Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 5  (Read 965420 times)

Offline SteveD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • United States
  • Liked: 82
  • Likes Given: 10
Could it be that emission of a photon is required, otherwise the energy becomes some kind of potential energy.  I am reminded of the slits in the Cannae drive that Shawyer seems to have adopted recently (does anyone have pictures of either or some way to figure out the slits orientation?).  If you bounced light around, and it got more redshifted than it should be, then bounced it out, an observer would see a bunch of light that is redshifted more than it should be along with a photon rocket that is going faster than it should.  The observer could well decide that you had developed some way to enhance the efficiency of a photon rocket.

I wonder how much RF leakage an EMDrive has and if there is more leakage moving away from the big base than in other directions.  Just because it's suppose to be a closed system doesn't mean that it actually is.

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2367
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3101
  • Likes Given: 2668
"Kinetic energy is conveyed from one object to another in the form of electromagnetic waves (photons)."

http://processmodeling.org/theory/physics/kinetic.htm

So, theories are emerging that support the notion that EM and KE have a direct relationship, not requiring  separate mechanisms to affect one another. This is a very interesting concept and we might be seeing this in our experiments.

Breaking this down simply, there would be no CoE violation considering the EM energy potential is injected. By this theory, it is not without a KE component. The trick would be to have the KE applied asymmetrically along an axis, thereby imbalancing the energy and generating movement due to the kinetic component.

A frustum is asymetric. The small diameter presents less surface area compared to the large diameter. The direction of movement is apparent in the direction of the small end.  This is counter-intuitive if you consider higher EM/KE on the large end. Or is it? Is the EM/KE density per square cm much higher on the small end, thereby producing movement? Shouldn't they balance? Or should they?

Pardon my theory musings...not my normal wheelhouse.
Waiting for the shop to heat up... busy day here in getting ready for assembling the drive and cleaning up the mess I made over the last few days.

rfmwguy... Is this guy taking this approach? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrogravitics

One of the things I'm interested in is the different values I get between the dual waveguide injectors focusing the heavy mode and stress actions in the small end versus the dual loops in the small plate forcing the mode and stress actions in the large end. Has me intrigued at the differences I'll see. So if I change one thing (injection method) and that effects how stresses and modes operate within the cavity keeping everything else the same, what will I see? What differences will I measure, will thrust direction change? Will it still be in the direction of the small end or reverse? Will the thrust values increase or decrease or disappear altogether? I think this is a big clue using the same cavity and test rig.

It's warm in the shop, so I'll be back....

Shell


Offline Flyby

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 385
  • Belgium
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 48
.......... (does anyone have pictures of either or some way to figure out the slits orientation?)......

IIRC, the video shows pretty much how the slits are oriented..
http://video.dailymail.co.uk/video/bc/rtmp_uds/1418450360/2014/08/01/1418450360_3708361650001_CANNAE.mp4

skip to timestamp 0:42...
« Last Edit: 10/06/2015 02:50 PM by Flyby »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2166
  • Liked: 2684
  • Likes Given: 1124
"Kinetic energy is conveyed from one object to another in the form of electromagnetic waves (photons)."

http://processmodeling.org/theory/physics/kinetic.htm

So, theories are emerging that support the notion that EM and KE have a direct relationship, not requiring  separate mechanisms to affect one another. This is a very interesting concept and we might be seeing this in our experiments.

Breaking this down simply, there would be no CoE violation considering the EM energy potential is injected. By this theory, it is not without a KE component. The trick would be to have the KE applied asymmetrically along an axis, thereby imbalancing the energy and generating movement due to the kinetic component.

A frustum is asymetric. The small diameter presents less surface area compared to the large diameter. The direction of movement is apparent in the direction of the small end.  This is counter-intuitive if you consider higher EM/KE on the large end. Or is it? Is the EM/KE density per square cm much higher on the small end, thereby producing movement? Shouldn't they balance? Or should they?

Pardon my theory musings...not my normal wheelhouse.
Waiting for the shop to heat up... busy day here in getting ready for assembling the drive and cleaning up the mess I made over the last few days.

rfmwguy... Is this guy taking this approach? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrogravitics

One of the things I'm interested in is the different values I get between the dual waveguide injectors focusing the heavy mode and stress actions in the small end versus the dual loops in the small plate forcing the mode and stress actions in the large end. Has me intrigued at the differences I'll see. So if I change one thing (injection method) and that effects how stresses and modes operate within the cavity keeping everything else the same, what will I see? What differences will I measure, will thrust direction change? Will it still be in the direction of the small end or reverse? Will the thrust values increase or decrease or disappear altogether? I think this is a big clue using the same cavity and test rig.

