Author Topic: E/M propellant-less propulsion using delayed information/dielectrics (patent)  (Read 54094 times)

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
I wanted to suggest this concept for propellant-less propulsion.  The guys that did the patent beat me me to the punch and did a good job of it.  I think the concept needs to be more widely known.  The patent is attached.  How it works is by light speed delayed information.  They suggesting using barium titanate as a dielectric to slow the rate of universe information transfer.  The patent pending was my attempt but I found theirs later.  Some of the wording is a bit off in mine and is not well thrown together (the company threw it together a bit for me and used the word electromagnetic a bit oddly I think) but still conveys the basic concept.  My figures are drawn in ms paint. 

What is interesting is their finished patent suggests the device could beat the best ion engines by orders of magnitude.  I am eager to hear if any testing can be done.  I don't see much reason for why the effect should not be there.
« Last Edit: 03/24/2015 08:39 pm by dustinthewind »

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
If this effect exists I have another concept that could possibly provide even more propulsion than this but again I am eager to see if even this effect can be shown to exist. 

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
I suppose I should mention and I didn't see much of this in the patent but you will experience increasing dB/dt emf in the layers where fuel would come out in a normal rocket and so each lower layer will have to have slightly higher voltages while the upper layers not so much work to keep the current in phase.  The important factor is keeping the current in phase as it should be.  Changes in the magnetic field will be fighting the effect and its important to monitor the current in each layer.  The electric field coming out the back should be large but I'm assuming with the dielectrics it should be low frequency radiation though classically one would imagine the electric fields stacking that may just be the intensity of the radiation out the back.  The lower frequency is important which the dielectrics make possible. 

There should also be a capacitance effect due to the AC current while charge is separated.  This effect provides propulsion in the opposite direction.  With lower frequency I think the capacitance effect should be lessened.
« Last Edit: 02/28/2015 03:59 am by dustinthewind »

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
mmm, they do cover the effects of the changing magnetic fields in the patent I suppose.  I'm just emphasizing to beware the radiation as I don't know if the radiation will correspond to em fields of high energy radiation (radiation corresponding to large electric fields) or low frequency radiation at high intensity.  If I had to guess it will be low frequency radiation. 

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
I found another physics minded fellow on youtube that apparently came across the same idea.  Here is the link to his video:

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
A scientific paper that clarifies how newtons 3rd law does not apply to the time delay of information and how it can be used for electromagnetic propulsion.  It provides a mathematical background for the time delayed magnetic fields but first illustrating how the static equations miss the effect.  https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=7136673109349846373&hl=en&as_sdt=0,48

I must appologize this paper is not what I thought it was about.   I expected two current changing loops %pi/2 out of phase and I should have noticed it was not.  :-[
« Last Edit: 03/26/2015 12:46 am by dustinthewind »

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
Some more papers for those interested in violations of newtons 3rd law.  Some examples are given of systems that violate the action reaction concept: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=2477405758829577437&hl=en&as_sdt=0,48 .  A paper specifically on utilizing it as a principle for electromagentic propulsion.  It confirms the need for the phase to be out by 90 or -90 degrees given as %pi/2 or 3*%pi/2 :  http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.06288 .  I speculate these systems play with space and time information delay and in so doing seem to push off space and time.  It also suggests the use of barium titanate as a dielectric to slow the speed of light.
« Last Edit: 03/25/2015 08:57 pm by dustinthewind »

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 665
  • Liked: 197
  • Likes Given: 16
I am not sure, but the fact noone replied to this thread yet might mean that you should have posted this on the EM Drive thread, instead of opening a new thread.

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
I am not sure, but the fact noone replied to this thread yet might mean that you should have posted this on the EM Drive thread, instead of opening a new thread.

I understand.  I suppose at the time, and I am still uncertain the two are actually related.  I didn't want to drive them off topic but I am curious if they are related.  Time should tell. 
« Last Edit: 03/26/2015 08:08 pm by dustinthewind »

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
One way of implementing this effect is I would take two cylindrical cavities with the radiation input of one cavity able to be phase shifted and amplified.  Put the two cavities flat plates next to each other so that the imaginary magnetic field (non radiating [decaying]) overlaps.  The separation would be about 1/4 lambda separation in air for the frequency chosen.  My guess is the signal of one would bleed into the other cavity which would seem to push them to be matched up in phase and not perfectly out of phase %pi/2.  They are supposed to be out of phase %pi/2 so you increase the phase and amplitude of the cavity that is working against the other till it seems they are properly out of phase 1/4 lambda with matching amplitude.  You might install a current sensor on each cavity to make sure you know the exact current phase and amplitude.  Maybe then its possible to stack the cavities on top of each other one after the other all being off in phase 0, %pi/2, %pi, 3%pi/2 ect.  I would possibly throw a dielectric between the two cavities which would change their separation thickness depending on the change in speed of light between them making the two cavities closer.  The result should be some form of force along the axial direction. 

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
Another image of the effect to assist understanding the concept.  The black loops are the currents and the colored loops are the signal that can be thought of propagating between them though they are not exactly between them for separation of signals. 

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
I wanted to make the concept more simple to understand and this is an attempt to do so.  It stems from a very simple observation of current moving in wires.  Simply put current moving the same direction in two wires will cause attraction between the wires.  Current moving in opposite direction between two wire will cause repulsion.  Now take into consideration this concept but mix in the limits of information transfer at the speed of light over a distance.  If currents are out of phase by pi/2 and separated a distance lambda/4 then it appears newtons law of momentum conservation are violated as can be seen in the images below.

The information on this thread are I believe all linked to this simple concept but it appears to not only apply to light but near field effects and possibly increased by inserting dielectrics between the currents to slow down the speed of light and decreasing distance.  Pushing off of information delay smacks of pushing off space and time and one begins to wonder if more is going on than simple light propulsion. 

Figures included below.  For simplicity please see figure , "Fig1 Simple.png" rather than "Fig1.png". 
« Last Edit: 04/23/2015 04:30 am by dustinthewind »

Offline dunt231

  • Member
  • Posts: 6
  • Netherlands
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Hey. Cool Idea. Have you tried to make a simulation of this with a computer, as in solving the maxwell equations for a bunch of times calculating the forces and such. This would be a great way to analyze dynamic effects. If it works in the simulation, you could try an experiment: Like in the video two LC circuits at a distance of 1 meter (now you can work with signals in the 100MHz-1GHz frequency range) and measure the forces on both LCs using piezos.

Offline Hanelyp

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 252
Quote
If currents are out of phase by pi/2 and separated a distance lambda/4...
The first suspicion I'd have if such an arrangement generated thrust is a photon rocket.  That description fits a well known directional antenna.

From a practical perspective a "propellantless" thruster isn't interesting unless it delivers more thrust than a photon rocket with the same power input.

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
Quote
If currents are out of phase by pi/2 and separated a distance lambda/4...
The first suspicion I'd have if such an arrangement generated thrust is a photon rocket.  That description fits a well known directional antenna.

From a practical perspective a "propellantless" thruster isn't interesting unless it delivers more thrust than a photon rocket with the same power input.

While one might assume it would just be a photon rocket that assumption may be wrong.  The paper here by Mario J. Pinheiro (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.06288v1.pdf) suggests as I suspected there should be near field effects and it is not just light providing the propulsion.  What other than light would we be pushing off?  I suspect we could end up realizing we would be pushing off the quantum vacuum, or in my own words, "we are playing with space/time energy to get push so we are pushing off space/time (what ever that is made of). 

That diagram I posted above of the two cavities.  How would that be a photon rocket?  I don't think it could be. 

Measurements of the Casimir force (http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/9911/9911062.pdf) gives us evidence of this quantum vacuum and further ideas around this quantum vacuum as a space time fluid exist that suggest it could be influenced by electromagnetism (http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9902029).  I have my suspicions but I am not convinced yet it may, or may not, be linked to the EM Drive experiments. 
« Last Edit: 05/01/2015 10:11 am by dustinthewind »

Offline CW

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 188
  • Germany
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 51
I believe that one of the greatest misconceptions is the stance that QV is nothing. Actually, if you write nothing as Zero and make an equation:

0 = X_n + (-X_n)

with index n denoting a specific phenomenon, one instantly realizes that nothing can actually also be understood as the superposition of everything and its opposite, that could possibly exist, in each specific point of the QV. That is very different from being boring old nothing.

Using the right combinations of matter, topology, timing and energy, the QV can be 'provoked' into showing phenomena that are normally not visible. Particle colliders are one example of an application that makes QV spew out particles that are normally not observable.
;)
« Last Edit: 04/30/2015 05:58 am by CW »
Reality is weirder than fiction

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
Another paper that suggest we can get forces comparable to magnetic motors from time/space phase em propulsion with near field effects.  Here is the paper below and a quote from page 9.
"Exotic Matter and Propulsion within Maxwell’s Equations

Todd J. Desiato1
, Riccardo C. Storti2
November 6, 2003 v1"
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.10.1027&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Quote: "Note that equation (4) is not the equation typically considered for EM propulsion, that is force = power c/ . This is a very week force because there is no Lorentz force coupled to the radiation emitter. For example, it’s like using a flashlight for EM propulsion.

The EGM Array produces EM propulsion that is derived from the exertion Lorentz forces on the 4-currents, not simply by the exhaust of EM radiation. This is the same principle that moves electric motors, in which the current carrying conductors are coupled to magnetic flux linkages. [16] Gradients in the flux exert Lorentz forces on the conductors to turn the motor. Reciprocity between the forces acting on each source is suppressed by engineering considerations such as proper phase control and by purposeful design.

For example, compare the thrust produced by a 1 watt flashlight to the torque produced by a 1 watt electric motor. The coupling of the 4-currents to the EM field to produce Lorentz forces does mechanical work that a radiated EM field alone cannot do.

The EGM Array is comparable to a linear electric motor and may be described as a linear Rotor with a holographic Stator. [10,16] Holographic referring to the time-varying superposition of EM fields surrounding the EGM Array, from which the Lorentz forces emerge."

This paper appears to be in agreement with the paper already cited above and listed below.

DEF: The Physical Basis of Electromagnetic Propulsion
Mario J. Pinheiro
http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.06288

Quote: page 4 "As is exposed in textbooks (see, e.g., Ref. [3]), from Eqs. 8- 9 we can obtain the electric and magnetic elds, showing terms that vary as 1=r (radiation eld), 1=r2 (induction terms), and 1=r3 (electrostatic eld terms). Therefore, as it is shown in Ref. [15], the propulsive force can result from the near- eld and=or the far- eld (radiative) mode, that is, it is not always the radiative mode of propulsion that can be useful under the point of view of practical engineering."

As stated above by Hanelyp, one worry was that the propulsion would be that of a photon rocket.  However this should not be the case.  We have the potential to see much larger forces with the correct engineering.  It is my suspicion that this may be what is also occurring in the EM drive if it actually works but due to the obscurity of what is actually happening inside it can't yet be confirmed.  It is possible it is not yet taking full advantage of the maximum potential that can be achieved. 

As stated in the top quoted article and others, there is the possibility of connections to this type of propulsion and manipulating space and time with EM.   

How Electrodynamics with Statistical Mechanics
Can Imply Gravitation
Cynthia Kolb Whitney
Editor, Galilean Electrodynamics
http://worldnpa.org/abstracts/abstracts_7185.pdf

Archimedes’ Principle and Gravitational Levitation
Charles T. Ridgely
Fullerton, CA
http://ridgely.ws/inertia/Ridgely-Archimedes.pdf
« Last Edit: 05/10/2015 05:10 pm by dustinthewind »

Offline laszlo

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 205
  • Liked: 230
  • Likes Given: 47
Papers are great, patents are meaningless (you can patent anything - in June of 2000 someone received a patent for toasting bread) so I'm holding out for the working model. When are you building one?

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3875
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2594
  • Likes Given: 3344
You can't get a propellantless drive with known physics.  It's true that known physics might be wrong in places and that might allow propellantless propulsion.  But not with known physics.

All of known physics has been mathematically shown to always conserve momentum and energy, and you can't get around that with a quantum vacuum.  The quantum vacuum is part of known physics, and it is known that there's no way to transfer momentum to or from the quantum vacuum.

So all everything mentioned on this thread is nonsense.  None of it is based on new physics, it's all misunderstanding of the details of known physics.

There's no need to read any of the papers to know this, any more than it's necessary to read a paper claiming to show pi is rational.  Once you have a mathematical proof of something, there's no need to read through the details of claiming something that contradicts that.  And these propellantless propulsion ideas are all in that category since they are all based on known physics.

A photon drive is not propellantless since the photons carry momentum.  Photon drives have huge Isp but very, very tiny energy efficiency, and nothing that only emits photons can do better (or worse) than any photon drive.

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
You can't get a propellantless drive with known physics.  It's true that known physics might be wrong in places and that might allow propellantless propulsion.  But not with known physics.

All of known physics has been mathematically shown to always conserve momentum and energy, and you can't get around that with a quantum vacuum.  The quantum vacuum is part of known physics, and it is known that there's no way to transfer momentum to or from the quantum vacuum.

So all everything mentioned on this thread is nonsense.  None of it is based on new physics, it's all misunderstanding of the details of known physics.

There's no need to read any of the papers to know this, any more than it's necessary to read a paper claiming to show pi is rational.  Once you have a mathematical proof of something, there's no need to read through the details of claiming something that contradicts that.  And these propellantless propulsion ideas are all in that category since they are all based on known physics.

A photon drive is not propellantless since the photons carry momentum.  Photon drives have huge Isp but very, very tiny energy efficiency, and nothing that only emits photons can do better (or worse) than any photon drive.

I don't think I would want to be on record stating that it's impossible.  There are a lot more papers than these that support the concept.  One device built demonstrates the concept of effective negative mass.  http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v9/n12/full/nphys2777.html  Were also not talking photon drives here.  Were talking that information can't travel faster than light and that can be manipulated to violate conservation of momentum. 

@ laszlo This thread was started to encourage those who would like to build one.  Are you interested? 
« Last Edit: 05/10/2015 08:27 pm by dustinthewind »

Offline Nilof

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 968
  • Liked: 409
  • Likes Given: 565

I don't think I would want to be on record stating that it's impossible.  There are a lot more papers than these that support the concept.  One device built demonstrates the concept of effective negative mass.  http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v9/n12/full/nphys2777.html  Were also not talking photon drives here.  Were talking that information can't travel faster than light and that can be manipulated to violate conservation of momentum. 

@ laszlo This thread was started to encourage those who would like to build one.  Are you interested?

A system with fixed a lattice background is not invariant under small translations, hence momentum is not conserved. This is because you'd typically ignore the momentum of the atoms in the lattice. It is much like how assuming that the earth or the sun is stationary will also approximate away momentum conservation, but you get it back if you start including the Earth's or the sun's momentum as well.

Free space does have translation invariance, so momentum is conserved by Noether's theorem. The latter is more fundamental than any single conservation law and will tell you exactly when and why things like energy and momentum are conserved.

Is there any way that the multiple threads on reactionless thrusters could be somehow merged or thinned out somehow? There are now four threads on the first page that discuss crackpot propulsion, which is starting to get on my nerves.
« Last Edit: 05/10/2015 09:34 pm by Nilof »
For a variable Isp spacecraft running at constant power and constant acceleration, the mass ratio is linear in delta-v.   Δv = ve0(MR-1). Or equivalently: Δv = vef PMF. Also, this is energy-optimal for a fixed delta-v and mass ratio.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3875
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2594
  • Likes Given: 3344
Is there any way that the multiple threads on reactionless thrusters could be somehow merged or thinned out somehow? There are now four threads on the first page that discuss crackpot propulsion, which is starting to get on my nerves.

I think the problem is that some of the people who believe the crackpot propulsion stuff are very prolific posters, so these threads tend to stay high on the recent activity list.

Offline _INTER_

  • Member
  • Posts: 24
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 7
Quote
You can't get a propellantless drive with known physics.  It's true that known physics might be wrong in places and that might allow propellantless propulsion.  But not with known physics.
I did not read much of this thread and I'm totally not knowledgeable in physics at all, but to me it always looks funny when inventions or concepts first need to be proven on the drawing boards (or heads) of the mathematicians and physicists first to receive remote attention and even then it's hard, like the Higgs idea. However if it's the other way around they always tell you that it's impossible and deserves no further thought etc. In the end if the idea worked out, the physicists are dumbfounded and desperate the "bend" the math around until convinced they actually knew how it worked all along.
« Last Edit: 05/10/2015 09:58 pm by _INTER_ »

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3875
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2594
  • Likes Given: 3344
Quote
You can't get a propellantless drive with known physics.  It's true that known physics might be wrong in places and that might allow propellantless propulsion.  But not with known physics.
I did not read much of this thread and I'm totally not knowledgeable in physics at all, but to me it always looks funny when inventions or concepts first need to be proven on the drawing boards (or heads) of the mathematicians and physicists first to receive remote attention and even then it's hard, like the Higgs idea. However if it's the other way around they always tell you that it's impossible and deserves no further thought etc. In the end if the idea worked out, the physicists are dumbfounded and desperate the "bend" the math around until convinced they actually knew how it worked all along.

You completely missed my point.  If an experiment shows something doesn't work according to known physics, then known physics will have to be reconsidered.

But nothing on this thread is about anomalous experimental results that contradict known theory.  Instead, it's about people who have done calculations based on misunderstanding of known theory to say that known theory predicts a device will work in a way that it has been mathematically proven is not the way known theory would actually say it would work.

Offline laszlo

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 205
  • Liked: 230
  • Likes Given: 47
@ laszlo This thread was started to encourage those who would like to build one.  Are you interested?

Love to, but first I need to accumulate enough copper and find that special platinum isotope :-)

Seriously, though, who wouldn't want to build their own propellantless space drive? Unfortunately, I don't see enough information to get started on designing hardware.

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
Is there any way that the multiple threads on reactionless thrusters could be somehow merged or thinned out somehow? There are now four threads on the first page that discuss crackpot propulsion, which is starting to get on my nerves.

I think the problem is that some of the people who believe the crackpot propulsion stuff are very prolific posters, so these threads tend to stay high on the recent activity list.

Replying to them keeps them at the top as well.  That is assuming you think this is one of them [crackpot threads].  I admit it doesn't necessarily violate conservation of momentum but there are plenty of people who will claim it does if they feel its not pushing off propellant and the force seems greater than simply light based propulsion.  [if you don't know what it's pushing off exactly than it might appear that way]. 

Apparently the drive would be classified by in this document as either a "diametric drive" or a "dis-junction drive". 

The Challenge To Create The Space Drive
Marc G. Millis
NASA Glenn Research Center
http://u2.lege.net/cetinbal/SPACEDRIVE.HTM

Quote: "Disjunction Drive

The fourth type of hypothetical field drive, as illustrated in Fig. 7, entertains the possibility that the source of a field and that which reacts to a field can be separated. By displacing them in space, the reactant is shifted to a point where the field has a slope, thus producing reaction forces between the source and the reactant. It is assumed that the source and reactant are held apart by some sort of rigid device.

Obviously, a critical issue of this scheme is whether the field’s source is a separate entity from that which reacts to a field. This perspective is similar to that used in the analysis of the properties of negative mass. [12] In the course of examining the nature of hypothesized negative mass, three different masses can be distinguished: the "source mass," "reactant mass," and "inertial mass." Although these distinctions were made to classically analyze the behavior of negative mass, they do invite speculation. Could either a "source" or "reactant" mass be mimicked through some coupling between gravity, electromagnetism and spacetime? If so, the propulsive effect suggested above may be possible. This is unknown at this time."

Quote: "Diametric Drive

This is directly analogous to the "negative mass" propulsion suggested by Bondi 12, Winterberg 13 and Forward. 14 The diametric drive can also be considered analogous to creating a pressure source and sink in a space medium as suggested previously with the Induction Sail.

