NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

General Discussion => New Physics for Space Technology => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 06/11/2018 05:47 pm

Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/11/2018 05:47 pm
This is a thread - Thread 11 in the series - focused on objective analysis of whether the EM Drive (a cavity resonating at microwave frequencies) reported "thrust force" is an experimental artifact or whether it is a real propulsion effect  that can be used for space applications, and if so, in discussing those possible space propulsion applications.

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

Commercial advertisement is discouraged.

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

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

This link

http://math.typeit.org/

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

--

Links to previous threads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: X_RaY on 06/11/2018 08:29 pm
 @all:

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)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/12/2018 04:02 am
The miniVNA tiny+ has arrived.

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.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: X_RaY on 06/12/2018 09:49 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.
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.

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
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/12/2018 02:32 pm
Anybody wish to answer a simple question?

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?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: meberbs on 06/12/2018 05:37 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.
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
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 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 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.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/13/2018 02:21 am
Testing the miniVNA tiny+ with a 1/4 wave stub antenna.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/13/2018 02:51 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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.

Simple question is how much Work was done on the Mass by the Force during the 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.

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Mark7777777 on 06/14/2018 06:27 am
FYI FWIW:

emdrives.com redirects to the latest post on this Thread 11.

Regards
Mark
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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
Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Star One on 06/15/2018 12:00 pm
This may be of interest to posters on here.

£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
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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'

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

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Bob Woods on 06/16/2018 04:16 am
Stephen Hawking was interred today at Westminster between Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin.


Bravo. And light speed to you Stephen....
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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'

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

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?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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?
Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Star One on 06/16/2018 01:57 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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Augmentor on 06/16/2018 02:58 pm
This technical paper is what you want to make of it.

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.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Star One on 06/16/2018 04:55 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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.  ::)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.

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.  ::)
There is a reason for this, and it is rooted in actual scientific data:
https://xkcd.com/1132/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.

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.  ::)
There is a reason for this, and it is rooted in actual scientific data:
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
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: meberbs on 06/17/2018 12:09 am
You say that yet this very thread criticism of his setup is clearly given.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1823724#msg1823724
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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...

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Star One on 06/17/2018 12:59 pm
I’ve noticed something before now where an article with identical if not very similar wording appears in multiple publications online.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: meberbs on 06/17/2018 02:34 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.
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.

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 best
Sophomoric 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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.  ::)   
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: meberbs on 06/17/2018 04:47 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
I read those posts, but did not go into detail, since that is not what Star One referenced as examples of "criticism."

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: D_Dom on 06/17/2018 05:55 pm
 Quoting the first posting upthread "subjective wordy statements are discouraged." Focus on technical aspects of the topic at hand.  Praise in public, critique in private is tricky here because it is an open forum.
 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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/17/2018 05:58 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. 

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://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EDGO5-eCLo


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: RonM on 06/17/2018 06:24 pm
I think you should run the experiment first and see if an IR camera can spot signs of resonance. Drilling holes in the cavity for the probe looks like destructive testing to me.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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. 

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.   

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. 

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.   
Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Star One on 06/18/2018 04:24 pm
Hope people find this of interest.

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: demofsky on 06/19/2018 02:14 am
From my spot in the peanut gallery, thermochromic paint looks like a better option because you can see the thermal patterns for the entire fustrum as a whole rather than one spot inside.  I could imagine having to build several fustrums with different window positions to get a more complete picture otherwise. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Tcarey on 06/19/2018 03:47 am
Monomorphic,

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/19/2018 02:25 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.
Jamie:

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Mulletron on 06/20/2018 01:47 am
How many visible wavelength optical cavities do you suppose are in this bag?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: spupeng7 on 06/20/2018 06:06 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...
Monomorphic,
        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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: jankeman on 06/20/2018 09:45 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 cosmos

So, I think it's a no for now
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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 cosmos

So, I think it's a no for now
Please 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

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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 cosmos

So, I think it's a no for now
Sorry, 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.
And given all that, I'm pretty sure the answer is YES, but I'm not sure of the magnitude :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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?  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/25/2018 08:52 pm
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: RERT on 06/26/2018 03:16 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....
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 06/27/2018 02:59 pm
...
If The Traveller can't make this work, nobody can: ...

So no pressure....
Don't count out Monomorphic and SeeShells!!

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 06/27/2018 08:45 pm
Don't take my word for it, but I think a lot more funding for space exploration and travel is inbound. Governmental priorities are not some immutable force. At the very least you have done an immeasurable service for the future of humanity. Physics is dogmatic and physicists split into factions far too easily. Here we proved that even if there is squabbling at least serious work has been accomplished, thus I am hopeful for the future of ALL related research. Our main currency is not in funding or design or even the rational genius of connecting disparate concepts, but in encouraging those who would otherwise eternally dwell in silence to come forward and offer their work and research for peer review. Even if I put my own research on the backburner I still created a mesh rack thruster prototype. Remember: your life is fleeting but your work and deductions transcend time and space.

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: X_RaY on 06/30/2018 09:12 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.
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).

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: scienceguy on 07/01/2018 10:28 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?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: scienceguy on 07/02/2018 03:54 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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: zen-in on 07/02/2018 04:28 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.
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).

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. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: X_RaY on 07/02/2018 07:12 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.
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).

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.
Everyone who has been here for a long time probably knows videos like this... looks fast and relatively easy** ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snOeWb1Io0o

**with knowledge, experience and the right equipment
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: meberbs on 07/05/2018 05:24 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?
Answered your own question. If momentum disappears, then it is not conserved.

Noether's theorem on conservation laws applies everywhere.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: scienceguy on 07/05/2018 05:27 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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: aero on 07/06/2018 05:01 pm
The question of course is, "Is there thrust?"

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"
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 07/07/2018 12:47 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.
... 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.
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
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: scienceguy on 07/08/2018 02:06 am
what does it take to reflect a microwave? A metal? Or will another microwave reflect a microwave?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: meberbs on 07/08/2018 08:29 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.
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.

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.

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.
You are lying here. You have been shown the calculations many times:
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.)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: RERT on 07/08/2018 01:19 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 :(!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: meberbs on 07/08/2018 03:44 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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: meberbs on 07/08/2018 03:58 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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: meberbs on 07/08/2018 04:12 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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: RERT on 07/09/2018 08:44 am
Jim -

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...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: RERT on 07/09/2018 09:14 am
LowerAtmosphere -

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: meberbs on 07/09/2018 01:57 pm
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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: flux_capacitor on 07/09/2018 02:53 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.

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.

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.
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.)

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?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 07/09/2018 06:04 pm
LowerAtmosphere -

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.
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 07/09/2018 06:13 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.

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.
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.)

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?
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.

*Tangents... in physics? A good joke!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.

*Tangents... in physics? A good joke!
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.

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)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: RERT on 07/09/2018 08:43 pm
Jim - any experiment which shows data which breaks physics gets to justify writing new laws. The topic of this forum is em drive, not water engines. If you don't think I'm interested in following the data, you need to review my posts. I hope it's real, at the moment it seems probably false, in my opinion. If you think I'm Insufficiently outraged at the thought that laws might have to be updated for EMdrive, if it works, I'm sorry I can't help you.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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...

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Ricvil on 07/12/2018 01:15 am
My theory:
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 07/13/2018 11:01 pm
My theory:
There are two localized resonances, with one on each side of flat end plates cavity.
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Ricvil on 07/14/2018 04:01 am
My theory:
There are two localized resonances, with one on each side of flat end plates cavity.
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.

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
Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Star One on 07/14/2018 11:41 am
From Seeker.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ1dWKm2g6Q

German scientists have just tested NASA’s EM drive... Does it work now
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.   