It's warm in the shop, so I'll be back....

Shell
Nice shell...take some assembly pics...you'll enjoy looking back on them as I have. Sometimes you have to force yourselve to stop and pic up the cam. Don't worry about professional glamor shots...real life are more interesting.

Yes, I've read a little about this. EM to KE is not widely discussed as jokers/trolls on the other forum simply say it can't work. Photonic mass at speed versus zero mass at rest is the accepted theory, but that seems like magic to me.  A photon absorbed into a body and another photon is emitted (without imparting energy) doesn't pass my sniff test.

This all could be a return to the aether discussions of a century ago. Some of that was "fascinating" (raised eyebrow).

Offline Flyby

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 385
  • Belgium
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 48
....
This all could be a return to the aether discussions of a century ago. Some of that was "fascinating" (raised eyebrow).
A century ago? nah.... make that 2400 years... try Aristotle... :)
« Last Edit: 10/06/2015 03:08 PM by Flyby »

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2367
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3101
  • Likes Given: 2668
"Kinetic energy is conveyed from one object to another in the form of electromagnetic waves (photons)."

http://processmodeling.org/theory/physics/kinetic.htm

So, theories are emerging that support the notion that EM and KE have a direct relationship, not requiring  separate mechanisms to affect one another. This is a very interesting concept and we might be seeing this in our experiments.

Breaking this down simply, there would be no CoE violation considering the EM energy potential is injected. By this theory, it is not without a KE component. The trick would be to have the KE applied asymmetrically along an axis, thereby imbalancing the energy and generating movement due to the kinetic component.

A frustum is asymetric. The small diameter presents less surface area compared to the large diameter. The direction of movement is apparent in the direction of the small end.  This is counter-intuitive if you consider higher EM/KE on the large end. Or is it? Is the EM/KE density per square cm much higher on the small end, thereby producing movement? Shouldn't they balance? Or should they?

Pardon my theory musings...not my normal wheelhouse.
Waiting for the shop to heat up... busy day here in getting ready for assembling the drive and cleaning up the mess I made over the last few days.

rfmwguy... Is this guy taking this approach? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrogravitics

One of the things I'm interested in is the different values I get between the dual waveguide injectors focusing the heavy mode and stress actions in the small end versus the dual loops in the small plate forcing the mode and stress actions in the large end. Has me intrigued at the differences I'll see. So if I change one thing (injection method) and that effects how stresses and modes operate within the cavity keeping everything else the same, what will I see? What differences will I measure, will thrust direction change? Will it still be in the direction of the small end or reverse? Will the thrust values increase or decrease or disappear altogether? I think this is a big clue using the same cavity and test rig.

It's warm in the shop, so I'll be back....

Shell
Nice shell...take some assembly pics...you'll enjoy looking back on them as I have. Sometimes you have to force yourselve to stop and pic up the cam. Don't worry about professional glamor shots...real life are more interesting.

Yes, I've read a little about this. EM to KE is not widely discussed as jokers/trolls on the other forum simply say it can't work. Photonic mass at speed versus zero mass at rest is the accepted theory, but that seems like magic to me.  A photon absorbed into a body and another photon is emitted (without imparting energy) doesn't pass my sniff test.

This all could be a return to the aether discussions of a century ago. Some of that was "fascinating" (raised eyebrow).
Zombie Like... "Neeed Cooofffeee" back in from the shop.

My video simply isn't up to it, kind of bad out of the camera but I'm taking snapshots. working on getting a better video camera, it's on the bucket list before first light.

As to photons, I find this a quick refresher.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137293/what-happens-to-photons-after-they-hit-objects

Know Quantum actions smell funny anyway rfmwguy and might not pass sniff tests.

Offline zero123

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Yes, I've read a little about this. EM to KE is not widely discussed as jokers/trolls on the other forum simply say it can't work.

In general there is nothing controversial about EM imparting some kinetic energy on objects by the mechanism of radiation pressure. This is described by Special Relativity and is very well understood and experimentally verified. You won't find anybody with physics knowledge who disputes this. The problem, though, is that this doesn't explain how you can get the observed thrust by shooting photons inside a closed cavity. It also does not solve the apparent energy conservation problems.