Negative mass propulsion is not a new concept. It has already been shown that is theoretically possible to create a continuously propulsive effect by the juxtaposition of negative and positive mass 12 and that such a scheme does not violate conservation of momentum or energy. 14"

This paper below appears to be a working experiment, http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v9/n12/full/nphys2777.html
« Last Edit: 05/11/2015 01:56 am by dustinthewind »

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3875
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2594
  • Likes Given: 3344
Is there any way that the multiple threads on reactionless thrusters could be somehow merged or thinned out somehow? There are now four threads on the first page that discuss crackpot propulsion, which is starting to get on my nerves.

I think the problem is that some of the people who believe the crackpot propulsion stuff are very prolific posters, so these threads tend to stay high on the recent activity list.

Replying to them keeps them at the top as well.  That is assuming you think this is one of them [crackpot threads].  I admit it doesn't necessarily violate conservation of momentum but there are plenty of people who will claim it does if they feel its not pushing off propellant and the force seems greater than simply light based propulsion.  [if you don't know what it's pushing off exactly than it might appear that way]. 

Apparently the drive would be classified by in this document as either a "diametric drive" or a "dis-junction drive". 

The Challenge To Create The Space Drive
Marc G. Millis
NASA Glenn Research Center
http://u2.lege.net/cetinbal/SPACEDRIVE.HTM

Quote: "Disjunction Drive

The fourth type of hypothetical field drive, as illustrated in Fig. 7, entertains the possibility that the source of a field and that which reacts to a field can be separated. By displacing them in space, the reactant is shifted to a point where the field has a slope, thus producing reaction forces between the source and the reactant. It is assumed that the source and reactant are held apart by some sort of rigid device.

Obviously, a critical issue of this scheme is whether the field’s source is a separate entity from that which reacts to a field. This perspective is similar to that used in the analysis of the properties of negative mass. [12] In the course of examining the nature of hypothesized negative mass, three different masses can be distinguished: the "source mass," "reactant mass," and "inertial mass." Although these distinctions were made to classically analyze the behavior of negative mass, they do invite speculation. Could either a "source" or "reactant" mass be mimicked through some coupling between gravity, electromagnetism and spacetime? If so, the propulsive effect suggested above may be possible. This is unknown at this time."

Quote: "Diametric Drive

This is directly analogous to the "negative mass" propulsion suggested by Bondi 12, Winterberg 13 and Forward. 14 The diametric drive can also be considered analogous to creating a pressure source and sink in a space medium as suggested previously with the Induction Sail.

Negative mass propulsion is not a new concept. It has already been shown that is theoretically possible to create a continuously propulsive effect by the juxtaposition of negative and positive mass 12 and that such a scheme does not violate conservation of momentum or energy. 14"

This paper below appears to be a working experiment, http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v9/n12/full/nphys2777.html .

You're just misunderstanding the paper.  They're not claiming they're getting actual propulsion in free space.  They're talking about photons moving through a lattice, which has some fundamentally different properties than free space, as mentioned upthread.

Of course with negative mass you can have an object that can accelerate without applying an external force without violating conservation of momentum -- just have your object include equal amounts of positive and negative mass and no matter how fast it's moving, it will have zero momentum because it has zero net mass.  It's an obvious result, and a completely useless one, because there's no reason at all to believe there is any way to physically get negative mass.

Any kind of matter with negative mass falls into the category of new physics.  It's silly to believe some kind of new physics just because it lets you do something you want to do instead of because there's experimental evidence for it.

It's also extremely silly to be designing devices to use new physics without doing the experimental physics to establish the proposed new physics is actually right.

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
The drive would be classified by in this document as either a "diametric drive" or a "dis-junction drive". 

The Challenge To Create The Space Drive
Marc G. Millis
NASA Glenn Research Center
http://u2.lege.net/cetinbal/SPACEDRIVE.HTM

Quote: "Disjunction Drive

The fourth type of hypothetical field drive, as illustrated in Fig. 7, entertains the possibility that the source of a field and that which reacts to a field can be separated. By displacing them in space, the reactant is shifted to a point where the field has a slope, thus producing reaction forces between the source and the reactant. It is assumed that the source and reactant are held apart by some sort of rigid device.

Obviously, a critical issue of this scheme is whether the field’s source is a separate entity from that which reacts to a field. This perspective is similar to that used in the analysis of the properties of negative mass. [12] In the course of examining the nature of hypothesized negative mass, three different masses can be distinguished: the "source mass," "reactant mass," and "inertial mass." Although these distinctions were made to classically analyze the behavior of negative mass, they do invite speculation. Could either a "source" or "reactant" mass be mimicked through some coupling between gravity, electromagnetism and spacetime? If so, the propulsive effect suggested above may be possible. This is unknown at this time."

Quote: "Diametric Drive

This is directly analogous to the "negative mass" propulsion suggested by Bondi 12, Winterberg 13 and Forward. 14 The diametric drive can also be considered analogous to creating a pressure source and sink in a space medium as suggested previously with the Induction Sail.

Negative mass propulsion is not a new concept. It has already been shown that is theoretically possible to create a continuously propulsive effect by the juxtaposition of negative and positive mass 12 and that such a scheme does not violate conservation of momentum or energy. 14"

This paper below appears to be a working experiment, http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v9/n12/full/nphys2777.html .

You're just misunderstanding the paper.  They're not claiming they're getting actual propulsion in free space.  They're talking about photons moving through a lattice, which has some fundamentally different properties than free space, as mentioned upthread.

Of course with negative mass you can have an object that can accelerate without applying an external force without violating conservation of momentum -- just have your object include equal amounts of positive and negative mass and no matter how fast it's moving, it will have zero momentum because it has zero net mass.  It's an obvious result, and a completely useless one, because there's no reason at all to believe there is any way to physically get negative mass.

Any kind of matter with negative mass falls into the category of new physics.  It's silly to believe some kind of new physics just because it lets you do something you want to do instead of because there's experimental evidence for it.

It's also extremely silly to be designing devices to use new physics without doing the experimental physics to establish the proposed new physics is actually right.

While the paper does deal with light in a mesh, still they are dealing with acceleration.  Quote of title: "Optical diametric drive acceleration through action–reaction symmetry breaking".  They use the same concept to accelerate by using phase modulation. 

Further the drive doesn't use "real negative mass" but rather effective negative mass.  The light doing negative work doesn't have negative mass but rather "effective negative mass" and seems to attract rather than push [eg. when 2 currents move in the same direction or when working against the electric field of light].  I am willing to bet another example might be optical tweezers. 

quote from the abstract: "Newton’s third law of motion is one of the pillars of classical physics. This fundamental principle states that the forces two bodies exert on each other are equal and opposite. Had the resulting accelerations been oriented in the same direction, this would have instead led to a counterintuitive phenomenon, that of diametric drive1. In such a hypothetical arrangement, two interacting particles constantly accelerate each other in the same direction through a violation of the action–reaction symmetry. Although in classical mechanics any realization of this process requires one of the two particles to have a negative mass and hence is strictly forbidden, it could nevertheless be feasible in periodic structures where the effective mass can also attain a negative sign"

They are not the exact same concept but are related like cousins. 
« Last Edit: 05/13/2015 02:59 am by dustinthewind »

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1340
  • Liked: 238
  • Likes Given: 92
well the wave forms in which these apparent negative conditions exist travel the negative bit and the much larger positive bit move along but are followed by more negative bits and of course more positive bits. effectively overtime you have a ribbon of negative and positive energy. in regular things of this nature you can make a flat motor or in the case of a ring a regular motor.

I have already commented elsewhere on the optical diametric drive article on this perhaps being a way to create that negative mass energy shell needed for a warp effect or a wormhole effect; in duration and geometry if not in quantity. but it should be possible to "play with" (meaning to experiment with) some of the ideas inherent in alcubiere like space systems and wormhole apertures using the diametric drive rings. I don't think you could open up a full alcubierre metric or a real wormhole. but maybe you could measure a deflection of photons or maybe tiny pellets with a unambigous positive signal so we aren't perpetually fighting arguments about spurious measurements.
« Last Edit: 05/13/2015 03:53 am by Stormbringer »
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3875
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2594
  • Likes Given: 3344
The drive would be classified by in this document as either a "diametric drive" or a "dis-junction drive". 

The Challenge To Create The Space Drive
Marc G. Millis
NASA Glenn Research Center
http://u2.lege.net/cetinbal/SPACEDRIVE.HTM

Quote: "Disjunction Drive

The fourth type of hypothetical field drive, as illustrated in Fig. 7, entertains the possibility that the source of a field and that which reacts to a field can be separated. By displacing them in space, the reactant is shifted to a point where the field has a slope, thus producing reaction forces between the source and the reactant. It is assumed that the source and reactant are held apart by some sort of rigid device.

Obviously, a critical issue of this scheme is whether the field’s source is a separate entity from that which reacts to a field. This perspective is similar to that used in the analysis of the properties of negative mass. [12] In the course of examining the nature of hypothesized negative mass, three different masses can be distinguished: the "source mass," "reactant mass," and "inertial mass." Although these distinctions were made to classically analyze the behavior of negative mass, they do invite speculation. Could either a "source" or "reactant" mass be mimicked through some coupling between gravity, electromagnetism and spacetime? If so, the propulsive effect suggested above may be possible. This is unknown at this time."

Quote: "Diametric Drive

This is directly analogous to the "negative mass" propulsion suggested by Bondi 12, Winterberg 13 and Forward. 14 The diametric drive can also be considered analogous to creating a pressure source and sink in a space medium as suggested previously with the Induction Sail.

Negative mass propulsion is not a new concept. It has already been shown that is theoretically possible to create a continuously propulsive effect by the juxtaposition of negative and positive mass 12 and that such a scheme does not violate conservation of momentum or energy. 14"

This paper below appears to be a working experiment, http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v9/n12/full/nphys2777.html .

You're just misunderstanding the paper.  They're not claiming they're getting actual propulsion in free space.  They're talking about photons moving through a lattice, which has some fundamentally different properties than free space, as mentioned upthread.

Of course with negative mass you can have an object that can accelerate without applying an external force without violating conservation of momentum -- just have your object include equal amounts of positive and negative mass and no matter how fast it's moving, it will have zero momentum because it has zero net mass.  It's an obvious result, and a completely useless one, because there's no reason at all to believe there is any way to physically get negative mass.

Any kind of matter with negative mass falls into the category of new physics.  It's silly to believe some kind of new physics just because it lets you do something you want to do instead of because there's experimental evidence for it.

It's also extremely silly to be designing devices to use new physics without doing the experimental physics to establish the proposed new physics is actually right.

While the paper does deal with light in a mesh, still they are dealing with acceleration.  Quote of title: "Optical diametric drive acceleration through action–reaction symmetry breaking".  They use the same concept to accelerate by using phase modulation. 

Further the drive doesn't use "real negative mass" but rather effective negative mass.  The light doing negative work doesn't have negative mass but rather "effective negative mass" and seems to attract rather than push [eg. when 2 currents move in the same direction or when working against the electric field of light].  I am willing to bet another example might be optical tweezers. 

quote from the abstract: "Newton’s third law of motion is one of the pillars of classical physics. This fundamental principle states that the forces two bodies exert on each other are equal and opposite. Had the resulting accelerations been oriented in the same direction, this would have instead led to a counterintuitive phenomenon, that of diametric drive1. In such a hypothetical arrangement, two interacting particles constantly accelerate each other in the same direction through a violation of the action–reaction symmetry. Although in classical mechanics any realization of this process requires one of the two particles to have a negative mass and hence is strictly forbidden, it could nevertheless be feasible in periodic structures where the effective mass can also attain a negative sign"

They are not the exact same concept but are related like cousins.

You're still missing the main point -- that an "effective" negative mass in a mesh doesn't help you get a real negative mass in free space.

Really, the "effective negative mass" they're talking about just means "lower mass than the surrounding medium".  It's fundamentally no different than saying a ship has negative mass in water and that's a way to get anti-gravity.  It's true, relative to the medium of water, the ship does have negative mass, and it does get pushed away from the center of the Earth because of that.  But it is not a path forward for making a space drive.  It's a fundamental property of the medium -- water, in this case -- and the effect cannot exist outside that medium.

You quote most of the abstract of the Nature paper, but you leave out the most important part, the last sentence of the abstract, which tells you why the authors think this is important.  Here is that last sentence of the abstract:

Quote
The demonstrated reversal of action–reaction symmetry could enable altogether new possibilities for frequency conversion and pulse-steering applications.

In other words, the paper's authors think it's an interesting result because it might be useful for steering photons and doing other operations on photons.  There's no mention of a space drive.  If that paper really did have implications for propellantless propulsion, why wouldn't the authors of the paper mention that?  It would certainly be far, far more significant than the mundane applications they do mention about steering photons.

The reason the paper's authors don't mention space drives is that they know full well this has nothing to do with propulsion in free space.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3875
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2594
  • Likes Given: 3344
well the wave forms in which these apparent negative conditions exist travel the negative bit and the much larger positive bit move along but are followed by more negative bits and of course more positive bits. effectively overtime you have a ribbon of negative and positive energy. in regular things of this nature you can make a flat motor or in the case of a ring a regular motor.

I have already commented elsewhere on the optical diametric drive article on this perhaps being a way to create that negative mass energy shell needed for a warp effect or a wormhole effect; in duration and geometry if not in quantity. but it should be possible to "play with" (meaning to experiment with) some of the ideas inherent in alcubiere like space systems and wormhole apertures using the diametric drive rings. I don't think you could open up a full alcubierre metric or a real wormhole. but maybe you could measure a deflection of photons or maybe tiny pellets with a unambigous positive signal so we aren't perpetually fighting arguments about spurious measurements.

No, it's not a way to create negative mass in free space.  By "negative effective mass" what they mean is less mass than the surrounding medium.

Anyway, it's been shown that even negative mass isn't enough to get an Alcubierre Drive working.  You also need to get the negative mass up to faster-than-light speed.  All the Aclubierre Drive really does is says if you already have the right configuration of positive and negative mass moving faster than light, it will continue moving faster than light, and there will be a region of normal space in the middle that it drags along.  That's all.

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1340
  • Liked: 238
  • Likes Given: 92
i don't see the difference between relatively negative energy or mass and the theoretical kind. i think you should be able to treat the differential as real because...

 I am having difficulty conveying my exact meaning here.  The region in which the value of energy conditions is different than adjacent regions should result in an equivalent effect on space time.
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
...
This paper below appears to be a working experiment, http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v9/n12/full/nphys2777.html .

You're just misunderstanding the paper.  They're not claiming they're getting actual propulsion in free space.  They're talking about photons moving through a lattice, which has some fundamentally different properties than free space, as mentioned upthread.

Of course with negative mass you can have an object that can accelerate without applying an external force without violating conservation of momentum -- just have your object include equal amounts of positive and negative mass and no matter how fast it's moving, it will have zero momentum because it has zero net mass.  It's an obvious result, and a completely useless one, because there's no reason at all to believe there is any way to physically get negative mass.

Any kind of matter with negative mass falls into the category of new physics.  It's silly to believe some kind of new physics just because it lets you do something you want to do instead of because there's experimental evidence for it.

It's also extremely silly to be designing devices to use new physics without doing the experimental physics to establish the proposed new physics is actually right.

While the paper does deal with light in a mesh, still they are dealing with acceleration.  Quote of title: "Optical diametric drive acceleration through action–reaction symmetry breaking".  They use the same concept to accelerate by using phase modulation. 

Further the drive doesn't use "real negative mass" but rather effective negative mass.  The light doing negative work doesn't have negative mass but rather "effective negative mass" and seems to attract rather than push [eg. when 2 currents move in the same direction or when working against the electric field of light].  I am willing to bet another example might be optical tweezers. 

quote from the abstract: "...this process requires one of the two particles to have a negative mass and hence is strictly forbidden, it could nevertheless be feasible in periodic structures where the effective mass can also attain a negative sign"

They are not the exact same concept but are related like cousins.

You're still missing the main point -- that an "effective" negative mass in a mesh doesn't help you get a real negative mass in free space.

Dustinthewind: Think of action and reaction.  If two magnets pull together for example.  Symmetry breaking on the other hand messes that up.  How do you do that?  Do magnetic fields travel faster than light?  no.  Do changes in the magnetic field always push? Not if the current of the observer does work against the electric field of light.  If you get the phase relation just right between two observers currents you get Symmetry breaking.

Really, the "effective negative mass" they're talking about just means "lower mass than the surrounding medium".  It's fundamentally no different than saying a ship has negative mass in water and that's a way to get anti-gravity.  It's true, relative to the medium of water, the ship does have negative mass, and it does get pushed away from the center of the Earth because of that.  But it is not a path forward for making a space drive.  It's a fundamental property of the medium -- water, in this case -- and the effect cannot exist outside that medium.

Dustinthewind: The medium is space and time [information delay] and electromagnetism. 

You quote most of the abstract of the Nature paper, but you leave out the most important part, the last sentence of the abstract, which tells you why the authors think this is important.  Here is that last sentence of the abstract:

Quote
The demonstrated reversal of action–reaction symmetry could enable altogether new possibilities for frequency conversion and pulse-steering applications.

In other words, the paper's authors think it's an interesting result because it might be useful for steering photons and doing other operations on photons.  There's no mention of a space drive.  If that paper really did have implications for propellantless propulsion, why wouldn't the authors of the paper mention that?  It would certainly be far, far more significant than the mundane applications they do mention about steering photons.

The reason the paper's authors don't mention space drives is that they know full well this has nothing to do with propulsion in free space.

Dustinthewind: Maybe they didn't give it much thought in particular, maybe they don't think it does, or maybe they didn't wan't to open up that can of worms just yet.  :-\
« Last Edit: 05/13/2015 07:00 am by dustinthewind »

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3875
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2594
  • Likes Given: 3344
You're still missing the main point -- that an "effective" negative mass in a mesh doesn't help you get a real negative mass in free space.

Think of action and reaction.  If two magnets pull together for example.  Symmetry breaking on the other hand messes that up.  How do you do that?  Do magnetic fields travel faster than light?  no.  Do changes in the magnetic field always push? Not if the current of the observer does work against the electric field of light.  If you get the phase relation just right between two observers currents you get Symmetry breaking.

Nothing you've said here has anything at all to do with my point.

Really, the "effective negative mass" they're talking about just means "lower mass than the surrounding medium".  It's fundamentally no different than saying a ship has negative mass in water and that's a way to get anti-gravity.  It's true, relative to the medium of water, the ship does have negative mass, and it does get pushed away from the center of the Earth because of that.  But it is not a path forward for making a space drive.  It's a fundamental property of the medium -- water, in this case -- and the effect cannot exist outside that medium.

The medium is space and time [information delay] and electromagnetism.

Space and time are not a medium in the sense the lattice is.  Electromagnetism is not a medium in the sense the lattice is.  They are fundamentally different.

People used to think of space and time as a medium.  Then Einstein pointed out that Relativity explains our observations of the universe better.  Relativity has a lot to say about why empty space is fundamentally different from a lattice.

You quote most of the abstract of the Nature paper, but you leave out the most important part, the last sentence of the abstract, which tells you why the authors think this is important.  Here is that last sentence of the abstract:

Quote
The demonstrated reversal of action–reaction symmetry could enable altogether new possibilities for frequency conversion and pulse-steering applications.

In other words, the paper's authors think it's an interesting result because it might be useful for steering photons and doing other operations on photons.  There's no mention of a space drive.  If that paper really did have implications for propellantless propulsion, why wouldn't the authors of the paper mention that?  It would certainly be far, far more significant than the mundane applications they do mention about steering photons.

The reason the paper's authors don't mention space drives is that they know full well this has nothing to do with propulsion in free space.

Maybe they didn't give it much thought in particular, maybe they don't think it does, or maybe they didn't wan't to open up that can of worms just yet.  :-\

Seriously, you should realize how delusional that sounds.  You think you see revolutionary implications in a paper that never occurred to the authors.  Or you have some sort of conspiratorial world view that scientists can't tell the truth out of fear.  If they feared pointing out the implications for space travel, why would they publish in the first place?  You think that somehow they're publishing and yet somehow hoping the people they fear don't notice the implications you think are obvious?

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8829
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3829
  • Likes Given: 916
Remember when this forum was about stuff that flies in space?
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
well the wave forms in which these apparent negative conditions exist travel the negative bit and the much larger positive bit move along but are followed by more negative bits and of course more positive bits. effectively overtime you have a ribbon of negative and positive energy. in regular things of this nature you can make a flat motor or in the case of a ring a regular motor.

I have already commented elsewhere on the optical diametric drive article on this perhaps being a way to create that negative mass energy shell needed for a warp effect or a wormhole effect; in duration and geometry if not in quantity. but it should be possible to "play with" (meaning to experiment with) some of the ideas inherent in alcubiere like space systems and wormhole apertures using the diametric drive rings. I don't think you could open up a full alcubierre metric or a real wormhole. but maybe you could measure a deflection of photons or maybe tiny pellets with a unambigous positive signal so we aren't perpetually fighting arguments about spurious measurements.

I don't think the drive if it works could move faster than light.  Even in the article they state at one point the mass the particles increasing {if i remember right} suggesting the light speed limit as mass approaches infinity.  I was just hoping for something competitive with the ion engine.   

I suppose one can think that by reducing the effective energy in an area you might lower the dielectric constant of free space changing the speed of light, maybe though not in a locally measured sense but rather non-local (outside observer).  Between Casimir plates for example.  There was an engineer that talked in a video they had on the EM thread that I can't find [about space flight] where he talks about an object under the influence of a low dielectric constant of space time (negative gravity) that has reduced mass and could move faster than light and had its infrared up-shifted to visible light ect (time passes by faster).  It struck me as a ship existing in the hill of the Alcubierre drive where as the Alcubierre drive had the ship passengers existing in the flat part of space with the pumps in the region between the negative and positive dips. 

I have toyed with the idea that by manipulating space and time by information delay and considering near field effects greater than radiation.  Maybe, we might end up pushing against space and time making those regions of low and high pressure in space seen on the Alcubierre plot... maybe.  If so, you should be able to measure it with an accurate clock, if there were such a field in the vicinity.  Time runs slower on earth for instance.  It would be a dip in the plot of space time.  A rise in the plot being negative gravity and speeding up time.  The Alcubierre drive being a gravity drive. 
« Last Edit: 05/13/2015 07:42 am by dustinthewind »

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315

Maybe they didn't give it much thought in particular, maybe they don't think it does, or maybe they didn't wan't to open up that can of worms just yet.  :-\

Seriously, you should realize how delusional that sounds.  You think you see revolutionary implications in a paper that never occurred to the authors.  Or you have some sort of conspiratorial world view that scientists can't tell the truth out of fear.  If they feared pointing out the implications for space travel, why would they publish in the first place?  You think that somehow they're publishing and yet somehow hoping the people they fear don't notice the implications you think are obvious?

Your kinda rude.  I made no assumptions about what their reasons were.  Hence the  :-\ symbol.  I try not to jump to conclusions about that.  Maybe they don't think it' impossible or maybe they do. 

All I am proposing is that it might be interesting to test if it will work (the patent or the dual cavities). 
« Last Edit: 05/14/2015 03:37 am by dustinthewind »

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
OK, ignoring everything else, (especially the dual cavities, it won't work unless using dielectrics maybe.)  all I am really interested in is, if this patent attached blow my message and posted at the beginning of this thread for some reason would not work.  I get the impression it would work.  It is based on "time retarded signals between wires".  The patent even gives illustration of the time retarded signals in a diagram of two wires experiencing a unidirectional force with 3 oscilloscopes near by.  If you "read through the patent", the author appears to be aware, that for a phased array antenna, the magnetic force works against the electric force.   The author of the patent appears to have solved the problem so that the electric force works with the magnetic force. 

I am only interested in clear scientific ideas on why this patent would or would not work.  Currently I don't see why it wouldn't work.  Objections like, "all you would get are photon propulsion" are unfounded without proof or testing, as it could be for some unknown reason it might induce spontaneous particle creation similar to the time retarded Casmir force with a vibrating mirror for all we know (Or the dynamic Casimir force via a superconducting circuit which has been done).  Another possibility is some underlying link to manipulation of space time via EM fields which actually DavidWaiteMSPhysics appears to touch on in some of his videos.  Some of the other papers in this thread by Todd Desiato and/or Mario Pinheiro or The youtube video by DavidwaiteMSPhysics at the beginning of this thread are along the same lines.  Todd gets into the idea of modifying the gradient of the Casimir force via radiation which is what is considered to push to plates together.  The patent states that the forces achievable are that of the attraction of two DC magnets but "unidirectional" in force. 

The theory is classical but time retarded and easy to understand and test.  Is there any reason this isn't achievable?  Does anyone know of anyone who has tested this concept?  See the attached video to get a simple gist of the effect. 



Currently I would say this concept is detached from the EM drive as the EM drive doesn't have any solidly proven working theory and there is still effort to show if there can be a force from the device, so I am keeping this thread separate.     

By the way, a simple phased array antenna won't work.  There needs to be engineering so that the "time retarded" magnetic force works with the "time retarded" electric force and that they don't work against each other.
« Last Edit: 12/09/2015 05:46 am by dustinthewind »

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3049
  • 92129
  • Liked: 827
  • Likes Given: 293
Very interesting ...
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2719
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 1486
  • Likes Given: 1126
I watched the video and he is concentrating on what happens to the top circuit, not the whole system.

The top circuit at t=d/c "sees" the bottom at t=0 and the identical magnetic charges repel. That means both the top and bottom try to move away from each other, not just the top moving up.

The bottom circuit at t=d/c "sees" the top circuit at t=0 and the opposite electrical charges attract. That means both the top and bottom try to move towards each other, not just the bottom moving up.

The forces between the two circuits alternate between repelling and attracting each other. These forces cancel and result in a net force of zero.

It doesn't work.

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
I watched the video and he is concentrating on what happens to the top circuit, not the whole system.

The top circuit at t=d/c "sees" the bottom at t=0 and the identical magnetic charges repel. That means both the top and bottom try to move away from each other, not just the top moving up.

The bottom circuit at t=d/c "sees" the top circuit at t=0 and the opposite electrical charges attract. That means both the top and bottom try to move towards each other, not just the bottom moving up.

The forces between the two circuits alternate between repelling and attracting each other. These forces cancel and result in a net force of zero.

It doesn't work.

I am afraid you are mistaken.  If you follow the diagram you have to look into the past.  The top circuit interacts with the bottom circuit in the past.  Likewise the bottom circuit interacts with the top circuit in the past.  You have to make a criss cross pattern when considering the circuit interactions.  If you do it properly you should observe that the top circuit is always repelled and the bottom circuit is always attracted.  This takes advantage of two principles.  Information is not instantaneous and by reversing the normal electromagnetic interaction of a straight line current.  (this isn't a normal phased array antenna.)

I will go through this step by step considering first the bottom circuit. 

*Not until time step t=d/c does anything happen because it takes time for information to travel after things turn on.  At this point the bottom circuit's positive charge pole is attracted to the top circuits negative pole.

*bottom circuit t=2*d/c the bottom circuit's south pole is attracted to the top circuit's north pole. 

*bottom circuit t=3*d/c the bottom circuit is attracted by the top circuits positive pole. 

*and the pattern repeats for future time steps.

*top circuit - t=d/c is repelled by the north pole of the circuit below. 

*top circuit - t=2*d/c is repelled by the positive charge of the circuit below. 

*top circuit - t=3*d/c is repelled by the south pole of the circuit below. 

...
Thanks for the inquiry as it helps me clarify for everyone who might have a question. 
« Last Edit: 12/09/2015 11:15 pm by dustinthewind »

Online meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2010
  • Liked: 1959
  • Likes Given: 445
The patent doesn't use any equations, and only describes qualitative effects. In addition, it is a patent, which means it is full of claims, most of which it provides no support for.

To start with, I need to clarify some things about antennas. The math to support what I am saying can be found in undergrad textbooks. I can provide references if necessary. All accelerating charges produce radiation. This means that anything that has time varying currents radiates. Many antennas such as a single straight wire with oscillating currents will radiate symmetrically. If you bring multiple such antennas near each other and offset the phases just right, it creates a directional beam. This works because of the time delay of the speed of light combined with the offset of their phases makes the radiation in some directions cancel, and other directions add. (Some energy will still go in other directions, but there will be a net asymmetry.) Since photons have momentum, the antenna system will experience a force directed away from the main beam. This will have the efficiency of a photon rocket.

Now to get to this claim.  I will focus on the example they give with 2 straight wires. These are 2 antennas with offset phases set at a specified distance this is a phased array, so we expect it to accelerate. The discussion they do with the magnetic force has nothing wrong with it, and produces an acceleration just like expected. They ignore the electric field that would be generated from the changing magnetic field. I think this is actually ok, due to the direction the E field ends up in, but they should have at least commented on it. (I don't have the time to work out the E field exactly) If you calculate the value for the force generated, you will find it to just be a (less efficient due to poor overall control of energy direction) photon rocket.

After this, they hand wave that using a coil plus a dielectric magically makes it many orders of magnitude more efficient. I saw no supporting evidence for this at all. If designed right, coils instead of straight antennas might be more space efficient, but I really don't think it would work well at all. I don't have time to analyze it though. The dielectric would possibly decrease the spacing necessary between the antennas, but its exact effect is non-trivial. I don't see any way that it would significantly change the system acceleration except that is adds more mass, which reduces the acceleration for the same momentum imparted to the system by the departing photons.

...

I will go through this step by step considering first the bottom circuit. 

*Not until time step t=d/c does anything happen because it takes time for information to travel after things turn on.  At this point the bottom circuit's positive charge pole is attracted to the top circuits negative pole.

*bottom circuit t=2*d/c the bottom circuit's south pole is attracted to the top circuit's north pole. 

*bottom circuit t=3*d/c the bottom circuit is attracted by the top circuits positive pole. 

*and the pattern repeats for future time steps.

*top circuit - t=d/c is repelled by the north pole of the circuit below. 

*top circuit - t=2*d/c is repelled by the positive charge of the circuit below. 

*top circuit - t=3*d/c is repelled by the south pole of the circuit below. 

...

As far as your post here, you need to get your terminology straight before you try to explain this. For example "positive charge pole" is not a phrase that would be typically used. You seem to be using charge when referring to magnetic fields, but no known particles have a magnetic charge. Electric charges are not attracted or repelled by magnetic fields. If the charge is moving then it is pushed in a direction normal to both its motion and the magnetic field.

Most people don't bother calculating forces from interactions in phased array antennas, because the force values are too small to measure. The interactions between nearby antennas will be modeled for purposes related to induction for circuit design. The description of how the radiative reaction force gets distributed between the antennas in a simple case is neat, but it is not new physics or useful for propulsion.

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1383
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1432
  • Likes Given: 1910
I watched the video and he is concentrating on what happens to the top circuit, not the whole system.

The top circuit at t=d/c "sees" the bottom at t=0 and the identical magnetic charges repel. That means both the top and bottom try to move away from each other, not just the top moving up.

The bottom circuit at t=d/c "sees" the top circuit at t=0 and the opposite electrical charges attract. That means both the top and bottom try to move towards each other, not just the bottom moving up.

The forces between the two circuits alternate between repelling and attracting each other. These forces cancel and result in a net force of zero.

It doesn't work.

I am afraid you are mistaken.  If you follow the diagram you have to look into the past.  The top circuit interacts with the bottom circuit in the past.  Likewise the bottom circuit interacts with the top circuit in the past.  You have to make a criss cross pattern when considering the circuit interactions.  If you do it properly you should observe that the top circuit is always repelled and the bottom circuit is always attracted.  This takes advantage of two principles.  Information is not instantaneous and by reversing the normal electromagnetic interaction of a straight line current.  (this isn't a normal phased array antenna.)

I will go through this step by step considering first the bottom circuit. 

*Not until time step t=d/c does anything happen because it takes time for information to travel after things turn on.  At this point the bottom circuit's positive charge pole is attracted to the top circuits negative pole.

*bottom circuit t=2*d/c the bottom circuit's south pole is attracted to the top circuit's north pole. 

*bottom circuit t=3*d/c the bottom circuit is attracted by the top circuits positive pole. 

*and the pattern repeats for future time steps.

*top circuit - t=d/c is repelled by the north pole of the circuit below. 

*top circuit - t=2*d/c is repelled by the positive charge of the circuit below. 

*top circuit - t=3*d/c is repelled by the south pole of the circuit below. 

...
Thanks for the inquiry as it helps me clarify for everyone who might have a question.

I remember when David created that video. He and I were discussing this phased array idea and he figured out a way to rectify both fields. I commend him for it. However, as with all the phased array's in free space, the distance "d" is wavelength dependent and depends on the speed of light. The "on axis" dipole near-field falls off like ~1/d at best. To minimize d, the frequency must be in the GHz and the dipoles must be very small.

To make a long story short, it took me many years to figure all this out. First you find out that moving electrons at that frequency generates a lot of heat even for a small amount of power, and the small end plates have such a tiny capacitance that the air breaks down long before you can reach even 1 millicoulomb of charge. Then you realize you need about a megawatt to demonstrate anything remotely "useful" and it must operate in the MHz range, with MV rated capacitor plates and kA's of current. Next thing you know, you're looking for an aircraft hanger to build it in, because your garage isn't big enough for even the 1st dipole. 8)

Regarding the patent I haven't read yet. I glanced at it and from what I've read here, they are using a dielectric. Correct? Anytime an asymmetrical EM field is generated, the medium polarizes in the opposite way to oppose the source of the field (except ferromagnetism). So if the asymmetrical field would normally exert a thrust forward, the dielectric medium will oppose that force. That's why David's closing comment about putting a dielectric between them won't work, unless you plan to operate under water, an attached dielectric will work against the thrust.

Not to discount resonant materials, but then we're just talking about a LASER really.

IMO, none of these ideas bend space-time in any way. I have a little different take on the idea, but it too is impractical for demonstration purposes. See attached.

Todd






Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
...

I will focus on the example they give with 2 straight wires. These are 2 antennas with offset phases set at a specified distance this is a phased array, so we expect it to accelerate.
...

(I don't have the time to work out the E field exactly) If you calculate the value for the force generated, you will find it to just be a (less efficient due to poor overall control of energy direction) photon rocket.



As a normal phased array antenna should.


After this, they hand wave that using a coil plus a dielectric magically makes it many orders of magnitude more efficient.


Their assumption would probably be as you decrease the distance between the wires the magnetic force should increase.  I assume, they assume the same with the electric force.  Using the dielectric shortens the wavelength or slows the speed of light inside for radio frequency which allows them to achieve a shorter distance to get a 1/4 wavelength spacing. The coils could be wound many times for lower frequencies.   The dielectric they are considering I believe is Barium Titanate which has a permitivity a few orders of magnitude larger than most.  (shorten radio wavelength down to microwave wavelengths).  However, I think there are other possible dielectrics considered. 


I saw no supporting evidence for this at all. If designed right, coils instead of straight antennas might be more space efficient, but I really don't think it would work well at all. I don't have time to analyze it though. The dielectric would possibly decrease the spacing necessary between the antennas, but its exact effect is non-trivial.

This is important.  I would need to find out the force on the dielectric as warptech suggested also. 

I don't see any way that it would significantly change the system acceleration except that is adds more mass, which reduces the acceleration for the same momentum imparted to the system by the departing photons.
I guess it would have to do with the weight of the dielectric and the dielectric constant and how many orders of magnitude the force could be increased by moving the wires closer together.  Also, if a dielectric would experience an opposing force of propulsion.

...

I will go through this step by step considering first the bottom circuit. 

*Not until time step t=d/c does anything happen because it takes time for information to travel after things turn on.  At this point the bottom circuit's positive charge pole is attracted to the top circuits negative pole.

*bottom circuit t=2*d/c the bottom circuit's south pole is attracted to the top circuit's north pole. 

*bottom circuit t=3*d/c the bottom circuit is attracted by the top circuits positive pole. 

*and the pattern repeats for future time steps.

*top circuit - t=d/c is repelled by the north pole of the circuit below. 

*top circuit - t=2*d/c is repelled by the positive charge of the circuit below. 

*top circuit - t=3*d/c is repelled by the south pole of the circuit below. 

...

As far as your post here, you need to get your terminology straight before you try to explain this. For example "positive charge pole" is not a phrase that would be typically used. You seem to be using charge when referring to magnetic fields, but no known particles have a magnetic charge. ...
I was referring to the video's illustration of an electric dipole.  The force between them decrease as 1/r^3 for far field.  This interacts with the other elements electric dipole in the past.  So, only interacting electric dipoles, and not the magnetic field interacting with an electric dipole.  Technically, magnetic fields are really just velocity dependent electric dipole potentials which only exist because of relativity, but I was only referring to them as North and South poles. 

Also I'm not exactly addressing a phased array antenna.  I will attach a diagram of the difference between the two antenna types.  This modified phased array reverses the magnetic interaction of the two antennas.  Normally the (magnetic and electric) forces of two phased array antennas work against each other but in a reversed phased array antenna they work together.  The number of loops would be increased of course, especially using longer wavelengths. 

Sorry messed up the png below but I fixed it now.  Edit 2: modified to be more symmetric. 
« Last Edit: 12/11/2015 06:34 pm by dustinthewind »

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
I watched the video and he is concentrating on what happens to the top circuit, not the whole system.

The top circuit at t=d/c "sees" the bottom at t=0 and the identical magnetic charges repel. That means both the top and bottom try to move away from each other, not just the top moving up.

The bottom circuit at t=d/c "sees" the top circuit at t=0 and the opposite electrical charges attract. That means both the top and bottom try to move towards each other, not just the bottom moving up.

The forces between the two circuits alternate between repelling and attracting each other. These forces cancel and result in a net force of zero.

It doesn't work.

I am afraid you are mistaken.  If you follow the diagram you have to look into the past.  The top circuit interacts with the bottom circuit in the past.  Likewise the bottom circuit interacts with the top circuit in the past.  You have to make a criss cross pattern when considering the circuit interactions.  If you do it properly you should observe that the top circuit is always repelled and the bottom circuit is always attracted.  This takes advantage of two principles.  Information is not instantaneous and by reversing the normal electromagnetic interaction of a straight line current.  (this isn't a normal phased array antenna.)

I will go through this step by step considering first the bottom circuit. 

*Not until time step t=d/c does anything happen because it takes time for information to travel after things turn on.  At this point the bottom circuit's positive charge pole is attracted to the top circuits negative pole.

*bottom circuit t=2*d/c the bottom circuit's south pole is attracted to the top circuit's north pole. 

*bottom circuit t=3*d/c the bottom circuit is attracted by the top circuits positive pole. 

*and the pattern repeats for future time steps.

*top circuit - t=d/c is repelled by the north pole of the circuit below. 

*top circuit - t=2*d/c is repelled by the positive charge of the circuit below. 

*top circuit - t=3*d/c is repelled by the south pole of the circuit below. 

...
Thanks for the inquiry as it helps me clarify for everyone who might have a question.

I remember when David created that video. He and I were discussing this phased array idea and he figured out a way to rectify both fields. I commend him for it.
This is so cool.  I didn't know you knew him. 
However, as with all the phased array's in free space, the distance "d" is wavelength dependent and depends on the speed of light. The "on axis" dipole near-field falls off like ~1/d at best. To minimize d, the frequency must be in the GHz and the dipoles must be very small.