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: SeeShells on 07/16/2018 09:22 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.
Hi Paul,

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

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/17/2018 12:33 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?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: tchernik on 07/17/2018 03:55 am
A video, a video. My kingdom for a single video of these replications working.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Bob Woods on 07/17/2018 05:12 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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Bob Woods on 07/17/2018 07:48 am
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.
All talk and no data is a big problem.

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: flux_capacitor on 07/17/2018 10:30 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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/17/2018 12:18 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."
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: meberbs on 07/17/2018 03:27 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.
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.

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.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: meberbs on 07/17/2018 08:31 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.
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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. 

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."
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?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.

Or do it you way and get a useless frame varient result.
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Notsosureofit on 07/18/2018 03:17 pm
An investigation of traveling waves could be worthwhile.  If the "mirror" cavities are used as part of the calculation, they guarantee zero thrust for a standing wave solution.  The traveling wave might find a solution that emulates an accelerator in "mirror" space.  I suspect it would require a particular phase shift on reflection to maintain the asymmetry over many reflections.

Edit: (an interesting thought is that the complete "mirror" space, including radial, is quite distorted.  Does it have a universal asymmetry?)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: RERT on 07/19/2018 09:31 am
Shawyers Moon probe is posited at 10000kg, with peak velocity 10000 mph. It's kinetic energy is 10E11 Joules, or thereabouts. Taking his word that energy is conserved, the 34kW thrusters must take more than 800 hours to reach that speed, not 72 for the round trip as he suggests. Also, even if I take the fuel cells to be the entire launch mass, the energy density of the fuel cells would have to be over 11000 Wh/kg.

I don't think this is even self-consistent speculation.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.  :-\
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: RERT on 07/19/2018 09:55 pm
Jim - maybe it has something to do with the EMdrive being worth $10^13 or so if real. Despite the easy ridicule, we did once think that mass was conserved, and we were wrong. Something like that could happen again.

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: tchernik on 07/20/2018 02:12 am
Personally, I still keep a ten year old spot in my heart and mind, and I do it on purpose.

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.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.

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.
Brilliantly said.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: RotoSequence on 07/20/2018 09:23 am
Another brilliant physics episode by Space Time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfffy12uQ7g
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/21/2018 12:56 pm
GHz Rotation of an Optically Trapped Nanoparticle in Vacuum

"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
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/22/2018 11:32 pm
I've completed the simulations of Oyzw's solid copper cavity with different size spacers on the large end. This is to get the resonant frequency within the bandwidth of my main amplifier (2.35Ghz - 2.45Ghz). TE013 was found at ~2.49Ghz without the spacer, so in order to get the full ~30W out of my amplifier, it is necessary to increase the size of the cavity to reduce the resonant frequency to ~2.4Ghz.

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/23/2018 04:38 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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: SteveD on 07/23/2018 07:00 pm
If somebody gets a chance, is there any chance this concept could get tested before the measuring equipment gets broken down. 

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Bob Woods on 07/23/2018 10:50 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 (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.
If it proves out, money will not be an object and the real space race will begin.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 07/24/2018 12:22 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 (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.
If it proves out, money will not be an object and the real space race will begin.

From my own study, QI is very likely wrong and it will not prove out.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.

https://twitter.com/PeterlooPete/status/1020597177029201920

Should be interesting.
Is the Q thruster emdrive? Or is it a working medium microwave propeller?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.

https://twitter.com/PeterlooPete/status/1020597177029201920

Should be interesting.
Is the Q thruster emdrive? Or is it a working medium microwave propeller?

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/24/2018 02:09 am
If the 1st 2 lines of Roger's claim are correct then DARPA knows P-P drives are real.

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.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/24/2018 11:36 pm
Hi Jamie,

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: dustinthewind on 07/24/2018 11:57 pm
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. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: meberbs on 07/25/2018 01:40 pm
The equation is correct:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure see attached.
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.

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.

https://twitter.com/PeterlooPete/status/1020597177029201920

Should be interesting.
Is the Q thruster emdrive? Or is it a working medium microwave propeller?

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Josave on 07/25/2018 11:01 pm
The NXP ecoystem for solid state RF generation is available for developpers:

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
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 07/25/2018 11:09 pm
The equation is correct:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure see attached.
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.
...

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: meberbs on 07/25/2018 11:59 pm
The equation is correct:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure see attached.
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.
...

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.
Found it, https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1536759#msg1536759

Just as you remembered, the problem was an inappropriate cos^2 term.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: meberbs on 07/26/2018 02:47 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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/26/2018 03:55 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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: meberbs on 07/26/2018 12:59 pm
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.
There is no assumption that the forces sum to zero, it is a simple fact. It has been proven multiple ways.

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"
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/26/2018 10:11 pm
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.
There is no assumption that the forces sum to zero, it is a simple fact. It has been proven multiple ways.

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Req on 07/27/2018 06:44 am
Sorry, this is completely off-topic, but this seems like the place to ask - would it be possible, given enough energy and infrastructure, to create a dynamic electromagnetic resonant cavity to focus say a 100km2 phased array into a maser that can arbitrarily point a powerful coherent beam in milliseconds or would you need to build a giant structure out of matter and mechanically steer it?  And by possible I mean at least imaginable power requirements, say under 10,000GW.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: fran640 on 07/27/2018 01:03 pm
Hello everyonw,

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
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: X_RaY on 07/27/2018 09:23 pm
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.
There is no assumption that the forces sum to zero, it is a simple fact. It has been proven multiple ways.

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.
TT,
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: X_RaY on 07/28/2018 09:39 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: flux_capacitor on 07/31/2018 03:38 pm
The Traveller,

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?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: X_RaY on 07/31/2018 08:23 pm
The Traveller,

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?
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.

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  :-\ :-[
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: oyzw on 08/01/2018 01:22 am
The Traveller,

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?
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.

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  :-\ :-[
The electromagnetic force of each wall must be calculated according to Maxwell's equation, and the geometric vector calculations are all combined into zero.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: meberbs on 08/01/2018 06:08 am
And now you broke your streak of generally correct posts.

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: meberbs on 08/01/2018 01:34 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?
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.

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.

You really sure the small end + side wall radiation pressure equals that on the big end?

Attached for your consideration.
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM MebeDrive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Augmentor on 08/01/2018 04:46 pm
Meberbs,

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
Title: Re: EM MebeDrive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: meberbs on 08/01/2018 06:13 pm
Meberbs,

My dear soothsaying analyst,
Please point to where I made any predictions of the future in this thread. Otherwise, please apologize for this insulting slander.

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.
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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!

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.

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.
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).

...
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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: mwvp on 08/02/2018 05:51 pm
Here are some interesting links I repost:

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.


Title: Re: EM MebeDrive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: moreno7798 on 08/02/2018 06:12 pm
Meberbs,

My dear soothsaying analyst,
Please point to where I made any predictions of the future in this thread. Otherwise, please apologize for this insulting slander.

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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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!

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.
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.

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 >:(

Title: Re: EM MebeDrive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.

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.
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.

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...
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.

Your statement about "dissipation" is literally just handwaving.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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?
Title: Re: EM MebeDrive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: rq3 on 08/02/2018 10:09 pm
[quote}
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!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: flux_capacitor on 08/03/2018 02:50 pm
I may again make some mistakes below (apologies if this is the case to the less indulgent among you all) but the current discussion about redshift and blueshift of wavelengths makes me think about several things:

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 longer shorter, 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:

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: flux_capacitor on 08/03/2018 06:20 pm
To X_Ray and others.

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)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: RonM on 08/03/2018 08:36 pm
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
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: X_RaY on 08/03/2018 09:18 pm
To X_Ray and others.

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)
It is a oversimplification.
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


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.

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?
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 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).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: flux_capacitor on 08/03/2018 11:35 pm
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
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.

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: flux_capacitor on 08/04/2018 12:23 am
To X_Ray and others.

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)
It is a oversimplification.
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!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/04/2018 09:59 pm
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...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: RERT on 08/05/2018 07:29 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.

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.

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.
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.)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: RERT on 08/06/2018 07:20 pm
My iPad mIni combined with my eyesight  isn't up to viewing your video, so I'll respond more directly when back off vacation 13/8.

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: X_RaY on 08/06/2018 07:37 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.

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).
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.


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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Ricvil on 08/06/2018 08:50 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.

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).
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.

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: X_RaY on 08/06/2018 09:06 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.

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).
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.

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.
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.
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Ricvil on 08/06/2018 11:35 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.

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).
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.

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Bob Woods on 08/09/2018 07:47 am
The Google Doodle today:

"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)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/09/2018 01:23 pm
I've finished the simulations on the solid copper cavity Oyzw sent me from China. I am going to use an open-ended half loop antenna initially since it excites mode TE013, is very easy to fabricate, and is simple to tune for impedance. The location is 4cm above the bottom of the frustum. Simulated Q factor was ~32,000. I ended up needing a second much thinner copper gasket on the small end as under close inspection, the two flanges are not perfectly parallel. There is a ~1.5mm - 2mm difference on the small end - like a carrot that has the fat end sliced flat, but the narrow end has a slight angle cut. The two gaskets together bring the resonant frequency to 2.416Ghz, safely within the ISM band. Any compressing of the gaskets will bring the frequency higher.

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...   ;) 

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Ricvil on 08/09/2018 08:15 pm
The Traveller,

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?
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.

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  :-\ :-[
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.
It  was a time domain  simulation?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Ricvil on 08/10/2018 10:51 am
Fano resonances everywhere!
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!!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: X_RaY on 08/10/2018 03:30 pm

It  was a time domain  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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: oyzw on 08/11/2018 01:46 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
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Ricvil on 08/11/2018 02:33 am

It  was a time domain  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.

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?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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50000
Jamie I think this is for you...

Open half-ring coupling is not optimal, short-circuit closed-loop coupling is better, Q value exceeds 50000
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: X_RaY on 08/11/2018 08:44 am

It  was a time domain  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.

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?
This was a numerical artifact / problem within the simulation.
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.  :-\
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/13/2018 05:54 am
" ... the concept of a common time at different space points does not have a relativistically covariant meaning."
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)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: RotoSequence on 08/13/2018 06:09 am
https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.08771

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/13/2018 11:38 pm
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: RERT on 08/14/2018 11:14 am
Hi Jamie - back at Keyboard again, and viewed your shakedown video.

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?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: RERT on 08/14/2018 10:38 pm
Ok. I tend to agree the delay on the deflection is too high for an RF emdrive effect. Do I recall you have a magnetic force calibration signal? Would be nice to see what an emdrive signal should really look like, subject to the damping and time constants of the rig.

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/15/2018 01:13 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.
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. 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  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/15/2018 01:26 am
(...)
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.
Thanks Monomorph,
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  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: oyzw on 08/15/2018 03:29 am
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.
Hello, my cavity, when do you start testing?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: oyzw on 08/15/2018 04:30 am
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.
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: oyzw on 08/16/2018 01:07 am
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.
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/16/2018 05:22 am
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.
Thanks meberbs,
       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 :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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 contributions
No, 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).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 08/17/2018 12:47 pm
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.
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.
For me, no activities with the EMDrive in the coming weeks, going on vacation first (yes, life can be though).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Ricvil on 08/17/2018 06:08 pm
I have interesting news.
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!!! :) :) :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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)
.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Ricvil on 08/17/2018 10:03 pm
Sorry.
My english is very poor.
:)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: demofsky on 08/18/2018 09:18 am
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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?? :) :) :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/20/2018 05:51 am
(...)
You aren't discussing new or different concepts here.
(...)
meberbs,
       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  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/21/2018 05:44 am
       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.
meberbs,
       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'

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Ricvil on 08/22/2018 06:10 pm
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.
There is no assumption that the forces sum to zero, it is a simple fact. It has been proven multiple ways.

