-
#2460 by SeeShells on 01 Feb, 2016 21:31
-
Dr. White has presented his theories that virtual particles (photons) cause the thrusts we see in his Q-Thruster and he has been criticized for that theory. Virtual particles cannot come from the Quantum Vacuum being the lowest energy state of the universe of spacetime many say.
It's always bothered me that we see two papers involving well tested theories that dovetail into his without involving the quantum vacuum creation of Virtual particles. Dr. White seems to be on the right track but maybe the solution to thrust is staring us in the face.
A.A. Stahlhofen, G. Nimtz (2006). "Evanescent modes are virtual photons". Europhysics Letters 76 (2): 189–195. Bibcode:2006EL.....76..189S. doi:10.1209/epl/i2006-10271-9.
from Wiki
The delay time for a quantum tunneling particle is independent of the thickness of the opaque barrier. This is called the Hartman effect, after Thomas Hartman who discovered it in 1962.[1] In 2007, Nimtz and Stahlhofen demonstrated quantum tunneling of "evanescent modes" across a gap might result in virtual particles traveling faster than light.
(clip)
AND
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140306/ncomms4300/full/ncomms4300.html
Extraordinary momentum and spin in evanescent waves
Konstantin Y. Bliokh, Aleksandr Y. Bekshaev & Franco Nori
AffiliationsContributionsCorresponding authors
Nature Communications 5, Article number: 3300 doi:10.1038/ncomms4300
Received 25 October 2013 Accepted 22 January 2014 Published 06 March 2014
Momentum and spin represent fundamental dynamic properties of quantum particles and fields. In particular, propagating optical waves (photons) carry momentum and longitudinal spin determined by the wave vector and circular polarization, respectively. Here we show that exactly the opposite can be the case for evanescent optical waves. A single evanescent wave possesses a spin component, which is independent of the polarization and is orthogonal to the wave vector. Furthermore, such a wave carries a momentum component, which is determined by the circular polarization and is also orthogonal to the wave vector. We show that these extraordinary properties reveal a fundamental Belinfante’s spin momentum, known in field theory and unobservable in propagating fields. We demonstrate that the transverse momentum and spin push and twist a probe Mie particle in an evanescent field. This allows the observation of ‘impossible’ properties of light and of a fundamental field-theory quantity, which was previously considered as ‘virtual’.
(Clip)
The indecent angle of a normal EM wave hitting a boundary (like the walls of the frustum) will create in that boundary a evanescent wave action which are composed of virtual photons and with the tunneling actions of the evanescent wave decaying into the walls of the frustum impart their extraordinary spin and momentum and therefore a thrust.
Maybe there is a connection here. I know I'm just a engineer playing with physics (as one dearly departed NSFer would say).
My thought. When the mode is created in the small end deforming the mode it also changes the angle of indecent reflection in relation to the large end due to the cutoff of the frustum. That difference of change of indecent reflection induces the decay of the waveform into evanescent waves that create the evanescent wave and the virtual particle decay (evanescent wave) into the end of the walls the frustum.
https://groups.physics.ox.ac.uk/genemachines/group/TIR.png
The red flag is still waving on the evanescent wave for me and looked at correctly it would provide a asymmetrical force to be generated in the copper of the drive walls and not violating CoE and CoM but combining the quantum and Maxwell worlds of standard physics.
Can the drive generate virtual particles? Yes, if you accept A.A. Stahlhofen, G. Nimtz 2006 paper 1. Can the drive provide a asymmetrical force generation using extraordinary spin and momentum of decaying evanescent wave actions. Yes, if you can accept Konstantin Y. Bliokh, Aleksandr Y. Bekshae & Franco Nori paper 2.
Shell
1. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0712/0712.0347.pdf
2. http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140306/ncomms4300/full/ncomms4300.html -
#2461 by flux_capacitor on 01 Feb, 2016 21:59
-
it also changes the angle of indecent reflection in relation to the large end
Oh, Shell!
-
#2462 by SeeShells on 01 Feb, 2016 22:30
-
Here is the rub.it also changes the angle of indecent reflection in relation to the large end
Oh, Shell!
I remember ElisabethGreen when she was posting on her build saying she detected EM from the small end of her build. She said it was possible that it was a bad build.
Rfmwguy His did set off his detector, did I remember this right Dave?.
RFPlummer also said he was getting leakage from his cavity only during resonance.
I detected levels from my small end when I ran the detector over the small end that decayed very quickly.
I may not be able to express myself well enough but to me this still is a red flag.
Shell
added: Do you think this is barking up a wrong tree? If so why? Help me here. -
#2463 by rfmwguy on 01 Feb, 2016 22:41
-
Uhhhh, I think our friend was joking about Indecent rather the Incident angle
Here is the rub.it also changes the angle of indecent reflection in relation to the large end
Oh, Shell!
I remember ElisabethGreen when she was posting on her build saying she detected EM from the small end of her build. She said it was possible that it was a bad build.
Rfmwguy His did set off his detector, did I remember this right Dave?.
RFPlummer also said he was getting leakage from his cavity only during resonance.
I detected levels from my small end when I ran the detector over the small end that decayed very quickly.
I may not be able to express myself well enough but to me this still is a red flag.
Shell
added: Do you think this is barking up a wrong tree? If so why? Help me here.
To answer your question, yes, my detector went off, signaling leakage. I believe there will always be residual leakage no matter how hard we try to contain it...as long as there is no planned exit for the em field. Imperfect builds and perhaps our lack of understanding of evanescent waves in a high-energy, contained space designed to bounce the energy around without providing an output...just a containment vessel.
People can claim to understand RF & Microwaves to the Nth degree, but I then smell B.S. Like I told someone on another forum who claimed to be an authority; show me an exact or very similar condition experiment looking for kinetic energy and then I might take you seriously...otherwise, you're a common troll (yeah, I got sick of their broken record attitude).
Shell, a leakage decay versus distance means a small signal OR some sort of shaped EM field. I'd vote for small signal UNLESS the alarm signal was exceptionally high close by and dropped off exponentially (a lot faster than would be intuitive). That's my 2 "sense". -
#2464 by SeeShells on 01 Feb, 2016 22:47
-
Sorry lol. You're very right. Dang spelling corrector did that on porpoise.
Uhhhh, I think our friend was joking about Indecent rather the Incident angle
Here is the rub.it also changes the angle of indecent reflection in relation to the large end
Oh, Shell!
I remember ElisabethGreen when she was posting on her build saying she detected EM from the small end of her build. She said it was possible that it was a bad build.
Rfmwguy His did set off his detector, did I remember this right Dave?.
RFPlummer also said he was getting leakage from his cavity only during resonance.
I detected levels from my small end when I ran the detector over the small end that decayed very quickly.
I may not be able to express myself well enough but to me this still is a red flag.
Shell
added: Do you think this is barking up a wrong tree? If so why? Help me here. -
#2465 by spupeng7 on 01 Feb, 2016 23:19
-
Article intended for local Astronomical Society <assa.org.au> attached.
Comments welcome
-
#2466 by SeeShells on 01 Feb, 2016 23:32
-
Uhhhh, I think our friend was joking about Indecent rather the Incident angle
Here is the rub.it also changes the angle of indecent reflection in relation to the large end
Oh, Shell!
I remember ElisabethGreen when she was posting on her build saying she detected EM from the small end of her build. She said it was possible that it was a bad build.
Rfmwguy His did set off his detector, did I remember this right Dave?.
RFPlummer also said he was getting leakage from his cavity only during resonance.
I detected levels from my small end when I ran the detector over the small end that decayed very quickly.
I may not be able to express myself well enough but to me this still is a red flag.
Shell
added: Do you think this is barking up a wrong tree? If so why? Help me here.
To answer your question, yes, my detector went off, signaling leakage. I believe there will always be residual leakage no matter how hard we try to contain it...as long as there is no planned exit for the em field. Imperfect builds and perhaps our lack of understanding of evanescent waves in a high-energy, contained space designed to bounce the energy around without providing an output...just a containment vessel.
People can claim to understand RF & Microwaves to the Nth degree, but I then smell B.S. Like I told someone on another forum who claimed to be an authority; show me an exact or very similar condition experiment looking for kinetic energy and then I might take you seriously...otherwise, you're a common troll (yeah, I got sick of their broken record attitude).
Shell, a leakage decay versus distance means a small signal OR some sort of shaped EM field. I'd vote for small signal UNLESS the alarm signal was exceptionally high close by and dropped off exponentially (a lot faster than would be intuitive). That's my 2 "sense".
It was very hard to test inside of the tuning cavity of the drive and make sure I was out of the way. I taped my detector on a stick and slid it through the Faraday cage to test. I couldn't see the meter but it did beep and it seemed to only be for a very short distance. I powered down and put the top cap onto the tune chamber and went on to the basic power up testing. I made notes to follow through with a better test than a detector on a stick.
Shell -
#2467 by Rodal on 02 Feb, 2016 00:13
-
Dr. White has presented his theories that virtual particles (photons) cause the thrusts we see in his Q-Thruster and he has been criticized for that theory. Virtual particles cannot come from the Quantum Vacuum being the lowest energy state of the universe of spacetime many say.
It's always bothered me that we see two papers involving well tested theories that dovetail into his without involving the quantum vacuum creation of Virtual particles. Dr. White seems to be on the right track but maybe the solution to thrust is staring us in the face.
A.A. Stahlhofen, G. Nimtz (2006). "Evanescent modes are virtual photons". Europhysics Letters 76 (2): 189–...
...
Can the drive generate virtual particles? Yes, if you accept A.A. Stahlhofen, G. Nimtz 2006 paper 1. Can the drive provide a asymmetrical force generation using extraordinary spin and momentum of decaying evanescent wave actions. Yes, if you can accept Konstantin Y. Bliokh, Aleksandr Y. Bekshae & Franco Nori paper 2.
....
The problem is that even if you were to have a huge amount of virtual photons generated in the EM Drive, and these virtual photons would be ejected out of the EM Drive in a perfectly collimated way, the force/power produced by these virtual photons under no conditions can exceed the force/power of a perfect photon rocket
Force/Power of a perfect photon rocket = 0.003336 mN/kW,
while EM Drive researchers claim to be measuring force/power that is orders of magnitude greater than the one of a perfectly collimated photon rocket. (Yang claims to have measured over 300,000 times the force/power of a perfectly collimated photon rocket !!!).
That is why when I put together the EM Drive experimental results section (http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results), I endeavored to compare all the claims to the force/power of a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
So, the "virtual photons" explanation cannot possibly explain the extravagant claims of EM Drive researchers.
A virtual photon is not more powerful than a real photon
Image: photon rockets are not propellant-less. Here is an image of a 1960s Russian's impression of a photon
rocket (from (G.G. Zel'kin's article). A huge vessel, many kilometers long because of all the propellant (matter to be converted into photons (matter/antimatter reaction ?)) necessary for a photon rocket to carry in order to get close to the speed of light:
(see this post http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1483927#msg1483927 for more details)
-
#2468 by MazonDel on 02 Feb, 2016 00:28
-
Its really too bad that DIY folks don't have the financial resources to do these experiments. If I had the $$, probably the first thing on the list would be to test the interferometer claims of EW within a high EM field, of course in a vacuum.
I can imagine the university labs with idle environmental and test equipment after hours or on weekends that I'd love to get my hands on
I know at least, that at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in MA (my Alma Mater), that for 7K you can finance a Major Qualifying project that will get between 1-3 students for somewhere between 1-3 terms working on it. They have largely free use of WPI's gear, though consumables and such might be additional charges depending on price. I believe at the 7K price point, the data is required to be open source, closed source costs more. (I could also be remembering wrong and 7K is the price point for the closed source and the OS version is cheaper, been a while since I looked into it.)
I can speak to some of the Profs around if someone were interested in footing that bill. -
#2469 by rfmwguy on 02 Feb, 2016 00:41
-
I for one would be glad to write up a proposal for them to consider. In fact, several of us here could collaborate on the proposal to simplify it for non rf types. A list of available equipment would be taken into consideration so expenditure could be minimized...thanks!Its really too bad that DIY folks don't have the financial resources to do these experiments. If I had the $$, probably the first thing on the list would be to test the interferometer claims of EW within a high EM field, of course in a vacuum.
I can imagine the university labs with idle environmental and test equipment after hours or on weekends that I'd love to get my hands on
I know at least, that at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in MA (my Alma Mater), that for 7K you can finance a Major Qualifying project that will get between 1-3 students for somewhere between 1-3 terms working on it. They have largely free use of WPI's gear, though consumables and such might be additional charges depending on price. I believe at the 7K price point, the data is required to be open source, closed source costs more. (I could also be remembering wrong and 7K is the price point for the closed source and the OS version is cheaper, been a while since I looked into it.)
I can speak to some of the Profs around if someone were interested in footing that bill. -
#2470 by glennfish on 02 Feb, 2016 02:16
-
Article intended for local Astronomical Society <assa.org.au> attached.
Comments welcome
Taking this as a popular science news article, if I wrote it, I'd break it into a balanced perspective. I would cite the proponents and their arguments with references as you did, but I would also add the opponents and their arguments with references as you did not.
A good writer reconciles schizophrenia by permitting the reader to choose a path for more learning, and starts the reader down whichever path they choose. But... never take sides or be biased or you'll be flamed unto perdition.
From a writing point of view, a third option to add would be the psychopathology of EMdrive, both the proponents and opponents. Go to the Reddit site to see how that works. -
#2471 by glennfish on 02 Feb, 2016 02:17
-
Its really too bad that DIY folks don't have the financial resources to do these experiments. If I had the $$, probably the first thing on the list would be to test the interferometer claims of EW within a high EM field, of course in a vacuum.
I can imagine the university labs with idle environmental and test equipment after hours or on weekends that I'd love to get my hands on
I know at least, that at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in MA (my Alma Mater), that for 7K you can finance a Major Qualifying project that will get between 1-3 students for somewhere between 1-3 terms working on it. They have largely free use of WPI's gear, though consumables and such might be additional charges depending on price. I believe at the 7K price point, the data is required to be open source, closed source costs more. (I could also be remembering wrong and 7K is the price point for the closed source and the OS version is cheaper, been a while since I looked into it.)
I can speak to some of the Profs around if someone were interested in footing that bill.
PM me. I have something similar in the works. -
#2472 by Mulletron on 02 Feb, 2016 02:49
-
In ref to these post from a few weeks ago about gravitomagnetic transformer cores and the gravitomagnetic permeability of materials,
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1467260#msg1467260
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1469172#msg1469172
and more recently,
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1485767#msg1485767
I came across an interesting material which exhibits "Spontaneous Nuclear Ferromagnetic Ordering" at some very chilly temperatures, called AuIn2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colored_gold#Blue_gold
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=3084342505287809876&hl=en&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=1989435305832785680&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&sciodt=0,5
http://jasosx.ils.uec.ac.jp/BJP/pdf/BJP2000/BJP_2000_1/BJP_2000_1_20.pdf (page 22)
https://goo.gl/yZlpQW (page 86)
https://goo.gl/BfgIKT (page 20)
Past failed attempt at closely related concept but different application, examined by NASA.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20030020760.pdf (see Wallace)
Other useful info:
www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/pdf/awarded/1997/argyris_ciubotariu.pdf
-
#2473 by SeeShells on 02 Feb, 2016 03:05
-
That's what all this is about.Dr. White has presented his theories that virtual particles (photons) cause the thrusts we see in his Q-Thruster and he has been criticized for that theory. Virtual particles cannot come from the Quantum Vacuum being the lowest energy state of the universe of spacetime many say.
It's always bothered me that we see two papers involving well tested theories that dovetail into his without involving the quantum vacuum creation of Virtual particles. Dr. White seems to be on the right track but maybe the solution to thrust is staring us in the face.
A.A. Stahlhofen, G. Nimtz (2006). "Evanescent modes are virtual photons". Europhysics Letters 76 (2): 189–...
...
Can the drive generate virtual particles? Yes, if you accept A.A. Stahlhofen, G. Nimtz 2006 paper 1. Can the drive provide a asymmetrical force generation using extraordinary spin and momentum of decaying evanescent wave actions. Yes, if you can accept Konstantin Y. Bliokh, Aleksandr Y. Bekshae & Franco Nori paper 2.
....
The problem is that even if you were to have a huge amount of virtual photons generated in the EM Drive, and these virtual photons would be ejected out of the EM Drive in a perfectly collimated way, the force/power produced by these virtual photons under no conditions can exceed the force/power of a perfect photon rocket
Force/Power of a perfect photon rocket = 0.003336 mN/kW,
while EM Drive researchers claim to be measuring force/power that is orders of magnitude greater than the one of a perfectly collimated photon rocket. (Yang claims to have measured over 300,000 times the force/power of a perfectly collimated photon rocket !!!).
That is why when I put together the EM Drive experimental results section (http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results), I endeavored to compare all the claims to the force/power of a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
So, the "virtual photons" explanation cannot possibly explain the extravagant claims of EM Drive researchers.
A virtual photon is not more powerful than a real photon
Image: photon rockets are not propellant-less. Here is an image of a 1960s Russian's impression of a photon
rocket (from (G.G. Zel'kin's article). A huge vessel, many kilometers long because of all the propellant (matter to be converted into photons (matter/antimatter reaction ?)) necessary for a photon rocket to carry in order to get close to the speed of light:
(see this post http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1483927#msg1483927 for more details)
-
#2474 by dustinthewind on 02 Feb, 2016 03:41
-
The mention of negative energy made me think of the analogy that Dark matter could maybe be Negative energy matter in another dimension pulling in our time space (anti gravity).
Adding grist to your mill:
Petit, J. P.; d’Agostini, G. (2014). "Negative mass hypothesis in cosmology and the nature of dark energy". Astrophysics and Space Science 354 (2). doi:10.1007/s10509-014-2106-5.
Some comments as I read it.
Regarding Page 2 (mid 2nd paragraph). No incidences of energy less than vacuum? What about the Casimir force between metal plates where there is lacking certain wavelengths which naturally occur in vacuum? Wouldn't the energy between the plates be less than occurs naturally in vacuum? Assuming we consider the phase waves rather than group waves in empty space.
"Section III. “Regions that behave as if they were filled by negative matter” "
A good point here they mention that 2 negative masses should repel. This is opposite as I was thinking as I was considering 2 negative masses expelling space but they are attracted to the expulsion of space because time is reversed for negative energy matter. In my point of view negative mass would repulse positive mass because of the time reversal. (ok, they flip that view later so that negative energy matter attracts.)
Wow so the voids they think could house negative energy matter in our own universe? So that could be an alternative view of the expansion of space and there would be negative gravitational light lensing, but then why doesn't some light reflect off this negative energy matter?
"IV. Towards a bimetric description of the Universe"
Ok here is where they introduce the other dimension and that the negative energy light/matter exists in another dimension and our dimensions interact through gravity. So what I am considering can be termed as a bimetric universe it appears. Thanks very much for sharing this paper as it's quite interesting.
The discussion of voids is especially interesting and made me think, "What if we did have negative energy matter present in our dimension and it was attracted to itself but repulsed normal matter." Maybe that could also describe the expansion of space. I was only considering the idea that we were the negative energy matter and space time was flowing into our dimension, expanding it. No light reflecting off the negative energy matter in our dimension must be why they are considering the dual dimension universe. The reason I was considering it was if space was flowing into matter where is it all going?
Could quantum tunneling possibly be related to light some how tunneling between those two dimensions? (or electrons jumping orbits in atoms.) Hah!, and what if the duality of Quantum mechanics could some how be connected to the interaction of the 2 dimensions. I would probably be carried away so to speak in this speculation. Oh the tangled web we weave, and that we not our selves deceive. I guess that's where experimental evidence comes in and saves the day.
Interesting article on superluminal tunneling which I think has to do with evanescent waves: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1304/1304.3155.pdf -
#2475 by RERT on 02 Feb, 2016 08:46
-
Dr.Rodal -
I probably confused the issue with talking about reflected waves in the frustrum. There is only one oscillating standing wave in the end. But to quote from Egan's exact solution:
Q = 2*pi*freq*UTot/H
Where UTot is the EM energy content of the frustrum and H is the wall heating, which in equilibrium is the same as the input power P.
So UTot is proportional to P*Q. For a given mode, Utot is also proportional to the square of the field strength. So field strength goes with SQRT(Q*P). That's what one would have to compare with the fields in a PetaWatt laser pulse, though without knowing the target size one can't say much.
Also, though (parenthetically) the Magnetron is also pulsed over several seconds, it appears the PetaWatt laser installed in Japan last year pulses for 10^-12 seconds. I think the comment about there being more time for cumulative non-linear effects - if any - to act in the frustrum is still correct.
R. -
#2476 by CW on 02 Feb, 2016 09:53
-
Thinking about evanescent waves as being virtual particles.. what is a virtual particle? Basically, a temporary disturbance in the isotropic EM background field of space. What is the problem with space in relation to propulsion technology? To use an analogy, the problem to 'push against space' to cause momentum transfer is akin to a cow standing on perfect ice and trying to move forward using her feet. It just doesn't work, unless.. the 'ice' gets roughed up a little, so there is some resistance to couple ice and cow body for momentum exchange. So, in case evanescent waves are analogous to 'roughing up the ice', then that may enable our EM cow to accelerate.
-
#2477 by SeeShells on 02 Feb, 2016 10:27
-
TE01p is degenerate with TM11p, therefore the dominant TM mode is TM11p. Take a look to TE011/TM111 in the diagram below....
Exciting TE013 mode for your cavity dimensions and chosen frequency looks difficult, particularly using waveguides, according to numerical runs:
Added: I'm currently building the second generation of this drive with the tune chamber and the Quartz rod through the center to test at a TE013 mode.
Sorry for your confusion Dr. Rodal but what IslandPlaya tested in FEKO was not the TE013 mode dimensional cavity.
Be 0.2950
Se 0.1680
Center length 0.2563
In Meters
I've verified this mode TE013 with my calculations, TT's spread sheet, and even X_Ray has verified the dimensions and mode. The closest mode to this cavity that it can excite is 69MHz higher and a TE411. Unlike the TE012 which can have other dominate TMxx modes to deal with.
The resonate mode of this stated cavity size is 2.4GHz which the top small endplate will tune right through with a 50mm adjustment.
FEKO showed that instead of a TE013 mode, that a TM mode was going to be excited, using the waveguides, either entering at the base or entering on both lateral conical walls. The TM mode is dominant. Examination of the Meep run did not reveal TE013 mode excitation either. It was TheTraveller's opinion that to excite the TE013 mode a loop was needed, and FEKO modeling of TheTraveller's frustum showed that TE013 could be excited by a loop (although still difficult, when looking at the VSWR (Voltage Standing Wave Ratio) because of proximity of other more dominant modes).
Currently there are some simulations running that I'm sure will show that is not the case. I'm convinced that waveguide insertion can be the key into letting the cavity create a very clean mode generation.
I also recall that early on, it was X-Ray's opinion that the best way to excite the TE013 mode was to use a loop, and that NASA excited TE012 in their frustum using a loop (although it was so difficult to excite TE012 that NASA switched to a TM mode: TM212 for their subsequent testing).
That's the truth Dr. Rodal. A TE012 mode is very hard to excite without having a very narrow BW source that can be phased locked and even then the TM modes will surface as ghost modes in the cavity. (see Frank Davies publication attached in his paper on the close interactive modes around a TE012).
Have there been later FEKO runs showing that TE013 could be excited for your frustum using waveguides and whether it is feasible to "hunt" for TEO13 adjusting the length of the cavity for your frustum dimensions at your chosen frequency?
Or are you going to use a loop instead of the waveguides?
New frustum walls same endplates. I pick up the copper tomorrow (weather permitting, Nasty weather hitting here).
I believe I can excite a TE mode with a waveguide and have the advantages of a dual waveguide insertion, I'll publish data on a basic build when I finish some simulation runs.
Shell
Its not the only TE411 whats nearby for your new dimensions for true.
I'm somewhat reluctant to redesign using the modified loops in the center of the small or even large end, even though there are some gains from using the loop to "lock" a mode. I have a quartz rod running through the center of the frustum where the modified loop antenna would need to be placed. It would mean a redesign of the layout and changing the test format.
Shell
-
#2478 by Notsosureofit on 02 Feb, 2016 13:57
-
Thinking about evanescent waves as being virtual particles.. what is a virtual particle? Basically, a temporary disturbance in the isotropic EM background field of space. What is the problem with space in relation to propulsion technology? To use an analogy, the problem to 'push against space' to cause momentum transfer is akin to a cow standing on perfect ice and trying to move forward using her feet. It just doesn't work, unless.. the 'ice' gets roughed up a little, so there is some resistance to couple ice and cow body for momentum exchange. So, in case evanescent waves are analogous to 'roughing up the ice', then that may enable our EM cow to accelerate.
In the hypothesis, the "roughness" is represented by the quantity g/fc, effectively the coupling of the photons to a gravitational field. (the photon being viewed as the intermediary particle between the electromagnetic and gravitational descriptions) See Appendix 2 in the Wiki. Whether or not this is influenced by the existence of evanescent waves at the surfaces is an open question.
Edit: In fact, I think one could make the argument (speculative) that the dispersion of the cavity itself is a product of interference between a non-dispersive component and evanescent waves at the surfaces. (Yes, we have experience building evanescent wave devices here.) -
#2479 by Rodal on 02 Feb, 2016 14:45
-
Dr.Rodal -
I probably confused the issue with talking about reflected waves in the frustrum. There is only one oscillating standing wave in the end. But to quote from Egan's exact solution:
Q = 2*pi*freq*UTot/H
Where UTot is the EM energy content of the frustrum and H is the wall heating, which in equilibrium is the same as the input power P.
So UTot is proportional to P*Q. For a given mode, Utot is also proportional to the square of the field strength. So field strength goes with SQRT(Q*P). That's what one would have to compare with the fields in a PetaWatt laser pulse, though without knowing the target size one can't say much.
Also, though (parenthetically) the Magnetron is also pulsed over several seconds, it appears the PetaWatt laser installed in Japan last year pulses for 10^-12 seconds. I think the comment about there being more time for cumulative non-linear effects - if any - to act in the frustrum is still correct.
R.
1) Actually, the Q formula you quote is the definition of Q in general (and not restricted to Egan's solution):
2) Therefore, it follows, from the definition of Q, that the stored energy is
Stored Energy = (Q/ω) (Dissipated Power)
3) This stored energy is potential energy from an electromagnetic radio frequency standing wave solution. It is potential energy, just like gravitational energy is potential energy. It is not kinetic energy of the cavity. It is interesting that you quote Greg Egan, because Greg Egan formally proves that there can be no net force and no net self-acceleration, according to Classical Physics (Maxwell's equations and Special Relativity) resulting from the standing wave solution associated with this stored potential energy. Actually, Shawyer's theory is based on travelling waves, instead of standing waves, because of this issue. So, if one is going to appeal to the stored energy due to standing waves, which oscillates back and forth such that the net Poynting vector is zero and the net force is zero, one would have to explain how can one obtain a net directional force from the stored energy for a standing wave solution.
4) In the equation
Stored Energy = (Q/ω) (Dissipated Power)
when you use the maximum Q, at the resonance peak, is only valid if the frequency, ω is exactly at the peak resonance frequency, otherwise the effective Q is much lower, and it rapidly vanishes away from the peak in a very narrow bandwidth of resonance. So, if you use the maximum Q, what you are calculating is the maximum possible stored energy for the assumed value of Q, the actual stored energy can be much lower if the actual Q at the actual frequency is much lower than what one may use in that calculation.
5) The equation
Stored Energy = (Q/ω) (Dissipated Power)
shows that for fixed Q and angular frequency ω the greater the dissipated power, the greater the stored energy. But the catch is this is only true at fixed Q, the physical reality is that greater power dissipation is associated with lower Q, instead of a constant Q.
6) The electromagnetic field strengths are not the Sqrt[Q*PowerDissipated]. The correct statement is that the volume integral of the time average of the square of the electromagnetic field norm is equal to the dissipated power times (Q/ω). So, you need to take into account the volume. Bottom line is that the field strengths that were previously calculated and shown to you by FEKO, Meep, COMSOL, and exact solution calculations cannot be improved by guesstimating them by multiplying Q times the power input in EM Drive experiments, because in doing so: 1) you don't know the actual amount of power forward, the coupling to the cavity, which is not reported for many experiments, 2) you don't know the actual Q during the experiment since the frequency drifts out of resonance due to thermal expansion, etc. Just look at Yang's reports: was her experimental Q in the low 1000's or was it 50,000?
7) The EM Drive field strength in EM Drive experiments conducted in air (the lion share of all EM Drive experiments, including ALL of Yang's, Shawyer's and DIY experiments) must be below the dielectric strength of air, since at field strengths over that, one would experience electric breakdown of the air.
8) I don't understand why to contemplate that one is going to get some interesting a) nonlinear quantum mechanics or b) warp of spacetime or c) an extra-dimensional (5th dimension or higher) string-theory effect when using a common magnetron used in kitchens for years, at 900 watts or less, with experimental Q's of thousands, when resonating cavities have been used in the superconducting regime since the 1960's at MegaWatts (instead of hundreds of watts) and at superconducting Q's of millions as compared to Q's of thousands. And people using these superconducting cavities, have been physicists throughout the world, spending their entire life actively looking for such anomalies. If it would be just a question of electromagnetic field strength to have such anomalous behavior (nonlinear quantum mechanics, or spacetime warp, of 5th dimensions), surely it would have already been found by physicists spending their whole life time to look for such effects instead of finding them in these EM Drive experiments using common kitchen microwave oven magnetrons.
Or why consider that the electromagnetic field strength in an EM Drive experiment, at a few hundred watts and a few thousand Q can be comparable to a petawatt laser ( https://str.llnl.gov/str/Petawatt.html )
To me, if there is something interesting and anomalous in the EM Drive, it cannot be due to a very high magnitude of the field strength in these EM Drive experiments. To me, if there is something interesting in the EM Drive causing an anomalous force, it must be associated with something else than electromagnetic field strength.
