-
#2360 by rfmwguy on 28 Jan, 2016 23:21
-
Sir Michael is wicked smart...likes to push the envelope:
Edit - heavy on laser displacement thru crystal medium. Interesting historical progression of hamiltonian theory from 1830s. Sir michael might be theorist but loves tinkering in his home lab. Multitalented scientist, competent and enjoyable speaker. Long speech, over an hour. Nice scientific methods discussed. -
#2361 by mwvp on 29 Jan, 2016 03:41
-
...
Right now I like the Foobie Dust theory because their simply isn't enough raw data that's been tested for and released to draw conclusions or even a glimmer of one.
I don't have the faith to just build something that involves high-Q modes and hope it works, or that within a few hours/weeks/months of tinkering with it I'll hit the sweet-spot. As you've found with simulations, there's all kinds of ways it can vibrate. I know from my experience with EM and acoustics how mercurial, crystalline gas-like, they are. I'm convinced slow group-velocity/dispersion to filter out, and inductive skin loss to dissipate the lower-Doppler sideband is the cause of any force. I have a basis to research, calculate, design and troubleshoot. If I'm right....
Is there a difference in measured thrusts tuning across a resonate point, effectively through cutoffs? Another biggie.
As I've stated, closer to cutoff, slower group velocity and better sideband filtering but lower Q/momentum. A balance will need to be struck.Is there a difference in sweeping through the cutoffs and the mode generated?
Shawyer's design factor is a good starting point, I guess. Until we nail down the why and how.
Is there a difference in observed static pressure measurements and acceleration, does the drive provide a steady state of acceleration? A huge biggie.Do Diamagnetic materials truly increase the thrusts? Maybe.
I suspect any material, other than ultra low-loss (@ 2.5 Ghz or whatever Fr) Alumina or perhaps your quartz are going to devastate Q and thrust. There is a paper I can dig up describing using an alumina marble to boost cavity Q from ~10k into the millions for accelerators. IIRC, the idea was to pull the electric field and current away from the sidewalls. But what would concern me is Fresnel dragging. If a material has a significant Epsilon-r, that means its atomic dipoles are polarized. Atomic dipoles which will move in the inertial lab-frame of the frustrum, Fresnel-dragging the mode in the lab frame and subtracting from the Doppler-shift and consequently thrust.
How much remains to be calculated. Now that I've found some equations and theory, I can start worrying about how to calculate and if the problems are tractable on my pathetic pc. Then I can (or not) write something up for the Wiki.
Along with the various conjectures and lists of questions would go corresponding predictions and experiments to falsify. Perhaps my NEWSOP more than any other is easiest to falsify. After having a thrust-producing frustrum, you re-tune it with a little lossy material at top/bottom that's been calculate to attenuate the upper/lower sideband, and then see if the thrust reverses 180
-
#2362 by mwvp on 29 Jan, 2016 04:09
-
One of the things I'd like to see addressed in the real world tests is whether or not the E/H fields "move" inside a frustum (as seen in some MEEP solutions).
If you haven't already (I suspect you have by the question) google pulse dispersion applet and you will find something like:
http://www.falstad.com/dispersion/
and
http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/colton/courses/phy123-fall10/labs/lab%203%20-%20dispersion.htm
They depict examples of dispersion, group and phase velocity.That way we could establish whether or not the software simulations correlate with reality.
A couple times I've noted that a cheap, fast & dirty toy frustrum could be built for just such a purpose. Diode mixer modules and RF transistors, if not just diodes, are pretty cheap. Lots of microcontroller boards have a dozen ADC ports. I've got several ST Discovery and Nucleo boards, along with a whole bunch of PIC processors I've used for years.
So the hardware to validate the mode patterns for a lower Q cavity with a dozen or so probes doesn't intimidate me near so much as importing, processing and plotting the data with some app I'd have to learn, which many here would probably say is trivial.But before jumping the gun , it would be nice to have some solid confirmation of thrust, no?
Most here want to build it, measure thrust then figure it out. I think I've figured it out, so I want to calculate, design, simulate, build a test-toy and only then the high-power real thing. -
#2363 by mwvp on 29 Jan, 2016 04:27
-
...
Four things could possibly happen.
...
It works but isn't usable. We kick the frustum can around for a bit to see if we can't make it work better, a majority collect their marbles and go home.
It works with limits. Build and refine it and study it, make it as good as we can.
That's what I suspect. It will take superconductors, or very clever, precise design to get very high Q and dispersion. But under acceleration, it may not be stable enough to be viable, even with controls. But with the principles demonstrated, the phenomena (Shawyer Effect?) could possibly be viably applied in plasma, semiconductors, photonic media, Peltier-Seebeck devices, et.We need to do this right, we need to test it and evaluate it with the best tools we can get, opportunities like this don't come along often where we get a payoff no matter what happens and the jackpot if it does. I'd like to see the jackpot but I'll be happy with any of the results and accept whatever happens.
Shell
Do it right in who's eyes? If EW isn't believed, and I occasionally see articles accusing Nasa and for that matter, all kinds of what we might think of as world-class or class-acts of hype and fraud, what makes us think anything we do will get taken seriously by, who? Nature?
That's why TT isn't posting any photos? Fear of criticism? Get over it. Critics will find something, anything to criticize anyways. -
#2364 by TheTraveller on 29 Jan, 2016 05:04
-
That's why TT isn't posting any photos? Fear of criticism? Get over it. Critics will find something, anything to criticize anyways.
Will not be releasing any pics that may cause replicators to do a bad build and claim they got no force. When I post my data, will also post very detailed full plans and parts / supplier lists for replicator / verifiers.
Will not be doing a P&F and others claiming it does not work because of only partial data release. As we now know P&F didn't release enough info and the required precursors to achieve replication that would work as claimed. And please don't say they have not been replicated, because that is simply not correct.
My EmDrive build plans will be clear, solid and contain 100% of all the info needed to replicate. Will gen force every time. A friend will be the 1st replicator and verify the min 20mN force generation.
Will also be sending a complete test system to Dave and Shell to verify the claimed force. If Paul March / EW wishes to receive a complete system, it will be available. Might even deliver the test systems personally.
No more here from me until the big release. -
#2365 by Bob Woods on 29 Jan, 2016 06:46
-
.../...
Prof. Frobnicat, Paul March says that the EM Drive tests at NASA can be explained by Woodward's Mach Effect theory (as he calls it "the other side of the coin having Dr. White's Quantum Vacuum theory on the other side).
Prof. Woodward explains NASA's results as being due entirely to the asymmetric placement of the dielectric insert, constituting a Woodward Mach Effect, and that NASA's test without a dielectric giving no force confirms Prof. Woodward's expectations.
Now, this is how Prof. Woodward explains the Conservation of Energy (Overunity argument) for his theory (he wrote this last November 2015, barely a couple of months ago):
http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf
Your comments on Prof. Woodward's paper on Conservation of Energy, would be appreciated, and most relevant, because, again, Paul March at NASA has stated that Prof, Woodward's theory might explain the test results for the EM Drive at NASA.
.../...
First to clarify title and authority issues : I'm professor of computer sciences in engineering school, I also did teaching maths (complex analysis...) at university a while ago, and did a fair share of remedial teaching in maths and physics after my initial training in mechanical engineering (including high precision metrology, since it was in one of the finest french watchmaking school). All at undergrad level, for lack of a PhD. Just to say : while my tone is inevitably stylistically colored by all those years of lesson giving, I'm not claiming writing on this forum as a physics professor.
This paper by Woodward was discussed (and to my eyes demolished) on the next-of-kin NSF thread "New Physics for Space Technology/Woodward's effect", in particular by user ppnl and by user Paul451 and by user gargoyle99 and by rare user Povel. Sorry if I forgot some. Won't do a summary, interested reader will have to unwind from those posts...
One interesting theoretical line of reasoning is raised by user 93143 (upped by Povel). That links to Mach effect thread on talk-polywell forums. I had not the time to dig that but from the NSF post it sounds consistent.
What's strange is that, on talk-polywell forum we see many more "followers/believers" of Mach effect that do acknowledge the existence of an apparent excess of energy (even if Woodward clumsily tries to dodge the subject), while a lot of "followers/believers" in EM drive effect still stick to plain denial of such surplus..../...
That interaction with the rest of the causally-connected universe is where the "extra" energy comes from. In fact it is the entire reason anything happens at all. The work done by an M-E thruster is largely unrelated to the local energy input, in the same sense in which the work done by the wind on a sailboat is largely unrelated to the energy expended by the crew moving the sails around. As far as I know there is no theoretical upper limit on the thrust efficiency of a Mach-effect device.
Seeing the (visible explicit) input power to the system not as the main motive power but just as a condition to the harnessing of a much larger (invisible) energetic reservoir is the natural outcome for any frame invariant efficiency propellantless device. This is much more consistent than fooling around with broken kinetic energy argument to show how classical systems supposedly would appear to produce surplus energy also, and then resorting to a kinetic energy integration "resetting" trick that makes no sense just to show that then propellantless devices don't produce surplus energy (while the same empirical calculation technique could show that an accelerating sailboat is not producing surplus energy relative to its crew's work !)
After the flawed inversion of sign in the CoE dealing annex of one of White cosigned papers, this paper by Woodward indicates that the leading theoreticians of propellantless propulsion are ready to ruin their reputation in the eyes of mindful readers with some decent bases in mechanics in return of keeping their distance with the "apparent free energy" taboo for the less vigilant followers (or backers ?).
Anyway, this latest Woodward idea doesn't change a bit the argument of apparent energy excess when studied in the context of constant thrust constant velocity, where kinetic energy and integrated time of operation are simply irrelevant. I'll stick to that as this avoids a lot of headaches, think this is still pretty much unchallenged (seriously).
Professor, stick around.
The most glorious things about these posts is the collaboration between a wide range of exceptional individuals.
While I, a layman, am intrigued by the possibilities inherent in this research, I am vastly more impressed by the give-and-take of people with exceptional minds and the disagreements they attempt to resolve.
This planet is filled with people who believe that demolishing those that do not believe as they do is their mission. These are the people that plunged this planet through several dark ages.
James Mitchner said "An age is called Dark, not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it.” Finding the light is the highest calling of humankind.
To borrow a phrase and to apply it to all who haunt these pages: "Live long, and prosper." -
#2366 by Flyby on 29 Jan, 2016 08:29
-
I wasn't aware of that secondary spin-off topic... thanks for the pointer...All these different angles makes me wonder if there isn't a more systematical approach, instead of the trial and error method, which seems a rather arbitrary way of poking in the dark...
A systematic and formal approach (as opposed to "trial and error", "poking in the dark") to dimensions is followed in this thread:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1474347#msg1474347
which has accomplished a formal, analytical study of scaling laws, using analytical and numerical methods, taking into account all three theories (Shawyer, McCulloch and Notsosureofit).
Must say, some impressive theoretical observations you have formulated there. It is really surprising to see that the Q scales according the square root and if Q is in direct relation with the thrust force, it would clearly indicate that "bigger is better".
Just to make sure I understood it correctly: if you scale up a frustrum, while keeping the geometrical dimensions factor, the material properties and the resonance mode constant, you have to lower the frequency ?
But my remark about all the different angles is in essence a question to what happens to the force when the geometrical dimensions are NOT kept constant.
We hardly have any information on what happens when material properties, resonance modes and frequency stays the same and where the geometrical dimensional factor changes.
It is the interaction of all these different parameters that makes it a very difficult to achieve optimum conditions. Maybe there are interesting things to discover (like what you did with the scaling) when you change geometry (while keeping indentical resonance modes) ? -
#2367 by meberbs on 29 Jan, 2016 13:02
-
...
Will not be doing a P&F and others claiming it does not work because of only partial data release. As we now know P&F didn't release enough info and the required precursors to achieve replication that would work as claimed. And please don't say they have not been replicated, because that is simply not correct.
...
This was posted here before but this link talks about how there were more issues with how the initial cold fusion experiments were performed and reported than just the lack of sufficient data release (though this was important). In addition to explaining what was wrong with the attempts at following the scientific method, it also explains some of the technical issues that led to false positive results, and why the initial replications couldn't conclusively confirm or deny it. There is still work going on in LENR, but I have seen no one with any credibility claim that the original cold fusion idea actually works.
There are specific threads on this site that discuss LENR, so any technical discussion of it should go there. I suggest that you not go promoting discredited versions of LENR if you want people to take your results on the emdrive seriously. Taking lessons to not repeat the mistakes of initial cold fusion investigators is a good idea though.
Release your data once you are ready, but remember that putting a limit on it like "no data release unless I get exactly this result" makes your data inherently biased. You can state a force level for your result to be significant (and others can debate whether that value is correct), but stating that you won't release data unless you meet that criteria is unscientific. There is no problem with publishing results that are not conclusive, as Tajmar did. -
#2368 by rfmwguy on 29 Jan, 2016 14:13
-
Look, EM behavior within (or creating) curved space-time is not what I ate for breakfast, but it did lead me to this paper...momentum, Lorentz, chiral kinetic equation, vorticity and anomalous source term proportional to the product of electric and magnetic fields caught my fleeting attention. I will have to read slower and deeper when time permits...not that I can full understand it even then
I found about 61 citations of the above paper...too many to study, but one stood out:
(This is all the fault of Dr White who measured space time distortion in a cavity at EW)
Berry Curvature and Four-Dimensional Monopoles in the Relativistic Chiral Kinetic Equation
"In summary, we have shown that the Berry curvature and a 4-dimensional monopole in Euclidean momentum
space emerge in a new chiral kinetic equation with manifest Lorentz covariance. The chiral anomaly can be interpreted as the flux of this 4-dimensional monopole. There are vorticity terms in this chiral kinetic equation which are necessary for the presence of the chiral vortical effect. The 3-dimensional chiral kinetic equation can be obtained from the Lorentz covariant one by integration over the zero-th component of the 4-momentum. It contains vorticity terms in addition to what is previously derived in the Hamiltonian approach. The phase space continuity equation has an anomalous source term proportional to the product of electric and magnetic fields. Our approach to the chiral kinetic equation is quite general and valid for relativistic fermionic systems."
http://link.aps.org/accepted/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.262301
Anomalous transport effects and possible environmental symmetry “violation” in heavy-ion collisions
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.2500v2.pdf
Specifically, the heavy Ion collisions are Gold and Copper...copper ions...something I believe I noticed in my observational tests...I'll see if I can find the post later.
Edit - here it is back in T4: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1427751#msg1427751
See the attached Figure 4 for charges...note the axial charge density (left figure).
So, I post this not as a conclusion but as an interesting (to me anyway) lead to follow for theory minded users. One could argue parallel plates of copper, excited by EM would release trillions of copper ions, thereby creating heavy ion collisions inducing an axial charge density...which the paper seems to point to Phenomenological predictions (para 3.3.1). Nothing conclusive...just interesting possibilities.
-
#2369 by Rodal on 29 Jan, 2016 14:32
-
...
Why contemplate not yet experimentally replicated ways for copper ions to be released in an anomalous way by an anomalous mechanism, when we know that there is an electron resonance effect that occurs when RF fields accelerate electrons and cause them to impact with a surface, which depending on its energy, release more electrons, that:
I found about 61 citations of the above paper...too many to study, but one stood out:
Anomalous transport effects and possible environmental symmetry “violation” in heavy-ion collisions
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.2500v2.pdf
Specifically, the heavy Ion collisions are Gold and Copper...copper ions...something I believe I noticed in my observational tests...I'll see if I can find the post later.
Edit - here it is back in T4: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1427751#msg1427751
See the attached Figure 4 for charges...note the axial charge density (left hand).
So, I post this not as a conclusion but as an interesting (to me anyway) lead to follow for theory minded users. One could argue parallel plates of copper, excited by EM would release trillions of copper ions, thereby creating heavy ion collisions inducing an axial charge density...which the paper seems to point to Phenomenological predictions (para 3.3.1). Nothing conclusive...just interesting possibilities.
1) Has been experimentally encountered in most cavity resonant with accelerators for more than 70 years
2) Has been responsible for problems in resonant cavity and waveguides in spacecraft for more than 50 years. Early on, it was noticed that resonant cavities and resonance of open waveguides in space displayed changes in frequency and changes in Q. In space-borne equipment it is a severe problem that can generate RF noise, alter impedance, generate heat and cause hardware damage.
It is called the multipactor effect, it readily occurs in vacuum (hence could be present in NASA's and Tajmar's experiments in vacuum) and:
3) It has been shown to occur also with a single surface, from a dielectric, as used by NASA Eagleworks, which obviates the need to have close to each other metal surfaces for this effect to occur
and
4) We had a NSF user, scientist at NASA Goddard, who posted about this early on these EM Drive threads.
_____
5) The problem at hand, knowing without a doubt that such an effect exists and is well known to take place in resonant cavities like the EM Drive:
a) why is it that experiments (NASA, Tajmar, etc.) have not measured and reported on this well-known and investigated effect?
b) from conservation of energy/momentum it follows that such an internal effect like the multipactor effect should not serve as a means of space propulsion in a closed-cavity like the EM Drive (unless it interacts somehow with fields through General Relativity or through "New Physics"), but could the multipactor effect show itself as an experimental "anomalous force" in the force measurements of EM Drive tests?
6) Although the multipactor effect is present in partial vacuum, for EM Drive experiments in air present, as reported in the EM Drive threads by the NASA Goddard scientist, the possible electric breakdown of air, resulting in arc discharge. This has been reported in a number of EM Drive experiments. Similarly, could the electric breakdown of air show itself as an experimental "anomalous force" in the force measurements of EM Drive tests?
-
#2370 by rfmwguy on 29 Jan, 2016 14:53
-
I think Copper Ion measurement would be fantastic, but probably not within a humble DIY budget. If you follow the heavy-ion collision thoughts, I believe it takes the emdrive out of the propellantless world and into a modified Ion Drive world, with the key exception that Ions are not expelled but collided...this is fuel.
I've heard the same statement before, that its been know for decades. I posed the question on another forum as to why there were not studies on kinetic energy or space-time variations. The churlish answer was there was no need to look for it.
-
#2371 by Rodal on 29 Jan, 2016 14:59
-
I think Copper Ion measurement would be fantastic, but probably not within a humble DIY budget. If you follow the heavy-ion collision thoughts, I believe it takes the emdrive out of the propellantless world and into a modified Ion Drive world, with the key exception that Ions are not expelled but collided...this it is fuel.
Another point related to this made in previous threads is that Prof. Yang in her earlier papers discussed the subject of flow of charged particles inside the EM Drive, including their equations as a possible means of propulsion, but she dropped the examples from further consideration (which is curious because a) why did she bring up the possibility of charged particles? was she considering electric breakdown of the air or the multipactor effect in partial vacuum? and b) in a closed-system like the EM Drive even if there would be charged particles flowing inside one would need a strong coupling interaction with General Relativity or New Physics for this to result in propulsion.)
I've heard the same statement before, that its been know for decades. I posed the question on another forum as to why there were not studies on kinetic energy or space-time variations. The churlish answer was there was no need to look for it.Quote from: Yang Juan,Yang Le,Zhu Yu,Ma Nan, Applying Method of Reference 2 to Effectively Calculating Performance of Microwave Radiation ThrusterIf the microwave electromagnetic field consists of charge particles, due to the electromagnetic force, the charge particles can travel within the electromagnetic field, so the charge particles can acquire energy and momentum from the electromagnetic field. This indicates that electromagnetic field have energy and momentum. Charge particle energy and momentum fulfil the following relationship:
(Bold added for emphasis)
Dgp/dt=pE+JB dwp/dt=J.E (3)
Where J is current density of the moving particles, from the equation of Maxwell, the following is obtained:
V.(ExH)=-J.E-d/dt(1/2E.D+1/2H.B) (4)
where S=ExH represents the flux density vector of electromagnetic field or Poynting vector,
wf=1/2E.D+1/2H.B represents the density of electromagnetic.
D/dt(wp+wf)+V.S=0
∫S.nds=-d/dt∫(wp+wf)dv=0 (5)
so
∫ wpdv+∫ wfdv=const (6)
Differentiate the Poynting vector and consider the Maxwell equation, the following equation can be derived:
D/dt(uoeo+gp)=-V
((1/2eoE2 +1/2 uoH2)I-eoEE-uoHH) (7)
Because gp is the density of the charge particles, compare the term, uoeoS=uoeoExH , in the equation above, it represents the density of momentum of the electromagnetic field gf. The right hand side of the above equation can be define as the momentum flux density tensor of electromagnetic field
Ф=1/2(eoE2+uoH2 )I=eoEE+uoHH (8)
Introducing a new symbol T=- Ф, used for the tension tensor of electromagnetic field per unit area, this is first proposed by Maxwell, so it is also called Maxwell tension tensor. Integrating Equation 6 to:
D/dt∫ (gf+gp)dV=∫ n.TdS (9)
compare with the classical conservation of momentumdG/dt=F , the right hand side of Equation 9 represents the electromagnetic force produced by the electromagnetic tensor acting on the surface V, regardless whether charge particles are presented within the volume, the surface electromagnetic force can change the momentum within the volume V.
Yang Juan(杨涓)†, Wang Yu-Quan(王与权), Ma Yan-Jie(马艳杰), Li Peng-Fei(李鹏飞),
Yang Le(杨乐), Wang Yang(王阳), and He Guo-Qiang(何国强)Quote from: Chin. Phys. B Vol. 22, No. 5 (2013) 050301
Prediction and experimental measurement of the electromagnetic
thrust generated by a microwave thruster systemResorting to charged particles floating in an EM field can
make the statement deduction easily understandable and acceptable.
The charged particles will be exerted by the electric
force of microwave, r𝐸, which is the Coulomb force, where
r is the charge quantity in a unit volume, and 𝐸 is the electric
field of the microwave. The electric force instantly will force
the charged particles to move and generate an oriented current
in the unit volume, therefore the charged particles again are
exerted by the magnetic force of microwave, 𝐽 𝐵, which is
the Lorentz force, where 𝐵 is the magnetic field of the microwave,
and 𝐽 is the current density of the moving particles.
According to Newton’s second law, the momentum 𝑔p of the
charged particles in the unit obeys
¶𝑔p
¶t
= r𝐸+𝐽 𝐵. (1)
Obviously only the electric field works on the charged particles
because the Lorentz force is always perpendicular to the
particle velocity. According to the law of conservation of energy,
the energy wp of the charged particles in the unit obeys
. -
#2372 by Notsosureofit on 29 Jan, 2016 15:31
-
Coffee time comment:
The axial anomaly of chiral fermions, in this case specifically the charges in the walls of the cavity could be related through the "4 dimensional momentum monopole". If that were to be the case, I suspect that one should be able to translate via Maxwell's equations to/from/between the "monopole" description and the photon field "gravitational currents" in the Sachs-Schwebel description since the wall currents have to reflect the electromagnetic field state of the cavity.
Just need some underpaid graduate student to work through all the math......
Edit: Just thinking about it, it does seem like one imbalance might imply the other. Are they in the same direction ?
-
#2373 by rfmwguy on 29 Jan, 2016 15:44
-
Coffee time comment:
@notsosureofit Hmmm, I tried to visualize the 4 dimensional monopole and then senioritis kicked in...but this might well be worthwhile for grad student/math types. I am struck by the fact that the papers I referred to are only a couple of years old and still being cited...maybe...just maybe a connection can be made. No one but EW seems to have brought up space-time distortion created by EM (or gravitational currents).
The axial anomaly of chiral fermions, in this case specifically the charges in the walls of the cavity could be related through the "4 dimensional momentum monopole". If that were to be the case, I suspect that one should be able to translate via Maxwell's equations to/from/between the "monopole" description and the photon field "gravitational currents" in the Sachs-Schwebel description since the wall currents have to reflect the electromagnetic field state of the cavity.
Just need some underpaid graduate student to work through all the math......
@Doc, thanks for the yang info, your memory is outstanding. Dropping references to this may be an oversight, may be by intent if something is there that should not be released for whatever reason. I still think writing poetry and travelling is somewhat questionable FWIW. -
#2374 by Rodal on 29 Jan, 2016 15:46
-
Coffee time comment:
Does the Sachs-Schwebel description agree with all experimental data (from particle accelerators and from Astrophysical measurements, Black Holes, Magnetars, etc. of the Universe)?
The axial anomaly of chiral fermions, in this case specifically the charges in the walls of the cavity could be related through the "4 dimensional momentum monopole". If that were to be the case, I suspect that one should be able to translate via Maxwell's equations to/from/between the "monopole" description and the photon field "gravitational currents" in the Sachs-Schwebel description since the wall currents have to reflect the electromagnetic field state of the cavity.
Just need some underpaid graduate student to work through all the math......
Edit: Just thinking about it, it does seem like one imbalance might imply the other. Are they in the same direction ?
Is it a consistent theory that does not contradict the experimental measurements performed since Sachs-Schwebel's papers?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendel_Sachs#Completion_of_Albert_Einstein.27s_unified_field_theory
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.4.1758
http://mendelsachs.com/
-
#2375 by rfmwguy on 29 Jan, 2016 16:12
-
Guess we can finally agree that "New Physics" is an appropriate Heading for our 21st Century discussions:
PHYSICS IN THE 21st CENTURY - Mendel Sachs - February 27th, 2011
Professor of Physics Emeritus, University at Buffalo, State University of New York
"Do we see any major paradigm changes coming in the 21st century in physics – changes of fundamental ideas that underlie the material world? My answer is: Yes. It is because the leading ideas of contemporary physics are in conflict. The fundamental bases of the two revolutions of 20th century physics - the quantum theory and the theory of relativity – are both mathematically and conceptually incompatible!1 The main paradigm that has dominated 20th century physics has been that of the quantum theory. Yet the theory of relativity has given many correct predictions since its inception at the beginning of the 20th century. It must then be incorporated into all of the laws that underlie physics."
http://mendelsachs.com/wp-content/uploads/articles/physics-21st-century.pdf -
#2376 by Rodal on 29 Jan, 2016 16:58
-
Guess we can finally agree that "New Physics" is an appropriate Heading for our 21st Century discussions:
PHYSICS IN THE 21st CENTURY - Mendel Sachs - February 27th, 2011
Professor of Physics Emeritus, University at Buffalo, State University of New York
"Do we see any major paradigm changes coming in the 21st century in physics – changes of fundamental ideas that underlie the material world? My answer is: Yes. It is because the leading ideas of contemporary physics are in conflict. The fundamental bases of the two revolutions of 20th century physics - the quantum theory and the theory of relativity – are both mathematically and conceptually incompatible!1 The main paradigm that has dominated 20th century physics has been that of the quantum theory. Yet the theory of relativity has given many correct predictions since its inception at the beginning of the 20th century. It must then be incorporated into all of the laws that underlie physics."
http://mendelsachs.com/wp-content/uploads/articles/physics-21st-century.pdf
Similar to Woodward's hypothesis, Sachs also sees the inertial mass as dependent on all the other masses in the Universe, as per Mach's principle:Quote from: PHYSICS IN THE 21st CENTURY - Mendel Sachs - February 27th, 2011An important consequence of the relation between the inertial mass of elementary matter (say, an electron) and the spin-affine connection of the curved spacetime is that as the rest of the matter of a closed system (in principle the universe) tends to zero, i.e. to a vacuum, everywhere, the spin affine connection, and therefore the mass of the given particle, tends to zero. This is a prediction that is in accord with the Mach principle...important prediction is that the mass of an elementary particle vanishes as the other matter of a closed system that is in its environment tends to zero.
This is in agreement with the statement of the Mach principle.
So again we see a way out of the conservation of momentum and conservation of energy problems (*), as in Mach's principle, contemplating the EM Drive not as a closed system (as proposed by Shawyer) but instead as an open system, whose inertia and energy is related to all the distant masses in the Universe (the metal wall of the EM Drive being permeable (**): allowing this inertial Mach field to give inertia to its contents). Both Sachs and Woodward invoke General Relativity, the difference is that Sachs invokes his nonlinear unified theory of General Relativity with electromagnetism, while Woodward derives his Woodward Mach effect equation straight from the conventional theory of Einstein.
______
(*) But if this is so, as Prof. Frobnicat has tirelessly shown, this would imply that the EM Drive provides something more important than space propulsion: it can be a source of energy (which is quite problematic)
(**) we already know that the metal walls are permeable to gravitons and neutrinos -
#2377 by rfmwguy on 29 Jan, 2016 17:54
-
We could both be wrong, but cannot see the system as closed, we just have to understand, like you say, what permeates the EM boundary of frustum.Guess we can finally agree that "New Physics" is an appropriate Heading for our 21st Century discussions:
PHYSICS IN THE 21st CENTURY - Mendel Sachs - February 27th, 2011
Professor of Physics Emeritus, University at Buffalo, State University of New York
"Do we see any major paradigm changes coming in the 21st century in physics – changes of fundamental ideas that underlie the material world? My answer is: Yes. It is because the leading ideas of contemporary physics are in conflict. The fundamental bases of the two revolutions of 20th century physics - the quantum theory and the theory of relativity – are both mathematically and conceptually incompatible!1 The main paradigm that has dominated 20th century physics has been that of the quantum theory. Yet the theory of relativity has given many correct predictions since its inception at the beginning of the 20th century. It must then be incorporated into all of the laws that underlie physics."
http://mendelsachs.com/wp-content/uploads/articles/physics-21st-century.pdf
Similar to Woodward's hypothesis, Sachs also sees the inertial mass as dependent on all the other masses in the Universe, as per Mach's principle:Quote from: PHYSICS IN THE 21st CENTURY - Mendel Sachs - February 27th, 2011An important consequence of the relation between the inertial mass of elementary matter (say, an electron) and the spin-affine connection of the curved spacetime is that as the rest of the matter of a closed system (in principle the universe) tends to zero, i.e. to a vacuum, everywhere, the spin affine connection, and therefore the mass of the given particle, tends to zero. This is a prediction that is in accord with the Mach principle...important prediction is that the mass of an elementary particle vanishes as the other matter of a closed system that is in its environment tends to zero.
This is in agreement with the statement of the Mach principle.
So again we see a way out of the conservation of momentum and conservation of energy problems (*), as in Mach's principle, contemplating the EM Drive not as a closed system (as proposed by Shawyer) but instead as an open system, whose inertia and energy is related to all the distant masses in the Universe (the metal wall of the EM Drive being permeable (**): allowing this inertial Mach field to give inertia to its contents). Both Sachs and Woodward invoke General Relativity, the difference is that Sachs invokes his nonlinear unified theory of General Relativity with electromagnetism, while Woodward derives his Woodward Mach effect equation straight from the conventional theory of Einstein.
______
(*) But if this is so, as Prof. Frobnicat has tirelessly shown, this would imply that the EM Drive provides something more important than space propulsion: it can be a source of energy (which is quite problematic)
(**) we already know that the metal walls are permeable to gravitons and neutrinos
Mental gymnastics lead me to thinking about concave endplates, both focused at some axial to induce more "collisions" and therefore enhancing whatever the end result of that is.
p.s. Took a look for CU+ air sensors...don't ask
-
#2378 by Mulletron on 29 Jan, 2016 19:16
-
I don't see how to justify it as a closed system either, that is, a contained system with NO interaction with the outside. Plenty of things go through the copper walls, gravity, spacetime, neutrinos, static magnetic fields...the list goes on. The problem is finding the interaction which can conserve momentum and not be orders of magnitude off the mark.
-
#2379 by rfmwguy on 29 Jan, 2016 19:48
-
I don't see how to justify it as a closed system either, that is, a contained system with NO interaction with the outside. Plenty of things go through the copper walls, gravity, spacetime, neutrinos, static magnetic fields...the list goes on. The problem is finding the interaction which can conserve momentum and not be orders of magnitude off the mark.
I'm right with you on this. The only clue we have now is Dr White's interferometer which I think measured spatial expansion along the axial length of a common cavity, about 40 times what air heating would have created. Guess we have to determine the mechanism that created it, the dimensional shape of the distortion (if there is any) and the consequences of its creation.
If I might use a basic analogy of a single rubber band...assume both ends are taped down to the top of a desk. Draw a dot on the band, about halfway. Grab that dot and pull towards one fixed end. The band opposite that direction being stretched has expanded, increasing its potential energy. The band in the direction it is pulled is compressed, lowering its potential energy in balance...Release the dot...it returns to equilibrium towards the expanded direction.
Expanded space axially might mean there is compressed space in the opposite direction axially. Just like some of the Alcubierre illustrations I have seen. The dot or the frustum is driven towards expanded space. If this analogy were correct, it might mean that an em pulse is required, not CW.