To make a long story short, it took me many years to figure all this out. First you find out that moving electrons at that frequency generates a lot of heat even for a small amount of power, and the small end plates have such a tiny capacitance that the air breaks down long before you can reach even 1 millicoulomb of charge. Then you realize you need about a megawatt to demonstrate anything remotely "useful" and it must operate in the MHz range, with MV rated capacitor plates and kA's of current. Next thing you know, you're looking for an aircraft hanger to build it in, because your garage isn't big enough for even the 1st dipole. 8)
I could tell you have put a lot of time into it. 
Regarding the patent I haven't read yet. I glanced at it and from what I've read here, they are using a dielectric. Correct? Anytime an asymmetrical EM field is generated, the medium polarizes in the opposite way to oppose the source of the field (except ferromagnetism). So if the asymmetrical field would normally exert a thrust forward, the dielectric medium will oppose that force. That's why David's closing comment about putting a dielectric between them won't work, unless you plan to operate under water, an attached dielectric will work against the thrust.
This may be what gets me unfortunately.  I haven't realized a dielectric would behave in this fashion.  Thanks for pointing this out. 

Not to discount resonant materials, but then we're just talking about a LASER really.

IMO, none of these ideas bend space-time in any way. I have a little different take on the idea, but it too is impractical for demonstration purposes. See attached.

Todd

Thanks.  I'll have a look. 

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2167
  • Liked: 2691
  • Likes Given: 1124
Dusty, I admire you for digging into this and creating a seperate topic to flesh it out. It may become mundane...but then again, who knows. Take specific critiques and use them to improve your theories or experiment. Discard all the general naysayer inputs, but before you do, ask how the comment specifically relates to your idea. Just some free advice, it might be worth exactly what you paid for it  ;)

p.s. if it gets closer to emdrive territory, keep us updated...

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
A recient post "Angle wire resonator as reactionless drive" got me thinking of a previous idea I was mulling over, how to use a lower frequency to induce non-symetric propulsion in a special counter wound phased array.  With a lower frequency most of the time the forces will be symmetric so no propulsion but for a fraction of a second when current reverses in one wire the time retarded forces will be non-symmetric twice in one cycle.  For two parallel wires with the current only slightly out of phase between the wires with wire spacing of 0.0025m or 0.025cm and the speed of light being about 3E8m/s and we are using a frequency of 300MHz or 3E8Hz then c=f*lambda so wavelength is lambda=c/f = 1m.  Normally you would want the wires spaced at 1/4lambda to get projection of radiation for a phased array but you can still get some at lower frequencies if the currents are out of phase.  Normally, for 0.0025m wire spacing we would want a frequency of 3E10Hz or 3*10^10Hz to be a quarter wavelength apart.  Taking the ratio of the wavelengths we get edited an incorrect problem: 2*(sec/cycle)*(ratio of tau) = 3E8/3E10*2*t = 1E-2*2(sec/cycle) the time retarded force is non-symmetric before returning to being symmetric.  If we are using a sine wave then the current is only a fraction of what it should be = I_max*sin(pi/2*0.01) = 0.015707317311821*I_max but if we use a square pulse that rises rapidly enough then we could get a max current time retarded non-symmetric force interaction for 0.01 seconds every cycle which could be used for propulsion.  On the other hand you have to wind so that the static electric effects work with the magnetic other wise you just got another phased array antenna I am guessing. 

using square waves might be problematic to achieve resonance and also still requires microwave frequencies and the same problems are encountered as using sine waves at that frequency which may not solve the problem of using lower frequencies.  Using sine waves of lower frequency drastically reduces the force or radiation of a phased array.  I assume a test of the reverse magnetic phased array remains untested and I have suspicion that a reverse magnetic phased array might provide greater than photon propulsion for near field effects.  I will also post an image of one reason I think that a phased array antenna (see image) only gives photon propulsion [even though they operate in near field] because the capacitance effect (charge separation) provides opposing propulsion to the inductive magnetic effects.  You have to take into account time delayed information.  The idea then is to counteract this in such a way that the inductive magnetic effects work with the charge separation (See second image attached below). 

Notice also in the bottom image how the apparent current propulsion opposes the apparent charge propulsion but with the counter-winding of the phased array the B-field propulsion works with the charge separation propulsion.  The main problem is doing this a short distances using microwaves.  Could we use lower frequencies?   Possibly as stated above.
« Last Edit: 12/21/2015 11:20 pm by dustinthewind »

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
There is another option other than the "reverse phased array" so as to eliminate the opposition of the capacitance propulsion effect from opposing the inductive propulsion effect in a phase array antenna (see above images).  This other option may be to use dual interacting resonant cavities in a transverse electric mode.  The transverse electric mode TE01x for a cylindrical cavity appears to eliminate the capacitance charge separation so there should be no opposing capacitance effect to the inductive near field.  These cavities must be dielectric or very thin metal walled (or a combination) so as to allow their near field to tunnel outside the cavity walls.  I would also suggest embedding in the dielectric a meta-material to enhance the near field as illustrated in this paper here:

Enhancing Optical Gradient Forces with Metamaterial
Vincent Ginis,1Philippe Tassin,2Costas M. Soukoulis,2and Irina Veretennicoff1
link: https://goo.gl/61l95k

The reason I suggest using a very thin metal coating outside the dielectric is to enhance the Q or reflective surface of the cavity and build up current, however, it may reduce the near evanescent field that penetrates the cavity.  Dielectrics may also possibly exhibit charge separation effects in a Transverse (edited:) electric mode so I am not sure the dielectric method would work for certain.  What is important is that there is only a magnetic near field that tunnels through the cavity and the two cavities interact with each other (with current in the base plates) 90 degrees out of phase.  Maybe optical frequencies and cavities would be better?

Basically you take the straight line phased array antenna image above and eliminate charge separation propulsion and you only have magnetic but you do this with dual cavities that are 90 degrees out of phase. 

If asked why greater than photon propulsion possibly my reply might be, (light slows down near gravitational wells as if influenced by a dielectric (edited:) or that there is a difference in the relative velocity of non-local space observed non-locally [space reaches light speed at the event horizon so light stops/time stops].  As so I would suspect if such propulsion greater than photon force is possible we would be pushing on the dielectric of free space between the space of the two cavities as if it were like a fluid, and so we might be observing space it self being pushed through the cavities?


I remember when David created that video. He and I were discussing this phased array idea and he figured out a way to rectify both fields. I commend him for it.
...

Anytime an asymmetrical EM field is generated, the medium polarizes in the opposite way to oppose the source of the field (except ferromagnetism). So if the asymmetrical field would normally exert a thrust forward, the dielectric medium will oppose that force. That's why David's closing comment about putting a dielectric between them won't work, unless you plan to operate under water, an attached dielectric will work against the thrust.

Not to discount resonant materials, but then we're just talking about a LASER really.

IMO, none of these ideas bend space-time in any way. I have a little different take on the idea, but it too is impractical for demonstration purposes. See attached.

Todd

(edited:) The idea being that the space might behave like the water? Link to the video mentioned is below. 

...
« Last Edit: 12/20/2015 12:06 am by dustinthewind »

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
I think I may have just had a light bulb come on concerning if this patent will work, but first I need the reader to consider a few of my past posts.  I will quote these and in a later post I will address why I think this patent, "patent 8,459,002.pdf" may actually work. 

The whole point of this essay is that Woodward is claiming that there is no problem with conservation of energy and so no reason to sneak in energy from some hypothetical Grav-Inertial Field. If there is a Grav-Inertial Field that the drive is reacting against then the entire essay is not only just as horribly wrong but entirely moot.

And even if there were a Grav-Inertial Field you still have some hard questions about our relative velocity with it.

I have been contemplating the nature of a Grav-Inertial field, if it does exist. 

So far the idea goes is that this Grav-Inertial substance should behave like a super fluid.  If you are floating in it and you accelerate it takes time for it to catch up to your velocity and flows through you providing resistance to acceleration.  At constant velocity it coasts with you at no resistance to the surrounding fluid that is not coasting with you.  This gives you your inertial frame of space time with respect to some one else's. 

The other property of it is that the Grav-Inertial fluid flows into matter, which suggest why matter might have drag on the Grav-Inertial super fluid, and it accounts for gravity which may be the Grav-Inertial super-fluid flowing into matter.  The idea is to use a black hole event horizon as a constraint for the velocity of the Grav-Inertial super-fluid that has reached light speed. 

Another property is that, "motion of this Grav-Inertial fluid" with respect to the CMB "cosmic microwave background" slows down light (maybe similar to a dielectric but also different) and contracts distance so that the change in the speed of light isn't detected locally but can be detected non-locally in gravitational lensing.  Clocks also tick slower in faster moving Grav-Inertial fluid because your frame has a difference in velocity w.r.t. the moving frame.  The fluid near the surface of the earth is moving faster than the fluid further from the earth so clocks lower in altitude tick slower.  All motion should in a sense be absolute w.r.t. the beginning of the universe or the Doppler shifting of the CMB.  (the ultimate 3rd observer or God point of view.)
-----
Some problems I am still pondering are if space is flowing into matter than where is it going.  I might guess it is flowing off of our dimensional plane of existence and into another dimension.  Maybe this other dimension is a negative matter dimension that is attracted to space-time flowing out "or Grav-Inertial super-fluid".  Maybe this might explain the existence of dark matter in a sense.  There may be another parallel universe that is gravitationally attracted to our universe because they share space time super-fluid, but not light.  I.e. their stars are sucking in our space time and so appear to be gravitational. 

However, it may be the other way around.  We may be the negative-energy matter and we are the ones increasing in space time.  Could this explain the expansion of the universe?  I don't know. 

Pushing against our super-fluid space time bubble that travels with us, like a road, may give thrust but then our "super-fluid space time bubble" that was traveling with us will be exhausted.  As a result our matter will experience increased drag from the universal space-time fluid till it accelerates to our velocity.  The increased drag may possibly apply mainly to the engine it self and the question becomes if it can provide more propulsion than the drag.  Would this instead be an artificial gravity?   I almost want to think of it as a jet-ski but I am not sure yet. 

Edit: Another mystery is the perimeter of the "local space-time bubble".  Maybe it is very small, atomic.  For instance consider a current carrying wire where the electrons have velocity with respect to the protons but coexist in the same wire.  There is also electro-magnetic inertia.  I think there are a lot of people looking into variations of what might be the case better qualified than I.    https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=quantum+vacuum+falling+near+earth&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C48&as_sdtp=

I found it interesting one of the papers in the link was addressing Woodward, "THE CASE FOR INERTIA AS A VACUUM EFFECT: A REPLY TO WOODWARD AND MAHOOD" by York Dobyns et al.  I can't speak for either yet as it would take some looking into but looks interesting.

so this is a quote off the Woordward's effect thread but it relates to the idea the space time is a fluid.  Other analogies that relate may also be the Lense–Thirring procession or frame dragging in which space moves in a vortex around a rotating object.  This supports that while space may drag on matter matter can also drag on space.  (certain states or configurations of matter may possibly provide better drag on space time when accelerating.  Some superconductors have had anomalous effects noted at the bottom of this post.  More to be found online if searched for.)

The next quote is from the EM Drive thread and has to do with a paper that was found that indicates for light trapped in a cavity in free fall, that light will accelerate downward in the cavity.  I got the image of a beam trapped in a circle (inside the cavity) and the circle of light accelerates down.  One would assume the cavity is not in free fall.  The paper then addresses when a dielectric is in the cavity that the dielectric drags on the light so that it does not fall as freely as it did before.  This may suggest that light is being dragged by the dielectric of free-space in addition to the dielectric in the cavity in my point of view. 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.01130

@Notsosureofit. I thought you may be interested.

Quote
In this letter, we have thus shown that in “effective
mass”, a notion routinely used to describe the dispersion
of the light in planar (or cylindrical) cavities, “effective”
should be dropped. Indeed as photons are brought to a
full stop in a cavity, they indeed acquire a mass in the
usual sense of the word, both from the inertial and the
gravitational point-of-view.

I am not sure why they don't think of the light falling into a black hole as having real mass also.  The light falling in will stop all acceleration and freeze in time effectively forming part of the black hole.  Enough light falls into a black hole and it should grow larger, energy having equivalence to mass, and light can push a solar sail.  Antimatter matter reactions also make a lot of light, and atomic (or nuclear) bonding energy can increase the mass of an atom? 

What I thought was interesting was this quote,
page 3 4th paragraph i think. 
"However unlike in a vacuum cavity, the gravitational acceleration of the wavepacket is reduced by the medium, that acts as a kind of drag force for the wavepacket of light, as pointed out already in the context of light propagation in transparent moving media [18]."

You can think of the dielectric for free space as having a drag on the light also.  This suggest that the dielectric of free space is actually moving with respect to the cavity but the dielectric in the cavity isn't moving.  The light is both being dragged by the moving free space and the non-moving dielectric in the cavity. 

Edited out part of this as it is already posted above

Edit: If gravity could create traveling modes that accelerate by its drag then maybe inducing (accelerating) modes in a cavity could also drag space?

A gif of what looked like one of the traveling modes attached below and the link for the rest of the files. 
Not sure any of them were accelerating. 
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tRERjT0tEYWxwMXM&usp=sharing

Link above from this link here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1450764#msg1450764

Edit2: Eh?  just realized this but maybe in this image you could think of it as ratcheting space time?

edited out more that didn't have to do with this thread

...

In conclusion the idea is to slow light down so that it becomes heavy and then accelerate it inducing drag on the "space-time fluid" but also to let it escape so that it doesn't decelerate.  The acceleration of the light should induce drag in its heavier (slower) state. 

« Last Edit: 01/02/2016 11:00 pm by dustinthewind »

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
So the patent "patent 8,459,002.pdf" you will find attached as my very first post on this thread.  I really thought it might work but just recently Edit: was told that a dielectric will experience an opposing thrust to that of the wires which seems to make sense.   

However considering the paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.01130 "The not-so-effective mass of photons in a planar optical cavity".  In the paper they indicate that the light is dragging on the dielectric but I would also suggest it is dragging on the free space or visa-versa.  So I come to the possible conclusion that maybe light is created in the phased array, inside the barrium titanate, as heavy light and then it accelerates but not quite to the speed of light and in doing so drags space time with it even though it is inside the dielectric.  Later the light escapes from the barium titanate or other dielectric to free space accelerating again.  The only problem being the direction of the push from the emitted light opposes the drag of space.  edit: if space is indeed thrown in the other direction and it can be given a mass then it may be thrust but there will be some drag as it flows through the vehicle.  The question is how can we control the drag of matter on space time  Still the question is if it could indeed induce a flow of space time that could be measured which would be valuable knowledge.  Edit: I suppose there are not guarantees it will drag on space more than I hope it would other than the idea that the magnetic forces are now working with the charge separation forces

Maybe the reverse-magnetic phased array would induce a greater drag on space time then say a normal phased array.  The patent also suggest separating the magnetic forces from the static electric in such a way that they work together. 

If I had to try an experiment, it would be to embed the reverse magnetic phased array into some high index dielectric, like barium titanate, and then set a sensitive clock near by to measure if time ticks differently than it does when the object is turned off or maybe a nearby accerometer, but the clock would be a compounding measurement. 

i.e. synchronize 2 clocks at the exact same altitude so they tick at the same rate but one is near the object. Then turn on the object and check if they both tick at the same rate over 24 or so hours. 


I suspect this might be related:
"Study of light interaction with gravity impulses and measurements of the speed of gravity impulses"
https://goo.gl/y2lP5q
Which is very interesting because they are using 2 superconducting electrodes and charging it to ridiculous voltages and when they discharge the electrons jump from one electrode to the next and it appears to induce a gravitational wave (or space time fluid impulse) that pushes objects and even effects light.  Maybe the superconducting electrons have extra drag on space time and when they accelerate they push the space time fluid along with them?

You can also scholar.google.com "Design and First Measurements of a Superconducting Gravity-Impulse-Generator" and there is a researchgate paper that talks about that experiment.  More can be found by searching for "gravity impulse".

Edit: be allert this paper I mention at the end "about the deflection of the laser with a gravity pulse", well they claim to have measured the pulse traveling faster than light.  This could be controversial as I know other people that would claim space time should also propagate at speed c.  However, I think it is experimental so that is interesting
« Last Edit: 01/02/2016 11:01 pm by dustinthewind »

Offline hk524khk524k

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
  • South Korea
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
 I'm very interested in this propellant-less thruster. By the way, is there any relationships between this idea and the EM drive?? I think the principle of EM drive is very related in this propellant-less thruster...

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
I think it is still in question if the EM drive is inducing reaction less propulsion or if it is just thermal gradients in air current.  I haven't followed the developments recently as I have been busy.  I didn't think it was necessarily related and is the reason why I continued the separate thread.  It would require some experimentation on my part to test some of the ideas in this thread but no guarantees.  Some of the differences between phased arrays are that they are open systems where as the EM drive, it is thought it is a closed system, but may be open for unknown reasons.  The magnitude of thrust and where it's coming from is the big question. 
« Last Edit: 04/22/2016 12:13 am by dustinthewind »

Offline elektryx tech

  • Member
  • Posts: 21
  • Winnipeg
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 3
A recient post "Angle wire resonator as reactionless drive" got me thinking of a previous idea I was mulling over, how to use a lower frequency to induce non-symetric propulsion in a special counter wound phased array.  With a lower frequency most of the time the forces will be symmetric so no propulsion but for a fraction of a second when current reverses in one wire the time retarded forces will be non-symmetric twice in one cycle.  For two parallel wires with the current only slightly out of phase between the wires with wire spacing of 0.0025m or 0.025cm and the speed of light being about 3E8m/s and we are using a frequency of 300MHz or 3E8Hz then c=f*lambda so wavelength is lambda=c/f = 1m.  Normally you would want the wires spaced at 1/4lambda to get projection of radiation for a phased array but you can still get some at lower frequencies if the currents are out of phase.  Normally, for 0.0025m wire spacing we would want a frequency of 3E10Hz or 3*10^10Hz to be a quarter wavelength apart.  Taking the ratio of the wavelengths we get edited an incorrect problem: 2*(sec/cycle)*(ratio of tau) = 3E8/3E10*2*t = 1E-2*2(sec/cycle) the time retarded force is non-symmetric before returning to being symmetric.  If we are using a sine wave then the current is only a fraction of what it should be = I_max*sin(pi/2*0.01) = 0.015707317311821*I_max but if we use a square pulse that rises rapidly enough then we could get a max current time retarded non-symmetric force interaction for 0.01 seconds every cycle which could be used for propulsion.  On the other hand you have to wind so that the static electric effects work with the magnetic other wise you just got another phased array antenna I am guessing. 

using square waves might be problematic to achieve resonance and also still requires microwave frequencies and the same problems are encountered as using sine waves at that frequency which may not solve the problem of using lower frequencies.  Using sine waves of lower frequency drastically reduces the force or radiation of a phased array.  I assume a test of the reverse magnetic phased array remains untested and I have suspicion that a reverse magnetic phased array might provide greater than photon propulsion for near field effects.  I will also post an image of one reason I think that a phased array antenna (see image) only gives photon propulsion [even though they operate in near field] because the capacitance effect (charge separation) provides opposing propulsion to the inductive magnetic effects.  You have to take into account time delayed information.  The idea then is to counteract this in such a way that the inductive magnetic effects work with the charge separation (See second image attached below). 

Notice also in the bottom image how the apparent current propulsion opposes the apparent charge propulsion but with the counter-winding of the phased array the B-field propulsion works with the charge separation propulsion.  The main problem is doing this a short distances using microwaves.  Could we use lower frequencies?   Possibly as stated above.

Hi all,

Just thought I would add a post to this, as I was going to start a build of what could be described as dustinthewind's reverse phased array. Something I thought of about 10 years ago, but never got around to trying. This was my explanation for the Biefeld-Brown effect, asymmetric electromagnetic field interactions rather than ion wind. (If the Biefeld-Brown effect was all ion wind it would not need to be an 'asymmetric' capacitor)

Anyway, before I get way off topic here, has anyone tried building this 'reversed phase array'? and if so are there any posted results?

If I don't hear anything I will continue my build, I was just searching around to see if anyone had done it already and ran into this thread.

