Out of interest have any of Eagleworks results appeared on arXiv?

I may be just an engineer but over the 40 years of my career I've plenty of unexplained things in designs. Anyone taken into consideration the thermal expansion coefficient of the EM case during your pulsed phase? I've been reading for days and there is so much material I might have missed it. Sorry if I did.

Quote from: WarpTech on 05/06/2015 06:33 pm<snip>The conclusions of Egan are correct when only considering radiation pressure at wavelength's that are short compared to the cut-off modes. They are incorrect because he did not take into consideration the variable speed of light inside the waveguide for wavelengths close to the cut-off modes. He used eps0 and mu0 as the permittivity and permeability of free vacuum in all his calculations of energy density and force. That is an error!The space inside the waveguide is not free vacuum, it is constrained by the waveguide. Near the cut-ff modes, his calculations are invalidated because the speed of light is not the same throughout the cavity.Best Regards,Todd D....The correct statement is that any solution solely based on Maxwell's equations (like Greg Egan's analysis) predicts no thrust, and that therefore the measurements at NASA Eagleworks are due to something else not addressed by Maxwell's equations.Todd, your explanation uses General Relativity and the Quantum Vacuum, which are explicitly not addresed by Greg Egan. His solution is still mathematically exact (solution of Maxwell's equations), it may just not be representing the actual physical tests. Either because the tests are an artifact or because they represent some form of propulsion that may be explained by your model or other alternative models.On the other hand what is mathematically incorrect would be to state that a solution solely based on Maxwell's equation and special relativity (without invoking GR, or the QV, or something else) can predict a thrust in a closed cavity: that is plainly mathematically incorrect. Something else is needed besides Maxwell's equations and special relativity.I hope yours (or another theory) succeeds in explaining the measurements as something that can be used for space propulsion, or that it is an artifact. But the experimental measurements cannot be explained solely based on Maxwell's equations and special relativity. ...

<snip>The conclusions of Egan are correct when only considering radiation pressure at wavelength's that are short compared to the cut-off modes. They are incorrect because he did not take into consideration the variable speed of light inside the waveguide for wavelengths close to the cut-off modes. He used eps0 and mu0 as the permittivity and permeability of free vacuum in all his calculations of energy density and force. That is an error!The space inside the waveguide is not free vacuum, it is constrained by the waveguide. Near the cut-ff modes, his calculations are invalidated because the speed of light is not the same throughout the cavity.Best Regards,Todd D.

Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/06/2015 07:18 pmQuote from: Rodal on 05/06/2015 04:11 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 05/06/2015 04:01 pm...DO NOT reinvent the wheel.Follow Shawyer as close as you can.Plenty of clues but you need to do a lot of reading.....You are writing that in reference to Shaywer's experiments, I presume, but a number of Shawyer's prescriptions are tied to his theoretical model. I read the paper that Shawyer sent to Mulletron, to support Shawyer's theoretical model.I wrote a review of this paper here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1369861#msg1369861Showing that there is nothing in that paper (by Cullen) supporting Shawyer's theoretical model. On the contrary, it follows the same Maxwell's equations and laws followed by Greg Egan http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html who concludes that the EM Drive should have no thrust force.I did read your review that there should be no thrust. But there seems to be thrust, of a level and direction which agrees with Shawyer's theory. Which is why the Shawyer and Chinese thrust claims need to be experimentally verified or not. I believe there is enough data in the public domain to experimentally replicate their test setups, cavity designs and RF generation / feed methods, starting with the RF narrow band, spherical end plate Flight Thruster, feed via coax, which I plan to replicate in copper and if necessary in Alumininum....No, my review never states that there should be no thrust in the experimental results. My review instead states (and shows, carefully, point by point) that the reference given by Shawyer to support his theoretical model, does NOT support his model at all.Therefore I do not understand why Shawyer references Cullen's paper.As a reductio ad absurdum, it would be almost like Shawyer referencing Greg Egan, and sending Greg Egan's analysis as support for Shawyer's theoretical explanation.

Quote from: Rodal on 05/06/2015 04:11 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 05/06/2015 04:01 pm...DO NOT reinvent the wheel.Follow Shawyer as close as you can.Plenty of clues but you need to do a lot of reading.....You are writing that in reference to Shaywer's experiments, I presume, but a number of Shawyer's prescriptions are tied to his theoretical model. I read the paper that Shawyer sent to Mulletron, to support Shawyer's theoretical model.I wrote a review of this paper here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1369861#msg1369861Showing that there is nothing in that paper (by Cullen) supporting Shawyer's theoretical model. On the contrary, it follows the same Maxwell's equations and laws followed by Greg Egan http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html who concludes that the EM Drive should have no thrust force.I did read your review that there should be no thrust. But there seems to be thrust, of a level and direction which agrees with Shawyer's theory. Which is why the Shawyer and Chinese thrust claims need to be experimentally verified or not. I believe there is enough data in the public domain to experimentally replicate their test setups, cavity designs and RF generation / feed methods, starting with the RF narrow band, spherical end plate Flight Thruster, feed via coax, which I plan to replicate in copper and if necessary in Alumininum....

Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/06/2015 04:01 pm...DO NOT reinvent the wheel.Follow Shawyer as close as you can.Plenty of clues but you need to do a lot of reading.....You are writing that in reference to Shaywer's experiments, I presume, but a number of Shawyer's prescriptions are tied to his theoretical model. I read the paper that Shawyer sent to Mulletron, to support Shawyer's theoretical model.I wrote a review of this paper here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1369861#msg1369861Showing that there is nothing in that paper (by Cullen) supporting Shawyer's theoretical model. On the contrary, it follows the same Maxwell's equations and laws followed by Greg Egan http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html who concludes that the EM Drive should have no thrust force.

...DO NOT reinvent the wheel.Follow Shawyer as close as you can.Plenty of clues but you need to do a lot of reading.....

...Let F1 and F2 be the Maxwell field tensor for each.The force density;f = J1*F2 - J2*F1 = 0 in flat space-timeIt does not equal zero in curved space-time because there is a metric in each product, that has a different value in each location. Shawyer is right in this regard, but I'm no better at the covariant equations than he is.Thank you!Best Regards,Todd

Enjoyed reading the comments from Davis and Millis. More replication attempts to come. The race has begun.

...It does not equal zero in curved space-time because there is a metric in each product, that has a different value in each location. Shawyer is right in this regard, but I'm no better at the covariant equations than he is....

Quote from: WarpTech on 05/06/2015 07:45 pm...It does not equal zero in curved space-time because there is a metric in each product, that has a different value in each location. Shawyer is right in this regard, but I'm no better at the covariant equations than he is....I think we (people reading this) can write the covariant equations. The equations would be nonlinear, and therefore an exact solution would prove impossible to obtain for the truncated cone. How would you proceed ? via a perturbation analysis (if so in terms of what dimensionless parameter?) or via a numerical solution?EDT : I think the motivation would increase if there would be an answer to the energy paradox (what restricts the energy paradox for constant acceleration at constant power ?)

Quote from: Rodal on 05/06/2015 08:03 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 05/06/2015 07:45 pm...It does not equal zero in curved space-time because there is a metric in each product, that has a different value in each location. Shawyer is right in this regard, but I'm no better at the covariant equations than he is....I think we (people reading this) can write the covariant equations. The equations would be nonlinear, and therefore an exact solution would prove impossible to obtain for the truncated cone. How would you proceed ? via a perturbation analysis (if so in terms of what dimensionless parameter?) or via a numerical solution?EDT : I think the motivation would increase if there would be an answer to the energy paradox (what restricts the energy paradox for constant acceleration at constant power ?)The non-linear set of Einstein-Maxwell equations has exact solutions for plane waves. You can apply it to a schematic of a laser beam transiting in a cavity having the form of a cube without difficulty. A plane wave always deforms space-time and a cavity has the advantage that the energy of the field depends also on the Q factor that can increase it by orders of magnitude. This means that an explanation for the question of the behaviour of the laser beam inside the cavity can be easily at hand. For the other question, the thrust, as a physicist I keep on being rather sceptical because I tried to move my car by hitting the windscreen with punches and nothing happened.I will post here the solution for a very simple set-up of a cube cavity maintaining a single mode and show the way the laser beam propagates inside it. This resonant cavity seems to be very good for engineering of space-time rather than else.

I will post here the solution for a very simple set-up of a cube cavity maintaining a single mode and show the way the laser beam propagates inside it. This resonant cavity seems to be very good for engineering of space-time rather than else.

Quote from: StrongGR on 05/06/2015 08:19 pmI will post here the solution for a very simple set-up of a cube cavity maintaining a single mode and show the way the laser beam propagates inside it. This resonant cavity seems to be very good for engineering of space-time rather than else.May I respectfully ask that you also include a visualization of the solution if possible? I'd very much like to see this.

Quote from: WarpTech on 05/06/2015 07:45 pm...It does not equal zero in curved space-time because there is a metric in each product, that has a different value in each location. Shawyer is right in this regard, but I'm no better at the covariant equations than he is....I think we (people reading this) can write the covariant equations. The equations would be nonlinear, and therefore an exact solution would prove impossible to obtain for the truncated cone. How would you proceed ? via a perturbation analysis (if so in terms of what dimensionless parameter?) or via a numerical solution?EDIT :1) I think the motivation would increase if there would be an answer to the energy paradox (what restricts the energy paradox for constant acceleration at constant power ?)and this also needs to be addressed:2) Regarding the force summation by Shawyer, what happened to the force vector components on the lateral, conical surfaces? Why is it that only the forces on the end plates (the bases of the truncated cone) are being addressed? If one includes the forces on the lateral conical surfaces everything sums to zero (solely using Maxwell's equations)

Quote from: SeeShells on 05/06/2015 07:44 pmI may be just an engineer but over the 40 years of my career I've plenty of unexplained things in designs. Anyone taken into consideration the thermal expansion coefficient of the EM case during your pulsed phase? I've been reading for days and there is so much material I might have missed it. Sorry if I did.Yes, see this analysis by one of the people in this forum:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268804028_NASA%27S_MICROWAVE_PROPELLANT-LESS_THRUSTER_ANOMALOUS_RESULTS_CONSIDERATION_OF_A_THERMO-MECHANICAL_EFFECT

Regarding the energy paradox.Power = Force * VelocityAcceleration = Force / Mass = Power / MomentumTherefore, as the momentum increases, the acceleration decreases for a constant power input. That's without relativistic effects. Why is this a paradox? You've mentioned this a few times, but I guess I've missed something. Best Regards,Todd D.