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2166
  • Liked: 2684
  • Likes Given: 1124
Yes, I've read a little about this. EM to KE is not widely discussed as jokers/trolls on the other forum simply say it can't work.

In general there is nothing controversial about EM imparting some kinetic energy on objects by the mechanism of radiation pressure. This is described by Special Relativity and is very well understood and experimentally verified. You won't find anybody with physics knowledge who disputes this. The problem, though, is that this doesn't explain how you can get the observed thrust by shooting photons inside a closed cavity. It also does not solve the apparent energy conservation problems.
Not unless there is an effect we don't yet understand. I am on the side of no CoE violation as long as we open the door unrecognized forms of energy. Possibly a sub-group of that magic Dark Energy so many astrophysists are claiming is out there. Then, there'c CoM, where the same analogy is made, Dark Matter.

So with 75% of the universe as yet undiscovered, we continue to have possibilities without CoE or CoM violations.

Offline rfcavity

  • Member
  • Posts: 37
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 0
Yes, I've read a little about this. EM to KE is not widely discussed as jokers/trolls on the other forum simply say it can't work.

In general there is nothing controversial about EM imparting some kinetic energy on objects by the mechanism of radiation pressure. This is described by Special Relativity and is very well understood and experimentally verified. You won't find anybody with physics knowledge who disputes this. The problem, though, is that this doesn't explain how you can get the observed thrust by shooting photons inside a closed cavity. It also does not solve the apparent energy conservation problems.
Not unless there is an effect we don't yet understand. I am on the side of no CoE violation as long as we open the door unrecognized forms of energy. Possibly a sub-group of that magic Dark Energy so many astrophysists are claiming is out there. Then, there'c CoM, where the same analogy is made, Dark Matter.

So with 75% of the universe as yet undiscovered, we continue to have possibilities without CoE or CoM violations.

I hope I don't waste my time here as you have a biased approach to this but here goes.

If you assume that CoE is preserved, then you don't have to measure thrust. This is preferable anyway as thermal effects will always be coupled into the thrust value with no possibility of removal.

Instead, measuring input energy versus output energy is more preferable. A second port on the cavity into a load to measure that output, a coupler on the input to measure the energy rejected from the cavity input mismatch, and a bath to measure the thermal energy lost as the cavity acts as a load itself. You keep going, adding measurement points wherever significant energy exits the system as predicted by typical theory. Finally until you can't take it anymore you do a statiscal analysis to see if unaccounted energy is significant enough to generate thrust/ New physics. This removes all the issues that come with mechanical balances and solves the issue of multiple sources of thrust being mapped to a single measured variable (which cannot be solved).

As an aside, if you assume that CoE holds, then the unaccounted energy leaving the system must be able to interact with the cavity at significant efficiency. Therefore, conversely, a measurement device can be built to measure this theorized phenomenon directly as the cavity is not a spectacularly special or exotic material. 

Offline CW

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 188
  • Germany
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 51
Yes, I've read a little about this. EM to KE is not widely discussed as jokers/trolls on the other forum simply say it can't work.

In general there is nothing controversial about EM imparting some kinetic energy on objects by the mechanism of radiation pressure. This is described by Special Relativity and is very well understood and experimentally verified. You won't find anybody with physics knowledge who disputes this. The problem, though, is that this doesn't explain how you can get the observed thrust by shooting photons inside a closed cavity. It also does not solve the apparent energy conservation problems.
Not unless there is an effect we don't yet understand. I am on the side of no CoE violation as long as we open the door unrecognized forms of energy. Possibly a sub-group of that magic Dark Energy so many astrophysists are claiming is out there. Then, there'c CoM, where the same analogy is made, Dark Matter.

So with 75% of the universe as yet undiscovered, we continue to have possibilities without CoE or CoM violations.

I posted it two times already in other EM-drive threads, beyond space and time now, but I'll repeat myself:

It's not just shooting photons inside a random cavity. A confined physical particle is described by QM as a standing wave. This in turn means, that any standing EM wave should be equivalent to a physical particle (if not - why?). Hence, depending on cavity dimensioning and RF feed frequencies selected, the standing wave pattern produced inside the EM drive cavity should be equivalent to an exotic type of physical particle with all its inherent attributes, which are at this point unknown or new to us.

The whole theorizing has been going on for quite a while now, and we seem to go in circles. I hence strongly advocate stepping back a couple miles and approach the situation from first principles. Going by what I described in the above paragraph, I believe that we must now seriously consider the possibility that we're accidentally creating a dynamic form of mesoscopic, exotic type of particle that physically decays, as soon as the RF feed is being shut down. Explanations of the hitherto generated 'thrust', that a number of groups and DIYers observed, that invoke Maxwell et al., must inevitably conclude that this thing can't work in our known universe.

However, if we considered the conveivable possibility that the EM-drive cavity dynamically creates a type of exotic and mesoscopic particle, that simply doesn't or can't even exist naturally in our known universe (but regularly does in another universe with different physics), then this might give us a starting point to progress further. If one thing is clear, then it is the fact that Maxwell can't be invoked to explain the observations made by a number of groups. I believe that we must appreciate the equivalence of particles and standing waves much, much more. Let's not just stare at wave modes and focus on minor details. I believe this device to be a tool to expand our view on physics tremendously. We need to understand the bigger picture.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2015 08:02 PM by CW »
Reality is weirder than fiction

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2166
  • Liked: 2684
  • Likes Given: 1124
Yes, I've read a little about this. EM to KE is not widely discussed as jokers/trolls on the other forum simply say it can't work.

In general there is nothing controversial about EM imparting some kinetic energy on objects by the mechanism of radiation pressure. This is described by Special Relativity and is very well understood and experimentally verified. You won't find anybody with physics knowledge who disputes this. The problem, though, is that this doesn't explain how you can get the observed thrust by shooting photons inside a closed cavity. It also does not solve the apparent energy conservation problems.
Not unless there is an effect we don't yet understand. I am on the side of no CoE violation as long as we open the door unrecognized forms of energy. Possibly a sub-group of that magic Dark Energy so many astrophysists are claiming is out there. Then, there'c CoM, where the same analogy is made, Dark Matter.

So with 75% of the universe as yet undiscovered, we continue to have possibilities without CoE or CoM violations.

I hope I don't waste my time here as you have a biased approach to this but here goes.

If you assume that CoE is preserved, then you don't have to measure thrust. This is preferable anyway as thermal effects will always be coupled into the thrust value with no possibility of removal.

Instead, measuring input energy versus output energy is more preferable. A second port on the cavity into a load to measure that output, a coupler on the input to measure the energy rejected from the cavity input mismatch, and a bath to measure the thermal energy lost as the cavity acts as a load itself. You keep going, adding measurement points wherever significant energy exits the system as predicted by typical theory. Finally until you can't take it anymore you do a statiscal analysis to see if unaccounted energy is significant enough to generate thrust/ New physics. This removes all the issues that come with mechanical balances and solves the issue of multiple sources of thrust being mapped to a single measured variable (which cannot be solved).

As an aside, if you assume that CoE holds, then the unaccounted energy leaving the system must be able to interact with the cavity at significant efficiency. Therefore, conversely, a measurement device can be built to measure this theorized phenomenon directly as the cavity is not a spectacularly special or exotic material.
Asking me to comment when claiming I have a biased approach is...well...not really asking. So, I think my time would be wasted, not yours.

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2166
  • Liked: 2684
  • Likes Given: 1124
Yes, I've read a little about this. EM to KE is not widely discussed as jokers/trolls on the other forum simply say it can't work.

In general there is nothing controversial about EM imparting some kinetic energy on objects by the mechanism of radiation pressure. This is described by Special Relativity and is very well understood and experimentally verified. You won't find anybody with physics knowledge who disputes this. The problem, though, is that this doesn't explain how you can get the observed thrust by shooting photons inside a closed cavity. It also does not solve the apparent energy conservation problems.
Not unless there is an effect we don't yet understand. I am on the side of no CoE violation as long as we open the door unrecognized forms of energy. Possibly a sub-group of that magic Dark Energy so many astrophysists are claiming is out there. Then, there'c CoM, where the same analogy is made, Dark Matter.

So with 75% of the universe as yet undiscovered, we continue to have possibilities without CoE or CoM violations.

