-
#1760 by rfmwguy on 08 Sep, 2015 18:23
-
NSF-1701 update - So long galinstan hello 10' feed of filament, ground and HV wires. Laser displacement sensor mounted on tripod, goodbye laser pointer. Controller and display ordered today for lds. Couple of vertical aluminum bars added to Doc's oil dampener to retard horizontal oscillations...works great. Powered up fine with long feed wires. Droops and loops seem to flex easily. Miller time...
-
#1761 by Rodal on 08 Sep, 2015 18:25
-
Yes, but I did ask for something experimentally verifiable. If everything, including our measuring sticks, is changing then how could we know? Can you devise any experiment to test any of PV's unique predictions?
Can PV make any experimentally verifiable predictions different to those made by mainstream physics, that would earn it a place at the table? I think not, otherwise it would be big news....
Now I agree with you that the Puthof's Polarizable Vacuum theory cannot be a replacement for General Relativity and its endorsement of Mach (not March !
) intuition on the origin of inertia. It was also; I would say; the view of Puthof himself who clearly wrote in 1999 that the Polarizable Vacuum theory was not yet in a positon to explain both gravitational radiation and frame-dragging effects (base of Mach ideas on inertia incorporation in General Relativity).
The work of Puthoff, Joe Depp, Riccardo Storti and myself, have resolved these issues with PV by 2005. The PV warp drive is frame dragging in PV just as it is in GR. It turns out that the metric coefficients of GR are "equivalent" to a variable refractive index tensor, composed of QV interactions with matter.
What I have come to understand clearly, is that the differences between PV and GR are simply a matter of how one interprets the math. Space-time curvature of empty vacuum VS interactions of matter with the QV. I have developed a Quantum model for PV that works well enough for engineering purposes. If even 1 millionth of the work done in the name of GR were done for PV, all this would be obvious and text book trivia, but history has lead thousands of people to work on GR. Where, only a handful of mostly engineers have even grasped the power of PV as a foundation for understanding GR. More people should study it, as it really does lead to new ideas that fit within the GR framework, simply by re-interpreting the physical interaction of matter & metric.
FYI: I am still waiting for JBIS to give me any review or comments on my Electromagnetic Quantum Vacuum Warp Drive paper that I submitted last January. Which shows how the QV model of PV is used to re-interpret GR and better understand what is needed to go FTL. You can find related work on my RG page.
Todd
Hypothetically, it predicts that the Hubble expansion "red shift" could be (partly) due to our rulers contracting as the universe runs out of energy. All it takes is for 1 meter to contract by 6.8 nanometers/century, as the driving power of the ZPF runs down in the present, relative to the distant past we view through our telescope, to account for the Hubble expansion.
Todd
The thing is, it is not unique. I can predict the same thing using GR, resulting from variation of the metric coefficient. So it wouldn't solve anything. Again, PV is simply an alternative interpretation of GR. The math is identical, so the predictions are also identical. Until we have a verifiable "accepted" model of Quantum Gravity, both PV and GR are classical theories which are complimentary interpretations of the observable data. My QG model, is an engineering tool that works within the parameters I need it to work. That's all.
Todd
Prof. Wisdom proved that an astronaut can swim in space just by using his arms (albeit with an extremely small stroke) using General Relativity. Can the Puthoff PV theory show the same result ? (that an astronaut can swim in space just by using his arms)
Teach someone who knows how to do Differential Geometry how to do PV and we'll find out. I saw a Schwarszchild metric in Prof. Wisdom's paper. Since this metric is identical in PV, I suspect the results are identical too. Unfortunately, Diff. Geometry is at the limit of my mathematical abilities. So I'm not even going to try and prove it to anyone. I encourage others with more formidable math skills than I, to give it a shot.
Todd
Please find attached a Venn diagram that Prof. Dr. Jim Woodward sent out over the past weekend that summarizes these issues: Mainstream Physics (Quantum Mechanics and General Relatiivity), then PV and Mach Effect, etc.
-
#1762 by deltaMass on 08 Sep, 2015 18:50
-
#1763 by Rodal on 08 Sep, 2015 19:14
-
About arcing in cavities
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilpatrick_limit
The exact solution for the least-square optimization of the data ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilpatrick_limit ) of the maximum Electric field E given by the Kilpatrick Limit, for a given frequency (in GHz) is:
E (MV/m) = 4.25/ProductLog[0.17211188221619098/Sqrt[frequency(GHz)]]
Where ProductLog gives the principal solution for w in z=we^w (the ProductLog function is also called the Lambert Function https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambert_W_function )
So, solving for
frequency = 2.45 GHz = 2450 MHz
we get
E = 42.6964 MV/m
for the maximum electric field E achievable (limited by RF breakdown, as tested experimentally in the 1950s by W. D. Kilpatrick)
********************************************************************************
while for NASA Eagleworks
frequency = 1.9372 GHz = 1937.2 MHz
we get
E = 38.3921 MV/m
********************************************************************************
while for Shawyer Flight Thruster
frequency = 3.85 GHz = 3850 MHz
we get
E = 52.5343 MV/m
********************************************************************************
while for Cannae Superconducting
frequency = 1.047 GHz = 1047 MHz
we get
E = 29.2223 MV/m
********************************************************************************
while for Baby EM Drive (Aachen, Germany)
frequency = 24.1 GHz
we get
E = 125.402 MV/m -
#1764 by aero on 08 Sep, 2015 19:26
-
I have made runs with the loop antenna. csv data and png view files for 3 runs are here.
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tcEVRLTlXR2JxZXM&usp=sharing
Thirty two cycle runs with the final 14 one-tenth cycle time slices presented.
These runs are using SeeShells' Crazy-Eddie 2 (CE2) frustum model and Rodal's 0.054 meter diameter loop antenna. Two of the runs place the loop at 0.054 meters from the small end of the frustum, while the other run has the loop placed 0.054 meters from the big end.
Finding resonance for this frustum/antenna combination was a chore. Using resolution = 100 (which has always worked well in the past), Harminv invariably calculated resonant frequency at 2.500 GHz and Q - O(300-500). I ran and uploaded one set of data with this frequency - I was loosing hope. Fortunately I decided to check convergence and was able to complete Harminv runs with resolution = 200. I was amazed.
Doubling resolution, using resolution = 200, Harminv calculated resonant frequency = 2.47065 GHz, differing by only 10's of Hz for the big end or small end antenna location. And the stupid low Q values went away. With the loop antenna toward the big end of the frustum, calculated Q ~= 6 million, and with the antenna toward the small end, calculated Q ~= 28 million. While these values are not representative of a real world metal construction, they do indicate that the cavity will resonate strongly at the drive frequency of 2.47065 GHz. I uploaded data sets for these two cases at the link above.
Any readers with antenna knowledge, please evaluate the png views with an eye toward fidelity of the model field patterns compared to real antenna field patterns. I know that the frustum complicates this evaluation but thanks. -
#1765 by Rodal on 08 Sep, 2015 20:03
-
Congratulations and strong clapping !
-
#1766 by birchoff on 08 Sep, 2015 23:18
-
Yes, but I did ask for something experimentally verifiable. If everything, including our measuring sticks, is changing then how could we know? Can you devise any experiment to test any of PV's unique predictions?
Can PV make any experimentally verifiable predictions different to those made by mainstream physics, that would earn it a place at the table? I think not, otherwise it would be big news....
Now I agree with you that the Puthof's Polarizable Vacuum theory cannot be a replacement for General Relativity and its endorsement of Mach (not March !) intuition on the origin of inertia. It was also; I would say; the view of Puthof himself who clearly wrote in 1999 that the Polarizable Vacuum theory was not yet in a positon to explain both gravitational radiation and frame-dragging effects (base of Mach ideas on inertia incorporation in General Relativity).
The work of Puthoff, Joe Depp, Riccardo Storti and myself, have resolved these issues with PV by 2005. The PV warp drive is frame dragging in PV just as it is in GR. It turns out that the metric coefficients of GR are "equivalent" to a variable refractive index tensor, composed of QV interactions with matter.
What I have come to understand clearly, is that the differences between PV and GR are simply a matter of how one interprets the math. Space-time curvature of empty vacuum VS interactions of matter with the QV. I have developed a Quantum model for PV that works well enough for engineering purposes. If even 1 millionth of the work done in the name of GR were done for PV, all this would be obvious and text book trivia, but history has lead thousands of people to work on GR. Where, only a handful of mostly engineers have even grasped the power of PV as a foundation for understanding GR. More people should study it, as it really does lead to new ideas that fit within the GR framework, simply by re-interpreting the physical interaction of matter & metric.
FYI: I am still waiting for JBIS to give me any review or comments on my Electromagnetic Quantum Vacuum Warp Drive paper that I submitted last January. Which shows how the QV model of PV is used to re-interpret GR and better understand what is needed to go FTL. You can find related work on my RG page.
Todd
Hypothetically, it predicts that the Hubble expansion "red shift" could be (partly) due to our rulers contracting as the universe runs out of energy. All it takes is for 1 meter to contract by 6.8 nanometers/century, as the driving power of the ZPF runs down in the present, relative to the distant past we view through our telescope, to account for the Hubble expansion.
Todd
The thing is, it is not unique. I can predict the same thing using GR, resulting from variation of the metric coefficient. So it wouldn't solve anything. Again, PV is simply an alternative interpretation of GR. The math is identical, so the predictions are also identical. Until we have a verifiable "accepted" model of Quantum Gravity, both PV and GR are classical theories which are complimentary interpretations of the observable data. My QG model, is an engineering tool that works within the parameters I need it to work. That's all.
Todd
Prof. Wisdom proved that an astronaut can swim in space just by using his arms (albeit with an extremely small stroke) using General Relativity. Can the Puthoff PV theory show the same result ? (that an astronaut can swim in space just by using his arms)
Teach someone who knows how to do Differential Geometry how to do PV and we'll find out. I saw a Schwarszchild metric in Prof. Wisdom's paper. Since this metric is identical in PV, I suspect the results are identical too. Unfortunately, Diff. Geometry is at the limit of my mathematical abilities. So I'm not even going to try and prove it to anyone. I encourage others with more formidable math skills than I, to give it a shot.
Todd
Please find attached a Venn diagram that Prof. Dr. Jim Woodward sent out over the past weekend that summarizes these issues: Mainstream Physics (Quantum Mechanics and General Relatiivity), then PV and Mach Effect, etc.
Just curious was this posted somewhere public... Always looking for more information on Woodwards progress. -
#1767 by aero on 09 Sep, 2015 00:14
-
All wave guide experts out there, what can you tell me about the shape of the EM fields in a wave guide excited by a noisy magnetron. How long should the wave guide be, its height and width? But mostly, what do the EM field patterns look like?
-
#1768 by zellerium on 09 Sep, 2015 00:17
-
Update:
I spent the weekend polishing the cylinder and it looks much better (couldn't get some of the bigger scratches out unfortunately). However it definitely improved the VNA plots. Today we tested the attached resonance, seems to be matched very well at 2.434 GHz. But we still don't have a spectrum analysis of our magnetron, so we aren't sure how the power is distributed and how that changes over time.
The EMF strips arrived to hopefully improve electrical connection between the waveguide and cylinder without the messy Ox Gard. We heard some arcing when the magnetron fired up which seemed to stop (or at least quiet down) as the test continued. We definitely have some deflection but it could easily be due to asymmetric current flow to ground. The x deflection is actually a torque on the cylinder (clockwise if looking from above). This may also be from misalignment of the cylinder axis. The y deflection is in the right direction (towards the dielectric) and we calculated the force causing it is about 1 mN. Unfortunately our noise level was fairly high so we will need to repeat this test early in the morning when we can get less noise. I'll post the raw data if anyone is interested.
The biggest problem is obtaining symmetric current flow: we've shown that we can get significant deflections on resonance with asymmetric grounding which disappear off resonance. When fields don't build up surface currents are too small to cause a disturbance. We may need to weld our movable plate near a resonant position and manufacture some tuning fixture. However at high power we fear a tuning screw would not work (would probably arc). Are there any other relatively easy analog tuning methods for high power out there?
The simulations are coming along, I've modeled a coax to waveguide to frustum with a VSWR of 1.15 and quality of ~22,000. Changing the length of the coax shifts the resonant frequency (non-linearly which surprised me) but maintains the quality. One question I have yet to answer: how can I model a coax to waveguide bought from a manufacturer without their proprietary information? (i.e. penetration depth and back wall distance) I was able to determine dimensions that give me a VSWR of 1.2 (their maximum quoted value) and used the dimensions for an RG142 coax.
Instead I could model the system with a plane wave excitation, but how do I know the phase of the wave exiting the purchased waveguide? Maybe we should attempt to manufacture this waveguide on our own?
I've emailed the manufacturer back with these questions, perhaps I am missing something or over analyzing...
We've come to the conclusion that a microwave oven magnetron is far from ideal for this application. (As many of you have said before) The wide bandwidth and unpredictable shifting max power make designing any high quality resonator near impossible. Using a circulator could deliver power at the right frequency but would still filter out the majority of the power. And then we don't know how much power is actually being delivered to the cavity... NWPU must have overcome this challenge with a higher tolerance magnetron with a more stable frequency distribution.
Anyone have any suggestions, comments, questions?
-Kurt
-
#1769 by SteveD on 09 Sep, 2015 02:00
-
So you have an asymmetrical current flow abd a frustum that wants to move up and rotate to the right. If you flipped it would it rotate to the left?
-
#1770 by zellerium on 09 Sep, 2015 02:13
-
So you have an asymmetrical current flow abd a frustum that wants to move up and rotate to the right. If you flipped it would it rotate to the left?
The frustum is the next design. The cylinder experiences an x displacement and y displacement, which, because it is measured by a reflected laser from an angled mirror that is *perpendicular to the laser, means the cylinder torqued (if looking from above). We could move the PSD and laser to the other side, and flip it, but I don't think that will change anything. We could try other wire orientations, but they are twisted pretty tightly together, so I'm not sure that would change anything.
*An assumption that we have yet to verify, could easily be off by several degrees. -
#1771 by SeeShells on 09 Sep, 2015 02:58
-
NSF-1701 update - So long galinstan hello 10' feed of filament, ground and HV wires. Laser displacement sensor mounted on tripod, goodbye laser pointer. Controller and display ordered today for lds. Couple of vertical aluminum bars added to Doc's oil dampener to retard horizontal oscillations...works great. Powered up fine with long feed wires. Droops and loops seem to flex easily. Miller time...
Really looking good rfmwguy. You should be very excited to crank this tar baby up.
Shell -
#1772 by rfmwguy on 09 Sep, 2015 03:31
-
Yes I am. Focus has been on improving test stand and resolution. I will characterize thermal lift, then move towards frustum tuning. Might even try to match frustum to the +/- 40 mhz bandwidth the maggy has rather than a single freq resonance. This normally involves 2 cavities loosely coupled, zeros at beginning and end of bandwidth. A single cavity will be a challenge. Not yet sure how to get 2 resonance zero poles out of a single cavity...NSF-1701 update - So long galinstan hello 10' feed of filament, ground and HV wires. Laser displacement sensor mounted on tripod, goodbye laser pointer. Controller and display ordered today for lds. Couple of vertical aluminum bars added to Doc's oil dampener to retard horizontal oscillations...works great. Powered up fine with long feed wires. Droops and loops seem to flex easily. Miller time...
Really looking good rfmwguy. You should be very excited to crank this tar baby up.
Shell
-
#1773 by SeeShells on 09 Sep, 2015 03:58
-
I have made runs with the loop antenna. csv data and png view files for 3 runs are here.
BigEng run Dr. Rodel's 2.47GHz Ex,Ey,Ez in a gif loop.
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tcEVRLTlXR2JxZXM&usp=sharing
Thirty two cycle runs with the final 14 one-tenth cycle time slices presented.
These runs are using SeeShells' Crazy-Eddie 2 (CE2) frustum model and Rodal's 0.054 meter diameter loop antenna. Two of the runs place the loop at 0.054 meters from the small end of the frustum, while the other run has the loop placed 0.054 meters from the big end.
Finding resonance for this frustum/antenna combination was a chore. Using resolution = 100 (which has always worked well in the past), Harminv invariably calculated resonant frequency at 2.500 GHz and Q - O(300-500). I ran and uploaded one set of data with this frequency - I was loosing hope. Fortunately I decided to check convergence and was able to complete Harminv runs with resolution = 200. I was amazed.
Doubling resolution, using resolution = 200, Harminv calculated resonant frequency = 2.47065 GHz, differing by only 10's of Hz for the big end or small end antenna location. And the stupid low Q values went away. With the loop antenna toward the big end of the frustum, calculated Q ~= 6 million, and with the antenna toward the small end, calculated Q ~= 28 million. While these values are not representative of a real world metal construction, they do indicate that the cavity will resonate strongly at the drive frequency of 2.47065 GHz. I uploaded data sets for these two cases at the link above.
Any readers with antenna knowledge, please evaluate the png views with an eye toward fidelity of the model field patterns compared to real antenna field patterns. I know that the frustum complicates this evaluation but thanks.
-
#1774 by aero on 09 Sep, 2015 05:02
-
We are looking at a plane perpendicular to the z axis as the fields pass through. It looks like the fields rotate but I speculate it is more like a cork-screw pattern.
I wonder what the x or y views look like.
Orbital angular momentum comes to mind.
-
#1775 by SeeShells on 09 Sep, 2015 05:19
-
We are looking at a plane perpendicular to the z axis as the fields pass through. It looks like the fields rotate but I speculate it is more like a cork-screw pattern.
I wonder what the x or y views look like.
Orbital angular momentum comes to mind.
-
#1776 by Left Field on 09 Sep, 2015 05:54
-
EM Corkscrew Drive?
-
#1777 by deltaMass on 09 Sep, 2015 07:08
-
This requires some care because, as is well known, spacetime has a right-hand thread.
-
#1778 by flux_capacitor on 09 Sep, 2015 10:52
-
Anyone have any suggestions, comments, questions?
-Kurt
What are the dimensions of the frustum and the waveguide in your video?
One thing that keeps surprising me is how big the waveguides are WRT their attached frustum (same problem with Tajmar's experiment, where this issue is even greater); while Shawyer's waveguide always seems very narrow.
Is there a reason why large standard waveguides are used (remember they can account for a large frequency range) instead of specific smaller waveguides matched with the source frequency? -
#1779 by Rodal on 09 Sep, 2015 13:58
-
This requires some care because, as is well known, spacetime has a right-hand thread.
Really?, in which direction is spacetime's right-handed screw oriented? Towards a black-hole?
) intuition on the origin of inertia. It was also; I would say; the view of Puthof himself who clearly wrote in 1999 that the Polarizable Vacuum theory was not yet in a positon to explain both gravitational radiation and frame-dragging effects (base of Mach ideas on inertia incorporation in General Relativity).
Really?, in which direction is spacetime's right-handed screw oriented? Towards a black-hole?