Mark

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
A recient post "Angle wire resonator as reactionless drive" got me thinking of a previous idea I was mulling over, how to use a lower frequency to induce non-symetric propulsion in a special counter wound phased array.  With a lower frequency most of the time the forces will be symmetric so no propulsion but for a fraction of a second when current reverses in one wire the time retarded forces will be non-symmetric twice in one cycle.  For two parallel wires with the current only slightly out of phase between the wires with wire spacing of 0.0025m or 0.025cm and the speed of light being about 3E8m/s and we are using a frequency of 300MHz or 3E8Hz then c=f*lambda so wavelength is lambda=c/f = 1m.  Normally you would want the wires spaced at 1/4lambda to get projection of radiation for a phased array but you can still get some at lower frequencies if the currents are out of phase.  Normally, for 0.0025m wire spacing we would want a frequency of 3E10Hz or 3*10^10Hz to be a quarter wavelength apart.  Taking the ratio of the wavelengths we get edited an incorrect problem: 2*(sec/cycle)*(ratio of tau) = 3E8/3E10*2*t = 1E-2*2(sec/cycle) the time retarded force is non-symmetric before returning to being symmetric.  If we are using a sine wave then the current is only a fraction of what it should be = I_max*sin(pi/2*0.01) = 0.015707317311821*I_max but if we use a square pulse that rises rapidly enough then we could get a max current time retarded non-symmetric force interaction for 0.01 seconds every cycle which could be used for propulsion.  On the other hand you have to wind so that the static electric effects work with the magnetic other wise you just got another phased array antenna I am guessing. 

using square waves might be problematic to achieve resonance and also still requires microwave frequencies and the same problems are encountered as using sine waves at that frequency which may not solve the problem of using lower frequencies.  Using sine waves of lower frequency drastically reduces the force or radiation of a phased array.  I assume a test of the reverse magnetic phased array remains untested and I have suspicion that a reverse magnetic phased array might provide greater than photon propulsion for near field effects.  I will also post an image of one reason I think that a phased array antenna (see image) only gives photon propulsion [even though they operate in near field] because the capacitance effect (charge separation) provides opposing propulsion to the inductive magnetic effects.  You have to take into account time delayed information.  The idea then is to counteract this in such a way that the inductive magnetic effects work with the charge separation (See second image attached below). 

Notice also in the bottom image how the apparent current propulsion opposes the apparent charge propulsion but with the counter-winding of the phased array the B-field propulsion works with the charge separation propulsion.  The main problem is doing this a short distances using microwaves.  Could we use lower frequencies?   Possibly as stated above.

Hi all,

Just thought I would add a post to this, as I was going to start a build of what could be described as dustinthewind's reverse phased array. Something I thought of about 10 years ago, but never got around to trying. This was my explanation for the Biefeld-Brown effect, asymmetric electromagnetic field interactions rather than ion wind. (If the Biefeld-Brown effect was all ion wind it would not need to be an 'asymmetric' capacitor)

Anyway, before I get way off topic here, has anyone tried building this 'reversed phase array'? and if so are there any posted results?

If I don't hear anything I will continue my build, I was just searching around to see if anyone had done it already and ran into this thread.

Mark

I would just like to give warning that building such an apparatus might be tricky.  The distance at which the charge separates in the wire is related to the frequency used.  The dimensions of the array would need to be matched to the frequency. 

One then needs to worry about separating the arrays a quarter wavelength apart.  This changes if your using a dielectric making the arrays closer together by a factor in which the speed of light is slowed in the material. (A question for thought. - Is the speed of the electric field from charge separation different from the magnetic field in the material? Optimally this should not be different - is it?)  Maximizing the effect means making a structure of exactly spaced arrays, how does one do this?

To lower the frequency used one would need to use a dielectric and test that dielectric to see the speed at which the frequency travels through the material.  (Test the speed at which the field from charge separation travels through the material and the speed of changes in the magnetic field?)

In the end I realized this phased array I constructed is basically the same as the patent I first posted here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1338339#msg1338339

patent us008459002B2 by John and David Mclean

Does it exceed photon propulsion.  Using the estimated output radiation of a laser (this would be worse if its just radiation propulsion) one can estimate the propulsion from ejected photons.  The question being does it exceed photon propulsion? 

To do this means one should have an apparatus capable of measuring thrust from the photon level to larger.  If one expects the thrust to be larger than photon propulsion then one can build an apparatus to measure that, but it might be nice to have a more sensitive device, though likely impractical.  If you take these guys seriously they claim it produces forces on the level of DC magnets which goes way beyond photon propulsion.  Not sure how seriously I can take that.  Then again I don't know that their specific design has ever been tested in which the force from charge separation is constructively working in the same direction as the propulsion from change in the magnetic field which is unlike a standard phased array.  In a standard phased array these forces oppose each other.
« Last Edit: 02/19/2019 06:22 am by dustinthewind »

Online meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2010
  • Liked: 1959
  • Likes Given: 445
Hi all,

Just thought I would add a post to this, as I was going to start a build of what could be described as dustinthewind's reverse phased array. Something I thought of about 10 years ago, but never got around to trying. This was my explanation for the Biefeld-Brown effect, asymmetric electromagnetic field interactions rather than ion wind. (If the Biefeld-Brown effect was all ion wind it would not need to be an 'asymmetric' capacitor)

Anyway, before I get way off topic here, has anyone tried building this 'reversed phase array'? and if so are there any posted results?

If I don't hear anything I will continue my build, I was just searching around to see if anyone had done it already and ran into this thread.

Mark
Have you calculated how much force you would be able to generate for a given input power?

If you do the calculation correctly, it is guaranteed to be no more than the force of a photon rocket. (Exact value depends on the exact directivity of your setup.)

Since there are more efficient ways to generate a well directed high power beam of photons, and the existence of radiation pressure has been measured multiple different ways, what do you hope to accomplish with your experiment?

Offline elektryx tech

  • Member
  • Posts: 21
  • Winnipeg
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 3

I would just like to give warning that building such an apparatus might be tricky.  The distance at which the charge separates in the wire is related to the frequency used.  The dimensions of the array would need to be matched to the frequency. 

One then needs to worry about separating the arrays a quarter wavelength apart.  This changes if your using a dielectric making the arrays closer together by a factor in which the speed of light is slowed in the material. (A question for thought. - Is the speed of the electric field from charge separation different from the magnetic field in the material? Optimally this should not be different - is it?)  Maximizing the effect means making a structure of exactly spaced arrays, how does one do this?

To lower the frequency used one would need to use a dielectric and test that dielectric to see the speed at which the frequency travels through the material.  (Test the speed at which the field from charge separation travels through the material and the speed of changes in the magnetic field?)

In the end I realized this phased array I constructed is basically the same as the patent I first posted here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1338339#msg1338339

patent us008459002B2 by John and David Mclean

Does it exceed photon propulsion.  Using the estimated output radiation of a laser (this would be worse if its just radiation propulsion) one can estimate the propulsion from ejected photons.  The question being does it exceed photon propulsion? 

To do this means one should have an apparatus capable of measuring thrust from the photon level to larger.  If one expects the thrust to be larger than photon propulsion then one can build an apparatus to measure that, but it might be nice to have a more sensitive device, though likely impractical.  If you take these guys seriously they claim it produces forces on the level of DC magnets which goes way beyond photon propulsion.  Not sure how seriously I can take that.  Then again I don't know that their specific design has ever been tested in which the force from charge separation is constructively working in the same direction as the propulsion from change in the magnetic field which is unlike a standard phased array.  In a standard phased array these forces oppose each other.


I will admit, tuning this is going to be the tricky part, have a couple of oscillator designs that I am considering. My background is Electrical Engineering and have some Ham radio background as well. Currently under employed though so I may just have too much time on my hands.

I will be using an air gap between elements at first, so as to leave room to change the distance between elements. I have some reason to believe that shortening the distance between elements may improve the coupling between them, offsetting the losses from not spacing at a quarter wavelength.

The big question is what kind of force will I get from this. My original calculations were loosely based on Lorentz force equations and the equations for forces on the plates of capacitors and spaced inductors. If either of these are correct, in the near field then the force will be greater than photon momentum. I suspect that there are some flaws in this approach and that we are likely just going to end up with photon momentum. (I found a paper today that has a more comprehensive version of Lorentz Force equation that I will have to have a closer look at, it takes into account some things that are not covered by the general formula)

Measuring the force produced is going to be my second issue if they are very small. (I'm pretty sure they will be really small) I've done some reading up on torsion balances, but I don't think I can construct one of these in my appartment that will not be susceptible to other things like random breezes. Probably will have to talk to someone at a University at that point if it gets that far along.

Anyway, I thought someone should test this kind of concept.

Offline elektryx tech

  • Member
  • Posts: 21
  • Winnipeg
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 3
Have you calculated how much force you would be able to generate for a given input power?

If you do the calculation correctly, it is guaranteed to be no more than the force of a photon rocket. (Exact value depends on the exact directivity of your setup.)

Since there are more efficient ways to generate a well directed high power beam of photons, and the existence of radiation pressure has been measured multiple different ways, what do you hope to accomplish with your experiment?

The measurement of radiation pressure of a photon is always done in the far field (>2 wavelengths from source). So what happens in the near field with this antenna configuration? (<1 wavelength from source)

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
Have you calculated how much force you would be able to generate for a given input power?

If you do the calculation correctly, it is guaranteed to be no more than the force of a photon rocket. (Exact value depends on the exact directivity of your setup.)

Since there are more efficient ways to generate a well directed high power beam of photons, and the existence of radiation pressure has been measured multiple different ways, what do you hope to accomplish with your experiment?

The measurement of radiation pressure of a photon is always done in the far field (>2 wavelengths from source). So what happens in the near field with this antenna configuration? (<1 wavelength from source)
Edited:
Good question.  Some poeple were also telling me there are anomalies where they thought the near field appears to be traveling faster than light.  If so this messes with the quarter wavelenth distance.  I'm not sure I necessarily believe it actually moves faster than light but I think I have heard it from more than one source. 

I also considered the possibility that they develop a standing wave that seems to travel faster than light but can't quite seem to justify that.  There is also the possibility that some how virtual particles are responsible for near field ftl behavior.  Either way if the signal is FTL it just means to get the quarter phase delay you have to slightly increase distance to get the light speed limit again.  Not 100% sure but it may be like a negative index dielectric.

If the signal is FTL I would just use an oscilloscope with two cables of equal length and measure the distance when the two circuits drop out of phase 1/4 wavelength.

On second thought, here is what happens in a phased array.  One circuit has to do positive work in the other circuit has to do negative work.  this means that one circuit sees the electric field from the other circuit and it flows with it.  The other circuit number two sees the electric field from the other circuit but has to work against it.  I think what is happening is that when they measure the near field of the other circuit there is increased coupling as you earlier suggested.  both circuits want to work with each other's light-speed delayed electric fields and in the process develop a standing wave which appears to be FTL but just represents the standing energy between them. 

the simple way to do this then would be to space the circuits 1/4 wavelength assuming that the signal between them travels at the speed of light.  in order to keep them at 1/4 of phase relation both circuits require an applied voltage.  1 circuit requires More voltage than the other to maintain the quarter phase relationship.  Edited: I think you just drive one circuit at a voltage then adjust the phase/amplitude of the voltage on the other circuit till its current is out of phase 90 degrees with the other.  This is assuming that the near field isn't FTL and that what people are describing as an FTL field is actually standing energy between two circuits.

I am of the opinion that the near field isn't FTL and that what people are measuring as FTL is standing energy between their measuring device and the generating circuit.
« Last Edit: 02/20/2019 01:47 am by dustinthewind »

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
Quote from: elektryx tech


I will admit, tuning this is going to be the tricky part, have a couple of oscillator designs that I am considering. My background is Electrical Engineering and have some Ham radio background as well. Currently under employed though so I may just have too much time on my hands.

I will be using an air gap between elements at first, so as to leave room to change the distance between elements. I have some reason to believe that shortening the distance between elements may improve the coupling between them, offsetting the losses from not spacing at a quarter wavelength.


a word of warning is that I think it's inherent in a phased array to have the spacing a quarter wavelength at minimum.  Shortening the distance between them causes the time delay between the elements to require an increase in frequency in order to have the proper electric fields if they travel at the speed of light.

Increasing the distance isn't a problem if done in 1/4 lambda.  The only way I know to decrease the distance to less than a quarter wavelength is to use the dielectrics.  This is also exactly what is suggested in the patent. 

WarpTech also suggested to me that the dielectric should experience a propulsion effect in the opposite direction as the phased arrays which may negate the benefit from using dielectrics.  On the other hand this is a dielectric medium in a standard phased array.  I don't think this would be your standard phased array. 
« Last Edit: 02/19/2019 03:26 pm by dustinthewind »

Online meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2010
  • Liked: 1959
  • Likes Given: 445
The measurement of radiation pressure of a photon is always done in the far field (>2 wavelengths from source). So what happens in the near field with this antenna configuration? (<1 wavelength from source)
It is all described by Maxwell's equations. They conserve momentum, so only fields that make it to the far field can carry away momentum from your device. In the near field you can find all kinds of forces between different antenna elements pushing and pulling on each other. After you add up the net force on all of the elements, the only leftover contribution will be the radiation reaction force from emitting photons.

And radiation pressure has not only been measured in the far-field. Pioneer experienced acceleration due to emitting thermal photons (in the RF and infrared). That force was measured based on the resulting acceleration and matched the expected power dissipation once they used a detailed enough thermal model. That measurement was not based on "far field."

Online meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2010
  • Liked: 1959
  • Likes Given: 445
...
I am of the opinion that the near field isn't FTL and that what people are measuring as FTL is standing energy between their measuring device and the generating circuit.
I am not sure exactly what you are referring to about people claiming near-field FTL, but there are several misunderstandings I can think of that could lead to claims like that.

One interesting example in electrodynamics is the field of a relativistic charged particle moving at constant velocity. In any frame, the electric field always points directly away from the current true position of the particle, rather than the observed speed of light delayed position. This sounds like FTL, but is just due to nice ways things cancel out when you do the math. If the particle suddenly changed direction, the fields at some point some distance away would still point to the particle's location on its original trajectory, and until the speed of light delay happens, there would be no change in the measured fields to indicate the change of course.  The apparent pointing to the current location of the particle in real time, is an illusory prediction of the future based on the past.

Similarly, you can see results like that when you are putting a sinusoidal electromagnetic field through some system. For example, phase velocity in a dielectric is typically FTL, but this is the same kind of effect, where the result is based on the signals that have already passed through, and the meaningful things such as energy travel at the group velocity, which is never FTL, (and in the case of a signal through dielectric it is typically slower.)

There probably would be an effect on the appropriate spacing of antenna elements in a phased array if you added a dielectric, but I would expect the exact answer to highly depend on the exact placement and extent of the dielectric.

Offline elektryx tech

  • Member
  • Posts: 21
  • Winnipeg
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 3

Good question.  Some poeple were also telling me there are anomalies where they thought the near field appears to be traveling faster than light.  If so this messes with the quarter wavelenth distance.  I'm not sure I necessarily believe it actually moves faster than light but I think I have heard it from more than one source. 

I also considered the possibility that they develop a standing wave that seems to travel faster than light but can't quite seem to justify that.  There is also the possibility that some how virtual particles are responsible for near field ftl behavior.  Either way it just means to get the quarter phase delay you have to slightly increase distance to get the light speed limit again.  Not 100% sure but it may be like a negative index dielectric.

I would just use an oscilloscope with two cables of equal length and measure the distance when the two circuits drop out of phase 1/4 wavelength.

On second thought, here is what happens in a phased array.  One circuit has to do positive work in the other circuit has to do negative work.  this means that one circuit sees the electric field from the other circuit and it flows with it.  The other circuit number two sees the electric field from the other circuit but has to work against it.  I think what is happening is that when they measure the near field of the other circuit there is increased coupling as you earlier suggested.  both circuits want to work with each other's lightspeed delayed electric fields and in the process develop a standing wave which appears to be FTL but just represents the standing energy between them. 

the simple way to do this then would be to space the circuits 1/4 wavelength assuming that the signal between then travels at the speed of light.  in order to keep them at 1/4 of phase relation both circuits requires an applied voltage.  1 circuit requires More voltage than the other to maintain the quarter phase relationship.  This is assuming that the near field isn't FTL and that what people are describing as an FTL field is actually standing energy between two circuits.

I am of the opinion that the near field isn't FTL and that what people are measuring as FTL is standing energy between their measuring device and the generating circuit.

Currently I'm not considering faster than light anything to be possible. I'm also not considering standing waves between the two elements, might be something to think about.

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
Just one more thing to consider.  In the patent they suggest using low frequency in the MHz.  This induces less heating of the wires but what allows this is the amazing dielectric, slowing the speed of light between the wires allowing them to be close.  The wavelength at c/50MHz=meters/cycle=6 meters is a bit long to space.  If we slow the speed of light by a factor of 100 that's only 6cm and 1/4lambda being 1.5cm .  I think there is some intricate knowledge in using dielectrics to slow signals also such as frequency dependence and I think magnetic and electric permeability but I'm a bit rusty on it. 

I guess what got my attention was that you suggested testing them with out dielectric first.  If so then getting them in proximity may require higher frequencies in the GHz range.  Not sure if this may be problematic. 

Below is a side note.  I was looking up Mario Pinheiro and found these two papers which got my attention.  I wonder if there might be a connection.  I have always wondered if the "A" vector field might be an induced current in the vacuum. 

Quote from: Fluidic electrodynamics: Approach to electromagnetic propulsion
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=9446986378025307299&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26
Alexandre A. Martins and Mario J. Pinheiro

 let’s suppose that we have a potential flow with A = ∇χ

This is fundamentally the law of conservation of energy, and it states that the energy of matter plus the energy of this
“fictitious” fluid (carrying electromagnetic fields) is constant along a streamline. Hence, the nature of the fluid can
enter through this u function, which means here the internal energy per unit mass. The Bernoulli’s integral can also
be obtained in the presence of a B-field for a particle of fluid flowing along the line of current, since then ∂A/∂t = 0.


Quote from: General Relativistic Gravity Machine using Electromagneto-Torsion Field
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=14099488751050058436&hl=en&as_sdt=5,26&sciodt=0,26
Takaaki Musha1, Mario J.Pinheiro2

It is interesting to note that Eq.(15) points to the
existence of dual forces: one dependent on the fluid
angular acceleration (or time-dependent magnetic
force), the other dependent on the Lamb-vector time
dependency (or time-dependent electric field)

Remember that I was saying that in a normal phased array the magnetic propulsion opposes the electric propulsion and I was assuming they are time dependent. 
« Last Edit: 02/20/2019 03:30 am by dustinthewind »

Offline elektryx tech

  • Member
  • Posts: 21
  • Winnipeg
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 3
Just one more thing to consider.  In the patent they suggest using low frequency in the MHz.  This induces less heating of the wires but what allows this is the amazing dielectric, slowing the speed of light between the wires allowing them to be close.  The wavelength at c/50MHz=meters/cycle=6 meters is a bit long to space.  If we slow the speed of light by a factor of 100 that's only 6cm and 1/4lambda being 1.5cm .  I think there is some intricate knowledge in using dielectrics to slow signals also such as frequency dependence and I think magnetic and electric permeability but I'm a bit rusty on it. 

I guess what got my attention was that you suggested testing them with out dielectric first.  If so then getting them in proximity may require higher frequencies in the GHz range.  Not sure if this may be problematic. 

Below is a side note.  I was looking up Mario Pinheiro and found these two papers which got my attention.  I wonder if there might be a connection.  I have always wondered if the "A" vector field might be an induced current in the vacuum. 

Quote from: Fluidic electrodynamics: Approach to electromagnetic propulsion
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=9446986378025307299&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26
Alexandre A. Martins and Mario J. Pinheiro

 let’s suppose that we have a potential flow with A = ∇χ

This is fundamentally the law of conservation of energy, and it states that the energy of matter plus the energy of this
“fictitious” fluid (carrying electromagnetic fields) is constant along a streamline. Hence, the nature of the fluid can
enter through this u function, which means here the internal energy per unit mass. The Bernoulli’s integral can also
be obtained in the presence of a B-field for a particle of fluid flowing along the line of current, since then ∂A/∂t = 0.


Quote from: General Relativistic Gravity Machine using Electromagneto-Torsion Field
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=14099488751050058436&hl=en&as_sdt=5,26&sciodt=0,26
Takaaki Musha1, Mario J.Pinheiro2

It is interesting to note that Eq.(15) points to the
existence of dual forces: one dependent on the fluid
angular acceleration (or time-dependent magnetic
force), the other dependent on the Lamb-vector time
dependency (or time-dependent electric field)

Remember that I was saying that in a normal phased array the magnetic propulsion opposes the electric propulsion and I was assuming they are time dependent.

In order to slow down the fields a dielectric material will work for the capacitive areas of the elements, I believe a ferromagnetic material is needed to slow down the magnetic fields. ( you need to change the permittivity and permeability constants ) This should allow the elements to be closer together and or use a lower frequency.

Yes a normal phased array, the magnetic and electric fields are radiated in the same direction and cancel in the other, the forces on the elements will cancel. With the magnetic element reversed in one of the elements the electric field and magnetic field should radiate in different directions and the forces on the elements should push in the same direction.

On the other hand, it is likely more complicated than that, there is apparently a 'hidden momentum' that comes up when using Lorentz Force formula. According to a few sources that I could find the proper formula to use is the Einstein-Laub equation. So we may be just looking at a wonderful example of this 'hidden momentum'.

Online meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2010
  • Liked: 1959
  • Likes Given: 445
In order to slow down the fields a dielectric material will work for the capacitive areas of the elements, I believe a ferromagnetic material is needed to slow down the magnetic fields. ( you need to change the permittivity and permeability constants ) This should allow the elements to be closer together and or use a lower frequency.
Since in an electromagnetic wave, the electric and magnetic fields are linked together, you cannot slow one part without slowing the other. changing permittivity or permeability both work, but typically permittivity changes are easier to work with. A ferromagnetic material would typically have conducitivity which makes it a problem for what you are talking about.

Yes a normal phased array, the magnetic and electric fields are radiated in the same direction and cancel in the other, the forces on the elements will cancel. With the magnetic element reversed in one of the elements the electric field and magnetic field should radiate in different directions and the forces on the elements should push in the same direction.
Take a look at Maxwell's equations in free space, particularly the del cross E and del cross B terms. The fields are always travelling in the same direction, but orthogonal to each other in terms of field direction.

On the other hand, it is likely more complicated than that, there is apparently a 'hidden momentum' that comes up when using Lorentz Force formula. According to a few sources that I could find the proper formula to use is the Einstein-Laub equation. So we may be just looking at a wonderful example of this 'hidden momentum'.
Hidden momentum refers to situations where the relativistic momentum of moving charges has an effect. A typical example would be a square made out of wire carrying a current and immersed in an electric field, with 2 sides of the square parallel to the electric field. The current is the same along all sides of the square in steady state. The charges are accelerated and decelerated by the electric field as they travel along the sides parallel to the E field. this means that one side has more charges moving slower, and the other has fewer charges moving faster to result in the same current. A naive calculation would determine that the total momentum of the charges is equal and opposite on both of the sides. This all makes perfect sense and seems to add up correctly, but there is a problem: considering the magnetic field generated by the current in the wire and the electric field there is a net linear momentum in the fields. Since this is a quasi-static situation, where center of mass and the fields are not moving, this should not be possible. The missing link is that you have to consider the relativistic energy gained by the faster moving charges, which mean those charges carry more momentum, equal and opposite to that in the fields.

While that whole example is interesting, it is not directly relevant to what you are discussing here. What is more relevant is your mention of the Einstein-Laub formula. Typical formula that deal with electromagnetism in materials (including that one) effectively uses an approximate model, which defines the behavior of the material to be a linear response to the externally applied fields. These models can give correct answers, but you have to keep in mind that the actual E and B fields present are not the exact same thing as the H or D fields that such formulas use. It is generally very easy to use such formula incorrectly when determining hoe much momentum is present in the fields, especially as most applications of such models do not actually care about the physical motions of charges inside the material that physically underlies the response to the applied fields. The hidden momentum concept is applicable in a round about way because it illustrates how electrodynamics calculations have to be done very carefully to avoid incorrect conclusions about conservation of momentum.

In reality, any material is a collection of charges all bound together. The results that show that electrodynamics always conserves momentum therefore hold, and no amount of placing dielectrics around antennas will change that how much momentum photons carry after they leave any antenna system, or that the recoil felt by the antennas will be equal and opposite to the momentum carried away.

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
Just one more thing to consider.  In the patent they suggest using low frequency in the MHz.  This induces less heating of the wires but what allows this is the amazing dielectric, slowing the speed of light between the wires allowing them to be close.  The wavelength at c/50MHz=meters/cycle=6 meters is a bit long to space.  If we slow the speed of light by a factor of 100 that's only 6cm and 1/4lambda being 1.5cm .  I think there is some intricate knowledge in using dielectrics to slow signals also such as frequency dependence and I think magnetic and electric permeability but I'm a bit rusty on it. 

I guess what got my attention was that you suggested testing them with out dielectric first.  If so then getting them in proximity may require higher frequencies in the GHz range.  Not sure if this may be problematic. 

Below is a side note.  I was looking up Mario Pinheiro and found these two papers which got my attention.  I wonder if there might be a connection.  I have always wondered if the "A" vector field might be an induced current in the vacuum. 

Quote from: Fluidic electrodynamics: Approach to electromagnetic propulsion
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=9446986378025307299&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26
Alexandre A. Martins and Mario J. Pinheiro

 let’s suppose that we have a potential flow with A = ∇χ

This is fundamentally the law of conservation of energy, and it states that the energy of matter plus the energy of this
“fictitious” fluid (carrying electromagnetic fields) is constant along a streamline. Hence, the nature of the fluid can
enter through this u function, which means here the internal energy per unit mass. The Bernoulli’s integral can also
be obtained in the presence of a B-field for a particle of fluid flowing along the line of current, since then ∂A/∂t = 0.


Quote from: General Relativistic Gravity Machine using Electromagneto-Torsion Field
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=14099488751050058436&hl=en&as_sdt=5,26&sciodt=0,26
Takaaki Musha1, Mario J.Pinheiro2

It is interesting to note that Eq.(15) points to the
existence of dual forces: one dependent on the fluid
angular acceleration (or time-dependent magnetic
force), the other dependent on the Lamb-vector time
dependency (or time-dependent electric field)

Remember that I was saying that in a normal phased array the magnetic propulsion opposes the electric propulsion and I was assuming they are time dependent.

In order to slow down the fields a dielectric material will work for the capacitive areas of the elements, I believe a ferromagnetic material is needed to slow down the magnetic fields. ( you need to change the permittivity and permeability constants ) This should allow the elements to be closer together and or use a lower frequency.

Yes a normal phased array, the magnetic and electric fields are radiated in the same direction and cancel in the other, the forces on the elements will cancel. With the magnetic element reversed in one of the elements the electric field and magnetic field should radiate in different directions and the forces on the elements should push in the same direction.

On the other hand, it is likely more complicated than that, there is apparently a 'hidden momentum' that comes up when using Lorentz Force formula. According to a few sources that I could find the proper formula to use is the Einstein-Laub equation. So we may be just looking at a wonderful example of this 'hidden momentum'.

One thing that bothers me is if the electric and magnetic field emanate in opposite directions I wonder if that's even possible.  We wouldn't have light any more as light is electro-magnetic. 

On the other hand I have learned to view light as the sum of the magnetic field to be deposited over infinity, propagating at the speed of light.  If you do this you get the corresponding electric field associated with it.  In this respect I don't view light as the static electric field so I view that as a separate entity. 

I went back and looked over the reverse-magnetic phased array diagram and you are correct.  It does appear it enhances the magnetic field in one direction and the static electric field in the other direction.  The opposite of what a standard phased array would do.  Not sure what that means but it is curious. 

You mention a ferromagnetic material.  In the patent I cite they mention "barium titanate" which is a ferroelectric ceramic for slowing down light. 

I think meberbs is right that the speed of light in the material should be the same for both the electro-magnetic as c=1/sqrt(epsilon*mu)  If I remember right a dielectric just modifies one or the other, mu or epsilon changing the speed of light. 

If I am right that the light is just the magnetic field moving at its speed then it is actually purely magnetic and its relative velocity determines its perpendicular electric field.  (why it's less in a dielectric for instance) If that is the case I am not sure how the static electric field that propagates in the opposite direction will move through the material.  On the other hand these propagate in the same direction in a normal phased array. 

I say light may just be the propagating of the sum of the magnetic field to be deposited over space because I was looking at the biot-savart equation one day and noticed I could get the electric field for light from it but I had to integrate its magnetic field from infinity to the disturbance and assume it was moving at the speed of light.  I got the electric field for light in Purcell's book "Electricity and Magnetism" https://www.amazon.com/Electricity-Magnetism-Edward-M-Purcell/dp/1107014026 appendix H - radiation by an accelerated charge. 

I also think meberbs is right about the hidden momentum.  In generating a magnetic field a current is developed which causes a torque because we then have a current loop.  Discharging the magnetic field then provides that counter torque conserving momentum.  Not sure its important here or not. 

I attached the reverse magnetic phased array diagram for ease of confirmation that the static electric is enhanced in the opposite direction as the magnetic which you seem right about.   
I also attached an idea that speculated about pure magnetic phased propulsion.  Not sure the iron is a good idea.

My inspiration for pure magnetic phased propulsion is based off the fact that in cavities a transverse electric mode has no charge separation and thus eliminates that opposing force. Then again it may just project radiation. 
« Last Edit: 02/22/2019 06:55 am by dustinthewind »

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
I suppose there might be more to hidden momentum than I thought.  I'm currently re-reading another old paper by Mario Pinheiro 2011
Quote from: On Newton's Third Law and its Symmetry-Breaking Effects
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=2477405758829577437&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26
"In particular,
it was shown (Shockley, 1968) that the “hidden linear momentum” has as quantum mechanical analogue the term
α · E, where α are Dirac matrices appearing in the hamiltonian form Hψb = i~∂ψ/∂t, where Hb = −ic~α · ∇· is the
hamiltonian operator (e.g., Ref. (?)). Although certainly an important issue, the concept of “hidden momentum”
needs further clarification (Boyer, 2005).
...
At the electromagnetic level, Maxwell conceived a dynamical model of a vacuum with hidden matter in motion. As
it is well-known, Einstein’s theory of relativity eradicated the notion of “ether” but later revived its interest in order
to give some physical mean to gij . Minkowski obtained as a mathematical consequence of the Maxwell’s mechanical medium that the Lorentz’s force should be exactly balanced by the divergence of the Maxwell’s tensor in vacuum Tvac minus the rate of change of the Poynting’s vector:"
...
Einstein and Laub have remarked (Einstein and Laub, 1908) that when Eq. 12 is integrated all over the entire Universe
the term ∇ · Tvac must vanish


The exploration of these ideas to propel a spacecraft as an alternative to chemical propulsion has been advanced
in the literature, e.g., see Refs. (Brito, 2004; Glen, Murad, and Davis, 2008; Maclay and Forward, 2004; Taylor, 1965; Trammel, 1964), and for the particular configuration of two electric dipoles the first term on the r.h.s. of Eq. 27 due to the near-field may result in propulsion, see Ref. (Obara and Baba, 2000) for a concrete analytical example. Also, propulsion based on Maxwell’s stress tensor have been proposed by Slepian (Slepian, 1949) and Corum et al. (Corum, Dering, Desavento, and Donne, 1999).

« Last Edit: 02/26/2019 04:21 am by dustinthewind »

Offline elektryx tech

  • Member
  • Posts: 21
  • Winnipeg
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 3
Take a look at Maxwell's equations in free space, particularly the del cross E and del cross B terms. The fields are always travelling in the same direction, but orthogonal to each other in terms of field direction.
That would definitely be true by the time you get to the far field, Maxwell's equations indicate what I would describe as an oscillation in time and space. From what I've read the near field is more reactive and the far field is more radiative.

Hidden momentum refers to situations where the relativistic momentum of moving charges has an effect. A typical example would be a square made out of wire carrying a current and immersed in an electric field, with 2 sides of the square parallel to the electric field. The current is the same along all sides of the square in steady state. The charges are accelerated and decelerated by the electric field as they travel along the sides parallel to the E field. this means that one side has more charges moving slower, and the other has fewer charges moving faster to result in the same current. A naive calculation would determine that the total momentum of the charges is equal and opposite on both of the sides. This all makes perfect sense and seems to add up correctly, but there is a problem: considering the magnetic field generated by the current in the wire and the electric field there is a net linear momentum in the fields. Since this is a quasi-static situation, where center of mass and the fields are not moving, this should not be possible. The missing link is that you have to consider the relativistic energy gained by the faster moving charges, which mean those charges carry more momentum, equal and opposite to that in the fields.
Thanks for the explanation of the hidden momentum. If nothing else, I'm learning about a lot of things that I had not thought about before.

In reality, any material is a collection of charges all bound together. The results that show that electrodynamics always conserves momentum therefore hold, and no amount of placing dielectrics around antennas will change that how much momentum photons carry after they leave any antenna system, or that the recoil felt by the antennas will be equal and opposite to the momentum carried away.
It occurs to me that either element by itself will not produce any directional momentum. (radiation in one direction will equal radiation in the other) With two elements the fields will either add or subtract from each other, but not produce any new radiation, so overall this should not produce any net force. If this is true, the electric and magnetic forces from the first element should be acting against the electric and magnetic forces in the circuit of the second element. Time for some circuit simulations.

I think I will still go ahead with the build, but my first testing will be targeting the radio transmission/reception directionality. (I have a couple of radios in the 2 meter bandwidth that I can use for this.)

Offline elektryx tech

  • Member
  • Posts: 21
  • Winnipeg
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 3
One thing that bothers me is if the electric and magnetic field emanate in opposite directions I wonder if that's even possible.  We wouldn't have light any more as light is electro-magnetic. 

On the other hand I have learned to view light as the sum of the magnetic field to be deposited over infinity, propagating at the speed of light.  If you do this you get the corresponding electric field associated with it.  In this respect I don't view light as the static electric field so I view that as a separate entity. 

I went back and looked over the reverse-magnetic phased array diagram and you are correct.  It does appear it enhances the magnetic field in one direction and the static electric field in the other direction.  The opposite of what a standard phased array would do.  Not sure what that means but it is curious. 
I'm not sure what that means either. I think I will set up a radio test, see what the radiation pattern is for something like this. I have a couple radios in the 2 meter band that I can use and don't have to worry about measuring minute forces with that kind of test.

I say light may just be the propagating of the sum of the magnetic field to be deposited over space because I was looking at the biot-savart equation one day and noticed I could get the electric field for light from it but I had to integrate its magnetic field from infinity to the disturbance and assume it was moving at the speed of light.  I got the electric field for light in Purcell's book "Electricity and Magnetism" https://www.amazon.com/Electricity-Magnetism-Edward-M-Purcell/dp/1107014026 appendix H - radiation by an accelerated charge.   
I find it interesting that you had to integrate the magnetic field all the way to infinity. Does that mean that all of space is involved in the magnetic field?

Online meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2010
  • Liked: 1959
  • Likes Given: 445
One thing that bothers me is if the electric and magnetic field emanate in opposite directions I wonder if that's even possible.  We wouldn't have light any more as light is electro-magnetic. 

On the other hand I have learned to view light as the sum of the magnetic field to be deposited over infinity, propagating at the speed of light.  If you do this you get the corresponding electric field associated with it.  In this respect I don't view light as the static electric field so I view that as a separate entity.
As I tried to say in my previous post when I mentioned del cross E and del cross B, Maxwell's equations clearly show that a changing electric field generates a magnetic field and vice versa. It is nonsensical and unphysical to describe any setup that has one of those fields changing without the other field being present (and also changing)

I went back and looked over the reverse-magnetic phased array diagram and you are correct.  It does appear it enhances the magnetic field in one direction and the static electric field in the other direction.  The opposite of what a standard phased array would do.  Not sure what that means but it is curious. 
I am not sure what you are trying to say here, an oscillating current does not generate a static (unchanging) electric field.

You mention a few of your personal interpretations of how radiation works. This is not an section of physics that has mysteries left to be resolved. Electromagnetic fields  and how they propagate is completely understood, and precisely described with rigorous self-consistent equations. To fully follow and understand the physics you need familiarity with multivariable calculus, and for some of what you are discussing, it would help for you to also understand the relativistic transformations of electromagnetic fields, which is a tensor transformation where the electric and magnetic fields are a single inseparable tensor. This explains many things about electrodynamics such as how a single charge at rest floating in space produces only an electric field, but if you look at it from a frame that is moving with respect to the charge, you see both electric and magnetic fields. To make sense of such things you have to recognize that electrodynamic fields are not fundamentally generally separable into electric and magnet fields, but that those are just different aspects of a single underlying conceptual thing. If you insist on trying to handle them separately, your are on the wrong path to understanding them.

I suppose there might be more to hidden momentum than I thought.  I'm currently re-reading another old paper by Mario Pinheiro 2011
Quantum electrodynamics reduces to classical (relativistic*) electrodynamics, so it is expected that if you find the right setup, you should find an analogue of the classical effect.

*classical electrodynamics always includes relativity, it is baked into the theory, and the theory can't be consistent without it, due to effects like momentum stored in the fields, and hidden momentum.

Online meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2010
  • Liked: 1959
  • Likes Given: 445
In reality, any material is a collection of charges all bound together. The results that show that electrodynamics always conserves momentum therefore hold, and no amount of placing dielectrics around antennas will change that how much momentum photons carry after they leave any antenna system, or that the recoil felt by the antennas will be equal and opposite to the momentum carried away.
It occurs to me that either element by itself will not produce any directional momentum. (radiation in one direction will equal radiation in the other) With two elements the fields will either add or subtract from each other, but not produce any new radiation, so overall this should not produce any net force. If this is true, the electric and magnetic forces from the first element should be acting against the electric and magnetic forces in the circuit of the second element. Time for some circuit simulations.

I think I will still go ahead with the build, but my first testing will be targeting the radio transmission/reception directionality. (I have a couple of radios in the 2 meter bandwidth that I can use for this.)
Phased array antennas are well known to cancel the radiation in one direction while amplifying the radiation in another direction due to the phase difference. The forces of the antenna elements on each other are not equal and opposite to each other as has been noted in this thread (and some other similar threads on this site), but such apparent violations of Newton's laws of equal and opposite reaction in electrodynamics were discovered long ago, and resolved when it was realized that the fields themselves could carry momentum and energy. With that, the theory has been shown to be self-consistent, and always conserves momentum.

I will not discourage experimenting (unless it is dangerous), but the results of such an experiment are predictable, if you can get everything in phase correctly, and you don't have too much interference from reflections off other objects. For your case, just make sure you are using frequencies and power levels that the Canadian equivalent to the FCC allows you to use.

Offline elektryx tech

  • Member
  • Posts: 21
  • Winnipeg
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 3
In reality, any material is a collection of charges all bound together. The results that show that electrodynamics always conserves momentum therefore hold, and no amount of placing dielectrics around antennas will change that how much momentum photons carry after they leave any antenna system, or that the recoil felt by the antennas will be equal and opposite to the momentum carried away.
It occurs to me that either element by itself will not produce any directional momentum. (radiation in one direction will equal radiation in the other) With two elements the fields will either add or subtract from each other, but not produce any new radiation, so overall this should not produce any net force. If this is true, the electric and magnetic forces from the first element should be acting against the electric and magnetic forces in the circuit of the second element. Time for some circuit simulations.

I think I will still go ahead with the build, but my first testing will be targeting the radio transmission/reception directionality. (I have a couple of radios in the 2 meter bandwidth that I can use for this.)
Phased array antennas are well known to cancel the radiation in one direction while amplifying the radiation in another direction due to the phase difference. The forces of the antenna elements on each other are not equal and opposite to each other as has been noted in this thread (and some other similar threads on this site), but such apparent violations of Newton's laws of equal and opposite reaction in electrodynamics were discovered long ago, and resolved when it was realized that the fields themselves could carry momentum and energy. With that, the theory has been shown to be self-consistent, and always conserves momentum.

I will not discourage experimenting (unless it is dangerous), but the results of such an experiment are predictable, if you can get everything in phase correctly, and you don't have too much interference from reflections off other objects. For your case, just make sure you are using frequencies and power levels that the Canadian equivalent to the FCC allows you to use.
Yep, it's all amateur radio equipment and I have the licence. (CRTC is the FCC equivalent here) I've looked up the radiation patterns for each of the separate parts, so I have an idea as to what should happen.

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
...

I went back and looked over the reverse-magnetic phased array diagram and you are correct.  It does appear it enhances the magnetic field in one direction and the static electric field in the other direction.  The opposite of what a standard phased array would do.  Not sure what that means but it is curious. 
I am not sure what you are trying to say here, an oscillating current does not generate a static (unchanging) electric field.

...

With time varying current, the current stops at some time.  At this time it is like a capacitor and there is separated charge.  This appearance of separated charge should travel through space at the speed of light.  I don't believe it to be the same as the electric field generated by the propagating magnetic field as the electric field generated by the propagating magnetic field is perpendicular to both the magnetic field and the direction of current. 

The static electric field points toward/away from the separated charge. 

Regarding my calculation of light from the biot savart equation, I'll have to find my old PDF and post it. 
« Last Edit: 02/26/2019 03:04 am by dustinthewind »

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
One thing that bothers me is if the electric and magnetic field emanate in opposite directions I wonder if that's even possible.  We wouldn't have light any more as light is electro-magnetic. 

On the other hand I have learned to view light as the sum of the magnetic field to be deposited over infinity, propagating at the speed of light.  If you do this you get the corresponding electric field associated with it.  In this respect I don't view light as the static electric field so I view that as a separate entity. 

I went back and looked over the reverse-magnetic phased array diagram and you are correct.  It does appear it enhances the magnetic field in one direction and the static electric field in the other direction.  The opposite of what a standard phased array would do.  Not sure what that means but it is curious. 
I'm not sure what that means either. I think I will set up a radio test, see what the radiation pattern is for something like this. I have a couple radios in the 2 meter band that I can use and don't have to worry about measuring minute forces with that kind of test.

I say light may just be the propagating of the sum of the magnetic field to be deposited over space because I was looking at the biot-savart equation one day and noticed I could get the electric field for light from it but I had to integrate its magnetic field from infinity to the disturbance and assume it was moving at the speed of light.  I got the electric field for light in Purcell's book "Electricity and Magnetism" https://www.amazon.com/Electricity-Magnetism-Edward-M-Purcell/dp/1107014026 appendix H - radiation by an accelerated charge.   
I find it interesting that you had to integrate the magnetic field all the way to infinity. Does that mean that all of space is involved in the magnetic field?

the way I took it was that it meant that light, that we see, is the sum of all of the magnetic field that is to be deposited over the rest of space.  Meaning it's the rest of the magnetic field that hasn't yet been deposited over space.  so the universe is keeping track of all of the magnetic fields in the universe using light. 

Regarding the static electric field, I am pondering if it might be possible to make a phased array where are the current is accelerated perpendicular to the current of a regular phased array.  There should be radiation in the direction of the accelerated charge but this would point toward the radiation source.  one problem is I think this type of field would drop off with distance squared unlike light. 

With distance cubed as a dipole.
Not sure if there would be some kind of sum effect depositing over space.
« Last Edit: 02/25/2019 06:35 pm by dustinthewind »

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
...

I went back and looked over the reverse-magnetic phased array diagram and you are correct.  It does appear it enhances the magnetic field in one direction and the static electric field in the other direction.  The opposite of what a standard phased array would do.  Not sure what that means but it is curious. 
I am not sure what you are trying to say here, an oscillating current does not generate a static (unchanging) electric field.

...

With time varryinc current when the current stops osculating it stops.  At this time it is like a capacitor and there is separated charge.  This appearance of separated charge should travel through space at the speed of light.  I don't believe it to be the same as the electric field generated by the propagating magnetic field as the electric field generated by the propagating magnetic field is perpendicular to both the magnetic field and the direction of current. 

The static electric field points toward the separated charge. 

Regarding my calculation of light from the biot savart equation, I'll have to find my old PDF and post it.

I guess I left the calculation of light from the Biot-Savart equaiton in my thesis. 
page 122 to 125.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286118593_Determining_if_an_axially_rotated_solenoid_will_induce_a_radial_EMF

Offline MathewOrman

  • Member
  • Posts: 37
  • Poland
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
...

I went back and looked over the reverse-magnetic phased array diagram and you are correct.  It does appear it enhances the magnetic field in one direction and the static electric field in the other direction.  The opposite of what a standard phased array would do.  Not sure what that means but it is curious. 
I am not sure what you are trying to say here, an oscillating current does not generate a static (unchanging) electric field.

...

With time varryinc current when the current stops osculating it stops.  At this time it is like a capacitor and there is separated charge.  This appearance of separated charge should travel through space at the speed of light.  I don't believe it to be the same as the electric field generated by the propagating magnetic field as the electric field generated by the propagating magnetic field is perpendicular to both the magnetic field and the direction of current. 

The static electric field points toward the separated charge. 

Regarding my calculation of light from the biot savart equation, I'll have to find my old PDF and post it.

I guess I left the calculation of light from the Biot-Savart equaiton in my thesis. 
page 122 to 125.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286118593_Determining_if_an_axially_rotated_solenoid_will_induce_a_radial_EMF
You are wrong and Lorentz force and law is now invalidated:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhldn0ef138&feature=youtu.be

Online meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2010
  • Liked: 1959
  • Likes Given: 445
ou are wrong and Lorentz force and law is now invalidated:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhldn0ef138&feature=youtu.be
This has been thoroughly covered in another thread, where I explained that your equations have inconsistent units, and that you have incorrectly applied electromagnetic equations.
It seems rather inappropriate for you to continue to make absolute claims that the Lorentz force is wrong when you have simply ignored the problems with your math that I pointed out. If you are going to respond, go back to the original thread. There is no reason to spread this out across multiple threads.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38996.msg1902472#msg1902472

...

I went back and looked over the reverse-magnetic phased array diagram and you are correct.  It does appear it enhances the magnetic field in one direction and the static electric field in the other direction.  The opposite of what a standard phased array would do.  Not sure what that means but it is curious. 
I am not sure what you are trying to say here, an oscillating current does not generate a static (unchanging) electric field.

...

With time varryinc current when the current stops osculating it stops.  At this time it is like a capacitor and there is separated charge.  This appearance of separated charge should travel through space at the speed of light.  I don't believe it to be the same as the electric field generated by the propagating magnetic field as the electric field generated by the propagating magnetic field is perpendicular to both the magnetic field and the direction of current. 

The static electric field points toward the separated charge. 

Regarding my calculation of light from the biot savart equation, I'll have to find my old PDF and post it.

I guess I left the calculation of light from the Biot-Savart equaiton in my thesis. 
page 122 to 125.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286118593_Determining_if_an_axially_rotated_solenoid_will_induce_a_radial_EMF
You are wrong and Lorentz force and law is now invalidated:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhldn0ef138&feature=youtu.be

What would be the benefits of your technology? And do you have a prototype? Are these just calculations?

Offline MathewOrman

  • Member
  • Posts: 37
  • Poland
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
What or whose  technology are you talking about?

What or whose  technology are you talking about?

You say that Lorentz's strength does not exist. Instead, you postulate Orman force. I understand that for a purpose. That's why I'm asking, what will be the implications for technology? Do you have a prototype? We are on a forum about space drives.

Offline MathewOrman

  • Member
  • Posts: 37
  • Poland
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
I will let you know when I have the prototype working... At the moment I am creating some public records to establish a priority date of an invention...
The device and method is priceless and that is why one must construct a method of marketing with reliable protection of the invention...
The Orman Force and law is just pure science and thus not patentable ...

Offline elektryx tech

  • Member
  • Posts: 21
  • Winnipeg
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 3
I guess I left the calculation of light from the Biot-Savart equaiton in my thesis. 
page 122 to 125.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286118593_Determining_if_an_axially_rotated_solenoid_will_induce_a_radial_EMF
Browsed through some of your thesis, looks quite interesting. Also a lot of work, good job.

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
I guess I left the calculation of light from the Biot-Savart equaiton in my thesis. 
page 122 to 125.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286118593_Determining_if_an_axially_rotated_solenoid_will_induce_a_radial_EMF
Browsed through some of your thesis, looks quite interesting. Also a lot of work, good job.

Thanks, I have to give my professor a lot of the credit.  He put a lot of emphasis on being clear and concise.  I can barely imagine how much time he must have put in reviewing it.  Even though I'm not sure it was really up to his standard, but I guess it was passing.  I felt I learned a lot and gained a respect for him.  I also gained a lot of respect for teachers in general after being one for a short  peroid of time.  I found simple diagrams and images really help and how useful Microsoft paint could be.

Offline MathewOrman

  • Member
  • Posts: 37
  • Poland
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
The method of propelling without momentum split is to convert electric energy to kinetic using full momentum transfer by pushing or pooling against space occupied by xxxx entity of matter... That way momentum and energy i conserved... In reality some energy will be converted to heat due to ohmic loses...

Offline elektryx tech

  • Member
  • Posts: 21
  • Winnipeg
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 3
OK, quick recap of the thread and what I want to try to figure out.

From antenna theory:
- A dipole antenna resonates at a specific frequency due to a standing wave which has the majority of the electric field at the ends and mostly magnetic field in the center.
- An "end fire" antenna array consists of dipoles  spaced a quarter wavelength apart, with signals 90 degrees out of phase.
- A two element "end fire" antenna will radiate an electromagnetic wave in a single direction due to additive effects one way and subtractive effects in the other direction.

According to Lorentz Force formula:
- I make an assumption here and assume the Lorentz Forces between elements exactly cancel for the standard "end fire" array. (Force due to electric field minus force due to magnetic field equal zero)
- If you were to invert the direction of the current (mostly in the center of the antenna) then all of the forces due to Lorentz Formula acting on the elements point in the same direction. ('dustinthewind' posted a nice picture of a way to do this earlier in the thread.)

Why am I here?:
- I came up with this same idea around 2003-2004ish but never did anything with it, it's always kind of bothered me though. I was starting a build to see if I could figure out what is up with this and then found this thread. Maybe somebody else already knew? Did someone else already build? Could I save myself some time?

Questions that I feel need answering:
- Does this produce an overall thrust? My gut feeling is that the answer is no. (Each individual element in the array does not radiate anything directionally so adding two elements will not radiate anything directionally) But what if it did?
- What kind of radio antenna would this result in? This configuration appears to attempt to radiate the electric field in one direction and the magnetic field in the other. Not sure what would happen here.
- What happens to the force if it does not produce a thrust? My best guess is that the force gets applied from one element to the other in such a way that it would prevent the dipole from resonating in the first place meaning that a standing wave never develops. But I haven't done the math on this, very complicated, easier to just build and test.

What I don't want to know:
- How is momentum conserved? I don't actually think this will exert a force so I think momentum will be conserved just fine. If it does though, I will let the physics people figure out where the momentum goes, and I'll go back to my electronics.

Mark R Jones

Online meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2010
  • Liked: 1959
  • Likes Given: 445
With time varying current, the current stops at some time.  At this time it is like a capacitor and there is separated charge.  This appearance of separated charge should travel through space at the speed of light.  I don't believe it to be the same as the electric field generated by the propagating magnetic field as the electric field generated by the propagating magnetic field is perpendicular to both the magnetic field and the direction of current. 
I still don't understand the situation you are describing, since when current stops, this would not mean that their would be a charge separation like in a capacitor. For most wires, there is no separation of charge generated at all when current flows through them, so no stopping point would produce a charge separation. For some antennas, the antenna temporarily acts as a capacitor, and has a charge distribution in it (charge flows in, but has nowhere to go) But this is oscillating as you apply a signal, and when you stop applying a signal, the natural state is for it to be a uniform (zero because it is balanced by the nuclei in the wire) charge distribution. If you kept applying a constant voltage so that it acts as a capacitor, you would want to also consider the balancing charge, which most likely is on the other side of your constant voltage source.

the way I took it was that it meant that light, that we see, is the sum of all of the magnetic field that is to be deposited over the rest of space.  Meaning it's the rest of the magnetic field that hasn't yet been deposited over space.  so the universe is keeping track of all of the magnetic fields in the universe using light. 

Regarding the static electric field, I am pondering if it might be possible to make a phased array where are the current is accelerated perpendicular to the current of a regular phased array.  There should be radiation in the direction of the accelerated charge but this would point toward the radiation source.  one problem is I think this type of field would drop off with distance squared unlike light. 

With distance cubed as a dipole.
Not sure if there would be some kind of sum effect depositing over space.
Regarding my calculation of light from the biot savart equation, I'll have to find my old PDF and post it.

I guess I left the calculation of light from the Biot-Savart equaiton in my thesis. 
page 122 to 125.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286118593_Determining_if_an_axially_rotated_solenoid_will_induce_a_radial_EMF
It makes sense to me, though I didn't go through it too closely.

One thing that is helpful if you haven't heard of it before is Jefimenko's equations. The standard formulation of Maxwell's equations is useful to show some properties of electromagnetic fields, such as the fact that a changing electric field cannot exist without there also being a changing magnetic field and vice versa. Jefimenko's general solution to Maxwell's equations shows that all fields originate from actual charges. Notably, the terms in the equations are all related to the "retarded position" of the charge or current, which shows that every relevant bit of information is delayed by the speed of light. You can also see which terms are related to the velocity or the acceleration of charges.

Electric field is based on 3 terms: charge distribution, rate of change of charge distribution and rate of change of current density (which is related to and has the units of acceleration of charge density.)
Magnetic field has just 2 terms: Current density, and rate of change of current density.

Based on this, while it is true that when current density changes, an electromagnetic wave propagates by, and as it passes, the background magnetic field changes to match the new current density, these are separate terms in the equation. Also, it is interesting to note that for the electric field the rate of change of charge term is based on charge density, whereas the equivalent term for magnetic field is the current density term. There can be a current density present even when charge density is constantly zero (such as in typical current flow through a wire.)

Online meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2010
  • Liked: 1959
  • Likes Given: 445
According to Lorentz Force formula:
- I make an assumption here and assume the Lorentz Forces between elements exactly cancel for the standard "end fire" array. (Force due to electric field minus force due to magnetic field equal zero)
- If you were to invert the direction of the current (mostly in the center of the antenna) then all of the forces due to Lorentz Formula acting on the elements point in the same direction. ('dustinthewind' posted a nice picture of a way to do this earlier in the thread.)
Your first assumption is wrong. Forces between charges do NOT obey the equal and opposite force law. This is because electromagnetic radiation carries momentum away and you need to account for that for the force balance to close. This comes up in relatively simple examples (consider 2 identical charges both moving with the same speed towards the origin of a coordinate system, one moving along the x axis, one moving along the y axis)

Why am I here?:
- I came up with this same idea around 2003-2004ish but never did anything with it, it's always kind of bothered me though. I was starting a build to see if I could figure out what is up with this and then found this thread. Maybe somebody else already knew? Did someone else already build? Could I save myself some time?
If you look enough, there must be at least half a dozen threads on this site where someone has come up with some variant of this idea, most have been locked for various reasons, and some it took a while for the OP to explain enough about their idea to make it clear that it was just another variant of a small phased array.

Questions that I feel need answering:
- Does this produce an overall thrust? My gut feeling is that the answer is no. (Each individual element in the array does not radiate anything directionally so adding two elements will not radiate anything directionally) But what if it did?
Probably, this is a 2 element phased array, and with proper phasing, it should produce a directional pattern. Phased arrays are used all over the place. Radars are one common use, the new satellite internet constellations use phased array for electronic beam steering, and even some home wi-fi routers use a couple of antennas to increase signal strength towards specific devices. The existence of momentum carried by radiation is well known, tested, and understood, but generally useless and difficult to measure due to power to force ratio. When this is discussed for propulsion purposes, lasers are typically considered, because RF phased arrays are not nearly as directional as a laser.

- What kind of radio antenna would this result in? This configuration appears to attempt to radiate the electric field in one direction and the magnetic field in the other. Not sure what would happen here.
No, it doesn't, radiation simply doesn't work that way simply based on the dE/dt and dB/dt terms in Maxwell's equations. I am not sure how you are getting to this conclusion.

- What happens to the force if it does not produce a thrust? My best guess is that the force gets applied from one element to the other in such a way that it would prevent the dipole from resonating in the first place meaning that a standing wave never develops. But I haven't done the math on this, very complicated, easier to just build and test.
N/A if configured to radiate in a direction, then there is a matching net force, if configured to produce a symmetric radiation pattern, then the net force is zero. The problem with skipping the math is that you almost certainly will not be able to measure force in the asymmetric radiation case, because the force is too tiny. You can measure the field patterns though.

Here is an online set of lecture notes on antennas, 2 chapters are on arrays, and the 2nd one gets into more detail on arrays that include phase offsets between elements:
http://www.waves.utoronto.ca/prof/svhum/ece422/notes/
There are also commercial 2-element devices with technical notes and spec sheets:
https://static.dxengineering.com/global/images/instructions/dxe-dva-160.pdf

What I don't want to know:
- How is momentum conserved? I don't actually think this will exert a force so I think momentum will be conserved just fine. If it does though, I will let the physics people figure out where the momentum goes, and I'll go back to my electronics.
This is really simple though, and helpful for understanding the answers to the rest of your questions. The net electromagnetic forces on the antenna array (due to the fields it produces) are equal and opposite to the rate at which the fields carry away momentum in the form of photons. (And if it doesn't help you, it may help others who pass by this thread.)

Offline elektryx tech

  • Member
  • Posts: 21
  • Winnipeg
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 3
meberbs:
My last post was more just a synopsis of the thread in general. Good responses.

My conclusions after all this discussion are:
- Any configuration of antennas will produce no net force due to electromagnetic radiation. (Unless you put a big parabolic dish behind it.)
- Lorentz forces between elements (near field factors) will act on the circuit itself and not add to any radiation.

I'll still go through some of the math for this at a later time, and will probably still build something, but I won't put a huge amount of effort into it.

Thanks for helping me get a better grasp of the physics.

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
With time varying current, the current stops at some time.  At this time it is like a capacitor and there is separated charge.  This appearance of separated charge should travel through space at the speed of light.  I don't believe it to be the same as the electric field generated by the propagating magnetic field as the electric field generated by the propagating magnetic field is perpendicular to both the magnetic field and the direction of current. 

I still don't understand the situation you are describing, since when current stops, this would not mean that their would be a charge separation like in a capacitor. For most wires, there is no separation of charge generated at all when current flows through them, so no stopping point would produce a charge separation. For some antennas, the antenna temporarily acts as a capacitor, and has a charge distribution in it (charge flows in, but has nowhere to go) But this is oscillating as you apply a signal, and when you stop applying a signal, the natural state is for it to be a uniform (zero because it is balanced by the nuclei in the wire) charge distribution. If you kept applying a constant voltage so that it acts as a capacitor, you would want to also consider the balancing charge, which most likely is on the other side of your constant voltage source.

For must low frequencies there isn't charge separation but at higher frequencies on the order of microwaves the current has a wavelength in which charge is flowing back and forth between the nodes.  When current stops flowing at the nodes, it is frozen in time for a second as separated charge, then flows back.  Resonance maintains this behavior. 

So I look at the static electric field as separate from the magnetic field in that the electric field describes the non-relativistic nature of the electric field, while the magnetic field describes the relativistic nature of the electric field.  The two combined are the fully relativistic electric field. 

Physicists found early on it was helpful to separate the fully relativistic electric field into the electric and magnetic field.  By accounting for the electric and magnetic field they account for the fully relativistic electric field which can transform based on relativity. 

