-
#80 by ZhixianLin on 03 Feb, 2016 01:10
-
In the radiation damping force formula, I can't figure out how the q/m can be cancel out.
I said many of the equations, not all of them. The radiation damping force in particular ends up being net directed in the direction of the direction of the Poynting vector of the incident wave, so this would not produce a force in the direction of the electric field.Anyway, no one has done a experiment to test it. And Dr. Rodal didn't say that it is not worth to do the experiment. I don't believe God is so cruel that will forbid humans have space travel.
I am not going to discourage performing the experiment. Dr. Rodal's advice to you on this was excellent, start by documenting exactly how you would build the device (don't worry about the force measurement part yet) and go from there:...
You are somebody: you proved this by taking the step to report your idea in this great forum (NSF) and get a number of responses. You just have to follow it up by thinking of how you would go about implementing your idea with actual components: this will:
No, I can't access any laboratory and I am nobody. I don't even know how to do a reliable simulation for my design. Can you do a simulation for it?
1) Help you find any reasons why your idea cannot be reduced to practice. If you find an error or you find you cannot reduce it to practice, then modify your idea or come up with a new one.
2) Enable you to write a patent (if in the process of reducing your idea to practice you create something that is not already known "to those skilled in the aerospace art").
3) Enable you to perhaps conduct your own Do It Yourself experiment (if you can safely do so) or get others to conduct their safe experiments.
I am very pro-space travel.
Right now the existing science for chemical and electric propulsion leaves room for practical travel within the solar system. Our best bets I can see for interstellar travel would be through general relativity (although all useful solutions I have heard of require negative energy densities), or new physics we will discover such as the true nature of dark matter and dark energy.
"The radiation damping force in particular ends up being net directed in the direction of the direction of the Poynting vector of the incident wave, so this would not produce a force in the direction of the electric field."
The radiation damping force direction is the opposite direction of Poynting vector, right? Radiation damping force is not electric field force, but it doesn't mean that there is no electric field force. It seems that it is just because there is electric field force, and it push the charge, and then the charge generate the radiation damping force. -
#81 by meberbs on 03 Feb, 2016 01:34
-
The radiation damping force direction is the opposite direction of Poynting vector, right? Radiation damping force is not electric field force, but it doesn't mean that there is no electric field force. It seems that it is just because there is electric field force, and it push the charge, and then the charge generate the radiation damping force.
Read the second paper I had linked in a previous post. They showed that what normally is considered the radiation damping force, in this case ends up having 2 terms, one that accelerates the particle, and another that provides increasing resistance as the particle approaches the speed of light. (This is expected since relativity requires that the particle velocity not exceed light speed.)
Unfortunately, electrodynamics does not behave very intuitively. It makes some sense that a charge placed in the middle of a plane wave would be accelerated in the direction of the Poynting vector, but it is not obvious at first glance how this happens when considering the electric and magnetic fields acting on the charge. -
#82 by ZhixianLin on 03 Feb, 2016 02:28
-
The radiation damping force direction is the opposite direction of Poynting vector, right? Radiation damping force is not electric field force, but it doesn't mean that there is no electric field force. It seems that it is just because there is electric field force, and it push the charge, and then the charge generate the radiation damping force.
Read the second paper I had linked in a previous post. They showed that what normally is considered the radiation damping force, in this case ends up having 2 terms, one that accelerates the particle, and another that provides increasing resistance as the particle approaches the speed of light. (This is expected since relativity requires that the particle velocity not exceed light speed.)
Unfortunately, electrodynamics does not behave very intuitively. It makes some sense that a charge placed in the middle of a plane wave would be accelerated in the direction of the Poynting vector, but it is not obvious at first glance how this happens when considering the electric and magnetic fields acting on the charge.
Honestly, I have to say I don't agree with your conclusion. No electric field force is absolutely incorrect. No matter how, electric field must have electric field force on charge, where the electric field come from is not important. I will figure out it myself. Thanks for your help! -
#83 by ZhixianLin on 04 Feb, 2016 00:06
-
"The electrons travel slower than light, so the balancing charge to the charge on your plate will have to be nearby. Its distance will be less than one half-wavelength of the wave, so the opposite charge will almost certainly be close enough to be affected by the incident wave."
Electromagnetic wave can propagate a very long distance, why you assume that the electromagnetic wave source must be nearby?
I am talking about the charge on the plate in your original design, not the source of the EM wave. If there is charge on the plate, and you are forcing oscillations of the charge between positive and negative, then the balancing charge must be nearby. Specifically, the maximum distance away this charge can be is equivalent to half of a wavelength. Since the amount to which you can focus a beam of photons is limited by its wavelength, the opposite charge will also feel force from the incident EM wave.
If you think so, then we can move the EM wave source towards right about half of a wavelength, make the plate just touch the edge of EM wave beam. -
#84 by ZhixianLin on 21 Sep, 2016 01:17
-
I just found a paper from AIAA which suggest that propellant less propulsion is possible.
Source: http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2001-3654
The electromagnetic stress-tensor as a possible space drive propulsion concept
ABSTRACT
The Heaviside force, by virtue of its nonzero value in vacuum, would appear to offer the germ of a real space-drive. Classical electrodynamic interactions may be viewed as transmitted continuously through deformations in the state of the electromagnetic field, which acts like a stressed elastic medium. Maxwell stresses not only provide a controllable net momentum flow, but also a physical mechanism acting on the fabric of space-time. In response to this unbalanced force it has been asserted that a spacecraft will move off with equal and opposite momentum. The electromagnetic interaction mechanism under consideration suggests the basis for a novel development in electrical machine technology and a possible space-drive for space transportation. The physical basis of this concept is examined in this paper, and experimental investigations are described. Supporting analyses and historical background are included.
INTRODUCTION
Perhaps the most intriguing challenge facing twenty-first century space-flight is the novel concept of a "Space-Drive". John W. Campbell and Sir Arthur C. Clarke are usually credited with conceiving this visionary hypothesis. Without proposing any physical mechanism (for which one might cultivate some emerging technology to exploit) they articulated what such an astonishing apparatus will do: a space-drive is a propulsion mechanism that acts directly upon the fabric of free-space. (Actually, the notion of a space-drive was discussed in the engineering literature almost a dozen years earlier by Joseph Slepian. See below.) Remarkably, spacecraft employing such space-drive devices would not have to convey any reaction mass to eject as propellant. -
#85 by JohnFornaro on 21 Sep, 2016 13:49
-
From the OP:
"We know that on the electromagnetic wave propagation path, the direction of electric field at a point changes periodically. If there is a charged object at the point [that] also changes its charge property periodically with the same frequency, then the electric field force direction on the object will not change. Therefore, the object will do directional movement."
It appears that your drive oscillates sideways, with no readily apparent favored direction. Therefore, I don't think it will move.
I threw an eyeball over this article, which seems to confirm some of my observation:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259232654_Inherent_Energy_Loss_of_the_Thomson_Scattering
"If a low density electromagnetic wave hits an electron, it does not only perform the well-known transverse movement, but also a longitudinal movement with double frequency. This leads to an energy loss of the original electromagnetic wave without change of direction which was previ-ously unknown and is no elastic or inelastic collision. The 'lost' energy is radiated in two different frequency ranges and the relative energy loss increases with decreasing frequency of the primary wave. An experimental confirmation of this phenomenon could influence the debate about "tired light". The derivation is based solely on classical electrodynamics and therefore contains no ad hoc hypothesis. The only adjustable parameters are the duration and the envelope of the wave packet."
The discussion about momentum brings up the question: What does your drive push on?
Like the good doctor mentioned:
"You are somebody: you proved this by taking the step to report your idea in this great forum (NSF) and get a number of responses. You just have to follow it up by thinking of how you would go about implementing your idea with actual components..."
As you say: "So it is definitely worth [it] to do detailed analysis [of the momentum problem], even it is difficult."
Like they constantly tell me around here... Do your own homework. -
#86 by Higher Love on 14 Jan, 2018 15:20
-
Hello.
I m not a physicist, but I am interesed in sound. When I typed the words "phonons" and "superfluid vacuum" this forum came up. So I hope i can ask just a very short question related to this post by Rodal:
"One can think of the speed of sound of the vacuum as being associated with a (very large value) bulk modulus of elasticity (and density) of the superfluid vacuum, but these theories usually discuss the speed of sound (*) of the vacuum in terms of vacuum energy considerations and not specifically in terms of a bulk modulus of elasticity of the vacuum superfluid.
If an external observer could measure the propagation of ‘light’ ("vacuum sound", or other massless low-energy quasiparticles), she would find that the speed of light is coordinate-dependent. Moreover, it is anisotropic: it depends on the direction of propagation with respect to the flow of the superfluid vacuum. "
I just wondered, how does sound propagate then? Would there be a "phonon field" in this superfluid vacuum theory?
Also, can you please link me to articles or sites where it is explained how superfluid vacuum sound works, since the wikipedia article doesn't explain this.
Thank you.
-
#87 by MathewOrman on 11 Jan, 2019 12:30
-
I just found a paper from AIAA which suggest that propellant less propulsion is possible.
I've seen your PDF few years ago and yes, your concept is correct but you need to show how electric energy is converted to kinetic when device accelerates...
Source: http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2001-3654
The electromagnetic stress-tensor as a possible space drive propulsion concept
ABSTRACT
The Heaviside force, by virtue of its nonzero value in vacuum, would appear to offer the germ of a real space-drive. Classical electrodynamic interactions may be viewed as transmitted continuously through deformations in the state of the electromagnetic field, which acts like a stressed elastic medium. Maxwell stresses not only provide a controllable net momentum flow, but also a physical mechanism acting on the fabric of space-time. In response to this unbalanced force it has been asserted that a spacecraft will move off with equal and opposite momentum. The electromagnetic interaction mechanism under consideration suggests the basis for a novel development in electrical machine technology and a possible space-drive for space transportation. The physical basis of this concept is examined in this paper, and experimental investigations are described. Supporting analyses and historical background are included.
INTRODUCTION
Perhaps the most intriguing challenge facing twenty-first century space-flight is the novel concept of a "Space-Drive". John W. Campbell and Sir Arthur C. Clarke are usually credited with conceiving this visionary hypothesis. Without proposing any physical mechanism (for which one might cultivate some emerging technology to exploit) they articulated what such an astonishing apparatus will do: a space-drive is a propulsion mechanism that acts directly upon the fabric of free-space. (Actually, the notion of a space-drive was discussed in the engineering literature almost a dozen years earlier by Joseph Slepian. See below.) Remarkably, spacecraft employing such space-drive devices would not have to convey any reaction mass to eject as propellant.
Also check my work:
Orman Force Drive https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhldn0ef138&feature=youtu.be
Ps. I've build a device like yours 10 years ago and it does work but trust to power ratio is to low to use as force drive
-
#88 by WarpTech on 12 Jan, 2019 00:36
-
"The electrons travel slower than light, so the balancing charge to the charge on your plate will have to be nearby. Its distance will be less than one half-wavelength of the wave, so the opposite charge will almost certainly be close enough to be affected by the incident wave."
Electromagnetic wave can propagate a very long distance, why you assume that the electromagnetic wave source must be nearby?
I am talking about the charge on the plate in your original design, not the source of the EM wave. If there is charge on the plate, and you are forcing oscillations of the charge between positive and negative, then the balancing charge must be nearby. Specifically, the maximum distance away this charge can be is equivalent to half of a wavelength. Since the amount to which you can focus a beam of photons is limited by its wavelength, the opposite charge will also feel force from the incident EM wave.
If you think so, then we can move the EM wave source towards right about half of a wavelength, make the plate just touch the edge of EM wave beam.
This idea is not new. I had this idea back nearly 20 years ago and wrote about it here;
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228542228_Warp_Drive_propulsion_within_Maxwell's_equations
Dustin (@Dustinthewind) also came up with the idea a few years ago, and there are numerous posts in the EmDrive thread between he and I, and many others.
David Waite also came up with the idea and made some Youtube videos about it here;
And I've read papers about similar ideas going all the way back to the 1960's. It comes around and is re-discovered every few years.
What you need to learn is that the Electromagnetic field "IS" photons, and any field momentum "momentum flux" that is carried away is always mediated by photons. So the idea works, because what you end up with is a phased array of antennas that broadcast EM waves (photons) unidirectionally, and this pushes the antennas the other way. It IS a photon rocket and it will not deliver more thrust than a photon rocket.
The concept you have where, the momentum flux is being carried away to a distant absorber is known as Absorber Theory. It's a viable model, but even then, what is being emitted are still just photons which carry away the momentum. So in the end, it is still just a photon rocket that would be most efficient when the output transmission is well collimated, like a laser.
-
#89 by MathewOrman on 17 Jan, 2019 06:58
-
"The electrons travel slower than light, so the balancing charge to the charge on your plate will have to be nearby. Its distance will be less than one half-wavelength of the wave, so the opposite charge will almost certainly be close enough to be affected by the incident wave."
Electromagnetic wave can propagate a very long distance, why you assume that the electromagnetic wave source must be nearby?
I am talking about the charge on the plate in your original design, not the source of the EM wave. If there is charge on the plate, and you are forcing oscillations of the charge between positive and negative, then the balancing charge must be nearby. Specifically, the maximum distance away this charge can be is equivalent to half of a wavelength. Since the amount to which you can focus a beam of photons is limited by its wavelength, the opposite charge will also feel force from the incident EM wave.
If you think so, then we can move the EM wave source towards right about half of a wavelength, make the plate just touch the edge of EM wave beam.
This idea is not new. I had this idea back nearly 20 years ago and wrote about it here;
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228542228_Warp_Drive_propulsion_within_Maxwell's_equations
Dustin (@Dustinthewind) also came up with the idea a few years ago, and there are numerous posts in the EmDrive thread between he and I, and many others.
David Waite also came up with the idea and made some Youtube videos about it here;
And I've read papers about similar ideas going all the way back to the 1960's. It comes around and is re-discovered every few years.
What you need to learn is that the Electromagnetic field "IS" photons, and any field momentum "momentum flux" that is carried away is always mediated by photons. So the idea works, because what you end up with is a phased array of antennas that broadcast EM waves (photons) unidirectionally, and this pushes the antennas the other way. It IS a photon rocket and it will not deliver more thrust than a photon rocket.
The concept you have where, the momentum flux is being carried away to a distant absorber is known as Absorber Theory. It's a viable model, but even then, what is being emitted are still just photons which carry away the momentum. So in the end, it is still just a photon rocket that would be most efficient when the output transmission is well collimated, like a laser.
It is irrelevant how many years ago someone had an idea which is physics only...
To count as priority date for an invention the idea must be reduced to practical device...
10 years ago I've built such device and still have the working model and evidence of built date...
It has very low thrust to weight ratio and very high power to force ratio...
Since then I've conceived several new ideas and built prove of concepts...
The latest, Orman Force Drive simulations show that it has at least 100:1 thrust/weight ratio and 98% efficiency... Currently the prove of concept device is undergoing tests...
See the Orman Force declaration and the circumstances that led to invalidation of Lorentz force:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhldn0ef138&feature=youtu.be
-
#90 by meberbs on 17 Jan, 2019 07:21
-
It is irrelevant how many years ago someone had an idea which is physics only...
The question is not of patentability, but of usefulness.
To count as priority date for an invention the idea must be reduced to practical device...
10 years ago I've built such device and still have the working model and evidence of built date...
It has very low thrust to weight ratio and very high power to force ratio...
Since then I've conceived several new ideas and built prove of concepts...
The latest, Orman Force Drive simulations show that it has at least 100:1 thrust/weight ratio and 98% efficiency... Currently the prove of concept device is undergoing tests...
See the Orman Force declaration and the circumstances that led to invalidation of Lorentz force:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhldn0ef138&feature=youtu.be
The paper you attached is trivially wrong. The units simply do not even work out in your first equation, and units are also wrong in your second equation in a way that is fundamentally inconsistent with the first equation as well. The rest seems to be you not understanding how EMF works. The magnetic flux through a loop needs to change to generate EMF, which does not happen with linear motion of the loop through a uniform field. If the Lorentz force law did not work, electric motors, generators, and countless other modern devices would not work.
I'd explain the proper ways to run such experiments, but you would probably be better off picking up a good textbook on electrodynamics, me trying to tutor someone in it over the web would not be very effective. If you show some willingness to learn, I could find some useful resources to point you to.
Also as to the working device with the very high power to force ratio, if you actually are measuring the right thing, and not some experimental artifact the ratio is greater than c=3e8 m/s and it works because the Lorentz force law works just fine, including the consequences that imply that photons carry momentum, which has been measured many times. There are easier and more efficient way to get up to a 1/c force/power ratio (I prefer this direction of ratio since bigger is better in this case) But even that is too low to be useful. -
#91 by MathewOrman on 17 Jan, 2019 07:44
-
Need to examine it more carefully... The Orman Force declaration is not published for negotiation but for the record... And I do no care for hand waving... I can only consider experimental evidence that invalidates Orman Force... That includes the scalar form equations of Orman Force for moving and stationary charge in magnetic field...It is irrelevant how many years ago someone had an idea which is physics only...
The question is not of patentability, but of usefulness.
To count as priority date for an invention the idea must be reduced to practical device...
10 years ago I've built such device and still have the working model and evidence of built date...
It has very low thrust to weight ratio and very high power to force ratio...
Since then I've conceived several new ideas and built prove of concepts...
The latest, Orman Force Drive simulations show that it has at least 100:1 thrust/weight ratio and 98% efficiency... Currently the prove of concept device is undergoing tests...
See the Orman Force declaration and the circumstances that led to invalidation of Lorentz force:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhldn0ef138&feature=youtu.be
The paper you attached is trivially wrong. The units simply do not even work out in your first equation, and units are also wrong in your second equation in a way that is fundamentally inconsistent with the first equation as well. The rest seems to be you not understanding how EMF works. The magnetic flux through a loop needs to change to generate EMF, which does not happen with linear motion of the loop through a uniform field. If the Lorentz force law did not work, electric motors, generators, and countless other modern devices would not work.
I'd explain the proper ways to run such experiments, but you would probably be better off picking up a good textbook on electrodynamics, me trying to tutor someone in it over the web would not be very effective. If you show some willingness to learn, I could find some useful resources to point you to.
Also as to the working device with the very high power to force ratio, if you actually are measuring the right thing, and not some experimental artifact the ratio is greater than c=3e8 m/s and it works because the Lorentz force law works just fine, including the consequences that imply that photons carry momentum, which has been measured many times. There are easier and more efficient way to get up to a 1/c force/power ratio (I prefer this direction of ratio since bigger is better in this case) But even that is too low to be useful.
Now, the type of Lorentz equation that works is force on current conducting wire stationary or moving in uniform magnetic field and such effect is called Laplace force which Lorentz claimed as his but it is not...
Lorentz never did do any experiments and that is why all math of his fails experimental confirmation, including ether and Lorentz contraction... -
#92 by meberbs on 17 Jan, 2019 08:23
-
Need to examine it more carefully...
The righthand side of the first equation has units of force / time. The right hand side of the second equation has units of force / distance. Both of them you claim equals a force on the left side. This is literally irreconcilably inconsistent, and has as much meaning as stating 1=0.The Orman Force declaration is not published for negotiation but for the record...
So you are simply declaring that every single scientist on the planet for the last century is incompetent. Please research the Dunning–Kruger effect. You may want to take back the insult implied by your "declaration."And I do no care for hand waving...
Then you should do less of it.I can only consider experimental evidence that invalidates Orman Force...
You mean like the countless experiments that show the Lorentz force works, or the countless practical applications such as the fact that the power plant that generates the power you use every day in fact successfully generates power?That includes the scalar form equations of Orman Force for moving and stationary charge in magnetic field...
Historical reasons for force naming conventions are irrelevant. A current is just a bunch of individual charges moving around, so the distinction you are making between charges and currents is meaningless. You unsupported and incorrect assertion that Lorentz's math doesn't match with experiment demonstrates that you have no clue what you are talking about. Lorentz contraction is a documented effect. The aether doesn't exist, as has been experimentally proven, but the aether was believed to be necessary by most scientists until Einstein came up with special relativity, which built upon work by Lorentz. (Simplifying the story a bit)
Now, the type of Lorentz equation that works is force on current conducting wire stationary or moving in uniform magnetic field and such effect is called Laplace force which Lorentz claimed as his but it is not...
Lorentz never did do any experiments and that is why all math of his fails experimental confirmation, including ether and Lorentz contraction... -
#93 by MathewOrman on 17 Jan, 2019 08:37
-
Need to examine it more carefully...
The righthand side of the first equation has units of force / time. The right hand side of the second equation has units of force / distance. Both of them you claim equals a force on the left side. This is literally irreconcilably inconsistent, and has as much meaning as stating 1=0.The Orman Force declaration is not published for negotiation but for the record...
So you are simply declaring that every single scientist on the planet for the last century is incompetent. Please research the Dunning–Kruger effect. You may want to take back the insult implied by your "declaration."And I do no care for hand waving...
Then you should do less of it.I can only consider experimental evidence that invalidates Orman Force...
You mean like the countless experiments that show the Lorentz force works, or the countless practical applications such as the fact that the power plant that generates the power you use every day in fact successfully generates power?That includes the scalar form equations of Orman Force for moving and stationary charge in magnetic field...
Historical reasons for force naming conventions are irrelevant. A current is just a bunch of individual charges moving around, so the distinction you are making between charges and currents is meaningless. You unsupported and incorrect assertion that Lorentz's math doesn't match with experiment demonstrates that you have no clue what you are talking about. Lorentz contraction is a documented effect. The aether doesn't exist, as has been experimentally proven, but the aether was believed to be necessary by most scientists until Einstein came up with special relativity, which built upon work by Lorentz. (Simplifying the story a bit)
Now, the type of Lorentz equation that works is force on current conducting wire stationary or moving in uniform magnetic field and such effect is called Laplace force which Lorentz claimed as his but it is not...
Lorentz never did do any experiments and that is why all math of his fails experimental confirmation, including ether and Lorentz contraction...
The right side of equation simply state that Orman Force is proportional to excess charge in coulombs to acceleration of charge and strength of magnetic field...
And the unit of force is in Newtons...
As for experimental evidence of Lorentz force on wire segment moving across uniform constant magnetic field with constant velocity there is none for over 100 year, now...
And in my paper there is and example from MIT what they teach now and what fails in my experiment...
Finally, please provide a link to at least one experimental setup which confirms Lorentz law and equation of charge moving in constant velocity in constant and uniform magnetic field...
-
#94 by meberbs on 17 Jan, 2019 08:48
-
The right side of equation simply state that Orman Force is proportional to excess charge in coulombs to acceleration of charge and strength of magnetic field...
The symbol = does not mean proportional to, it means equal. If you really meant to use a symbol that means proportional, then for your formulas to be useful, you also would have to define what the constant of proportionality is. (Which would necessarily be different between the 2 equations, since the units would be different.)
And the unit of force is in Newtons...As for experimental evidence of Lorentz force on wire segment moving across uniform constant magnetic field with constant velocity there is none for over 100 year, now...
Completely false statement that ignores what I have already written.And in my paper there is and example from MIT what they teach now and what fails in my experiment...
It doesn't fail experiment, though it appears you failed to understand how to test it.Finally, please provide a link to at least one experimental setup which confirms Lorentz law and equation of charge moving in constant velocity in constant and uniform magnetic field...
I posted a link to a video in the emDrive thread that does exactly this. -
#95 by MathewOrman on 17 Jan, 2019 08:55
-
I've replied to your link with the experiment which confirms Orman Force and invalidates Lorentz one, thank you...The right side of equation simply state that Orman Force is proportional to excess charge in coulombs to acceleration of charge and strength of magnetic field...
The symbol = does not mean proportional to, it means equal. If you really meant to use a symbol that means proportional, then for your formulas to be useful, you also would have to define what the constant of proportionality is. (Which would necessarily be different between the 2 equations, since the units would be different.)
And the unit of force is in Newtons...As for experimental evidence of Lorentz force on wire segment moving across uniform constant magnetic field with constant velocity there is none for over 100 year, now...
Completely false statement that ignores what I have already written.And in my paper there is and example from MIT what they teach now and what fails in my experiment...
It doesn't fail experiment, though it appears you failed to understand how to test it.Finally, please provide a link to at least one experimental setup which confirms Lorentz law and equation of charge moving in constant velocity in constant and uniform magnetic field...
I posted a link to a video in the emDrive thread that does exactly this.
Now, would you please describe a setup which in your opinion is correct and shows Lorentz force and EMF generated by segment of wire moving in constant linear velocity across uniform magnetic field with constant intensity... -
#96 by meberbs on 17 Jan, 2019 09:24
-
Moving from discussion in the emDrive thread:
I expected that you would provide this very link :-)
So? it happens to be one of the first ones in a google search.I have to disappoint you: In this setup there is no place where electrons move in constant linear velocity...
Except the cathode and anode form a dipole, which means the fields generally cancel out quickly when not directly in between. As the electrons leave the gun fields fall off much quicker (~1/R^3 if they were a dipole, though they may be more like a multipole, which would weaken your argument further), while the fields in between are very high. Any change in velocity is relatively small.
Electrons are accelerated by the electric field generated by anode and after they pass anode aperture they are decelerated or pulled back by the anodethus the curve liner trajectory of electrons are due to and consistent with Orman Force law and equation...
With the information you have provided so far, your equations are not even self-consistent. Your excuse of the electrons being pulled back to the anode does not make sense, as that is contradicted by the circular shape seen in the video, exactly as predicted using the Lorentz force law.To confirmed it I used my own setup where I've placed second anode outside the glass of my Teltron 552 and made the beam curve in opposite direction thus proved as invalidating evidence of Lorentz force...
You are just describing the effect of adding another source of electric fields to the mix. All that proves is that electric fields deflect electrons, which is the "E" portion of the force law: F = q*(E +v x B) where "x" is the cross product and bold represents vector terms.Now, would you please describe a setup which in your opinion is correct and shows Lorentz force and EMF generated by segment of wire moving in constant linear velocity across uniform magnetic field with constant intensity...
The video does a pretty good approximation of that, though the fields are of course not perfectly uniform. You are the one claiming otherwise, so it is up to you to provide a better setup (and to show numerically how any small deviations from the ideal uniform velocity and uniform fields significantly corrupts the result.) -
#97 by MathewOrman on 17 Jan, 2019 09:43
-
Moving from discussion in the emDrive thread:
Second anode according to Lorentz should not change curvature direction but in reality with Teltron 552 it does so you dipole theory fails in reality...I expected that you would provide this very link :-)
So? it happens to be one of the first ones in a google search.I have to disappoint you: In this setup there is no place where electrons move in constant linear velocity...
Except the cathode and anode form a dipole, which means the fields generally cancel out quickly when not directly in between. As the electrons leave the gun fields fall off much quicker (~1/R^3 if they were a dipole, though they may be more like a multipole, which would weaken your argument further), while the fields in between are very high. Any change in velocity is relatively small.
Electrons are accelerated by the electric field generated by anode and after they pass anode aperture they are decelerated or pulled back by the anodethus the curve liner trajectory of electrons are due to and consistent with Orman Force law and equation...
With the information you have provided so far, your equations are not even self-consistent. Your excuse of the electrons being pulled back to the anode does not make sense, as that is contradicted by the circular shape seen in the video, exactly as predicted using the Lorentz force law.To confirmed it I used my own setup where I've placed second anode outside the glass of my Teltron 552 and made the beam curve in opposite direction thus proved as invalidating evidence of Lorentz force...
You are just describing the effect of adding another source of electric fields to the mix. All that proves is that electric fields deflect electrons, which is the "E" portion of the force law: F = q*(E +v x B) where "x" is the cross product and bold represents vector terms.Now, would you please describe a setup which in your opinion is correct and shows Lorentz force and EMF generated by segment of wire moving in constant linear velocity across uniform magnetic field with constant intensity...
The video does a pretty good approximation of that, though the fields are of course not perfectly uniform. You are the one claiming otherwise, so it is up to you to provide a better setup (and to show numerically how any small deviations from the ideal uniform velocity and uniform fields significantly corrupts the result.)
You are pointing to unrelated experiment and I was asking for an existing experiment or your own idea of correct one which pertain to wire moving in magnetic field and NOT of an electron gun and Helmholtz coil.
So, I conclude that you have no idea how to setup such experiment and or not able to provide a link to such...
The equation f=q*(E+v cross B) is false also because the is no constant v in accelerated motion...
-
#98 by meberbs on 17 Jan, 2019 10:08
-
Second anode according to Lorentz should not change curvature direction but in reality with Teltron 552 it does so you dipole theory fails in reality...
Maybe you aren't using some of those words with the commonly accepted meaning, but introducing additional electric fields will deflect the electrons in a different direction when the magnet is off. The specifics would require you to provide a diagram of your setup to explain.You are pointing to unrelated experiment and I was asking for an existing experiment or your own idea of correct one which pertain to wire moving a magnetic field and NOT of an electron gun and Helmholtz coil.
There is nothing unrelated about what I provided, it is a full demonstration of the Lorentz force, with electons moving with approximately uniform velocity through an approximately uniform electric field.
Your request about a moving wire doesn't make sense, because it is the motion of charges that matter, and if there is current flowing through the wire, the contribution from the motion of the wire will be small compared to the velocity of the electrons.So, I conclude that you have no idea how to setup such experiment and or not able to provide a link to such...
As I have said, there are countless examples of the Lorentz force working, besides the facts about motors and electric generators I described before, and you ignored, there are also examples like the LHC. and other particle accelerators.
Here is an example where the charges are being moved by the physical motion of a non-magnetic metal plate past a magnet:The equation f=q*(E+v cross B) is false also because the is no constant v in accelerated motion...
V is the instantaneous velocity in that formula, which is well defined. In the linked video, the direction of the electron's velocity is constantly changing, which therefore changes the direction of the acceleration, resulting in circular motion. (Constant speed (magnitude, not direction) and an acceleration that is always perpendicular to the velocity results in circular motion.)
Anyway, it is well past time for you to provide evidence of something other than unsupported statements that you have run experiments that disprove basic electrodynamics despite the fact that basically all of modern technology is based on electrodynamics working perfectly. -
#99 by MathewOrman on 17 Jan, 2019 10:20
-
Second anode according to Lorentz should not change curvature direction but in reality with Teltron 552 it does so you dipole theory fails in reality...
Maybe you aren't using some of those words with the commonly accepted meaning, but introducing additional electric fields will deflect the electrons in a different direction when the magnet is off. The specifics would require you to provide a diagram of your setup to explain.You are pointing to unrelated experiment and I was asking for an existing experiment or your own idea of correct one which pertain to wire moving a magnetic field and NOT of an electron gun and Helmholtz coil.
There is nothing unrelated about what I provided, it is a full demonstration of the Lorentz force, with electons moving with approximately uniform velocity through an approximately uniform electric field.
Your request about a moving wire doesn't make sense, because it is the motion of charges that matter, and if there is current flowing through the wire, the contribution from the motion of the wire will be small compared to the velocity of the electrons.So, I conclude that you have no idea how to setup such experiment and or not able to provide a link to such...
As I have said, there are countless examples of the Lorentz force working, besides the facts about motors and electric generators I described before, and you ignored, there are also examples like the LHC. and other particle accelerators.
Here is an example where the charges are being moved by the physical motion of a non-magnetic metal plate past a magnet:The equation f=q*(E+v cross B) is false also because the is no constant v in accelerated motion...
V is the instantaneous velocity in that formula, which is well defined. In the linked video, the direction of the electron's velocity is constantly changing, which therefore changes the direction of the acceleration, resulting in circular motion. (Constant speed (magnitude, not direction) and an acceleration that is always perpendicular to the velocity results in circular motion.)
Anyway, it is well past time for you to provide evidence of something other than unsupported statements that you have run experiments that disprove basic electrodynamics despite the fact that basically all of modern technology is based on electrodynamics working perfectly.
Failed again: in the video the setup has nonuniform magnetic field and relative motion between charges and magnetic field is accelerated...
So, again the second setup is unrelated and you have no idea how to construct your own...
I on the other hand have provided 3 examples of experimental setups where Lorentz law fails and Orman Force and low is supported as if acceleration is null Orman Force is null...
Perhaps you should provide an example of the above from academic sources as you claim that there are countless examples...
By the way, what example in the video shows is Faraday's generator where there is physical brushing against conductive metal surface... With contact less electric field probes of modern oscilloscope the EMF is zero...
And there are no brush-less Faraday's generators...
Right now the existing science for chemical and electric propulsion leaves room for practical travel within the solar system. Our best bets I can see for interstellar travel would be through general relativity (although all useful solutions I have heard of require negative energy densities), or new physics we will discover such as the true nature of dark matter and dark energy.