Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 6  (Read 1083484 times)

Offline LasJayhawk

If a quantum tunneling diode can exhibit negative resistance, perhaps a quantum tunneling drive could exhibit negative Q? MEEP might be trying to tell us something.

My theory ( stolen from John Quick )

"Basically, the only new principle involved is that instead of power being generated by the relative motion of conductors and fluxes, it is produced by the modial interaction of magneto-reluctance and capacitive directance."  ;D

Offline Kenjee

  • Member
  • Posts: 57
  • Liked: 89
  • Likes Given: 21
I wondered how fluids react in frustum so I did this just for fun.
This is non-scientific CGI fluid dynamics simulation.

https://vid.me/GYoK

The Eye of Sauron  :)


(SeeShells Dimensions)

Offline ThereIWas3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 884
  • Liked: 428
  • Likes Given: 297
What EM component or components did you use to excite your antenna?
I don't think I changed any of that from the original NSF-1701.ctl file, other than changing the distance from the end to 55mm as you suggested.
; Antenna is a half-wave dipole, 55mm from the small end.
; from the small end.  The actual device injects with a coaxial feedline
; on the side.
(set! antSIx 0.055)
(set! antSIy 0)
(set! antSIz 0)                                 
(set! antlongx 0)             ; direction vector of dipole antenna SI units
(set! antlongy 0.058)   ; Halfwave dipole is about 61 mm
(set! antlongz 0)

And the source:
(define drivesrc-Gaus (list 
(make source (src (make gaussian-src (frequency fmeep) (fwidth BW) ))
            (component Ez)
            (center  antx anty antz)
            (size antsizex antsizey antsizez)
            (axis axex axey axez)  ) ; Components - Ex, Ey, Ez or Hx, Hy, Hz
))

This is still with the original axes, X being the centerline.
« Last Edit: 12/12/2015 03:07 am by ThereIWas3 »
"If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up people to collect wood and don’t assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea" - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Offline ThereIWas3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 884
  • Liked: 428
  • Likes Given: 297
The pure copper input is ONLY valid for 2.4 GHz.  At other frequencies the input should be linearly ratioed by the frequency ratio, so that the conductivity stays constant.  At resonating frequencies higher than 2.4 GHz, you should input a correspondingly LOWER number to keep the conductivity constant.

I changed the formula for permittivity to scale it by (2.4GHz/InputFreq), so as the frequency goes up, the permittivity goes down from its 2.4GHz reference value.   With an input frequency of 2.4959 GHz, this shifted the Q only a small amount, from 99938 to 99943, but now that is one less thing to worry about for future cases.  That change is down in the noise as far as I am concerned, for this particular case. (This is still with the 100% pure definition for Cu.)
"If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up people to collect wood and don’t assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea" - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Offline VAXHeadroom

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 207
  • Whereever you go, there you are. -- BB
  • Baltimore MD
  • Liked: 285
  • Likes Given: 169
Stupid question: how does a spacecraft propelled by an EMDrive (if it works) slow down?  The basic answer is by creating a force in the opposite direction.  What happens to the energy that the drive has been loading into the spaceship?  It can't simply be destroyed, it has to go somewhere.  Where?
In practice a spacecraft only has Delta-V thrusters mounted in one direction anyway, so you just turn it around and jet the other way to slow down.  How do you turn around? Using your tinyEM Drive attitude control thrusters mounted at oblique angles to the center of mass of course! ;)
Emory Stagmer
  Executive Producer, Public Speaker UnTied Music - www.untiedmusic.com

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3050
  • 92129
  • Liked: 827
  • Likes Given: 294
What EM component or components did you use to excite your antenna?
I don't think I changed any of that from the original NSF-1701.ctl file, other than changing the distance from the end to 55mm as you suggested.
; Antenna is a half-wave dipole, 55mm from the small end.
; from the small end.  The actual device injects with a coaxial feedline
; on the side.
(set! antSIx 0.055)
(set! antSIy 0)
(set! antSIz 0)                                 
(set! antlongx 0)             ; direction vector of dipole antenna SI units
(set! antlongy 0.058)   ; Halfwave dipole is about 61 mm
(set! antlongz 0)

And the source:
(define drivesrc-Gaus (list 
(make source (src (make gaussian-src (frequency fmeep) (fwidth BW) ))
            (component Ez)
            (center  antx anty antz)
            (size antsizex antsizey antsizez)
            (axis axex axey axez)  ) ; Components - Ex, Ey, Ez or Hx, Hy, Hz
))

This is still with the original axes, X being the centerline.

Hmm - something strange is going on here. I just completed that run using Ez excitation and got nothing again. But this time the fields were formed, not like the Hz excitation which was just noise. See attached

I've been starting with your solution - I'll open the bandwidth and chase it down for my model.
« Last Edit: 12/12/2015 03:41 am by aero »
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2380
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3111
  • Likes Given: 2674
What EM component or components did you use to excite your antenna?
I don't think I changed any of that from the original NSF-1701.ctl file, other than changing the distance from the end to 55mm as you suggested.
; Antenna is a half-wave dipole, 55mm from the small end.
; from the small end.  The actual device injects with a coaxial feedline
; on the side.
(set! antSIx 0.055)
(set! antSIy 0)
(set! antSIz 0)                                 
(set! antlongx 0)             ; direction vector of dipole antenna SI units
(set! antlongy 0.058)   ; Halfwave dipole is about 61 mm
(set! antlongz 0)

And the source:
(define drivesrc-Gaus (list 
(make source (src (make gaussian-src (frequency fmeep) (fwidth BW) ))
            (component Ez)
            (center  antx anty antz)
            (size antsizex antsizey antsizez)
            (axis axex axey axez)  ) ; Components - Ex, Ey, Ez or Hx, Hy, Hz
))

This is still with the original axes, X being the centerline.

Hmm - something strange is going on here. I just completed that run using Ez excitation and got nothing again. But this time the fields were formed, not like the Hz excitation which was just noise. See attached

Do a 1/4 wave dipole. 1/4 Wl  30.36mm

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2380
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3111
  • Likes Given: 2674
Named for its discoverer, who, 55 years ago, was trying to understand why fluids like mayonnaise move so slowly.

The Casimir effect some have been relating to the QV effects is related to work with Mayonnaise?
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap151206.html

Offline oliverio

  • Member
  • Posts: 86
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 2
Named for its discoverer, who, 55 years ago, was trying to understand why fluids like mayonnaise move so slowly.

The Casimir effect some have been relating to the QV effects is related to work with Mayonnaise?
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap151206.html

At the very least, the Casimir effect demonstrates the analytical possibility of Dr. White's theory. We could understand the EMdrive as a far-field high-energy asymmetric analogue to the Casimir effect. (One of my previous posts points to a peer-reviewed paper demonstrating just such an a asymmetric system; a single accelerated mirror radiates photons in a vacuum because [according to the Casimir effect] it is reflecting virtual photons it passes through while accelerating.)
« Last Edit: 12/12/2015 08:24 am by oliverio »

Offline OnlyMe

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 350
  • So. Calif.
  • Liked: 198
  • Likes Given: 189
Named for its discoverer, who, 55 years ago, was trying to understand why fluids like mayonnaise move so slowly.

The Casimir effect some have been relating to the QV effects is related to work with Mayonnaise?
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap151206.html

At the very least, the Casimir effect demonstrates the analytical possibility of Dr. White's theory. We could understand the EMdrive as a far-field high-energy asymmetric analogue to the Casimir effect. (One of my previous posts points to a peer-reviewed paper demonstrating just such an a asymmetric system; a single accelerated mirror radiates photons in a vacuum because [according to the Casimir effect] it is reflecting virtual photons it passes through while accelerating.)

I don't believe this is what is happening with the EMDrive. In a simplistic way what the dynamical Casimir effect is suggesting is that the momentum of a relativistic mirror adds sufficient energy to the EM ground state of the vacuum to generate photons. The virtual photons in the most accepted concept of the quantum vacuum, which would be immutable or static, (because there is no real consensus), are just a minimal EM field potential.., no momentum until or unless they interact with a moving object and even then most theorists require the object to be accelerating. Even in Haisch's theory of inertia which tends to lead toward a dynamic or mutable ground state originating in a Machian manner, the background potential of the quantum vacuum remains isotropic from inertial frames, becoming anisotropic from an accelerating frame.

The one case immediately apparent departing from this is the Casimir effect but it requires two closely located uncharged conducting plates...

Whatever is going on with the EMDrive, it seems far more likely that the dynamics of the boundary conditions inside the drive, together with an asymmetry in the microwave field density, leads to a asymmetry in the transfer of momentum between the microwaves and the frustum. The issue of relativistic velocities from a constant classical thrust resulting in free energy, is a special relativity problem that should wait until we have some proof that relativistic velocities are even possible.

Once a build with a significant thrust is repeatable, very close evaluations of the heat signatures/losses relative to power in must be carried out. I am unsure some of that work could be accomplished by DIYs but then they have already done things I would have never thought they could. It seems there has been some suggestion that a close match of frequency in to resonance and perhaps pulsing the on/off cycle properly, reduces the heat build up and increases the thrust. If this is true it may be a balancing act that improves the amount of EM energy momentum transfer...

Whatever is happening it is new physics, but that does not mean it involves a violation of conservation of momentum as has been argued repeatedly. You have energy going in, in the form of microwaves and energy coming out as heat and kinetic energy or thrust/added momentum.

Something else that has bothered me about the quantum vacuum virtual particle speculations, is that the quantum field fluctuations that are being referred to as virtual particles can not from anything I have read, flow through a solid mass of matter. They would interact with the object, so a virtual particle thruster would have to then be interacting with the vacuum outside the frustum by essentially repelling or pushing off of those quantum field fluctuations. How this could be generated by something we have to believe is originating inside of the frustum is difficult...

And this all assumes that Eagleworks silence pending peer review and Shell's silence while she is double checking..., both suggests a confirmation of thrust.
« Last Edit: 12/12/2015 01:03 pm by OnlyMe »

Offline ThereIWas3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 884
  • Liked: 428
  • Likes Given: 297

Hmm - something strange is going on here. I just completed that run using Ez excitation and got nothing again. But this time the fields were formed, not like the Hz excitation which was just noise. See attached

I've been starting with your solution - I'll open the bandwidth and chase it down for my model.

Don't forget the other changes I mentioned earlier:    BW=0.015 and gc=10
"If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up people to collect wood and don’t assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea" - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2167
  • Liked: 2691
  • Likes Given: 1124
Well done!

I wondered how fluids react in frustum so I did this just for fun.
This is non-scientific CGI fluid dynamics simulation.

https://vid.me/GYoK

The Eye of Sauron  :)


(SeeShells Dimensions)

Offline ThereIWas3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 884
  • Liked: 428
  • Likes Given: 297
If you look up "Luminiferous Aether" you find some interesting things.

While the Michelson–Morley experiment did not prove that the "Aether" existed, neither did it prove that it did not exist, because Einstein came up with an explanation (the theory of relativity) for observations about the transmission of light that did not require the existence of an Aether to work.  And furthermore, that the MM experiment could not have detected the Aether even if it did exist.

On that same Wiki page, if you scroll down to follow the link to Aether Therories you see a collection of other explanations as to what this "aether" might be.  Among those listed is Quantum Vacuum!

Maybe MM's experiment could not have detected it, but the EmDrive effect can?
"If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up people to collect wood and don’t assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea" - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Offline ThereIWas3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 884
  • Liked: 428
  • Likes Given: 297
Earlier SeeShells asked
Quote
(Meepers, do we have the sidewalls correct and are we sure we are not leaking RF, if we don't use the tune chamber for the different tune points TE012 and TE013 and we just extend the Se top plate will leave a large gap.)

The meep model we are using does not actuallly model the end plates and walls separately, so it is continuous.  The description is actually of two solid cones, one inside the other.  The larger cone is made of copper, and the slightly smaller inner cone is made of "air".  This is the way the meep documentation says to model things like waveguides, though in that case the lengths are infinite.
"If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up people to collect wood and don’t assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea" - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Offline glennfish

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 450
  • Liked: 341
  • Likes Given: 193
If a quantum tunneling diode can exhibit negative resistance, perhaps a quantum tunneling drive could exhibit negative Q? MEEP might be trying to tell us something.

My theory ( stolen from John Quick )

"Basically, the only new principle involved is that instead of power being generated by the relative motion of conductors and fluxes, it is produced by the modial interaction of magneto-reluctance and capacitive directance."  ;D

Negative resistance is not "passive" in the sense that getting more power out than in, happens with such a circuit.  There is always an additional source of power which provides amplification which in the circuit results in negative R at one specific circuit element.

My guess is you could create a result that exhibited a negative Q, since Q can be formulated as a function of resistance, and if you can make R negative, you can make Q negative, however, it doesn't look to me like it would be anything new, novel, or fundamental to the Q calculations done here.

To me, it looks like an amplifier put in a circuit to make the sign flip for one component.

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2167
  • Liked: 2691
  • Likes Given: 1124
Couple of posts removed per request of staff...no biggie...carry on whilst I visit family in indy and follow some cool design thoughts here...negative meep thing peaked my non-meep brain

Offline ThereIWas3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 884
  • Liked: 428
  • Likes Given: 297
The negative Q values are a known artifact of the computational model used inside meep under certain conditions.  It has nothing to do with physics.
"If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up people to collect wood and don’t assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea" - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6123
  • Likes Given: 5511
The negative Q values are a known artifact of the computational model used inside meep under certain conditions.  It has nothing to do with physics.
Correct.  It has nothing to do with physics. 

It has nothing to do with reality.

Discussing this is similar to previous discussions incorrectly attaching physical significance to:

previous Meep models which included a Finite Difference mesh  outside the EM Drive, which showed numerical magnitudes of the electromagnetic fields to be 24 orders of magnitude smaller than the fields inside the EM Drive.  People (unfamiliar with numerical methods like Finite Difference solutions) were unaware that such numerical methods entail the solution of simultaneous equations and therefore that the magnitude of the fields outside the EM Drive instead of displaying a perfect zero will routinely display very small numbers (sometimes negative) associated with the numerical precision and ill-conditioning of inversion of matrices.  Some posters started to discuss in these threads whether these extremely small numerical fields outside the EM Drive were revealing "negative energy".  Nothing to do with reality.  Everything to do with the numerical solution of simultaneous equations.
« Last Edit: 12/12/2015 04:09 pm by Rodal »

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2380
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3111
  • Likes Given: 2674
The negative Q values are a known artifact of the computational model used inside meep under certain conditions.  It has nothing to do with physics.
Correct.  It has nothing to do with physics. 

It has nothing to do with reality.

Discussing this is similar to previous discussions incorrectly attaching physical significance to:

previous Meep models which included a Finite Difference mesh  outside the EM Drive, which showed numerical magnitudes of the electromagnetic fields to be 24 orders of magnitude smaller than the fields inside the EM Drive.  People (unfamiliar with numerical methods like Finite Difference solutions) were unaware that such numerical methods entail the solution of simultaneous equations and therefore that the magnitude of the fields outside the EM Drive instead of displaying a perfect zero will routinely display very small numbers associated with the numerical precision and ill-conditioning of inversion of matrices.  Some posters started to discuss in these threads whether these extremely small numerical fields outside the EM Drive were revealing "negative energy".  Nothing to do with reality.  Everything to do with the numerical solution of simultaneous equations.
Your correct Dr. Rodal, but it needed to be discussed and resolved even if it is a numerical hiccup.   

I'm glad it's behind us and the fractals shown in the boundaries of some of the first meep models are as well. We have come a long way to making sure meep can model our models. When we get solid data from the drive and solid data from meep we can begin to compare and run cross checks between the two. I hope the combining of both data sets will give us some tools to dig a little deeper, answer some questions and open up better ones.

This is my hope.

Shell

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6123
  • Likes Given: 5511
The negative Q values are a known artifact of the computational model used inside meep under certain conditions.  It has nothing to do with physics.
Correct.  It has nothing to do with physics. 

It has nothing to do with reality.

Discussing this is similar to previous discussions incorrectly attaching physical significance to:

previous Meep models which included a Finite Difference mesh  outside the EM Drive, which showed numerical magnitudes of the electromagnetic fields to be 24 orders of magnitude smaller than the fields inside the EM Drive.  People (unfamiliar with numerical methods like Finite Difference solutions) were unaware that such numerical methods entail the solution of simultaneous equations and therefore that the magnitude of the fields outside the EM Drive instead of displaying a perfect zero will routinely display very small numbers associated with the numerical precision and ill-conditioning of inversion of matrices.  Some posters started to discuss in these threads whether these extremely small numerical fields outside the EM Drive were revealing "negative energy".  Nothing to do with reality.  Everything to do with the numerical solution of simultaneous equations.
Your correct Dr. Rodal, but it needed to be discussed and resolved even if it is a numerical hiccup.   

I'm glad it's behind us and the fractals shown in the boundaries of some of the first meep models are as well. We have come a long way to making sure meep can model our models. When we get solid data from the drive and solid data from meep we can begin to compare and run cross checks between the two. I hope the combining of both data sets will give us some tools to dig a little deeper, answer some questions and open up better ones.

This is my hope.

Shell

Yeap, the "fractal" contour images associated with very small numerical magnitude of fields is another example. 

Whenever electromagnetic fields are displayed, they should preferably be displayed with a numerical table identifying the numerical value of the contours (to prevent people from looking at nonsensical small values that are numerical artifacts and thinking that they are significant)

Another example are Meep Q's of 10 million (due to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_out ).

In numerical experiments, just as in physical experiments, everything needs to be double-checked over and over.
« Last Edit: 12/12/2015 05:03 pm by Rodal »

Tags: