-
#1960 by X_RaY on 19 Sep, 2015 19:39
-
@rfmwguy did you ever witness any ionized air glow inside your see through frustum?
No, but I noticed the BeO ceramic on the mag radome glowing. I also noted an "air" of metallic-like feel around it. Some commented it may be ionized copper.
But I'm looking for Cherenkov radiation from superluminal evanescent photons. Of course, being photons, they might not radiate other photons.
I can understand this type of radiation for particles with restmass traveling faster than light in a medium like "hot" particles in water.
You're really looking for photons who emit photons
?
-
#1961 by RonM on 19 Sep, 2015 19:59
-
@rfmwguy did you ever witness any ionized air glow inside your see through frustum?
No, but I noticed the BeO ceramic on the mag radome glowing. I also noted an "air" of metallic-like feel around it. Some commented it may be ionized copper.
But I'm looking for Cherenkov radiation from superluminal evanescent photons. Of course, being photons, they might not radiate other photons.
I can understand this type of radiation for particles with restmass traveling faster than light in a medium like "hot" neutrons in water.
You're realy looking for photons who emit photons ?
Neutrons and photons do not produce Cherenkov radiation. Charged particles such as electrons produce Cherenkov radiation when move they through a medium at a speed higher than the speed of light in that medium.
We're not going to see that in an EM drive. -
#1962 by X_RaY on 19 Sep, 2015 20:07
-
Thanks for refreshing my memory, you are right!@rfmwguy did you ever witness any ionized air glow inside your see through frustum?
No, but I noticed the BeO ceramic on the mag radome glowing. I also noted an "air" of metallic-like feel around it. Some commented it may be ionized copper.
But I'm looking for Cherenkov radiation from superluminal evanescent photons. Of course, being photons, they might not radiate other photons.
I can understand this type of radiation for particles with restmass traveling faster than light in a medium like "hot" neutrons in water.
You're realy looking for photons who emit photons ?
Neutrons and photons do not produce Cherenkov radiation. Charged particles such as electrons produce Cherenkov radiation when move they through a medium at a speed higher than the speed of light in that medium.
We're not going to see that in an EM drive.
(german)wikipedia:
"In a broader sense Cherenkov radiation is the electromagnetic radiation that occurs when charged particles moving in matter at a higher speed than the phase velocity of electromagnetic waves in this medium. More generally, it spoke of the Cherenkov effect. For example, the speed of light in water is only 225,000,000 m / s, compared to 299,792,458 m / s in a vacuum." -
#1963 by Stormbringer on 19 Sep, 2015 22:41
-
I thought an evanescent effect in the borders of the frustrum materials was one of the proposed mechanisms for the thrust in the earlier threads. If so wouldn't that be a situation in which one might expect cherenkov radiation from boundary layer electrical effects? Don't evanescent waves in a solid conductor like the frustrum material have electrical secondary effects? Since the evanescent effect itself may be FTL then it would seem to me that since the speed of light varies from that of vacuum in a solid then there is an opportunities for electrons to be moving FTL (for the solid medium.)
-
#1964 by demofsky on 20 Sep, 2015 02:08
-
Quote rom @flyby
There is a distinct difference between an animation and a simulation:
Absolutely right. The focus of these applications is to provide the appearance of real materials, not to simulate them on every level. Depending on the strength of the program, simple properties like density can be well represented, but even properties that affect physical transformation — say, something like ductility — may be poor to nonexistent.
An animation is designed with a certain intend. Their dynamics module is not designed for physical accuracy, but for efficiency and speed, consequently, these processes are hugely simplified.
From the outside they do appear to be simulations, but in reality , they're not...
There's just enough in the best animation systems to fool you into believing they model reality, and not a penny more. I've yet to run into one that could adequately model the behavior of simple projectiles in air, much less an EM drive.
I am not sure anyone was looking at this as a high fidelity simulation but a basic proof of concept. Still the null tests were all null and interestingly the fustrum was the best of the asymmetric shape for the level of resolution and fidelity, etc. of the simulation. (I still have a sweet spot in my heart for the trombone shape.)
In any case, there is enough here to raise a flag for anyone planning to do null tests with a fustrum and a heater. There may be other effects beside ballooning going on that may need to be accounted for. -
#1965 by rfmwguy on 20 Sep, 2015 02:32
-
Have not followed this subtopic close enough to understand what other effects besides thermal might be occurring.Quote rom @flyby
There is a distinct difference between an animation and a simulation:
Absolutely right. The focus of these applications is to provide the appearance of real materials, not to simulate them on every level. Depending on the strength of the program, simple properties like density can be well represented, but even properties that affect physical transformation — say, something like ductility — may be poor to nonexistent.
An animation is designed with a certain intend. Their dynamics module is not designed for physical accuracy, but for efficiency and speed, consequently, these processes are hugely simplified.
From the outside they do appear to be simulations, but in reality , they're not...
There's just enough in the best animation systems to fool you into believing they model reality, and not a penny more. I've yet to run into one that could adequately model the behavior of simple projectiles in air, much less an EM drive.
I am not sure anyone was looking at this as a high fidelity simulation but a basic proof of concept. Still the null tests were all null and interestingly the fustrum was the best of the asymmetric shape for the level of resolution and fidelity, etc. of the simulation. (I still have a sweet spot in my heart for the trombone shape.)
In any case, there is enough here to raise a flag for anyone planning to do null tests with a fustrum and a heater. There may be other effects beside ballooning going on that may need to be accounted for. -
#1966 by SteveD on 20 Sep, 2015 02:38
-
Hi all. This paper seems interesting:
Quantum reflection of photons off spatio-temporal electromagnetic field inhomogeneitiesQuoteWe reconsider the recently proposed nonlinear QED effect of quantum reflection of photons off an inhomogeneous strong-field region. We present new results for strong fields varying both in space and time. While such configurations can give rise to new effects such as frequency mixing, estimated reflection rates based on previous one-dimensional studies are corroborated. On a conceptual level, we critically re-examine the validity regime of the conventional locally-constant-field approximation and identify kinematic configurations which can be treated reliably. Our results further underline the discovery potential of quantum reflection as a new signature of the nonlinearity of the quantum vacuum.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.0951
From what I can gather, they are talking about a quantum effect that might be able to operate either as a mirror, or more likely a prism. They mention photons being deflected 90 degrees, so photon hits the small end, flies towards the big end, gets deflected 90 degrees, and you end up with the forward and side forces reported by Tajmar. I wonder if the waste heat in the system could become caught in this. Might explain why thrust seems to increase when a thermally insulating dielectric is placed over one of the ends that would otherwise be acting as a heatsink (on the other hand if there is something reflecting IR photons outside of the frustum, an insulator might not be a good idea).
Anyway, I could be completely wrong. This paper is pretty deep and the authors are speaking in math. -
#1967 by RonM on 20 Sep, 2015 02:54
-
I thought an evanescent effect in the borders of the frustrum materials was one of the proposed mechanisms for the thrust in the earlier threads. If so wouldn't that be a situation in which one might expect cherenkov radiation from boundary layer electrical effects? Don't evanescent waves in a solid conductor like the frustrum material have electrical secondary effects? Since the evanescent effect itself may be FTL then it would seem to me that since the speed of light varies from that of vacuum in a solid then there is an opportunities for electrons to be moving FTL (for the solid medium.)
Cherenkov radiation occurs in dielectric medium. Copper is a conductor.
Why would evanescent waves increase the velocity of electrons in copper? -
#1968 by Stormbringer on 20 Sep, 2015 04:07
-
water is a conductor. i see blue glow stuff in water around reactor rods. why?
-
#1969 by RonM on 20 Sep, 2015 04:33
-
water is a conductor. i see blue glow stuff in water around reactor rods. why?
Water is a very poor conductor unless it has impurities. It is also transparent.
Last time I looked, copper is not transparent.
Look up Cherenkov radiation, evanescent waves, and electrons see if you can support your conjectures. -
#1970 by demofsky on 20 Sep, 2015 05:13
-
Have not followed this subtopic close enough to understand what other effects besides thermal might be occurring.Quote rom @flyby
There is a distinct difference between an animation and a simulation:
Absolutely right. The focus of these applications is to provide the appearance of real materials, not to simulate them on every level. Depending on the strength of the program, simple properties like density can be well represented, but even properties that affect physical transformation — say, something like ductility — may be poor to nonexistent.
An animation is designed with a certain intend. Their dynamics module is not designed for physical accuracy, but for efficiency and speed, consequently, these processes are hugely simplified.
From the outside they do appear to be simulations, but in reality , they're not...
There's just enough in the best animation systems to fool you into believing they model reality, and not a penny more. I've yet to run into one that could adequately model the behavior of simple projectiles in air, much less an EM drive.
I am not sure anyone was looking at this as a high fidelity simulation but a basic proof of concept. Still the null tests were all null and interestingly the fustrum was the best of the asymmetric shape for the level of resolution and fidelity, etc. of the simulation. (I still have a sweet spot in my heart for the trombone shape.)
In any case, there is enough here to raise a flag for anyone planning to do null tests with a fustrum and a heater. There may be other effects beside ballooning going on that may need to be accounted for.
I don't think any of this would apply to your mesh fustrum but for solid fustrums there may be a kind an asymmetrical kinetic effect which may or may not be measurable. More just something to watch for if the numbers don't add up.
Really all we have is a Maya simulation of a bunch miniature billiard balls rattling around and having an effect. Which is kind of amazing regardless of how crude an approximation a Maya simulation may be. -
#1971 by PaulF on 20 Sep, 2015 08:51
-
water is a conductor. i see blue glow stuff in water around reactor rods. why?
From what I know that is cherenkov radiation bleeding off energy of high energy particles so they travel at speeds lower than the speed of light in water or whatever medium the reaction is taking place in.
-edit- I now also realize I should have read back a bit more... -
#1972 by Mulletron on 20 Sep, 2015 09:47
-
@rfmwguy did you ever witness any ionized air glow inside your see through frustum?
No, but I noticed the BeO ceramic on the mag radome glowing. I also noted an "air" of metallic-like feel around it. Some commented it may be ionized copper.
But I'm looking for Cherenkov radiation from superluminal evanescent photons. Of course, being photons, they might not radiate other photons.
I can understand this type of radiation for particles with restmass traveling faster than light in a medium like "hot" neutrons in water.
You're realy looking for photons who emit photons ?
Neutrons and photons do not produce Cherenkov radiation. Charged particles such as electrons produce Cherenkov radiation when move they through a medium at a speed higher than the speed of light in that medium.
We're not going to see that in an EM drive.
Thank you! Don't expect to see Cherenkov radiation which is associated with high energy stuff like fission reactors.
This is a pretty complicated issue. There's a lot going on inside my head lately so I'll just kinda throw it out there in case something happens to resonate with someone.
That's what forums are for anyway. I'm just trying to make sense of what I've learned over the last year. Trying to understand what might be happening to produce thrust from an air filled cavity senza dielectric insert is a beast.
The ionized air glow I'm looking for isn't related to this Cherenkov radiation. Just looking for evidence of charged particles to move around with the Lorentz force. When I apply the right hand rule (or left) to an imaginary charged particle under TE012, I get a trajectory that resembles a torus. I'm interested in TE012 because Eagleworks reported that it was the best performing mode in the Anomalous thrust production...paper, but they didn't do further tests! Shawyer also has reported that TE012 and TE013 are the best performing modes. I'm frustumrated at the lack of hard data to support the efficacy of these modes.
The broader reason why is because, out of all the numerous ideas (yeah I know
) I've been kicking around to explain thrust from a Type 3 Emdrive (tapered cavity with no dielectric insert), the only one that comes close to passing the smell test for me is gravitomagnetism. If it weren't for Gravity Probe B, I'd say forget it. There's also fantastic reading on the subject such as this http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0207065.pdf ....and the whole thing is seated in General Relativity. 
Hell if this Emdrive ended up being just another test of General Relativity, I bet the scientific community would go nuts!
There are so many issues associated with gravitomagnetism (not to mention a boat load of woo* to the point where I feel hesitant to even bring it up for fear of being viewed as cranky) such as the very lack of rotating masses in the Emdrive (why I'm looking for evidence of charged particles). I'm wondering if a rotating mass is even necessary. Rotating energy should be enough right?
Then there's the whole effective mass for photons which I used to view as heresy until I found those papers about photon mass in waveguides. (A direct result of the "accelerating photons" feud I had with @Rodal.) So I'm on board with the notion that photons that are confined to a resonator behave differently than their free range counterparts.
Other issues include the thermal images from Eagleworks which clearly show there is no net rotation of the entire resonant mode as evidenced by clearly stationary hot spots. At the same time, Eagleworks reports no thrust without a dielectric and greatly diminished thrust in pumped down the vacuum chamber. Yang and Shawyer report lots of thrust with their unloaded cavities but Eagleworks doesn't. I'm looking for the secret sauce here.
My thinking on this is that the loop antenna method could be very bad as it forces the mode to be "locked" in position with the loop. I got a cloverleaf antenna on the way and my thinking is to place it a 1/4 wavelength from the center of the large end. Before I can test anything, I have to figure out this battery situation I got. https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/3lb769/emdrive_lurkers_posers/cv62gp8
* like the TR-3B, and this mess here which features a "flared waveguide" https://goo.gl/zl4qGi (see pages B-23 B-68 B-90
I'm not a big fan of the woo btw, because I think it unnecessarily muddies the waters and obfuscates the truth. Somewhere in the 10 pounds of woo on this subject, there's bound to be an ounce of something that isn't bs right?
-
#1973 by Stormbringer on 20 Sep, 2015 10:06
-
I love "woo" It's delicious.
-
#1974 by TheTraveller on 20 Sep, 2015 11:04
-
Without a rtn loss scan of your hybrid mesh frustum, you really don't know that kind of load your magnetron is driving. Maybe it is the drugs they are feeding me to kill the 2nd belly button that is forming that makes me ask why would you spend the time & money to drive a Rf load that you have no knowledge of the resonant frequencies nor rtn loss / VSWR?
Sorry but I must ask where is the science based test data? -
#1975 by Mulletron on 20 Sep, 2015 11:33
-
Gravitational Lorentz force is pretty interesting reading. Any experts out there?
-
#1976 by Silversheep2011 on 20 Sep, 2015 12:09
-
link might be of interest to those who like theorise on possible explanations on EM radiation and magnetic fields
might prompt a new thought or two.
http://phys.org/news/2015-09-route-magnets.html -
#1977 by Mulletron on 20 Sep, 2015 14:19
-
@rfmwguy did you ever witness any ionized air glow inside your see through frustum?
No, but I noticed the BeO ceramic on the mag radome glowing. I also noted an "air" of metallic-like feel around it. Some commented it may be ionized copper.
Why do you think the beryllium oxide was so glowing hot? A LOT of reflected power? -
#1978 by rfmwguy on 20 Sep, 2015 15:32
-
Not really sure on that one. Temp stabilized at abt 175 C, so it could be normal. Static tests I did had frustum shielded by copper and could not see it directly. Will video it next flight test. Am assembling DAQ and LDS display into an old PC today, waiting for replacement display, hopefully this week. Also got connectors for VNA testing on frustum. Next couple of weeks will be busy.@rfmwguy did you ever witness any ionized air glow inside your see through frustum?
No, but I noticed the BeO ceramic on the mag radome glowing. I also noted an "air" of metallic-like feel around it. Some commented it may be ionized copper.
Why do you think the beryllium oxide was so glowing hot? A LOT of reflected power? -
#1979 by Mulletron on 20 Sep, 2015 15:59
-
Huh, so apparently there is an initial transient of reflected power until the cavity is filled. Good to know. Starts at slide 37
http://uspas.fnal.gov/materials/08UCSC/mml06_resonant_cavities_1.pdf
That's not good for users of magnetrons featuring a duty cycle.
?
That's what forums are for anyway. I'm just trying to make sense of what I've learned over the last year. Trying to understand what might be happening to produce thrust from an air filled cavity senza dielectric insert is a beast.
) I've been kicking around to explain thrust from a Type 3 Emdrive (tapered cavity with no dielectric insert), the only one that comes close to passing the smell test for me is gravitomagnetism. If it weren't for Gravity Probe B, I'd say forget it. There's also fantastic reading on the subject such as this 
Hell if this Emdrive ended up being just another test of General Relativity, I bet the scientific community would go nuts!
I'm not a big fan of the woo btw, because I think it unnecessarily muddies the waters and obfuscates the truth. Somewhere in the 10 pounds of woo on this subject, there's bound to be an ounce of something that isn't bs right?