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.
TT,
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: X_RaY on 08/22/2018 07:37 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?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/23/2018 05:22 am
(...)
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.
meberbs,
       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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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…
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Bob Woods on 08/24/2018 05:19 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?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Ricvil on 08/24/2018 11:34 am
The Emdrive is a kind of Warpdrive!!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.  :-\
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/24/2018 02:05 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.

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: meberbs on 08/24/2018 04:07 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.
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.
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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 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?

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.



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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. :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/24/2018 07:44 pm
I've fabricated the two new antennas I want to test. These were first designed in FEKO, then I 3D printed two cones of the right size to wrap the wire around to get the correct diameters, and then soldered. I will need to run some calibrations on the VNA, then start tuning.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/24/2018 09:34 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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Ricvil on 08/25/2018 02:11 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?

:)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/25/2018 02:49 am
Crystal Set Question

       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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: meberbs on 08/25/2018 05:31 am
Crystal Set Question

       What difference does it make what perspective we have on a covariant system,
And this is how far I got into your post before you started speaking a foreign language.

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 enough
You 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/cm2
Those 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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: X_RaY on 08/25/2018 10:17 am
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?

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)
Your picture illustrates a plane EM wave traveling in a uniform dielectric medium, where the medium boundaries are far away.
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
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/25/2018 12:02 pm
Watch the end:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RCG_4JG6Hg
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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]"
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Ricvil on 08/27/2018 03:59 am
I have a experiment to be tried.
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?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/27/2018 05:08 am
(...)
So-called "stupid" questions aren't a bad thing. Ignoring the answers when you don't like them is.
(...)
meberbs,
       you are arguing from authority. What if I don't like your answer?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: meberbs on 08/27/2018 07:48 am
(...)
So-called "stupid" questions aren't a bad thing. Ignoring the answers when you don't like them is.
(...)
meberbs,
       you are arguing from authority. What if I don't like your answer?
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Ricvil on 08/27/2018 11:00 am
       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.
meberbs,
       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 ?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/27/2018 06:31 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 as 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. 

For those wondering, the solid copper frustum weighs 801 grams more than the 3D printed version.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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. 

For those wondering, the solid copper frustum weighs 801 grams more than the 3D printed version.
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 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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: oyzw on 08/28/2018 01:18 am
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.
Can you test the noise value of a pure load first? As a comparison parameter
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/28/2018 02:10 am
(...)
So-called "stupid" questions aren't a bad thing. Ignoring the answers when you don't like them is.
(...)
meberbs,
       you are arguing from authority. What if I don't like your answer?
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/28/2018 02:36 am
(...)
(...)
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 ?
Thanks Ricvil,
       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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: meberbs on 08/28/2018 02:43 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,
       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.
No, what I have provided is seamless as far as I can tell. If you think there is a flaw, please share it.

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?"
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/28/2018 02:59 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,
       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.
No, what I have provided is seamless as far as I can tell. If you think there is a flaw, please share it.

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?"
meberbs,
       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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: meberbs on 08/28/2018 05:10 am
meberbs,
       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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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. :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/30/2018 02:15 am
Crystal Set Question

       What difference does it make what perspective we have on a covariant system,
And this is how far I got into your post before you started speaking a foreign language.

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 enough
You 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/cm2
Those 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.
In answer to your good questions:

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..
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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)

       In 2002 'The Physics of Reality' explores the incompatibility of quantum mechanics with gravity theory.
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.

       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.
None of these statements are in any way relevant to our conversation that I can see. Especially that last one.

       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).

       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.
"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.

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,

"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."
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.

       '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,
       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.
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.

       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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: RERT on 08/30/2018 09:28 am
Guys - it is becoming hard to see how this conversation is ever going to end.

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.)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.

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.)
RERT,
    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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/31/2018 01:40 am
(...)
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.
meberbs,
       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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: ThinkerX on 08/31/2018 02:01 am
At this point, given the initial results from Monomorphic's excellent tests, backed by other tests, and the utter lack of anything resembling a credible theory, I am highly skeptical of the validity of the EM Drive concept.  That could change with additional tests or better theory work.

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. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: meberbs on 08/31/2018 04:44 am
(...)
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.
meberbs,
       anyone can see that I do recognize your questions and their validity
Since you are yet again ignoring my questions even as you state this, this is self-evidently false.

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)
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.
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Ricvil on 08/31/2018 09:55 am
C'mon guys.
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Povel on 09/01/2018 05:09 pm
I'm not completely sure why Woodward is discussed here and not in the relevant thread. Could the discussion be moved over there please?

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.

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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.

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.
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.

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?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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?   ;)


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/02/2018 01:32 am
(...)
consistent with the corpus of existing observations,
     It most definitely does not need to be consistent with the corps of existing presumptions.
meberbs,
       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?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: RERT on 09/02/2018 05:36 pm
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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&
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/02/2018 09:12 pm
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.  :-[

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. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/02/2018 10:11 pm
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.  ;D

I will perform another IR test on this mode later. If it's not TE013, then I'm not sure what to do next...

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.  ;D

I will perform another IR test on this mode later. If it's not TE013, then I'm not sure what to do next...
The 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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.  :-[

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.
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.  ;D

I will perform another IR test on this mode later. If it's not TE013, then I'm not sure what to do next...
Monomorph,
       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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: meberbs on 09/03/2018 07:58 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...
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.)

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.)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Ricvil on 09/03/2018 08:27 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...
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.)

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.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/03/2018 05:16 pm
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...  ;D

 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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...  ;D
Exhilarating!I want to see the S11 parameters in this test state.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.

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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Notsosureofit on 09/04/2018 04:05 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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Notsosureofit on 09/05/2018 06:18 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
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/06/2018 12:16 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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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?  ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: S.Paulissen on 09/06/2018 01:41 am
Mono had been slow rolling this so long... I'm anxious.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Bob Woods on 09/06/2018 02:54 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NwP3wes4M8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NwP3wes4M8)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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....
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: racevedo88 on 09/06/2018 10:22 pm
 Monomorphic: I am no physicist. I am what you will call a hoper ( as in I hope it works).  However, I have followed your work, and will argue that whatever the results of your experiment were, You will probably present the hardest to dispute case either for or against the EM Drive. You have accepted the critique from both sides of the of the argument in order to make your experiment better and eliminate as many of the experimental errors as possible. From a layman's point of view you deserve this community thanks. Anyways, Hats off to you, good luck in your presentation.

V/R

Rafael Acevedo 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Johnny_Tsunami on 09/06/2018 10:42 pm
The Henry Bull motor seems to function based on the properties of the spring; how much damping it can provide over a time period in relation to how fast the frequency is driving whatever impactor is in there. Changing the properties of the spring, friction level of the surface, frequency of the impactor and weight of the impactor would all be independent variables changing how fast and in which direction this gizmo wants to go. Hanging on a string it would probably just buzz and vibrate itself into chaos most of the time while sometimes finding rhythm. Like watching two air powered windshield wipers on an old bus. Actually the string would also become a variable in finding stability for a short time.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/10/2018 09:38 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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Bob Woods on 09/10/2018 10:42 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?
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Mark7777777 on 09/11/2018 10:30 am
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 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 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

 


 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Mark7777777 on 09/11/2018 10:41 am
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 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.

And there is a 26-page Abstracts PDF: https://physics.fullerton.edu/~heidi/abstracts.pdf
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: X_RaY on 09/11/2018 07:46 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 ::)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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?  :-\
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Bob Woods on 09/12/2018 05:03 am
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?  ::)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: oyzw on 09/12/2018 09:34 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.
This test chart should be under the condition of increased torsional pendulum damping?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: MineCanary on 09/12/2018 12:57 pm
As a longtime lurker, that's evidence enough for me to call it.  Emdrive doesn't work.  This is of course still wonderful science, as discovering what does and doesn't work are BOTH contributing to the body of knowledge of this wacky reality we live in.  Congrats and well done to all, especially Monomorphic who has kept us all 'in the passengers seat' during this ride.  It's been a great ride indeed!

Looks like its 'generation ships' to the stars.. or I wonder how cryogenics are going..
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: meberbs on 09/12/2018 02:24 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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/12/2018 03:02 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 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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: moreno7798 on 09/12/2018 05:02 pm
It would be interesting to hear from Dr. Harold White from NASA's Eagleworks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: cvbn on 09/12/2018 08:20 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)?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/13/2018 12:11 am
I have just learned from Mike McDonald from the US Navy Emdrive group that he is also reporting negative results.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: oyzw on 09/13/2018 01:44 am
Recently, with the in-depth analysis of Professor Yang Lan, I learned that her suspension oscillating thruster was directly guided by Mr. Shawyer during the design process. During the test period, the device was placed in multiple orientations, such as north and south. Things and so on. No significant differences were found in the thrust of the device.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: RotoSequence on 09/13/2018 01:51 am
Unless someone can demonstrate a rebuttal, in the form of a device that shows a thrust signal, in an apparatus with as much attention to noise control as Monomorphic's has, I see little reason to hope that these tiny, errant signals are anything but noise.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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. ...

... 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.
As far as them being effectively opposite definitions, then that is correct that these points of view can't 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.)
Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: meberbs on 09/13/2018 05:30 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.
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."

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Ricvil on 09/13/2018 06:56 pm
More fun!!!
PS: a,b and c are,
For circular waveguide - internal
For torus- external
For Emdrive-internal

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/13/2018 07:38 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.

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/14/2018 04:31 am
(...)
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.
Thanks OnlyMe,
       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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: meberbs on 09/14/2018 06:09 am
(...)
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.
Thanks OnlyMe,
       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.
This sounds simply like a statement of a "perfect solution fallacy"

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Star One on 09/14/2018 07:03 am
(...)
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.
Thanks OnlyMe,
       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.
This sounds simply like a statement of a "perfect solution fallacy"

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Ricvil on 09/14/2018 08:27 am
(...)
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.
Thanks OnlyMe,
       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.
This sounds simply like a statement of a "perfect solution fallacy"

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.
There is a necessity to look the interesting results produced until now.
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: meberbs on 09/14/2018 01:07 pm
Thanks OnlyMe,
       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.
This sounds simply like a statement of a "perfect solution fallacy"

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.
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.

On the other hand you are trying to dismiss my post without addressing the content of it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Star One on 09/14/2018 02:40 pm
Thanks OnlyMe,
       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.
This sounds simply like a statement of a "perfect solution fallacy"

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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: SteveD on 09/14/2018 03:05 pm
Before calling it a day, I think somebody needs to trst Sawyers claim that the drive has to undergo an initial acceleration in the direction of motion.  It's a long shot, but these very accurate rigs also seem to be holding the device very still.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/14/2018 06:13 pm
I am working on a narrated version of the presentation to go on my youtube channel as the video recorded version from the workshop will not be available for several months. In the mean time, I have placed a copy on google drive for everyone to see now. Make sure you download and play from your computer so you can see the movies on slides 6, 38, 40, 42, 45, 48, & 64:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1YsxHFo-G5iARPtx_FeGQ641-3ygy6umj
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: Ricvil on 09/14/2018 06:51 pm
I'm trying to explain a possible broken of Lorentz transformations.
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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!

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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?!? :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: RotoSequence on 09/15/2018 01:36 am
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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?
Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: oyzw on 09/16/2018 12:14 pm
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?
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: meberbs on 09/16/2018 03:16 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.

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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
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.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/17/2018 05:53 am
...
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.
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.

Meantime we are all in the dark about the experimental methodology exc