See the image on this paper which shows light emanating from a charge but perpendicular to the direction the charge is accelerated.  Under "Radiation as a Consequence of the Cosmic Speed Limit" http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/mrr/mrrhandout.pdf
It is this radiation pattern that Purcell derives in his book "Electricity and magnetism" for an accelerated charge that alerted me that the Biot-Savart equation also describes such a radiation pattern from a single charge. 

If light is described by the Biot-Savart equation which is the (magnetic field) of a single charge then this separates light from its (electric field).  The charges static or non-relativistic electric field can also vary in time as charge is separated in time in a wire. 

This electric field is very different from light (magnetic) because the electric field points toward the charge while lights electric field points in the direction of the charges acceleration.  This makes its electric field perpendicular to that of light so they are different beasts. 

What is interesting is that in a phased array the propulsion of the magnetic field is opposite of the propulsion of the time retarded electric field.  Yet we still get photon propulsion out of this. 

If the magnetic field is light then I guess what I am really interested in making an electric field array which should emit a strange form of electric field in the direction in which no light can emanate.  In the direction in which charges are accelerated.  See image below of electric field phased array.  Not a light emission phased array.

the way I took it was that it meant that light, that we see, is the sum of all of the magnetic field that is to be deposited over the rest of space.  Meaning it's the rest of the magnetic field that hasn't yet been deposited over space.  so the universe is keeping track of all of the magnetic fields in the universe using light. 

Regarding the static electric field, I am pondering if it might be possible to make a phased array where are the current is accelerated perpendicular to the current of a regular phased array.  There should be radiation in the direction of the accelerated charge but this would point toward the radiation source.  one problem is I think this type of field would drop off with distance squared unlike light. 

With distance cubed as a dipole.
Not sure if there would be some kind of sum effect depositing over space.
Regarding my calculation of light from the biot savart equation, I'll have to find my old PDF and post it.

I guess I left the calculation of light from the Biot-Savart equaiton in my thesis. 
page 122 to 125.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286118593_Determining_if_an_axially_rotated_solenoid_will_induce_a_radial_EMF
It makes sense to me, though I didn't go through it too closely.

One thing that is helpful if you haven't heard of it before is Jefimenko's equations. The standard formulation of Maxwell's equations is useful to show some properties of electromagnetic fields, such as the fact that a changing electric field cannot exist without there also being a changing magnetic field and vice versa. Jefimenko's general solution to Maxwell's equations shows that all fields originate from actual charges. Notably, the terms in the equations are all related to the "retarded position" of the charge or current, which shows that every relevant bit of information is delayed by the speed of light. You can also see which terms are related to the velocity or the acceleration of charges.

Electric field is based on 3 terms: charge distribution, rate of change of charge distribution and rate of change of current density (which is related to and has the units of acceleration of charge density.)
Magnetic field has just 2 terms: Current density, and rate of change of current density.

Based on this, while it is true that when current density changes, an electromagnetic wave propagates by, and as it passes, the background magnetic field changes to match the new current density, these are separate terms in the equation. Also, it is interesting to note that for the electric field the rate of change of charge term is based on charge density, whereas the equivalent term for magnetic field is the current density term. There can be a current density present even when charge density is constantly zero (such as in typical current flow through a wire.)
« Last Edit: 03/04/2019 01:42 am by dustinthewind »

Offline elektryx tech

  • Member
  • Posts: 21
  • Winnipeg
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 3
One thing that is helpful if you haven't heard of it before is Jefimenko's equations. The standard formulation of Maxwell's equations is useful to show some properties of electromagnetic fields, such as the fact that a changing electric field cannot exist without there also being a changing magnetic field and vice versa. Jefimenko's general solution to Maxwell's equations shows that all fields originate from actual charges. Notably, the terms in the equations are all related to the "retarded position" of the charge or current, which shows that every relevant bit of information is delayed by the speed of light. You can also see which terms are related to the velocity or the acceleration of charges.

Electric field is based on 3 terms: charge distribution, rate of change of charge distribution and rate of change of current density (which is related to and has the units of acceleration of charge density.)
Magnetic field has just 2 terms: Current density, and rate of change of current density.

Based on this, while it is true that when current density changes, an electromagnetic wave propagates by, and as it passes, the background magnetic field changes to match the new current density, these are separate terms in the equation. Also, it is interesting to note that for the electric field the rate of change of charge term is based on charge density, whereas the equivalent term for magnetic field is the current density term. There can be a current density present even when charge density is constantly zero (such as in typical current flow through a wire.)

Aha, these are the equations (Jefimenko's equations) I wanted to take a closer look at. I was reading through something that used these to describe the near and far fields of a radiating antenna, but then they just ignored the near field terms.

Online meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2010
  • Liked: 1959
  • Likes Given: 445
For must low frequencies there isn't charge separation but at higher frequencies on the order of microwaves the current has a wavelength in which charge is flowing back and forth between the nodes.  When current stops flowing at the nodes, it is frozen in time for a second as separated charge, then flows back.  Resonance maintains this behavior. 
I don't know what low frequencies you are talking about, but microwaves are fairly low frequency as far as EM radiation goes. In general for anything in the radio wave portion of the EM spectrum you can just scale your antenna with the wavelength of what you are working with.

If I am understanding you right, you are just referring to the instant when the current equals 0. At this same instant is when the charge density term in Jefimenko's equations is the maximum, and also when the dJ/dt rate of change of current density term is the greatest. This is the term that results in electromagnetic radiation.

See the image on this paper which shows light emanating from a charge but perpendicular to the direction the charge is accelerated.  Under "Radiation as a Consequence of the Cosmic Speed Limit" http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/mrr/mrrhandout.pdf
It is this radiation pattern that Purcell derives in his book "Electricity and magnetism" for an accelerated charge that alerted me that the Biot-Savart equation also describes such a radiation pattern from a single charge. 
What you are referring to seems to be the result of doing the vector sum of normal radially outward portion of the field of the charge, plus the effect of the radiation term. (sum of the first and third terms of Jefimenko's E-field equation. ) The portions of the electric field that are perpendicular to the direction of acceleration are very weak. In the picture you can tell this because the field lines are far apart (compared to the regions where the field lines nearly overlap, where most of the radiated energy goes.)

If light is described by the Biot-Savart equation which is the (magnetic field) of a single charge then this separates light from its (electric field).  The charges static or non-relativistic electric field can also vary in time as charge is separated in time in a wire. 
Biot-Savart only applies for steady currents. In those cases it is just the first term of the magnetic field in Jefimenko's equations, without the need to worry about retarded time and position. The second term is where the interesting actual radiation comes from.

This electric field is very different from light (magnetic) because the electric field points toward the charge while lights electric field points in the direction of the charges acceleration.  This makes its electric field perpendicular to that of light so they are different beasts. 
The electric field of EM radiation (light) is perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the wave. The field from the charge itself points towards the charge, which is essentially perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the wave, so it seems you are just talking about the field of the charge. However, in the case of a temporary charge distribution in an antenna, far from the antenna, the field drops off rapidly. In the near field, it is just part of the complex interactions between different elements of an array that results in the array as a whole feeling a reaction force in the opposite direction from the net emitted radiation. (Effectively it communicates the existence of the other elements in the array and the signals they transmitted, so each element feels the effective force based o the direction its energy actually got transmitted in)

What is interesting is that in a phased array the propulsion of the magnetic field is opposite of the propulsion of the time retarded electric field.  Yet we still get photon propulsion out of this. 
I still don't see how you can be coming to this conclusion. The actual fields that carry any significant distance from an antenna array of any design are the dJ/dt terms in Jefimenko's equation. The dq/dt term looks like it would result in 1/R as well, but that goes away at far distances, because the charge distribution is that of a dipole.

If the magnetic field is light then I guess what I am really interested in making an electric field array which should emit a strange form of electric field in the direction in which no light can emanate.  In the direction in which charges are accelerated.  See image below of electric field phased array.  Not a light emission phased array.
I don't understand how to read that diagram, I don't know what the zig zag lines are supposed to be. Are you proposing an actual wire in the shape of a zig-zag? Is it supposed to be a coil? Something entirely different? In either case, more dimensions are needed than the distance from one zig-zag element to the other.

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
For must low frequencies there isn't charge separation but at higher frequencies on the order of microwaves the current has a wavelength in which charge is flowing back and forth between the nodes.  When current stops flowing at the nodes, it is frozen in time for a second as separated charge, then flows back.  Resonance maintains this behavior. 
I don't know what low frequencies you are talking about, but microwaves are fairly low frequency as far as EM radiation goes. In general for anything in the radio wave portion of the EM spectrum you can just scale your antenna with the wavelength of what you are working with.

If I am understanding you right, you are just referring to the instant when the current equals 0. At this same instant is when the charge density term in Jefimenko's equations is the maximum, and also when the dJ/dt rate of change of current density term is the greatest. This is the term that results in electromagnetic radiation.

See the image on this paper which shows light emanating from a charge but perpendicular to the direction the charge is accelerated.  Under "Radiation as a Consequence of the Cosmic Speed Limit" http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/mrr/mrrhandout.pdf
It is this radiation pattern that Purcell derives in his book "Electricity and magnetism" for an accelerated charge that alerted me that the Biot-Savart equation also describes such a radiation pattern from a single charge. 
What you are referring to seems to be the result of doing the vector sum of normal radially outward portion of the field of the charge, plus the effect of the radiation term. (sum of the first and third terms of Jefimenko's E-field equation. ) The portions of the electric field that are perpendicular to the direction of acceleration are very weak. In the picture you can tell this because the field lines are far apart (compared to the regions where the field lines nearly overlap, where most of the radiated energy goes.)
I think you are right here.  The density of the separated charge should normally be small.  One would need to separate more charge to get the desired charge density to intensify the charge separation.  Possibly by increasing the capacitance in the wire.  I am thinking a series of wires that have capacitors between them but then this causes the electric field to be contained between them.  I still need to look at Jefimenko's equations but I think from what I have read here he has the near electric field in his.  I am guessing he should also have a sum of that near electric field (not light) that is summed from infinity that would drop its electric field at 1/r but your right the low charge density and its charge distribution is a dipole so in the end I think it does drop rapidly.  Still a magnetic field is also a dipole and yet its radiation electric field goes as 1/r so I wonder.  I wonder if it could at all be related to quadra-pole radiation - Ill have to think about it. 
Quote

If light is described by the Biot-Savart equation which is the (magnetic field) of a single charge then this separates light from its (electric field).  The charges static or non-relativistic electric field can also vary in time as charge is separated in time in a wire. 
Biot-Savart only applies for steady currents. In those cases it is just the first term of the magnetic field in Jefimenko's equations, without the need to worry about retarded time and position. The second term is where the interesting actual radiation comes from.
Well, what I mean is the sum from infinity of the Biot-Savart equation that gives light.  When the magnetic field changes. 
Quote

This electric field is very different from light (magnetic) because the electric field points toward the charge while lights electric field points in the direction of the charges acceleration.  This makes its electric field perpendicular to that of light so they are different beasts. 
The electric field of EM radiation (light) is perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the wave. The field from the charge itself points towards the charge, which is essentially perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the wave, so it seems you are just talking about the field of the charge. However, in the case of a temporary charge distribution in an antenna, far from the antenna, the field drops off rapidly. In the near field, it is just part of the complex interactions between different elements of an array that results in the array as a whole feeling a reaction force in the opposite direction from the net emitted radiation. (Effectively it communicates the existence of the other elements in the array and the signals they transmitted, so each element feels the effective force based o the direction its energy actually got transmitted in)

What is interesting is that in a phased array the propulsion of the magnetic field is opposite of the propulsion of the time retarded electric field.  Yet we still get photon propulsion out of this. 
I still don't see how you can be coming to this conclusion. The actual fields that carry any significant distance from an antenna array of any design are the dJ/dt terms in Jefimenko's equation. The dq/dt term looks like it would result in 1/R as well, but that goes away at far distances, because the charge distribution is that of a dipole.
I see where your coming from.  Your asking if its even significant.  I honestly don't know if it can be made significant now that I think about it - the density of dq/dt.  Good question.  I question if the dq/dt term actually drops away as a dipole or not because the magnetic field as a current loop is also a dipole and yet its light field doesn't drop as a dipole. If the change in the dipole magnetic field drops as 1/r when summing the disturbance from infinity then I wonder if the dq/dt term may also possibly drop as 1/r.  Not sure that makes a lot of sense but I wonder. 

There is also the fact that the magnetic field of a single charge drops off at 1/r^2 so its change as a sum from infinity drops as 1/r but for charge separation dq/dt in a wire charge always comes in pairs so it might not be possible to consider the field as 1/r^2 even though were considering dq/dt radiation of a single charge at near field. 
Quote


If the magnetic field is light then I guess what I am really interested in making an electric field array which should emit a strange form of electric field in the direction in which no light can emanate.  In the direction in which charges are accelerated.  See image below of electric field phased array.  Not a light emission phased array.
I don't understand how to read that diagram, I don't know what the zig zag lines are supposed to be. Are you proposing an actual wire in the shape of a zig-zag? Is it supposed to be a coil? Something entirely different? In either case, more dimensions are needed than the distance from one zig-zag element to the other.
Sorry, the diagram is of wires where the wavelength of radiation is of the order of the wires length.  There is a dq/dt term indicated on the wires.  To be honest I think the frequency term or some capacitance needs to be there to enhance how much charge is actually separated.  By introducing capacitors I wonder if there might eventually be a quadra-pole term. 

sorry for the mess of text, typed it this morning in a hurry
« Last Edit: 03/05/2019 03:51 am by dustinthewind »

Offline elektryx tech

  • Member
  • Posts: 21
  • Winnipeg
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 3
Sorry, the diagram is of wires where the wavelength of radiation is of the order of the wires length.  There is a dq/dt term indicated on the wires.  To be honest I think the frequency term or some capacitance needs to be there to enhance how much charge is actually separated.  By introducing capacitors I wonder if there might eventually be a quadra-pole term.
I also thought that capacitor plates at the endpoints of the wire would be a good idea. Already included these in my build. I think that these would enhance charge separation and maybe add a bit more directionality to the electric wave. More importantly it will make the driver circuitry easier to build since the capacitor-inductor-capacitor model will be a naturally tuned circuit.

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
Sorry, the diagram is of wires where the wavelength of radiation is of the order of the wires length.  There is a dq/dt term indicated on the wires.  To be honest I think the frequency term or some capacitance needs to be there to enhance how much charge is actually separated.  By introducing capacitors I wonder if there might eventually be a quadra-pole term.
I also thought that capacitor plates at the endpoints of the wire would be a good idea. Already included these in my build. I think that these would enhance charge separation and maybe add a bit more directionality to the electric wave. More importantly it will make the driver circuitry easier to build since the capacitor-inductor-capacitor model will be a naturally tuned circuit.

I would be curious to see a picture if you get to a point where you think it is photogenic.  Just out of curiosity and that a picture has a lot to say about what to possibly expect. 

Offline elektryx tech

  • Member
  • Posts: 21
  • Winnipeg
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 3
Sorry, the diagram is of wires where the wavelength of radiation is of the order of the wires length.  There is a dq/dt term indicated on the wires.  To be honest I think the frequency term or some capacitance needs to be there to enhance how much charge is actually separated.  By introducing capacitors I wonder if there might eventually be a quadra-pole term.
I also thought that capacitor plates at the endpoints of the wire would be a good idea. Already included these in my build. I think that these would enhance charge separation and maybe add a bit more directionality to the electric wave. More importantly it will make the driver circuitry easier to build since the capacitor-inductor-capacitor model will be a naturally tuned circuit.

I would be curious to see a picture if you get to a point where you think it is photogenic.  Just out of curiosity and that a picture has a lot to say about what to possibly expect.
Here is my test build so far, no electronics yet. Wanted something easy to reconfigure as there will likely be a bunch of changes when I start adding oscillator circuits, changing the length between elements etc. But this will give you an idea where I'm going with it.

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
I haven't been able to draw a diagram yet but this relates to my intuition that a pure electric (non-magnetic) phased array might be made to be quadrapole. 

I was trying to think of a phased array that only projects dq/dt in the direction of propulsion so that no one could say it was magnetic or normal radiation propulsion.  If it works the radiation would be quite strange as the electric field would point toward or away from the array. 

With normal capacitor plates the charge has to fill the plate and if from the center you still get magnetic terms with current. 

I came up with the idea of four strips side by side connected and fed by a torroid.  The four strips aren't really time delayed with respect to the frequency so they are much closer than 1/4 lambda.  Between this set of strips there is a dielectric that makes the next set of 4 strips spaced at a distance of 1/4 lambda. 

The strips spaced by the dielectric act as a phased array while the 4 strips with out dielectric act as capacitor inductor systems. 

The magnetic radiation should be perpendicular to the direction of propulsion while the dq/dt radiation should be in the direction of propulsion.  ill draw a diagram later.  Gota run.

Edited: image attached below

You don't have to do this.  It's just something I was pondering.  Thought you might find it interesting. 

The flat plates closer than 1/4 lambda were used to increase the separation of electric charge.  The circuit was made to resonate to increase the amount of energy stored in the circuit for charge separation.  The ends of the plates are made to be attractive/repulsive to the the ends of the plates on the other side of the dielectric (so the current in the top circuit is 90 degrees out of phase with the current in the bottom circuit).  I was thinking MHz frequencies if possible and the dielectric shortens the wavelength to microwave wavelengths.
« Last Edit: 03/08/2019 04:41 am by dustinthewind »

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
Something else to watch out for.  A phased array's antenna components naturally all want to reflect radiation.  If they do this then it won't be a phased array.  Positive work has to be done on the antennas in the direction you want the radiation to transmit.  The antennas that cancel the radiation actually need to do negative work.
That is the electrons in them need to move with the incoming electric field but encounter resistance in the wire. 

I think the trick is making sure that the current is actually 90 degrees out of phase between the elements, instead of operation in their reflective mode.  That the current is actually behaving as it should might require monitoring of current.  To accomplish this there needs to be adjustment of voltages on each element. 

It's similar in the electric phased array above.  If a plate sees the plate below as repulsive it has the same charge.  This reduces the plates effective ability to hold charge.  More voltage is required to store the same amount of charge on that plate.  if the plate below sees the other plate above as attractive it has enhanced ability to store charge.  Less voltage needs to be applied to store the same amount of charge.  So there's this reoccurring theme of positive work on one side, negative work on the other. 
« Last Edit: 03/10/2019 01:12 pm by dustinthewind »

Offline elektryx tech

  • Member
  • Posts: 21
  • Winnipeg
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 3
Something else to watch out for.  A phased array's antenna components naturally all want to reflect radiation.  If they do this then it won't be a phased array.  Positive work has to be done on the antennas in the direction you want the radiation to transmit.  The antennas that cancel the radiation actually need to do negative work.
That is the electrons in them need to move with the incoming electric field but encounter resistance in the wire. 

I think the trick is making sure that the current is actually 90 degrees out of phase between the elements, instead of operation in their reflective mode.  That the current is actually behaving as it should might require monitoring of current.  To accomplish this there needs to be adjustment of voltages on each element. 

It's similar in the electric phased array above.  If a plate sees the plate below as repulsive it has the same charge.  This reduces the plates effective ability to hold charge.  More voltage is required to store the same amount of charge on that plate.  if the plate below sees the other plate above as attractive it has enhanced ability to store charge.  Less voltage needs to be applied to store the same amount of charge.  So there's this reoccurring theme of positive work on one side, negative work on the other.
Yes, I was looking at this the other day and came to the same conclusions. Both elements will have to be driven and out of phase by 90 degrees. But I came to the same conclusion that one element would reinforce the signal and the other element would resist the signal.

Currently I'm trying to get a low voltage oscillator working on a single element, just to see what kind of circuit will work the best. A circuit between elements to keep a 90 degree phase shift looks simple enough. I will have a bit of trouble confirming the 90 degree phase shift as my oscilloscope is not working quite right at the moment. (I'm in the process of repairing that)

Tags: