-
#1640 by frobnicat on 06 Oct, 2014 23:10
-
.../...
Any DC magnetic field generated in the loop would not be shielded by the metal. There is no mention of any testing or mitigation of a DC offset from the Class AB amplifier in the paper. I would not expect the dual directional couplers used between the amplifier and the cavity to have DC blocking caps.
.../...Quote from: wikipedia microwave cavityThe electromagnetic fields in the cavity are excited via external coupling. An external power source is usually coupled to the cavity by a small aperture, a small wire probe or a loop.[2] External coupling structure has an effect on cavity performance and needs to be considered in the overall analysis.
from there :
You mean that kind of loop, or just the loop of the RF circuit ? Unless there is a conducting loop, isn't the circuit supposed to be open in DC, that is, the dielectric cavity is the DC isolating cap in the circuit between the coupling stub and the walls ? Wouldn't a loop closed to DC short circuit the polarisation of the output stage of the amplifier if it had no AC coupling (DC blocking) caps ? Could that go unnoticed ?
Otherwise, is there any indication of a conducting loop as the coupling used by "anomalous thrust...", judge Rodal maybe you can state about that ?
Edit : what would be the effect of no loop, stub_in/wall_out DC blocking cap configuration, running at high (near breaking) RF E fields and a DC bias in potential ? Then the dielectric could no longer easily be considered perfect isolator, and this bias in potential would change a lot of things, no more "rectifier effect" (sorry John) to explain a direct current component...
-
#1641 by Rodal on 06 Oct, 2014 23:30
-
... The cavity is just a Faraday cage. . ...
In other words, the only purpose served by the truncated cone shape of the device is to contain the microwave energy within the cavity, is that right? -
#1642 by raketa on 06 Oct, 2014 23:37
-
Hi Ron,2/He is revisiting thinking about these troubles and suggests that reason is not understanding of inertia. He is suggesting that inertia is gravitational influence of whole universe on any mass in it. He is also suggesting that electron rest mass could be negative. These 2 ideas first explain, for example how electron could exist at all. The other consequences, that we could temporarily manipulate inertia and get as reaction push from universe gravitation.
It's okay to say this but I just want to point out that what Woodward is saying is that electrons have an undressed negative mass. This distinction between dressed and undressed is not like between rest and other states of an electron. He gives the history behind the notion of "dressing" electrons and those chapters (6 & 7?) in the book are amongst the best. I am extremely impressed with the complexity of the issue and Woodward's ability as per usual to make it crystal clear. 40 years teaching GR will do that for you.
thank you very much I planed it to read again any way. I will focus on these chapter. I make mistake to buy kindle version, I know it will bite me. For these type books is beter to have paper version. But I was interested to read right then anyway. I have to agree that he explain GR better than any other author I have chance to read it. It was so fascinating that I couldn't stop listening book, walking with my 2 years son and dreaming that maybe there is small chance he will able to reach stars. -
#1643 by 93143 on 06 Oct, 2014 23:47
-
It's DC, so M-E theory cannot explain constant thrust from such a setup unless there is significant ripple in the signal. There's no data about ripple here. M-E theory could explain thrust form switching transients here. Did this experiment generate constant thrust or thrust impulses during switching?...regardless of the dielectric's acoustic geometry, M-E physics cannot explain thrust from a DC signal. It can explain thrust impulses from switching transients, and AC signals, but not DC. You've been reading the paper recently so you should be able to tell more easily than I whether the setup meets the criteria to be acting as a MET....
This is very useful information, thank you. Could you be so kind as to review the following excerpt from the NASA Eagleworks report and let us know your opinion of whether "M-E physics" can explain thrust from the following signal:
p.8 <<During testing, the Test Engineer controls the RF frequency generation via a 0-to-28 volts dc power input to a voltage-controlled oscillator (VCO). The VCO RF signal output is passed to a variable voltage attenuator (VVA), the output of which is controlled by the Test Engineer via a 0-to-17 volts dc power input. Based upon the VVA output, the amplifier will output up to approximately 28 watts. Amplifier output passes to a dual-directional coupler (DDC), which allows forward and reflected power measurements to be obtained as the power is simultaneously passed to the test article input port. The Test Engineer monitors forward and reflected power and adjusts the input frequency to obtain the desired combination of cavity frequency and power delivery to the cavity.>>
There, what DC are you talking about ? You mean DC like in a 9V battery, or RF power at 1GHz but constant (unmodulated) ? And if modulated, how should it be modulated, in amplitude, at what freq, what shape ?
This should probably get another look.
Ron, you said DC couldn't explain the thrust (and Rodal said that was very helpful information). But the DC in this case is being fed into an RF oscillator, which would seem to change the picture a bit, no? -
#1644 by 93143 on 06 Oct, 2014 23:51
-
Given Woodward's assertions about exciting an oscillation in a dielectric and then pushing on it at an opportune time to move forward clearly does violate conservation of momentum.
If I'm not gravely mistaken, Woodward's theory is supposed to involve excitation of mass fluctuations much larger than the E/cē you'd calculate from the local electromagnetics, via gravitational interaction with distant matter. It's supposed to conserve momentum via that same interaction.
(Usual caveat: I haven't yet satisfied myself that Woodward's derivation is valid and correctly interpreted. I'm working on it.)They're the same thing. They both gravitate and have inertia. The scale is wildly different, but that's immaterial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordtvedt_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle
Also note that the Nordtvedt effect has not been observed, despite multiple attempts.QuoteThey are not the same thing in our universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalenceQuoteRemember that mass is constrained over space and energy is constrained over time!
Perhaps you should rephrase this, because right now it makes no sense.QuoteAlso remember that a polarized cap and a unpolarized cap DO FALL at exactly the same rate.
That's because this:QuoteRest Mass and Inertial Mass being different
is forbidden by the Einstein Equivalence Principle. A charged capacitor weighs more, but that gives it more inertia, so the increased force of gravity doesn't result in any extra acceleration.QuoteI bet if Woodward put his "symmetrically shaped in the direction of desired thrust" devices in a conical faraday cage, it probably would work.
Woodward's devices already work. Repeatably, well above the noise floor, in vacuum, with what appear to be rigorous experimental controls, and to within an order of magnitude of a priori thrust predictions.
I know Ron said thrust predictions are not made. He was wrong. There's a fairly recent derivation that includes the bulk acceleration requirement explicitly and contains an assumption or two regarding the properties of the material, and it shows surprisingly good quantitative agreement with experiment.
Though I have the impression that Woodward's group treats this thrust equation more as a curiosity than a falsifiable prediction, because there are still too many loose variables...I'm also assuming it is safe to say that Gravitational Mass can never be separated from Rest Mass, that they are invariant. I think it is safe to say that indeed gravitational self energy does indeed contribute to inertial mass, and that may not be the only thing or the only way which in which mechanisms contributes to inertial mass, in our universe, either way gravitational self energy DOES. Verified by experiment.
What exactly do you mean by "verified by experiment"?
And what do you mean by "safe"? You're essentially postulating the opposite of the Nordtvedt effect, and of course a blatant violation of the strong equivalence principle (which BTW Woodward's theory supposedly respects, being based on GR; I haven't yet got my head around how exactly it manages this). -
#1645 by zen-in on 07 Oct, 2014 00:29
-
So, if I understand you correctly you agree that the internal loop will act as an electromagnet, and the DC magnetic field will NOT be shielded by the metal. [I would add that any slowly-varying components of the magnetic field will not be shielded either]
1) The MCL amplifier used is a Class AB amp. The output, unless it has a DC blocking cap inside the amp, will have a DC offset = Vdd/2. My guess is the amp does not have a DC blocking cap because that would affect the bandwidth and MCL likes to advertise their amplifiers as being broadband. It is also possible that different load configurations (reflected power) will change the offset. When a dummy load is used the RF feedline is totally coaxial so no external magnetic effects would be present. However when the cavity is loaded the internal loop, if there is a DC offset, would act like an electromagnet. Any DC magnetic field generated in the loop would not be shielded by the metal. There is no mention of any testing or mitigation of a DC offset from the Class AB amplifier in the paper. I would not expect the dual directional couplers used between the amplifier and the cavity to have DC blocking caps...
We also know that they are using three Neodymium (NdFeB Grade N42) block magnets and they know they have an interaction from the magnetic damper responsible for an acknowledged ~10 microNewton measured artifact and a changing baseline.
(They blame this as resulting from coupling between the magnetic damper and the power cable, though:
<<This current causes the power cable to generate a magnetic field that interacts with the torsion pendulum magnetic damper system.>> p.14
)
Therefore, there could be an interaction between the DC magnetic field escaping the device, interacting with the magnetic damping field and producing a spurious thrust force that maybe an artifact rather than real thrust ?
In other words, if it is a magnetic artifact, this thing would not propel itself in outer space?
I'm just raising the question. It is something that needs to be ruled out. If the MCL amp does have a DC offset on its output that could be a reason for the anomalous force they have measured. I doubt a short wire probe would work.because it would have to be 1/4 λ and would not fit in the cavity. -
#1646 by zen-in on 07 Oct, 2014 00:34
-
... Its end caps are single-sided FR4 (fiberglass PCB material). ...
OK, this is great information, but I must ask, how do you know that it is single-sided PCB material? Is that in the report? Is it from your experience? Is it from another report?
How do we know that there is no copper plate behind the PCB material?
Thanks again
great to have you here
I have used FR4 and recognize the red logos on the bare side. Also the copper side can be seen extending out in one of the photos. It looks like the cone section of the cavity is made from lighter weight FR4, using washer-shaped sections to hold it in shape and strengthen it. Lead-Tin solder is used to solder it all together. The solder line can be seen where the large end cap meets the cone. -
#1647 by Rodal on 07 Oct, 2014 00:40
-
... Its end caps are single-sided FR4 (fiberglass PCB material). ...
OK, this is great information, but I must ask, how do you know that it is single-sided PCB material? Is that in the report? Is it from your experience? Is it from another report?
How do we know that there is no copper plate behind the PCB material?
Thanks again great to have you here
I have used FR4 and recognize the red logos on the bare side. Also the copper side can be seen extending out in one of the photos. It looks like the cone section of the cavity is made from lighter weight FR4, using washer-shaped sections to hold it in shape and strengthen it. Lead-Tin solder is used to solder it all together. The solder line can be seen where the large end cap meets the cone.
OK it is great to have you confirm this as @notsosureofit had also pointed out (early in the thread) that this was single sided PCB material he was familiar with. -
#1648 by zen-in on 07 Oct, 2014 00:57
-
... I also question the RF theory of this device. It is an untuned cavity with a very high Q ceramic resonator inside. Almost all the RF power will be in the ceramic, and very little power will be bouncing off the inside Cu walls of the cavity. The cavity is just a Faraday cage. ...
Although several of us have come to a similar conclusion, I would like to explore your reasoning a little further.
How do you know that it has a very high Q resonator inside? (Is it because when they remove it they measure no thrust force?)
How do you know that the resonator is a ceramic? The report mentions a PTFE ("Teflon") dielectric resonator (albeit for the Cannae device if my memory serves me correctly). Did I miss the "ceramic" information in the report somewhere. Is this information from another report?
Thank you again for your great post
Yes it looks like I'm wrong about that. Only the Cannae device has a 1/4 λ antenna inside the long section, with a ptfe slug. The return loss (S11) measurement shows the resonant frequency of the loop and cavity and that very little of the RF power that goes into the cavity gets reflected out. -
#1649 by zen-in on 07 Oct, 2014 01:03
-
... The cavity is just a Faraday cage. . ...
In other words, the only purpose served by the truncated cone shape of the device is to contain the microwave energy within the cavity, is that right?
I acknowledge the theory of this device has something to do with its cone shape. But as an RF device it is a cavity filter. It is also a Faraday cage because the inside is all Cu. (my assumption based on the photos and the S11 plot). -
#1650 by Rodal on 07 Oct, 2014 01:07
-
... I also question the RF theory of this device. It is an untuned cavity with a very high Q ceramic resonator inside. Almost all the RF power will be in the ceramic, and very little power will be bouncing off the inside Cu walls of the cavity. The cavity is just a Faraday cage. ...
Although several of us have come to a similar conclusion, I would like to explore your reasoning a little further.
How do you know that it has a very high Q resonator inside? (Is it because when they remove it they measure no thrust force?)
How do you know that the resonator is a ceramic? The report mentions a PTFE ("Teflon") dielectric resonator (albeit for the Cannae device if my memory serves me correctly). Did I miss the "ceramic" information in the report somewhere. Is this information from another report?
Thank you again for your great post
Yes it looks like I'm wrong about that. Only the Cannae device has a 1/4 λ antenna inside the long section, with a ptfe slug. The return loss (S11) measurement shows the resonant frequency of the loop and cavity and that very little of the RF power that goes into the cavity gets reflected out.
So we know that in the NASA Eagleworks tests:
The Cannae device had a PTFE dielectric resonator
The truncated cone ("tapered cavity") also had a dielectric resonator (because they stated that when they took it out they measured no thrust), but we don't know exactly what kind of dielectric material -
#1651 by zen-in on 07 Oct, 2014 01:25
-
.../...
Any DC magnetic field generated in the loop would not be shielded by the metal. There is no mention of any testing or mitigation of a DC offset from the Class AB amplifier in the paper. I would not expect the dual directional couplers used between the amplifier and the cavity to have DC blocking caps.
.../...Quote from: wikipedia microwave cavityThe electromagnetic fields in the cavity are excited via external coupling. An external power source is usually coupled to the cavity by a small aperture, a small wire probe or a loop.[2] External coupling structure has an effect on cavity performance and needs to be considered in the overall analysis.
from there :
You mean that kind of loop, or just the loop of the RF circuit ? Unless there is a conducting loop, isn't the circuit supposed to be open in DC, that is, the dielectric cavity is the DC isolating cap in the circuit between the coupling stub and the walls ? Wouldn't a loop closed to DC short circuit the polarisation of the output stage of the amplifier if it had no AC coupling (DC blocking) caps ? Could that go unnoticed ?
Otherwise, is there any indication of a conducting loop as the coupling used by "anomalous thrust...", judge Rodal maybe you can state about that ?
Edit : what would be the effect of no loop, stub_in/wall_out DC blocking cap configuration, running at high (near breaking) RF E fields and a DC bias in potential ? Then the dielectric could no longer easily be considered perfect isolator, and this bias in potential would change a lot of things, no more "rectifier effect" (sorry John) to explain a direct current component...
In pages 15, 16 of the paper the 16 mm and 12.5 mm loop antenna used to drive the cone-shaped cavity are mentioned. The wireframe drawings of the cavity also show a loop attached to what looks like an RF connector on the outside of the cone. The MCL ZHL-100 amplifier is rated at 100 W with a 28 V supply. Since they are only running it at 17 or 2.6 Watts the DC supply would be much less than 28 V. So if there was a DC offset coming from the class AB amp that was not blocked there would not be a significant overload of the power supply or amp. This is just theoretical. I don't know if the RF amps DC offset is blocked. Nothing in the paper indicates that it is. I don't know enough about the Cannae device to know if it uses a loop or a 1/4 λ probe, but all the RF cavity filters I have seen use loops. -
#1652 by zen-in on 07 Oct, 2014 01:43
-
... I also question the RF theory of this device. It is an untuned cavity with a very high Q ceramic resonator inside. Almost all the RF power will be in the ceramic, and very little power will be bouncing off the inside Cu walls of the cavity. The cavity is just a Faraday cage. ...
