent experiment. The provided quote basically boils down to "there is no force detected except when there is an error source that prevents meaningful measurements from being taken."
Your opinion.
Which you are entitled to.
Test data coming soon just might paint a different picture.
Post by: meberbs on 10/14/2019 07:38 pm
You have been claiming "more data soon" for years. The only data that has shown up is better demonstrations of the emDrive not working.Shawyer has repeatedly demonstrated no understanding of the definition of force, or how to set up a decent experiment. The provided quote basically boils down to "there is no force detected except when there is an error source that prevents meaningful measurements from being taken."
Your opinion.
Which you are entitled to.
Test data coming soon just might paint a different picture.
It is not an opinion that Shawyer's claims are inconsistent. I just clearly explained why the chart you previously posted is self-contradictory. Shawyer has repeatedly made claims demonstrating no understanding of forces, claiming that pushing on something can make it move in the opposite direction as the push. It is literally a definition that a "working" emDrive would not obey conservation of momentum, and it is a mathematical fact that this would also result in breaking conservation of energy. All of these things have been demonstrated to you repeatedly.
Post by: Alex_O on 10/14/2019 08:01 pm
The waveguides can be replaced with a cable, but the idea is retained when the RF supply point is on the axis of rotation of the balancer and the possible power loads from the RF source are perpendicular to the main plane of the resonator movement.Hi TT. For some reason I don’t really like your stand. A lot of wires. Look at this sketch? This is a waveguide assembly, a waveguide contactless connection is also used. With interface devices, not shown in the diagram. There are two Emdrive resonators (or one + layout). there are no wires, the RF source is far away from the resonator and a good balancer assembly (strong and rigid structure, with good support).
Hi Alex,
The rotating contactless RF coupler is an interesting idea.
Test data will show the coax does not introduce any significant forces.
Pumping Rf through the waveguides will introduce heating and related expansion.
Could be difficult if there is differential expansion in each of the wave guide arms.
Plus these thrusters are not cheap.
I'm getting quotes of around $20k with +-10 micron tolerance.
Please understand I'm trying not to introduce anything new.
Desire is to replicate the test rig as used by Roger as closely as possible.
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/15/2019 04:31 am
Using the scales compressed spring plus external vibration transmitted to the thruster, directly through the table & scale to provide the initial external small end forward force to cause internal Doppler shift.
This direct connection pathway is not damped by the oil damper at the other end of the balance beam.
In the 0.5g load case, vibration triggers the initial motor mode. Then as acceleration just starts, reducing the weight on the compressed spring, it released some of it's stored potential energy to the thruster, giving it additional & sustained external upward force, which continues as a positive feedback loop until the thruster has lifted off the scale, to fully engaged self sustained acceleration in motor mode, that is until the other end of the balance beam hits the stop.
Very clever test setup.
Of course in the 0g load example, this initial external force pathway is not working, so there is no force generation as the thruster is not accelerating.
So no mystery with the 3 load results, just EmDrive physics.
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/15/2019 04:45 am
You have been claiming "more data soon" for years. The only data that has shown up is better demonstrations of the emDrive not working.
It is not an opinion that Shawyer's claims are inconsistent. I just clearly explained why the chart you previously posted is self-contradictory. Shawyer has repeatedly made claims demonstrating no understanding of forces, claiming that pushing on something can make it move in the opposite direction as the push. It is literally a definition that a "working" emDrive would not obey conservation of momentum, and it is a mathematical fact that this would also result in breaking conservation of energy. All of these things have been demonstrated to you repeatedly.
More data is in Roger's IAC 2019 paper.
As for why the EmDrive doesn't break CofM, CofE nor N3 has been explained to you many times.
I do understand you do not agree with the explanations, so lets let Roger's test data speak to that.
As for my lack of information, I like Roger, are engaged in commercial EmDrive development, which limits our disclosures.
With Roger's Boeing agreement expiring, Roger decided to release a very detailed paper on how to build, excit & test a Flight Thruster.
Now that data is in the public domain, it is now possible to build working EmDrives.
Should point out that ALL the earlier public builds were guesses at how to build, excit & measure thrust.
The process is complex, so understandable that people got it wrong.
In case you have not yet read it, here is the link:
http://www.emdrive.com/flighthrusterreportissue2.pdf
Roger will post his IIAC 2019 paper on www.emdrive.com ASAP.
Will keep the forum advised when that happens.
BTW according to N3, when the internal to the cavity radiation pressure generated force pushes on the big end, as the EmDrive accelerates, where is the required "Equal but Opposite" N3 force?
Just maybe it is the new to physics Shawyer Reaction Force?
I do trust you will find Roger's IAC 2019 paper of interest.
I'm sure MANY will.
Post by: meberbs on 10/15/2019 05:29 am
As for why the EmDrive doesn't break CofM, CofE nor N3 has been explained to you many times.No, you have never once done the trivial calculation that is the definition of conservation of momentum despite haveing been asked to repeatedly:
Again what happens after the cavity stored energy turns into waste heat has nothing to do with our discussions, so why keep going there?It has everything to do with the conversation. A before and after sum of momentum is the simplest way to see if momentum is conserved. It avoids all of the little tricks you keep hiding behind while ignoring my explanations.
I do understand you do not agree with the explanations, so lets let Roger's test data speak to that.Make up any data you want right now. It is literally impossible to come up with a set of data that conserves momentum and also shows a working emDrive. Asserting that future experiments will magically solve this is simply dodging the question.
Should point out that ALL the earlier public builds were guesses at how to build, excit & measure thrust.Again, point to a single specific thing that is wrong. (Something logically consistent, not the self-contradictory things you keep posting about loads.)
The process is complex, so understandable that people got it wrong.
BTW according to N3, when the internal to the cavity radiation pressure generated force pushes on the big end, as the EmDrive accelerates, where is the required "Equal but Opposite" N3 force?The equal and opposite force is on the photons that are pushing on the big end that reverse direction as they reflect off of it, as I have explained to you repeatedly.
Just maybe it is the new to physics Shawyer Reaction Force?
To repeat myself some more, the small end (plus the side walls) cancels this out in a cavity moving at constant velocity. Also as I already explained, when there is an externally applied force accelerating the cavity, the photons net push the cavity against the external acceleration by a slight amount, with the equal and opposite reaction being the photons gaining a slight bit of momentum in the direction of the external acceleration, because they also need momentum to move with the cavity as the cavity accelerates.
I do trust you will find Roger's IAC 2019 paper of interest.The abstract already indicates he still doesn't understand the definition of the word force, so I see no reason to have any expectations. Especially since I have lost count of how many promises like this from you have fallen flat.
I'm sure MANY will.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/15/2019 11:44 am
People are grown ups here. If someone is talking nonsense, people can work that out.
If you react with "OMG!" posts, that's only your own fault for giving that person the attention they were probably seeking.
If you ignore people you disagree with and everyone agrees with you on that score, that person will get bored of no reactions pretty fast.
Only report to mod if someone is being uncivil. Post your counters in a civil manner. Ignore them if they disagree with you etc. Trust me, if someone's going to lose posts on here it'll be the person who rants in their "you're wrong" replies.
Time for a new thread.
Locked.
New thread:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49270.0