I posted it two times already in other EM-drive threads, beyond space and time now, but I'll repeat myself:

It's not just shooting photons inside a random cavity. A confined physical particle is described by QM as a standing wave. This in turn means, that any standing EM wave should be equivalent to a physical particle (if not - why?). Hence, depending on cavity dimensioning and RF feed frequencies selected, the standing wave pattern produced inside the EM drive cavity should be equivalent to an exotic type of physical particle with all its inherent attributes, which are at this point unknown or new to us.

The whole theorizing has been going on for quite a while now, and we seem to go in circles. I hence strongly advocate stepping back a couple miles and approach the situation from first principles. Going by what I described in the above paragraph, I believe that we must now seriously consider the possibility that we're accidentally creating a dynamic form of mesoscopic, exotic type of particle that physically decays, as soon as the RF feed is being shut down. Explanations of the hitherto generated 'thrust', that a number of groups and DIYers observed, that invoke Maxwell et al., must inevitably conclude that this thing can't work in our known universe.

However, if we considered the conveivable possibility that the EM-drive cavity dynamically creates a type of exotic and mesoscopic particle, that simply doesn't or can't even exist naturally in our known universe (but regularly does in another universe with different physics), then this might give us a starting point to progress further. If one thing is clear, then it is the fact that Maxwell can't be invoked to explain the observations made by a number of groups. I believe that we must appreciate the equivalence of particles and standing waves much, much more. Let's not just stare at wave modes and focus on minor details. I believe this device to be a tool to expand our view on physics tremendously. We need to understand the bigger picture.
These are good points. As one of the DIY types, I've not let theory or lack thereof slow me down. My curosity is naturally higher since I witnessed it myself, but I am no closer to being able to explain it other than try to eliminate what it ISN'T through humble instrumentation.

The problem is, kinetic energy from a passive cavity filter, asymmetric or not, was never anticipated nor measured in scientific testing. Its like wanting to measure motion in a light fixture...who wants it, who needs it and who cares?

So now we have several global experiments all coming to the same conclusions, either kinetic energy or measurement error is responsible for the Emdrive Effect. With so much experiment variation, the experimental error theory is waning in my view...which is exactly why many of us are doing the experiments.

Offline CW

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 188
  • Germany
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 51
(...)

These are good points. As one of the DIY types, I've not let theory or lack thereof slow me down. My curosity is naturally higher since I witnessed it myself, but I am no closer to being able to explain it other than try to eliminate what it ISN'T through humble instrumentation.

The problem is, kinetic energy from a passive cavity filter, asymmetric or not, was never anticipated nor measured in scientific testing. Its like wanting to measure motion in a light fixture...who wants it, who needs it and who cares?

So now we have several global experiments all coming to the same conclusions, either kinetic energy or measurement error is responsible for the Emdrive Effect. With so much experiment variation, the experimental error theory is waning in my view...which is exactly why many of us are doing the experiments.

Our capacity to see the physical truth before our eyes is for instance crippled by the strong perception bias that education, upbringing and experience has given each and every one of us. Our externally imprinted thought patterns (and the ones from internally derived thoughts) are the prison of our minds. As you correctly state - who wants it, who needs it and who cares? Thankfully, a couple people on the planet do care.

If we were to take the stance that I described, we could ask different questions. Like: When the RF feed is initially off and then starts up - does the swelling up energy density of the resulting standing waves mean a sort of 'cycling' through a multitude of possible exotic particle equivalents that interact with the EM-drive? If the multiverse theory is correct, would this be equivalent to accessing or locally recreating exotic physical particle properties of other universes? What, if it were possible to take particles equivalents from different universes of the multiverse (with the EM-drive matter being rooted in 'our' known universe) and let them interact - what would or could happen in that interaction of sort of physically incompatible particle types? Could symmetries break? Could momentum be exchanged between these particles, each belonging to other universes within the multiverse, that could explain the seemingly magical thrust measurements?

Physics is all about asking the right questions. In relation to the EM-drive, I think we are right now not asking the right questions and are wondering, why we don't like the answers.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2015 09:02 PM by CW »
Reality is weirder than fiction

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2367
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3101
  • Likes Given: 2668
Yes, I've read a little about this. EM to KE is not widely discussed as jokers/trolls on the other forum simply say it can't work.

In general there is nothing controversial about EM imparting some kinetic energy on objects by the mechanism of radiation pressure. This is described by Special Relativity and is very well understood and experimentally verified. You won't find anybody with physics knowledge who disputes this. The problem, though, is that this doesn't explain how you can get the observed thrust by shooting photons inside a closed cavity. It also does not solve the apparent energy conservation problems.
Not unless there is an effect we don't yet understand. I am on the side of no CoE violation as long as we open the door unrecognized forms of energy. Possibly a sub-group of that magic Dark Energy so many astrophysists are claiming is out there. Then, there'c CoM, where the same analogy is made, Dark Matter.

So with 75% of the universe as yet undiscovered, we continue to have possibilities without CoE or CoM violations.

I posted it two times already in other EM-drive threads, beyond space and time now, but I'll repeat myself:

It's not just shooting photons inside a random cavity. A confined physical particle is described by QM as a standing wave. This in turn means, that any standing EM wave should be equivalent to a physical particle (if not - why?). Hence, depending on cavity dimensioning and RF feed frequencies selected, the standing wave pattern produced inside the EM drive cavity should be equivalent to an exotic type of physical particle with all its inherent attributes, which are at this point unknown or new to us.

The whole theorizing has been going on for quite a while now, and we seem to go in circles. I hence strongly advocate stepping back a couple miles and approach the situation from first principles. Going by what I described in the above paragraph, I believe that we must now seriously consider the possibility that we're accidentally creating a dynamic form of mesoscopic, exotic type of particle that physically decays, as soon as the RF feed is being shut down. Explanations of the hitherto generated 'thrust', that a number of groups and DIYers observed, that invoke Maxwell et al., must inevitably conclude that this thing can't work in our known universe.

However, if we considered the conveivable possibility that the EM-drive cavity dynamically creates a type of exotic and mesoscopic particle, that simply doesn't or can't even exist naturally in our known universe (but regularly does in another universe with different physics), then this might give us a starting point to progress further. If one thing is clear, then it is the fact that Maxwell can't be invoked to explain the observations made by a number of groups. I believe that we must appreciate the equivalence of particles and standing waves much, much more. Let's not just stare at wave modes and focus on minor details. I believe this device to be a tool to expand our view on physics tremendously. We need to understand the bigger picture.
These are good points. As one of the DIY types, I've not let theory or lack thereof slow me down. My curosity is naturally higher since I witnessed it myself, but I am no closer to being able to explain it other than try to eliminate what it ISN'T through humble instrumentation.

The problem is, kinetic energy from a passive cavity filter, asymmetric or not, was never anticipated nor measured in scientific testing. Its like wanting to measure motion in a light fixture...who wants it, who needs it and who cares?

So now we have several global experiments all coming to the same conclusions, either kinetic energy or measurement error is responsible for the Emdrive Effect. With so much experiment variation, the experimental error theory is waning in my view...which is exactly why many of us are doing the experiments.
When I started this build one thing I stated was I had no idea why it does what it does but I was going to pick this apart bit by bit. That hasn't changed, it's even more so.

I started with the octagonal extended cavity that would look at several theories and I'm working on this current project that will give insight into two basic ideas of mode generation and big end versus small end and how the modes decay into them and if thrusts follow the decays of the modes. or are just related to any kind of resonance mode in the cavity. Also being able to tune past or into resonance using the small end cap to see what effects on thrust may happen will also look at other theories.

Theories abound but, sadly data is very scarce and the time is for data, we'll get it and plug it in to see what fits.

YEA! tomorrow I'm picking up the rest of the water jet cut frustum just confirmed it, visiting a dear friend who's birthday is the same as mine, going out to dinner and not working in the shop until the next day. Funny, but picking up the copper cut sheets seems like a darn good present to me. ;)

Shell

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2367
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3101
  • Likes Given: 2668
(...)

These are good points. As one of the DIY types, I've not let theory or lack thereof slow me down. My curosity is naturally higher since I witnessed it myself, but I am no closer to being able to explain it other than try to eliminate what it ISN'T through humble instrumentation.

The problem is, kinetic energy from a passive cavity filter, asymmetric or not, was never anticipated nor measured in scientific testing. Its like wanting to measure motion in a light fixture...who wants it, who needs it and who cares?

So now we have several global experiments all coming to the same conclusions, either kinetic energy or measurement error is responsible for the Emdrive Effect. With so much experiment variation, the experimental error theory is waning in my view...which is exactly why many of us are doing the experiments.

Our capacity to see the physical truth before our eyes is for instance crippled by the strong perception bias that education, upbringing and experience has given each and every one of us. Our externally imprinted thought patterns (and the ones from internally derived thoughts) are the prison of our minds. As you correctly state - who wants it, who needs it and who cares? Thankfully, a couple people on the planet do care.

If we were to take the stance that I described, we could ask different questions. Like: When the RF feed is initially off and then starts up - does the swelling up energy density of the resulting standing waves mean a sort of 'cycling' through a multitude of possible exotic particle equivalents that interact with the EM-drive? If the multiverse theory is correct, would this be equivalent to accessing or locally recreating exotic physical particle properties of other universes? What, if it were possible to take particles equivalents from different universes of the multiverse (with the EM-drive matter being rooted in 'our' known universe) and let them interact - what would or could happen in that interaction of sort of physically incompatible particle types? Could symmetries break? Could momentum be exchanged between these particles, each belonging to other universes within the multiverse, that could explain the seemingly magical thrust measurements?

Physics is all about asking the right questions. In relation to the EM-drive, I think we are right now not asking the right questions and are wondering, why we don't like the answers.
You can ask all the questions you want good bad or indifferent, without data to back any of those questions they become mute.

shell

Offline CW

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 188
  • Germany
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 51
(...)

You can ask all the questions you want good bad or indifferent, without data to back any of those questions they become mute.

shell

Sure. But before you can design an experiment, you must ask the right questions. From the linear Maxwell equations follows, that inside a closed metallic cavity, no net impulse will be imparted on the walls by internally reflected radiation (which is of course just a special case of a general principle, CoM). And still, you are designing and building an experiment trying to make something work, that shouldn't work, going by all we know so far. Why even try then? Because you've been inspired by others to ask different questions. Your mind and thought patterns were externally imprinted, and that's why all our DIYers are doing what they do. So, in the beginning, there is always the right question. Without Roger Shawyer's imprinting on us, probably to none of us, it would even occur to ask these questions. Only after that, we can try. Thinking about the guys who introduced quantum mechanics.. that must've been a bunch of truly crazy ones.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2015 09:34 PM by CW »
Reality is weirder than fiction

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2367
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3101
  • Likes Given: 2668
(...)

You can ask all the questions you want good bad or indifferent, without data to back any of those questions they become mute.

shell

Sure. But before you can design an experiment, you must ask the right questions. From the linear Maxwell equations follows, that inside a closed metallic cavity, no net impulse will be imparted on the walls by internally reflected radiation (which is of course just a special case of a general principle, CoM). And still, you are designing and building an experiment trying to make something work, that shouldn't work, going by all we know so far. Why even try then? Because you've been inspired by others to ask different questions. Your mind and thought patterns were externally imprinted, and that's why all our DIYers are doing what they do. So, in the beginning, there is always the right question. Without Roger Shawyer's imprinting on us, probably to none of us, it would even occur to ask these questions. Only after that, we can try. Thinking about the guys who introduced quantum mechanics.. that must've been a bunch of truly crazy ones.

For me, and it's for me, I think more than Shawyer, it was the results from EagleWorks last year that prompted me to build a test stand and drive. It came from reading the hundreds or heck... thousands of posts. Not only by EagleWorks (before they were told to go quiet), it was also the many others that contributed to this blog. The tests positive or semi-positive and even those who failed building a drive simply firmed up the need for gathering data, whatever the manner of physics was taking place inside of the frustum.

I'm building it using the foundations I learned almost 50 years ago and still use today. I'm simply standing on their backs, the backs of Maxwell and Coulomb and Hertz and Ohms laws and ... and so many more and even the many here who understand physics more deeply than I could ever hope too.

Those are my foundations I used to build this, regardless of why it does what it does. To setup well defined tests using those foundations and hopefully to glean something else happening. You see if I fail to produce thrust it's still not a failure for there is no bad data and I'll have gained. Thomas Edison tried hundreds of different filaments for his electric light, not really understanding the physics needed to make one work, but he used the foundations to set up his tests and he tested again and again until he found one that worked. Years have passed but the same holds true today.

Shell

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2166
  • Liked: 2684
  • Likes Given: 1124
(...)

You can ask all the questions you want good bad or indifferent, without data to back any of those questions they become mute.

shell

Sure. But before you can design an experiment, you must ask the right questions. From the linear Maxwell equations follows, that inside a closed metallic cavity, no net impulse will be imparted on the walls by internally reflected radiation (which is of course just a special case of a general principle, CoM). And still, you are designing and building an experiment trying to make something work, that shouldn't work, going by all we know so far. Why even try then? Because you've been inspired by others to ask different questions. Your mind and thought patterns were externally imprinted, and that's why all our DIYers are doing what they do. So, in the beginning, there is always the right question. Without Roger Shawyer's imprinting on us, probably to none of us, it would even occur to ask these questions. Only after that, we can try. Thinking about the guys who introduced quantum mechanics.. that must've been a bunch of truly crazy ones.

For me, and it's for me, I think more than Shawyer, it was the results from EagleWorks last year that prompted me to build a test stand and drive. It came from reading the hundreds or heck... thousands of posts. Not only by EagleWorks (before they were told to go quiet), it was also the many others that contributed to this blog. The tests positive or semi-positive and even those who failed building a drive simply firmed up the need for gathering data, whatever the manner of physics was taking place inside of the frustum.

I'm building it using the foundations I learned almost 50 years ago and still use today. I'm simply standing on their backs, the backs of Maxwell and Coulomb and Hertz and Ohms laws and ... and so many more and even the many here who understand physics more deeply than I could ever hope too.

Those are my foundations I used to build this, regardless of why it does what it does. To setup well defined tests using those foundations and hopefully to glean something else happening. You see if I fail to produce thrust it's still not a failure for there is no bad data and I'll have gained. Thomas Edison tried hundreds of different filaments for his electric light, not really understanding the physics needed to make one work, but he used the foundations to set up his tests and he tested again and again until he found one that worked. Years have passed but the same holds true today.

Shell
Wonder if edison waited to test the next filament until after he rewrote his theory paper  ;)

Offline Cinder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 631
  • Liked: 89
  • Likes Given: 420
Why limit yourself to one or the other?  Some people are/were clearly gifted for one more than the other.  Collaboration takes care of any gaps; the more the merrier.
The pork must flow.

Offline kml

I posted it two times already in other EM-drive threads, beyond space and time now, but I'll repeat myself:

It's not just shooting photons inside a random cavity. A confined physical particle is described by QM as a standing wave. This in turn means, that any standing EM wave should be equivalent to a physical particle (if not - why?). Hence, depending on cavity dimensioning and RF feed frequencies selected, the standing wave pattern produced inside the EM drive cavity should be equivalent to an exotic type of physical particle with all its inherent attributes, which are at this point unknown or new to us.

The whole theorizing has been going on for quite a while now, and we seem to go in circles. I hence strongly advocate stepping back a couple miles and approach the situation from first principles. Going by what I described in the above paragraph, I believe that we must now seriously consider the possibility that we're accidentally creating a dynamic form of mesoscopic, exotic type of particle that physically decays, as soon as the RF feed is being shut down. Explanations of the hitherto generated 'thrust', that a number of groups and DIYers observed, that invoke Maxwell et al., must inevitably conclude that this thing can't work in our known universe.

However, if we considered the conveivable possibility that the EM-drive cavity dynamically creates a type of exotic and mesoscopic particle, that simply doesn't or can't even exist naturally in our known universe (but regularly does in another universe with different physics), then this might give us a starting point to progress further. If one thing is clear, then it is the fact that Maxwell can't be invoked to explain the observations made by a number of groups. I believe that we must appreciate the equivalence of particles and standing waves much, much more. Let's not just stare at wave modes and focus on minor details. I believe this device to be a tool to expand our view on physics tremendously. We need to understand the bigger picture.

Standard Model particles gain rest mass through the Higgs mechanism, by bouncing off of spontaneously appearing Higgs Bosons.    The greater the interaction with the Higgs field (more bounces per second) the higher the rest mass.  Could the photons in a resonant cavity be gaining rest mass by bouncing off of the waveguide (side) walls?   Maybe not directly but indirectly through interaction with the electrons in the walls which themselves interact with the Higgs field.   In this model a lower group velocity corresponds with more frequent interactions with the (narrowing) waveguide walls.  Photons with a non-zero rest mass would necessarily travel slower than c which is congruent with the observed slower group velocity.    The momentum transferred at the end walls would no longer be 2hv/c but 2x the relativistic momentum for a massive particle, using the newly calculated rest mass and the group velocity.

Tags: