-
#2300 by PaulF on 03 May, 2015 11:36
-
One question, regarding Mr. Shawyer's understanding of what's going on in his EM-drive:
OK, I am going to take a (partial)shot at this. I am a complete idiot as far as maths go, but I did remember some of it from school. I hope this can give you a handle at least, so please be gentle...
Let's pretend we are a photon. We are traveling at c. Due to Lorentz-contraction of space in our traveling direction, how does the universe look like for us, a photon? I think that the universe actually appears as a sort of surface in our traveling direction, due to the maximum Lorentz contraction of space in front of us.
The question is: For a photon, moving at c, how does the inner geometry of an EM-drive frustum really look like? Could there be an apparent nonlinearity, from the viewpoint of a photon, within an EM-drive device, that we in our everyday, non-Lorentz contracted world don't perceive? Is there someone on the forum who can do the math that projects how the maximum-Lorentz contracted universe looks like for a photon, and apply this to an EM-drive environment?
Best,
CW
at light speed the universe in front of you would seem to me indeed like a flat surface. A projection of the universe on a wall from your viewpoint (edit- I realize, because photons experience no time, it would just look like a single point "directly in front" I realize this is also not accurate because the photon would experience itself within that same point. But for argument's sake lets assume we can take a step back. More importantly, a photon and the universe would seem to be 0-dimensional from that viewpoint)Am I completely wrong in stating that in case of the photon, you could apply formulas that are relevant to non-relativistic viewers, but differentiated twice? remove two dimensions from one, remove two dimensions from the other idea?
Deducing from that I posit that as speed increases our 3 dimensional space-time is reduced to 0 dimensions at at the point where light speed is reached. Which would also be another confirmation that faster than light travel is not possible. With the exception of warping space-time. -
#2301 by TheTraveller on 03 May, 2015 11:54
-
Here Shawyer compares 7 devices, some classic EMDrives, some with just a dielectic & the superconducting LN cooled Cannae drive.
It is important to note the direction of generated thrust as dielectics apparently generate thrust in the opposite direction to that of EMDrives.
I do note the EW test of a Cannae like device was not tested at cryo temp nor had superconducting interior lining and had an added dielectic. So was not a test of a true Cannae device.
From Shawyer, EW should not expect to see any thrust from an EMDrive like test device when tested fixed, not allowed to accelerate, without added dielectic. Which is what was observed. Static thrust was not measured, with the EW EMDrive like device until a dielectic was added.
Appears EW have discovered a new way to gen thrust in a fixed device. Use a dielectric. From Shawyer device summary, line 1, it appears all that may be needed is a short section of resonate pipe with a dielectic stuck in one end. IE EW Cannae test device minus the cavity.
However as the dielectric thrust is weaker than the EMDrive thrust and in the opposite thrust direction to the classic EMDrive thrust direction, putting a dielectric into an accelerating EMDrive may reduce the overall delivered thrust and effective cavity Q as would be seen by the classic EMDrive operational mode.
Is Shawyer giving away spoilers?
-
#2302 by Mulletron on 03 May, 2015 12:05
-
Never really thought about this before, but is light in a cavity resonator gravitationally redshifted?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift -
#2303 by PaulF on 03 May, 2015 12:12
-
Never really thought about this before, but is light in a cavity resonator gravitationally redshifted?
Do you mean natural (i.e. earth) or artificial gravity that could be generated by space-time warping or other quantum voodoo?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift -
#2304 by Mulletron on 03 May, 2015 12:24
-
Never really thought about this before, but is light in a cavity resonator gravitationally redshifted?
Do you mean natural (i.e. earth) or artificial gravity that could be generated by space-time warping or other quantum voodoo?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
I mean, if you had an Emdrive sitting the table (large diameter down) here on Earth, and it was energized by feeding RF into a slot/probe located at the large diameter. Would an observer at the small end notice a red shift? -
#2305 by Mulletron on 03 May, 2015 12:32
-
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/594756342641922048
But why in the world did @ElonMusk link to an article from August 2014? That is soooo last year. -
#2306 by PaulF on 03 May, 2015 12:36
-
Would seem to me that if the thrust produced is horizontally, gravity can't have effect on it, besides bending it a teeny weeny bit. Time dilation at beginning and endpoint are same (same distance from gravity well), so in effect 0.Never really thought about this before, but is light in a cavity resonator gravitationally redshifted?
Do you mean natural (i.e. earth) or artificial gravity that could be generated by space-time warping or other quantum voodoo?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
I mean, if you had an Emdrive sitting the table (large diameter down) here on Earth, and it was energized by feeding RF into a slot/probe located at the large diameter. Would an observer at the small end notice a red shift?
Vertically you could measure it, but the redshift from earth's gravity is already extremely difficult to measure, but if you could measure it precisely, you could then subtract that value from the redshift value measured in the cavity. -
#2307 by Mulletron on 03 May, 2015 12:39
-
Would seem to me that if the thrust produced is horizontally, gravity can't have effect on it, besides bending it a teeny weeny bit. Time dilation at beginning and endpoint are same (same distance from gravity well), so in effect 0.Never really thought about this before, but is light in a cavity resonator gravitationally redshifted?
Do you mean natural (i.e. earth) or artificial gravity that could be generated by space-time warping or other quantum voodoo?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
I mean, if you had an Emdrive sitting the table (large diameter down) here on Earth, and it was energized by feeding RF into a slot/probe located at the large diameter. Would an observer at the small end notice a red shift?
Vertically you could measure it, but the redshift from earth's gravity is already extremely difficult to measure, but if you could you could then detract that from the redshift value measured in the cavity.Quoteso in effect 0.
So nonzero? Say outside the bandwidth of a very narrow bandwidth cavity? -
#2308 by PaulF on 03 May, 2015 12:40
-
To be completely honest, I don't know. But that's how I would theorize it. Please realize I am in no way a scientist or physicist. I am a simple IT technician that loves to gobble up threads like this
Would seem to me that if the thrust produced is horizontally, gravity can't have effect on it, besides bending it a teeny weeny bit. Time dilation at beginning and endpoint are same (same distance from gravity well), so in effect 0.Never really thought about this before, but is light in a cavity resonator gravitationally redshifted?
Do you mean natural (i.e. earth) or artificial gravity that could be generated by space-time warping or other quantum voodoo?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
I mean, if you had an Emdrive sitting the table (large diameter down) here on Earth, and it was energized by feeding RF into a slot/probe located at the large diameter. Would an observer at the small end notice a red shift?
Vertically you could measure it, but the redshift from earth's gravity is already extremely difficult to measure, but if you could you could then detract that from the redshift value measured in the cavity.Quoteso in effect 0.
So nonzero? Say outside the bandwidth of a very narrow bandwidth cavity?
It seems to me that if a warp bubble is actually created in the cavity, you would definitely measure a non-zero net result in all thrust directions. Maybe this way you can prove or disprove a warp bubble? -
#2309 by Rodal on 03 May, 2015 12:43
-
Here Shawyer compares 7 devices, some classic EMDrives, some with just a dielectic & the superconducting LN cooled Cannae drive.
It is important to note the direction of generated thrust as dielectics apparently generate thrust in the opposite direction to that of EMDrives.
I do note the EW test of a Cannae like device was not tested at cryo temp nor had superconducting interior lining and had an added dielectic. So was not a test of a true Cannae device.
From Shawyer, EW should not expect to see any thrust from an EMDrive like test device when tested fixed, not allowed to accelerate, without added dielectic. Which is what was observed. Static thrust was not measured, with the EW EMDrive like device until a dielectic was added.
Appears EW have discovered a new way to gen thrust in a fixed device. Use a dielectric. From Shawyer device summary, line 1, it appears all that may be needed is a short section of resonate pipe with a dielectic stuck in one end. IE EW Cannae test device minus the cavity.
However as the dielectric thrust is weaker than the EMDrive thrust and in the opposite thrust direction to the classic EMDrive thrust direction, putting a dielectric into an accelerating EMDrive may reduce the overall delivered thrust and effective cavity Q as would be seen by the classic EMDrive operational mode.
Is Shawyer giving away spoilers?
Thank you for your post, as it gives me the opportunity to ask again a couple of questions that are unanswered so far. Perhaps you can answer them:
1) Shawyer reported in the above graph, that his Demonstrator engine is the only EM Drive so far that has shown forces in BOTH directions, towards the small end as well as towards the large end.
1a) What does Shawyer mean by this? Does he mean that the Demonstrator engine displayed, and he measured, forces simultaneously in both directions? But as the forces in both directions are almost equal, that would mean practically no net force. That doesn't seem to make sense as the Demonstrator engine is the only one that had a force large enough that it could move the whole assembly as shown in a video:
1b) Did Shawyer measure a force towards the big end in some tests and a force towards the small end in other tests? If so, what made the difference between the tests? Is the change random, unpredictable and unexplained? (Hopefully not). If the change in force direction can be deliberately controlled, how was Shawyer able to change the force direction for the Demonstrator engine? Did he have to move something? (like the location of the dielectric)? Was there a dielectric in the Demonstrator engine? Or did he just accomplish this change of force direction by changing the exciting frequency (and thereby changing the mode shape)?
2) Shawyer defines the measured "thrust force" in the opposite direction to the direction of motion of the EM Drive. This is completely the opposite of NASA Eagleworks that defines the thrust force in the same direction as the motion of the EM Drive. Can you reconcile and make sense of these two opposite, contradictory definitions and measurements?
Thanks -
#2310 by Rodal on 03 May, 2015 12:57
-
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/594756342641922048
I don't use twitter, but perhaps you (or somebody else in the forum) does. If such is the case, can you (or somebody else) twitter him back a message informing him that this article contains much newer information ? :
But why in the world did @ElonMusk link to an article from August 2014? That is soooo last year.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/ -
#2311 by Mulletron on 03 May, 2015 12:59
-
Seems like these things need an initial push to get going. Once they're moving, they stay moving as long as they're powered.
The SPR Demonstrator is the odd ball. Is it possible that one is different in some way that it will go in whatever direction you push it?
I'm hopeful we can get Mr. Shawyer to participate here IF folks are civil. -
#2312 by Mulletron on 03 May, 2015 13:02
-
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/594756342641922048
I don't use twitter, but perhaps you (or somebody else in the forum) does. If such is the case, can you (or somebody else) twitter him back a message informing him that this article contains much newer information ? :
But why in the world did @ElonMusk link to an article from August 2014? That is soooo last year.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/
Done. Enjoying the lively discussion over there too. -
#2313 by Rodal on 03 May, 2015 13:09
-
...
I would not bet on that. The uncivil level of attack displayed by several new posters in this thread during the last few days has been such that I would not be surprised if Star-Drive decides not to post any further Eagleworks test information here. These uncivil attacks are launched by anonymous posters that hide behind monickers without ever revealing their real names. I very much doubt that these uncivil posters would dare to express themselves this way, face-to-face in a public presentation, as in an AIAA meeting, for example. I very much doubt that they would express themselves that way in writing if they would do it under their real name. It is certainly conduct never seen at professional meetings or in academia.
I'm hopeful we can get Mr. Shawyer to participate here IF folks are civil. -
#2314 by Mulletron on 03 May, 2015 13:13
-
We can safely bet that the excellent moderators here will take good care of Mr. Shawyer so that he can explain how this thing works in his own words.
-
#2315 by Dmytry on 03 May, 2015 13:14
-
Speaking of 2.6 watt result, this is what the data looks like:
http://i.imgur.com/McG6ZPd.png
Huge "drift". The only thing that stays consistent across the power levels, resonant modes, and quality factor, is that the force is comparable to "drifts".
If the drift is due to heating the flat spring that the pendulum is suspended on, there will be multitude of temperature differential effects as well, with different time constants (and a time constant for a thermal effect in a small piece of metal, sinking heat into other metal, absolutely can be a fraction of a second).
By the way note that even though the turn off looks as steep as the calibration pulse - to the eye - it clearly isn't (much less undershoot. Seems like the magnetic effect dies out instantly and makes the thrust curve look steeper than it is).
There's that ball bearing motor, spins pretty damn fast off thermal effects, supposedly, and puzzled the scientists for ages (with all sorts of novel physics explanations because some physicists just didn't feel that thermal effects can be fast).
By the way, GHz-frequency vibrations are a thing. It is possible (albeit still unlikely) to discover a new, entirely classical effect here. -
#2316 by TheTraveller on 03 May, 2015 13:21
-
The device you pictured is the 1st Dynamic Test unit (data apparently not in the summary):Here Shawyer compares 7 devices, some classic EMDrives, some with just a dielectic & the superconducting LN cooled Cannae drive.
It is important to note the direction of generated thrust as dielectrics apparently generate thrust in the opposite direction to that of EMDrives.
I do note the EW test of a Cannae like device was not tested at cryo temp nor had superconducting interior lining and had an added dielectic. So was not a test of a true Cannae device.
From Shawyer, EW should not expect to see any thrust from an EMDrive like test device when tested fixed, not allowed to accelerate, without added dielectic. Which is what was observed. Static thrust was not measured, with the EW EMDrive like device until a dielectic was added.
Appears EW have discovered a new way to gen thrust in a fixed device. Use a dielectric. From Shawyer device summary, line 1, it appears all that may be needed is a short section of resonate pipe with a dielectic stuck in one end. IE EW Cannae test device minus the cavity.
However as the dielectric thrust is weaker than the EMDrive thrust and in the opposite thrust direction to the classic EMDrive thrust direction, putting a dielectric into an accelerating EMDrive may reduce the overall delivered thrust and effective cavity Q as would be seen by the classic EMDrive operational mode.
Is Shawyer giving away spoilers?
Thank you for your post, as it gives me the opportunity to ask again a couple of questions that are unanswered so far. Perhaps you can answer them:
1) Shawyer reported in the above graph, that his Demonstrator engine is the only EM Drive so far that has shown forces in BOTH directions, towards the small end as well as towards the large end.
1a) What does Shawyer mean by this? Does he mean that the Demonstrator engine displayed, and he measured, forces simultaneously in both directions? But as the forces in both directions are almost equal, that would mean practically no net force. That doesn't seem to make sense as the Demonstrator engine is the only one that had a force large enough that it could move the whole assembly as shown in a video:
1b) Did Shawyer measure a force towards the big end in some tests and a force towards the small end in other tests? If so, what made the difference between the tests? Is the change random, unpredictable and unexplained? (Hopefully not). If the change in force direction can be deliberately controlled, how was Shawyer able to change the force direction for the Demonstrator engine? Did he have to move something? (like the location of the dielectric)? Was there a dielectric in the Demonstrator engine? Or did he just accomplish this change of force direction by changing the exciting frequency (and thereby changing the mode shape)?
2) Shawyer defines the measured "thrust force" in the opposite direction to the direction of motion of the EM Drive. This is completely the opposite of NASA Eagleworks that defines the thrust force in the same direction as the motion of the EM Drive. Can you reconcile and make sense of these two opposite, contradictory definitions and measurements?
Thanks
http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.html
His portable Demonstrator device is here:
http://emdrive.com/demonstratorengine.html
Why he shows thrust in both direction is unknown to me.
I assume he can control the Demonstrator device in such a way to shift the thrust direction. It does have the ability to dynamically control cavity length.
Likewise his Flight Thruster is here:
http://emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html
The Shawyer EMDrive thrust direction is consistent in one mode of the line 4 device (Demonstrator), in line 5 (Chinese device), 6 (Flight Thruster).
The 3 dielectric devices and the Cannae cryo cooled, superconducting device generate thrust in the same direction and opposite to the classic EMDrive.
Additionally from the EW tests, apparently the addition of a dielectric to their EMDrive like device and the Cannae like device allows weak thrust to be generated without needing the device to accelerate.
Would be interesting to see EW chop off the Cannae test device and test it again with just the RF feed pipe, with of course the dielectric. Could be a very simple and quick test device to build and if it can generate thrust without moving (as it seem to do in the EMDrive/Cannae like devices), so much the better.
I really like the Shawyer Demonstrator device (attached). As an engineer I can appreciate designing, building and testing it plus the hours and money involved. It is a serious and professionally built device. It is not a toy but a real working thruster that can be taken anywhere to have additional tests done.
Maybe if EW asked Shawyer nicely, they could test it? At least then they have an established test data base and working device to work from.
-
#2317 by Rodal on 03 May, 2015 13:24
-
Actually, the level of what the experimenters call "thermal drift" for the 2.6 watt experiment is significantly less than for other, higher power experimental results, as evident per the Brady et.al "Anomalous ..." results.
-
#2318 by TheTraveller on 03 May, 2015 13:25
-
Might be useful to listen to what Shawyer has to say:
http://www.emdrive.com/interview.html
Interesting that around 2006, the UK gov transferred all his tech to Boeing. 3:30 in the 1st interview video. Would not think that would happen if there was nothing of interest to the US/Boeing. -
#2319 by Rodal on 03 May, 2015 13:30
-
Might be useful to listen to what Shawyer has to say:
I listened to those some time ago, and my recollection is that he does not answer this question in that inverview, that still remains unanswered:
http://www.emdrive.com/interview.html
How did Shawyer achieve thrust in opposite directions for the same Demonstrator engine?