Although several of us have come to a similar conclusion, I would like to explore your reasoning a little further.
How do you know that it has a very high Q resonator inside? (Is it because when they remove it they measure no thrust force?)
How do you know that the resonator is a ceramic? The report mentions a PTFE ("Teflon") dielectric resonator (albeit for the Cannae device if my memory serves me correctly). Did I miss the "ceramic" information in the report somewhere. Is this information from another report?
Thank you again for your great post
Yes it looks like I'm wrong about that. Only the Cannae device has a 1/4 λ antenna inside the long section, with a ptfe slug. The return loss (S11) measurement shows the resonant frequency of the loop and cavity and that very little of the RF power that goes into the cavity gets reflected out.
So we know that in the NASA Eagleworks tests:
The Cannae device had a PTFE dielectric resonator
The truncated cone ("tapered cavity") also had a dielectric resonator (because they stated that when they took it out they measured no thrust), but we don't know exactly what kind of dielectric material
The dielectric resonators I have seen all used a hard ceramic. PTFE is soft, expands with heat and humidity and so would not be useful as a resonator. PTFE is used as a structural and support element in RF connectors, etc because it is low loss. I suspect some type of ceramic resonator was used in the cone shaped device because the return loss is way down at -49 dB. Cavity filters of similar size are used in radio communications systems to provide selectivity for a desired frequency. The VNA swept waveform looks very similar. However the cavity filters used in radio communications have a 1/4 λ stub inside that can be tuned by turning a screw. This 1/4 λ stub is what makes the cavity so selective. If the cone shaped device was just an empty cavity with a loop drive I don't see how it would be so selective (have a Q = 7300). However returning to my earlier statement about the RF theory of this device: It appears it MUST have some kind of high Q resonator inside. If that is the case then almost all the RF power is concentrated in this resonator and is not bouncing off any of the walls. The question is how is this resonator excited? That information is missing from the paper. -
#1653 by Rodal on 07 Oct, 2014 12:52
-
@zen-in
The dielectric resonators I have seen all used a hard ceramic. PTFE is soft, expands with heat and humidity and so would not be useful as a resonator. PTFE is used as a structural and support element in RF connectors, etc because it is low loss. I suspect some type of ceramic resonator was used in the cone shaped device because the return loss is way down at -49 dB. Cavity filters of similar size are used in radio communications systems to provide selectivity for a desired frequency. The VNA swept waveform looks very similar. However the cavity filters used in radio communications have a 1/4 λ stub inside that can be tuned by turning a screw. This 1/4 λ stub is what makes the cavity so selective. If the cone shaped device was just an empty cavity with a loop drive I don't see how it would be so selective (have a Q = 7300). However returning to my earlier statement about the RF theory of this device: It appears it MUST have some kind of high Q resonator inside. If that is the case then almost all the RF power is concentrated in this resonator and is not bouncing off any of the walls. The question is how is this resonator excited? That information is missing from the paper.
What do you make of NASA's tests at 1933 MHz and 1937 MHz (see first two rows of table attached below): the test with a Q factor 2.5 times higher [Q=18100 instead of Q=7320] resulted in a thrust force 1/2 as large with practically the same power input and practically the same frequency (0.3% difference). Such a result flies on the face of a number of theories (including Dr. White's, and Prof. McCulloch's) that predict a higher thrust force proportional to the Q factor (everything else being the same).
Also, as you said, the S11 plot [the very bottom attachment] shows that very little RF power is reflected back to the input at 1933 MHz. The S11 plot has very little definition in my report, and even if I zoom it, it is impossible for me to read the numbers. But from the shape of the S11 signal, I don't see from the S11 plot something to justify the completely different results at 1937 MHz (0.3 % difference in frequency).
A 1933 MHz peak does not appear in their S21 plot attached below. It only shows a 1936 MHz peak. Of course their plot does not have a frequency range detail that would readily show this 0.3% difference but they did not offer any zooming details. Their S21 plot does not show such a high resonance peak in that region compared with other peak frequencies, either. Another interesting thing is that their COMSOL prediction is off the most (compared to the actual amplitudes) in this region. The COMSOL finite element results [shown in the upper part of the picture, with a white background] predicts a much higher resonance in this region that what the S21 [shown with a black background] results show. (The COMSOL finite element results are also off regarding the frequency at which the peak appears, showing the peak occurring at ~1950 MHz)
-
#1654 by Mulletron on 07 Oct, 2014 13:20
-
Given Woodward's assertions about exciting an oscillation in a dielectric and then pushing on it at an opportune time to move forward clearly does violate conservation of momentum.
If I'm not gravely mistaken, Woodward's theory is supposed to involve excitation of mass fluctuations much larger than the E/cē you'd calculate from the local electromagnetics, via gravitational interaction with distant matter. It's supposed to conserve momentum via that same interaction.
(Usual caveat: I haven't yet satisfied myself that Woodward's derivation is valid and correctly interpreted. I'm working on it.)They're the same thing. They both gravitate and have inertia. The scale is wildly different, but that's immaterial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordtvedt_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle
Also note that the Nordtvedt effect has not been observed, despite multiple attempts.QuoteThey are not the same thing in our universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalenceQuoteRemember that mass is constrained over space and energy is constrained over time!
Perhaps you should rephrase this, because right now it makes no sense.QuoteAlso remember that a polarized cap and a unpolarized cap DO FALL at exactly the same rate.
That's because this:QuoteRest Mass and Inertial Mass being different
is forbidden by the Einstein Equivalence Principle. A charged capacitor weighs more, but that gives it more inertia, so the increased force of gravity doesn't result in any extra acceleration.QuoteI bet if Woodward put his "symmetrically shaped in the direction of desired thrust" devices in a conical faraday cage, it probably would work.
Woodward's devices already work. Repeatably, well above the noise floor, in vacuum, with what appear to be rigorous experimental controls, and to within an order of magnitude of a priori thrust predictions.
I know Ron said thrust predictions are not made. He was wrong. There's a fairly recent derivation that includes the bulk acceleration requirement explicitly and contains an assumption or two regarding the properties of the material, and it shows surprisingly good quantitative agreement with experiment.
Though I have the impression that Woodward's group treats this thrust equation more as a curiosity than a falsifiable prediction, because there are still too many loose variables...I'm also assuming it is safe to say that Gravitational Mass can never be separated from Rest Mass, that they are invariant. I think it is safe to say that indeed gravitational self energy does indeed contribute to inertial mass, and that may not be the only thing or the only way which in which mechanisms contributes to inertial mass, in our universe, either way gravitational self energy DOES. Verified by experiment.
What exactly do you mean by "verified by experiment"?
And what do you mean by "safe"? You're essentially postulating the opposite of the Nordtvedt effect, and of course a blatant violation of the strong equivalence principle (which BTW Woodward's theory supposedly respects, being based on GR; I haven't yet got my head around how exactly it manages this).
I know I must have made some grave mistakes in this because I am tired and don't know everything. I'm certain I made a logical paradox somewhere. Either way here's my thoughts:
I want to make sure you are properly separating terms before you read and interpret my posts. My quote's actual words got dropped somehow from your quote and were changed a bit by Frobicat, but my exact words was, "If this really is Woodward's assumption. We can put it to bed. We just discussed this. I find it hard to believe he has confused mass energy within the atom with energies of covalent bonds."
So lets define clear terms and differences between them:
Rest Mass: Derived from inside the the protons and neutrons by virtue of their interaction with the Higgs mechanism, add that to the mass derived from the gluons, and take that whole system's movement through space time; finally you get rest mass. The gluons account for 99 percent of the mass of a proton, not the quarks. Color confinement.Same thing in the neutron. Not derived from the electrons. The electrons hang around because of charge, not attraction to the atom's rest mass. The mass of an individual electron is so small, that any gravitational interaction between it and the nucleus is basically zero. The charge force is way stronger. In short, the rest mass, which is the mass/energy of the atom, which results in gravity, is confined to the nucleus. Active gravitational mass is the result.
Self energy: Not the same as rest mass. To have any self energy, the particle must interact with something else in it's environment. You can have different types of self energy.
Self energy contained within the bonds between atoms in a molecule for example, covalent bonds.
You can have chemical energy self energy
Heat self energy.
You can also have gravitational self energy.
Keep these terms separate. Those two forms of self energy are not on the same scale and not related.
Gravitational self energy contributes to a system's gravitational mass AND it's inertial mass.
Electrical/mechanical self energy does not contribute to a system's gravitational mass or it's inertial mass.
Time to really nuke this:
Is gravitational self energy the same as active gravitational mass? no
-A tiny moon and a large moon both would fall toward the earth at the same rate. Even though they are of different masses. Like the hammer and feather. true
-Do you need an environment to have active gravitational mass? no
-Mass arises mostly from the energy stored in gluon coupling. I know of no interaction of gluons with Higgs.
-Do gluons derive their mass from Higgs? no
-Do gluons need an environment in order to have mass? kinda but no, no because of precise language (Bill Clinton method)
The environment for the gluon is within the quark, outside the sphere of gravitational self interaction with other particles because it is overwhelmed by the strong force. So environment in this context doesn't fit with other times environment was brought up.
-Is the bulk of active gravitational mass derived from the higgs mechanism? no
-You don't need an environment to interact with in order to have active gravitational mass. true
-You need an environment to have self energy. true
-You can have self energy without an environment. false
Is gravitational self energy the same as passive gravitational mass? yes they are complimentary, you can't have one without the other
-Self energy is result of changes that objects themselves causes in the environment. true
-Must you have an environment to have gravitational self energy? yes
-Must you have an environment to have passive gravitational mass? yes
-Would either gravitational self energy or passive gravitational mass cease to exist outside an environment of peers? yes
In short self energy is evident because of the interaction of an object with its environment.
Passive gravitational mass can't arise without an environment to interact with.
Inertial mass is the mass of an object measured by its resistance to acceleration.
-Do you need an environment to say you accelerated? yes. A reference frame with respect to another has no meaning without an environment of things. Without an environment, there is only one observer and that observer is inertial, not accelerating with respect to anything else because there isn't anything else.
Is gravitational self energy a cause for inertial mass? yes
-Is gravitational self energy an acceleration? yes
-Do you need an environment to say you accelerated? yes
-Do you need an environment to have gravitational self energy? yes
-Do objects with gravitational self energy resist acceleration? yes
-Do objects with gravitational self energy have inertial mass? yes
Is passive gravitational mass a cause for inertial mass? yes
-Do objects with gravitational self energy have inertial mass? yes
-Do objects with passive gravitational mass resist acceleration? yes
Is mass energy a cause for inertia? yes
-Can you have acceleration without mass? no. What is to accelerate? You can't accelerate nothing.
-Is a massive object undergoing NO acceration experiencing inertia? no
-Do objects undergoing NO acceleration have inertial mass? NO
Is mass energy THE cause for inertial mass? NO
-Is mass energy responsible for 100% of inertial mass? no 99.
??percent. What is left is the .00001? percent contribution to inertial mass from all the other fundamental interactions and their particles which have mass.
That tiny leftover bit is all we have left to play with because we can't shield gravity. We don't have the technology to get near those energy levels in our present day and we live in a universe that is dominated by inertial dominated by mass.
So we have to create a whole new universe within our real universe with slightly modified rules so we can get some work done by modifying inertia. This is what the shape of the emdrive does. It doesn't shield gravity and make the gravitational effects of inertia and more of less strong within the cavity. It gives the small percentage left, the .0000? left a boost. So when we fire photons through the thing from small to large end, they gain inertial mass across the length of the cavity. Normally this would be equaled out and canceled in our universe because spacetime is symmetrical. But in the tubes universe, spacetime is not symmetrical. There is a bias.
Do objects of the same mass undergoing different accelerations have the same inertial mass? no
-Does it hurt more dropping a bowling ball on your foot than it does a marble? yes
-Did they fall at the same rate? yes
-Did they resist acceleration equally? acceleration yes, deceleration no
They weight differently but fell at the same speed. The force it takes you to move them though is different.
Is mass inertia? no
-Can you have mass without acceleration? yes
-Can you have inertia without acceleration? no
This is also the equivalence principal:
Inertial Mass: Assumed to be the same as gravitational mass by the equivalence principal. (Yeah I assume it is the same MOST of the time.
Where there is a gravitational field, they are the same. In areas where there are very low gravitational accelerations, this has been theorized to fall apart.)
Gravitational self energy contributes to a system's gravitational mass AND it's inertial mass. This was tested by the Nordtvedt effect and the Nordtvedt effect was ruled out. Which isn't an effect because it was ruled out. The Nordtvedt effect is a failed test of the equivalence principal.
Gravitational mass/inertial mass/gravitational self energy are accepted as the equivalent in our universe MOST of the time and is really illusory. Inertial mass can be modified (I support and others theorize) by a few different ways, 1 at the edges of galaxies and 2 by virtue of the shape of the emdrive.)
Why rest mass is not the same as gravitational mass and inertial mass. This is because contributions to the REST mass of an atom, create an energy instability between the nucleus and the orbiting electrons, this gets radiated away because the atom must return to it's lowest possible energy state. When you excite an atom, its electrons jump to higher energy levels briefly and then radiate a photon and return to normal.
When a molecular system is charged up, like in a dielectric, the self energy of the entire system increases as long as charge is maintained, meanwhile the rest masses of the individual atoms stay the same. The nucleus of the atoms was never altered. A dielectric at rest just charges up and doesn't gain weight/gravitational mass/inertial mass, none of that. Just electrical self energy.
"Dr. Woodward maintains that the M-E's mass fluctuations occur in the "squishy" intermolecular chemical bonds of the dielectric and not in the rest mass of the ions in question." http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2949&start=240#p116102 I saw Paul March
saying the same thing over at Polywell. It don't make sense Woodward would say that, but I keep finding that is indeed what he is saying everywhere I look.
Accelerate a dielectric, the rest mass would raise. ANYTHINGS rest mass will increase if it is accelerated.
Woodward has it very wrong in this respect. The other respect being classical mechanical conservation laws.
What is left, which doesn't fit in with the above is electrical self energy, or you can call it self energy via polarized atoms.
Self energy of molecules is not the same as self energy of an atom. One is rest mass, the other is covalent bonds. Any gravitational effects relating to any raise in electrical/charge self energy is insignificant because at atomic and molecular scales, the strong, weak, and em force overwhelms gravity. So if an atom gains a bit of rest mass somehow for a split second from a more energetic orbiting electron, it makes no difference because gravity is weak at that level and the atom would radiate that mass/energy away. The electrical energy dumped into a dielectric via rf or an oscillator doesn't have enough energy to raise the mass energy of the atomic nucleus. This is the realm of gamma rays. A gamma way could and does cause atomic nuclei to emit energy in the response of an imbalanced gain in mass/energy from the energetic gamma ray. See more about pair production. This is why the Woodward effect isn't working based off of self energy.
The Woodward devices and the emdrive are very similar. The difference being is the Woodward devices are using capacitors or piezoelectric materials, between piezoelectric materials. He has used caps and PZTs in the middle. The MET is not contained within a cavity. Emdrive uses a dielectric in a cone or tube. I'm gonna discuss the cap in the middle approach first. He says he is generating a mass fluctuation in the capacitor material by virtue of rapidly squeezing and contracting it, producing a bias in the self energy of the cap. Two things we must be very clear we are precise about: 1. What kind of mass is he referring to by saying "mass fluctuations." It can't be rest mass.
See way above. I'm going to hedge he means inertial mass since inertial mass is the key to all the devices. 2. Which direction is the bias and with respect to what? Let's look at that. These piezoelectrics oscillate by physically changing dimensions creating a force in both directions of oscillation. Depending on how the PZT material are arranged and charged, it would push cap together towards its own center equally, or they could push it to the right, or the left, whatever. It would never ever work if the cap was being biased toward it's own center, so lets drop that one. We want it to be a thruster, not a cap smoosher. So let's say the PZTs net effect is to push the cap to the right for instance. This is easy to do. More pzt stacks on the left vs the right would do that. But we don't have thrust.
Because the inertial potential in the system is equal in all directions by virtue of the universe we live in. Now we have to analyze the MET thruster as a physical system. Since inertia is smooth everywhere (at least here on earth), the impulse of the cap that was pushed right by the imbalanced PZT stack would seem to violate conservation of momentum if this was the end of the story. Those PZT stacks push in 2 directions. Since this is a physical system, the net effect is that the push/pull forces cancel out. The only way to get a net thrust out of it is to decouple it from the universe, governed by the LAWS of physics. The best he could do is make it spin, a motor. A motor spins as a response of an imbalance in order to conserve momentum, and obey physical laws. A motor can't help us in space.
The pzt in the center in place of the cap is similar, only it is charged out of phase with the other pzt stacks, inducing a net bias, but since they are all part of the same physical system and connected to eachother, the push pull forces cancel out. Every item in the thruster has the same laws of physics to obey. They all posess the same inertial mass, which is derived from the universe at large which the thruster resides in. The best he can do is make it spin, converting linear motion to angular motion.
When I say physical system, consider there are 2 separate and invariably linked physical systems to consider here:
1. The thruster is a physical system. It must obey its own rules and the rules of the second physical sytem; the universe.
2. The universe.
The atoms, particles, radiative fields are spherical. The charge is spherical, the energy density of an atom is spherical. Every interation that has symmetry also has a conservation. This is where we derive our conservation laws. You can't break them. If they were broken, the universe itself would become immaterial. The fundamental interactions would be broken. Anything with mass has an unbreakable spacial symmetry that must be conserved. Anything with energy has a temporal asymmetry, which is time. The arrow of time is no accident and thermodynamics are no accident. We can't break the laws of physics and still exist.
The Woodward effect is trying to connect electromechanical self energy with inertial mass and gravitational self energy. That does not follow. There is no accepted theory of electrogravity. There is no mechanogravity.
In a previous post I commented on this and said I was looking for "X" effect define this concept. X was the Woodward effect. The Woodward effect can never be true in our universe, just like the Nordtvedt effect can never be true either.
Place the MET thruster in a container, like the cone shape and you are in business. We can't shield gravity by any means I know of, even a cone or other engineered boundary condition, so if inertial mass is really mostly or completely derived from the gravitational interaction of distant matter, we are up a s#$t creek on emdrive. It will never work. If it is casimir/unruh/zpf/EM we're in business, even if it is part gravity and part casimir/unruh/zph/em whatever. This is why I poo poo Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory. Gravity propagates at C. Retarded and advanced waves in WFA theory seem like a forced answer to explain Mach in terms of inertial mass's connection to gravity. The violations of causality in WFA theory need addressing because most mass arises at the quark/gluon level, which the field is contained to a very small area in a proton/neutron. WFA theory isn't addressing gravity waves, it is addressing electromagnetic waves. We already know that gravity isn't electromagnetic and no gravity waves have been detected. There is no salient mechanism I can find for the gravity of a distant object to inform the inertia of a local object using solely the terms we know of gravity, which are spacetime curvature, or if you want to believe in quantum gravity, gravitons. Find me a graviton or a gravity wave and WFA is back on the table. That also means emdrive would be done because we can't shield gravity. We can't create an asymmetry in gravity to play with. WFA theory falls apart in other ways too.
He mentioned he placed his thrusters inside a faraday cage. It seems this was to eliminate unwanted interference, so probably rectangular. The geometry of the faraday cage is what could make it work.
/Book
-
#1655 by Ron Stahl on 07 Oct, 2014 14:07
-
Ron, you said DC couldn't explain the thrust (and Rodal said that was very helpful information). But the DC in this case is being fed into an RF oscillator, which would seem to change the picture a bit, no?
Yes. I misunderstood the operation and thought they were talking about the Cannae device which I'm not that familiar with. Seems both resonators are being driven by AC, so both could be using M-E if they both have dielectrics inside.
When Paul was first working with the Shawyer resonator back in 2007, we went through the issues pretty carefully and found that indeed, when there is nothing inside the resonator, it cannot be using M-E physics since there needs to be a mass to fluctuate. Looks though, that they've left the empty resonator design behind since it doesn't work. Odd thing is, both Shawyer and his misunderstanding of "group velocity" and White and his misunderstanding of vacuum fluctuations require nothing inside these resonators. So why are they putting the stuff in?
I think the mystery meat must be from Boeing. I'm betting what we haven't been hearing about are the results from Hector Serrano and his asymmetric dielectric capacitor thruster. Serrano had his stuff tested at Marshall twice over the years, and couldn't get a response from NASA despite some thrust. (They did however, file for patent on Serrano's design--scumbag NASA folks.) If Serrano eventually got picked up by Boeing, and Boeing sent what they had to Eagleworks, and Sonny was claiming his QVF model explains thrust from yet another thruster, that would explain why they're sticking dielectric inside all the designs. What Sonny doesn't explain is why they need dielectric at all, since the QVF conjecture does not require any mass to generate quantum fluctuations, and why these things don't work with DC, which is what the QVF conjecture is all about. -
#1656 by Ron Stahl on 07 Oct, 2014 14:21
-
If that is the case then almost all the RF power is concentrated in this resonator and is not bouncing off any of the walls. The question is how is this resonator excited? That information is missing from the paper.
The walls of the cone are indeed the resonator. EM is in a standing wave between the two ends. That is the design Shawyer started with and there's no reason to keep the asymmetry apart from this. Including a dielectric allows one to have higher power densities, so if Sonny is now pretending he can alter the rate of quantum vacuum fluctuation, this could be the issue. And I would note to you, he has made statements this nutty before. When the resonator didn't work back in 2007, he first claimed that the fluctuations had been "choaked off", which is just more malarkey. Vacuum fluctuations do not care how much mass is present.
-
#1657 by Rodal on 07 Oct, 2014 14:24
-
When Paul was first working with the Shawyer resonator back in 2007, we went through the issues pretty carefully and found that indeed, when there is nothing inside the resonator, it cannot be using M-E physics since there needs to be a mass to fluctuate. Looks though, that they've left the empty resonator design behind since it doesn't work. Odd thing is, both Shawyer and his misunderstanding of "group velocity" and White and his misunderstanding of vacuum fluctuations require nothing inside these resonators. So why are they putting the stuff in?..
To confuse matters even more, the AviationWeek/WiredUK reporter http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1265607#msg1265607) posted here a few pages back that he/she has an e-mail from Shawyer stating that Shawyer no longer uses a dielectric resonator inside his EM driveI think the mystery meat must be from Boeing. I'm betting what we haven't been hearing about are the results from Hector Serrano and his asymmetric dielectric capacitor thruster. Serrano had his stuff tested at Marshall twice over the years, and couldn't get a response from NASA despite some thrust. (They did however, file for patent on Serrano's design--scumbag NASA folks.) If Serrano eventually got picked up by Boeing, and Boeing sent what they had to Eagleworks, and Sonny was claiming his QVF model explains thrust from yet another thruster, that would explain why they're sticking dielectric inside all the designs.
The NASA Eagleworks tests of the Serrano Field Effect Boeing/DARPA device show [excerpt from slide 40 of Dr. White's presentation attached below] an impulse (very short -less than 1 sec- response) instead of a steady thrust force. Given
A) the low thrust forces involved (20 to 110 microNewtons)(in comparison with conventional means of propulsion), and
B) an impulse response but no steady state thrust,
can this kind of EM drive be scaled-up to enable the performance (9 month trips to Titan and Enceladus) envisioned at the end of Brady et.al.'s report?
-
#1658 by Ron Stahl on 07 Oct, 2014 14:32
-
The Woodward effect is trying to connect electromechanical self energy with inertial mass and gravitational self energy.
No offense, but you really should not write these fantastically long posts devoted to critiquing a theory you haven't read. You have no way to know whether what you're criticizing is actual theory. I can tell you, all of your comments about conservation are completely wrong, and you would know this if you had read the book. You should not be arguing that Woodward is supposedly trying to do this or that, when you have not read his work. -
#1659 by Mulletron on 07 Oct, 2014 14:41
-
The Woodward effect is trying to connect electromechanical self energy with inertial mass and gravitational self energy.
No offense, but you really should not write these fantastically long posts devoted to critiquing a theory you haven't read. You have no way to know whether what you're criticizing is actual theory. I can tell you, all of your comments about conservation are completely wrong, and you would know this if you had read the book. You should not be arguing that Woodward is supposedly trying to do this or that, when you have not read his work.
I find it is best to try and break people's theories and find better ones. Then try to break those too. Not to fall in love with an idea that might not work, and hinder progress.
great to have you here
??percent. What is left is the .00001?