-
#2820 by Rodal on 12 Feb, 2016 22:49
-
There is an interesting new paper
GENERAL RELATIVITY AND THEORY OF ELECTROMAGNETIC DRIVE
Alexander Trunev
Научный журнал КубГАУ, №114(10), 2015 года
Polythematic online scientific journal of Kuban State Agrarian University, №114 ( 10 ) , 2015
http://ej.kubagro.ru/2015/10/pdf/61.pdfQuoteThe article presents the theory of the electromagnetic
type of rocket motor. The apparatus consists of a
magnetron and a conical cavity in which
electromagnetic oscillations are excited. We explain
the mechanism of trust in such a device based on
Maxwell's theory and the Abraham force. We built a
dynamic model of the motor and calculated the
optimal parameters. It is shown, that the laws of
conservation of momentum and energy for the rocket
motor of electromagnetic type are true, taking into
account the gravitational field. In simulation, the
movement used the theory of relativity. The source of
the motion in an electromagnetic drive is the mass
conversion in various kinds of radiation. The
optimization of the operating parameters of the device
is done, namely by the excitation frequency, the
magnitude of heat losses of electromagnetic energy
by thermal radiation in the IR spectrum, the
parameters of heat transfer and forced from the
temperature dependence of the resistance of the
material of the cavity walls. It was found that the
effective conversion of electromagnetic energy in the
trust force necessary to minimize the deviation of the
excitation frequency of the primary resonance
frequency of the cavity. The mechanism of formation
of trust under change the metrics of space-time,
taking into account the contribution of the Yang-Mills
theory and electromagnetic field tensor of energymomentum
has been proposed
The author (now residing in Toronto, Canada) is on the Board of the Journal that published his article:
http://sj.kubsau.ru/editorialboard
Information on this Russian University (not one of the top Russian universities)
http://kubsau.ru/en/
The author is also in scopus as being the author of 14 techical articles in Engineering Science since the 1980's (notably having co-authored his early ones with V. Fomin (who I know of from his theory of combined discontinuity and shock waves in particle-laden flows) and displaying interest and understanding of a wide variety of Engineering Science disciplines including solid and fluid mechanics ), however only 1 of these articles have received a citation according to this list:
http://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=6603801161
Somebody who tries to impress others in the "R forum" by behaving in an affected way has torn it down without any specific technical criticism, but instead displays that this critic: 1) cannot read Russian, and 2) has not read or understood the equations (as he comments on Google translated words rather than commenting on the equations).
Rather than so casually dismissing it, this article merits at least some attention on these grounds:
1) It has an excellent list of references, one of the best list of references I have found on articles published on the EM Drive. References even include the emdrive.wiki database we endeavored to put together. It is encouraging that it has made it into a list of references. And that all the effort in collecting the data and estimating the dimensions of the tested EM Drives (often not provided by the authors: for example Shawyer never provided all the dimensions for his tested cavities) is being put to good use. ;)
2) The article has good data analysis of the EM Drive experiments (for example, the author realizes that it makes most sense to present the data with a logarithmic scale for the Q and forces due to the very large range of results)
3) The article has numerical analysis of the electromagnetic fields and calculations for force vs time and temperature vs time
4) The article considers the non-zero time variation of the Poynting vector for a cavity that is being excited by a magnetron
5) The article presents easy to read field equations (which I have only rapidly gone through and have not reviewed in detail, as first I wanted to just call this article to the attention of this community). These field equations don't need a Russian translation as the author uses common international symbols for the field equations.
6) Uses Yang Mills theory. It is interesting that the Clay Mathematics Institute's list of "Millennium Prize Problems" includes the problem of proving the conjecture that the lowest excitations of a pure Yang–Mills theory (i.e. without matter fields) have a finite mass-gap with regard to the vacuum state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang%E2%80%93Mills_existence_and_mass_gap).
7) The article includes calculations of the electric field and the Poynting field in mode shape TE012 for NASA's tests that resulted in the anomalous force and for the test (without dielectric) that resulted in no force. It also includes calculations of the Yang-Mills fields.
8) The author proposes that the anomalous force is due to the time variation of the Poynting vector field with the vacuum electric permittivity and magnetic permeability involved as follows:
9) Upon substituting a relationship between the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability and the field metric:
10) The author proposes that the force is dependent on the time variation of the Poynting vector field and the metric:
11) I don't follow why the author takes the force to be dependent only on the time variation of the Poynting vector field and ignores the divergence of the Maxwell's stress tensor in the calculation, which I think should instead be as follows:
Conservation of momentum:
where the Lorentz body force per unit volume is:
therefore the force should be the volume integral of this expression (where it would be worthwhile to use the divergence theorem
to express the volume integral of the divergence of the stress as a surface integral):
where the author only takes the second term.
Effectively, this author does the opposite of Prof. Yang, while Yang only considered the surface integral of Maxwell's stress as giving the force and ignored the force that corresponds to the volume integral of the time rate of the Poynting vector, Trunev does the opposite: only considers the the volume integral of the time rate of the Poynting vector and ignores the surface integral of Maxwell's stress ???
Since this article is at a higher level than Shawyer's theory presentation and it has a very comprehensive list of references (for example these articles on photon rockets published in the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity are interesting:
38. Bonnor W. B. The photon rockets// Class. Quantum Grav., 11:2007, 1994.
39. Bonnor W. B. Another photon rocket// Class. Quantum Grav. 13 (1996), 277.
40. Bonnor W.B. and Piper M.S. The gravitational wave rocket//Class.Quant.Grav. 14 (1997) 2895-2904.
), it may be worthwhile for those intrigued in the EM Drive to take a gander at it.
-
#2821 by spupeng7 on 13 Feb, 2016 01:15
-
#2822 by qraal on 13 Feb, 2016 01:57
-
That Google Translation comes out rather mangled when I open it. Or am I missing something?
-
#2823 by Bob Woods on 13 Feb, 2016 02:02
-
Ironically, an EM-drive on a balance beam has an uncanny resemblance to a stone axe on a wooden handle.. just saying. Maybe we are on the brink of a new 'Stone Age' ? Getting ready to split the Heavens..
I prefer to think of it as a new "Handle Age".
-
#2824 by ThinkerX on 13 Feb, 2016 02:32
-
Quote
There is an interesting new paper
GENERAL RELATIVITY AND THEORY OF ELECTROMAGNETIC DRIVE
Alexander Trunev
Научный журнал КубГАУ, №114(10), 2015 года
Polythematic online scientific journal of Kuban State Agrarian University, №114 ( 10 ) , 2015
http://ej.kubagro.ru/2015/10/pdf/61.pdf
Suggestion: Despite the language issues, this paper appears comprehensive enough to warrant being placed in the wiki and other resource sites here straight away. -
#2825 by rfmwguy on 13 Feb, 2016 02:42
-
Hope a nsf user team here might agree to tackle this together...cannot open it also
-
#2826 by zen-in on 13 Feb, 2016 03:32
-
Hope a nsf user team here might agree to tackle this together...cannot open it also
If the author is now living in Toronto maybe he has translated his paper to english. His translation, if it exists, would have more meaning than the Google robot translation. A good way to get a splitting headache is trying to make sense of the Google translation. Almost as bad as an OCR of a microfiche printout. -
#2827 by dustinthewind on 13 Feb, 2016 03:42
-
To best understand what is going on, it is useful to understand the Goos Hanchen effect.
Here is a nice explanation by Prof. Jens Uwe Nöckel that does not involve much math:
http://pages.uoregon.edu/noeckel/gooshanchen/
...
Thanks for the reference Dr. Rodal, and earlier comment mwvp. I am also thinking that a great test of a near field is that of a single charge. The time retarded field of the electron is responsible for light. With out it being time retarded, light won't work.
Example: http://webphysics.davidson.edu/Applets/Retard/Retard_FEL.html
setting: Inertial
@ say v=.5c to v=.91c we see e-field pancaking (e-field + magnetism) and the time retarded electric field that propagates away as light. The electric field outside is pointing to the previous charge position, before acceleration. If the electron had structure then maybe the electric field might only give off light at that set radius. The problem is I think the electron has been shown to have a ridiculously small if any radius.
I am pretty sure light and magnetic fields play integral parts at the atomic level. In that context, I would be highly skeptical about the near field of a single charge being instantaneous.
Also notice how the electric field travels with the electron in the link to the app above. The information has time to travel such that the electric field knows the exact position of the electron if it hasn't accelerated. This appears similar to these fields in the videos below where there appears to be a separation of charge that moves at a specific velocity, possibly giving the impression of super-luminal behavior. Unless one has taken into account that there has been plenty of time for information to travel at constant velocity.
Still a bit perplexed by the paper where a partial image is transported faster than c through the gas Link.
Also, it is exciting to see the new LIGO discovery. -
#2828 by CuriousDreamer on 13 Feb, 2016 03:52
-
Hope a nsf user team here might agree to tackle this together...cannot open it also
If the author is now living in Toronto maybe he has translated his paper to english. His translation, if it exists, would have more meaning than the Google robot translation. A good way to get a splitting headache is trying to make sense of the Google translation. Almost as bad as an OCR of a microfiche printout.
If we can get our hands on a translation made by the author that would be best of course, in the mean time, I am working on editing the google translation to make it a little more readable. (I have plenty of time on my hands for this the next two days) if I am wasting my time and someone has a better solution, please let me know!
~Dreamer -
#2829 by Rodal on 13 Feb, 2016 13:12
-
There is an interesting new paper
The same author has a large number of articles on General Relativity published in Russian. A couple of his articles on General Relativity are available in English (also published in the journal of the same university where he published the EM Drive article):
GENERAL RELATIVITY AND THEORY OF ELECTROMAGNETIC DRIVE
Alexander Trunev
Научный журнал КубГАУ, №114(10), 2015 года
Polythematic online scientific journal of Kuban State Agrarian University, №114 ( 10 ) , 2015
http://ej.kubagro.ru/2015/10/pdf/61.pdf
...
1) COSMOLOGY OF INHOMOGENEOUS ROTATING UNIVERSE AND REALITY SHOW
Научный журнал КубГАУ, №95(01), 2014 года
http://ej.kubagro.ru/2014/01/pdf/28.pdf
In this paper, in 2014, the author notesQuotethat the Yang-Mills equations describe the behavior of dark energy equation of state with a given type under certain restrictions imposed by the gauge symmetry.
pointing to a connection between dark energy (acceleration of spacetime expansion) and the theory he uses to explain the EM Drive.
The following years (2015-2016), this was also discussed by other authors:
Dark energy as a fixed point of the Einstein Yang-Mills Higgs Equations
http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.04576
Dark Energy and Dark Matter from Yang-Mills Condensate and the Peccei-Quinn mechanism
http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.01772
Quantum Yang-Mills Condensate Dark Energy Models
http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.3874
2) GRAVITATIONAL WAVES AND QUANTUM THEORY
Научный журнал КубГАУ, №96(02), 2014 года
http://ej.kubagro.ru/2014/02/pdf/78.pdf
Although (as noted in my post above) I don't follow why he only considered the time derivative of the Poynting vector field (the second term in the equation below) in his force consideration and did not consider the stress tensor (the first term in the equation below),
I do like that this author always examines numerical solutions to the equations he proposes in his papers, and presents the numerical solutions in his papers. He has the ability to analyze the equations he proposes and solve them numerically (writing his own programs instead of using canned numerical solution packages).
This author displays the characteristics of somebody that is not afraid to "think out of the box", that has the strength to ''push the envelope", that has sufficient command of mathematics to solve problems himself/herself rather than just talk about how others long ago were able to solve problems, that fully understands that physics is not history, that the function of physics is to solve new problems and he has the mathematical command (the language of physics) to deploy to try to solve those problems. This is unlike people I see in other forums that seem unable (or very afraid) to mathematically solve new problems and instead they see their call in life to tell others not to think creatively, that no new problem can be solved by them, to be afraid to propose new solutions, to be afraid to "push the envelope" and most of all to be afraid to propose that strange solutions may be real.
-
#2830 by rfmwguy on 13 Feb, 2016 16:07
-
Doc or others, cannot determine for sure, but these look like a large diameter, centered signal injection for this model. Am I correct? Cannot read the Russian paper or keys.
-
#2831 by Rodal on 13 Feb, 2016 16:43
-
Doc or others, cannot determine for sure, but these look like a large diameter, centered signal injection for this model. Am I correct? Cannot read the Russian paper or keys.
Regarding the position of the excitation, I don't see an answer to your question. He quotes the NASA Brady et.al.,
Brady D.A., White H.G., March P., Lawrence J.T., Davies F.J. Anomalous Thrust production from an RF Test Device Measured on Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum, AIAA 2014-4029.
stating that according to the Brady report the anomalous force depends on the position of the antenna exciting the microwave resonance in the cavity, but he does not seem to discuss this issue any further than that.
Regarding the magnetron, he does make the point, early on in the paper that he does not make the assumption assumed by Greg Egan for example, of standing waves in the cavity. He does not even assume that the electric field E varies like a single sine in time and the magnetic field B like a single cosine in time (his equation number 4), but instead he points out that he uses his full equation number 2.
-
#2832 by rfmwguy on 13 Feb, 2016 16:59
-
No standing waves? Hmmm. EM field variation should probably track spectral display I would assume, more of a square/impulse response. The rapid collapse and expansion being a sine would surprise me.Doc or others, cannot determine for sure, but these look like a large diameter, centered signal injection for this model. Am I correct? Cannot read the Russian paper or keys.
Regarding the position of the excitation, I don't see an answer to your question. He quotes the NASA Brady et.al.,
Brady D.A., White H.G., March P., Lawrence J.T., Davies F.J. Anomalous Thrust production from an RF Test Device Measured on Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum, AIAA 2014-4029.
stating that according to the Brady report the anomalous force depends on the position of the antenna exciting the microwave resonance in the cavity, but he does not seem to discuss this issue any further than that.
Regarding the magnetron, he does make the point, early on in the paper that he does not make the assumption assumed by Greg Egan for example, of standing waves in the cavity. He does not even assume that the electromagnetic fields vary like a single cosine or single sine in time (his equation number 4), and he does not assume that the electric and magnetic fields phase shift is exactly the period/2, but instead he points out that he uses his full equation number 2. -
#2833 by Rodal on 13 Feb, 2016 17:05
-
In the Meep analyses conducted by aero all one sees is a transient response with the Poynting vector growing nonlinearly with time. No steady-state standing wave response was ever reached in any Meep run that I am aware of. Aero did not have the computer time available to investigate at what point (if ever) is the theoretical standing wave response is reached, if ever, with the antenna constantly exciting the cavity.
No standing waves? Hmmm. EM field variation should probably track spectral display I would assume, more of a square/impulse response. The rapid collapse and expansion being a sine would surprise me.Doc or others, cannot determine for sure, but these look like a large diameter, centered signal injection for this model. Am I correct? Cannot read the Russian paper or keys.
Regarding the position of the excitation, I don't see an answer to your question. He quotes the NASA Brady et.al.,
Brady D.A., White H.G., March P., Lawrence J.T., Davies F.J. Anomalous Thrust production from an RF Test Device Measured on Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum, AIAA 2014-4029.
stating that according to the Brady report the anomalous force depends on the position of the antenna exciting the microwave resonance in the cavity, but he does not seem to discuss this issue any further than that.
Regarding the magnetron, he does make the point, early on in the paper that he does not make the assumption assumed by Greg Egan for example, of standing waves in the cavity. He does not even assume that the electromagnetic fields vary like a single cosine or single sine in time (his equation number 4), and he does not assume that the electric and magnetic fields phase shift is exactly the period/2, but instead he points out that he uses his full equation number 2. -
#2834 by rfmwguy on 13 Feb, 2016 18:00
-
A static standing wave implies absolute stability of electromechanical conditions including frequency, power, phase and cavity resonance (changes with heating - significantly at higher Q). Wonder why Greg Egan made this assumption. Real world scenario is standing waves are never static. That goes for many of the 2-Way transmitters I've worked on over the years. For example, the frequency might be stable but the antenna and transmission line (coax) are exposed to the elements such as temperature, corrosion, wind, rain, snow, ice, etc. VSWR is never fully static except in laboratory controlled conditions. If the Russian Professor did not make the same assumption as Egan, my belief is he understands RF transmission systems better.
-
#2835 by Rodal on 13 Feb, 2016 18:23
-
A static standing wave implies absolute stability of electromechanical conditions including frequency, power, phase and cavity resonance (changes with heating - significantly at higher Q). Wonder why Greg Egan made this assumption. ...
Because Greg Egan was seeking an exact solution, in order to understand the problem and make salient observations. An exact solution is achievable under the assumption of steady-state resonance which results in an eigenvalue problem, where the eigensolutions are the natural frequencies and associated mode shapes. Many numerical solutions (using COMSOL Finite Element Analysis or FEKO Boundary Element method eigensolutions) are also just solving the problem under the assumption of steady state resonance.
The transient problem is not amenable to an exact solution, one has to resort to numerical analysis, as for example using the finite difference simulation in the time domain, as in the Meep analysis.
The problem with such numerical solutions is that one has to demonstrate that convergence has been achieved and that the solution is stable. Many analysts just show solutions without proving convergence or stability.
The other issue with numerical solutions (other than the fact that one may not know whether they are converged or stable) is the difficulty in achieving simulation of the complete response, unless one has a supercomputer available: the analyses by Meep conducted by aero (going by memory) were for fractions of a microsecond total response while the EM Drive experiments are conducted for dozens of seconds or longer time-frames.
Seeking exact solutions to a simpler problem, which was the object of Greg Egan is the time-honored method followed by Einstein, Newton,Feynman and most scientists. Even nowadays with plenty of computer power, the power of analytical methods has its place: one can always make stronger statements using exact solutions, and the best way to verify numerical solutions is to compare them with exact solutions.
So, an exact solution like the one presented by Greg Egan is valuable, but one has to remember the assumptions that are built-in in the solution when comparing the results to the real-world. -
#2836 by rfmwguy on 13 Feb, 2016 18:31
-
Great answer Doc. I guess the only question I would have is whether the transition of em waves has anything to do with the effect, such as collapsing fields. Seems most "work" done in things like electric motors depend on variable fields. Your explanation makes perfect sense though...not practical for an exact mathematical solution.A static standing wave implies absolute stability of electromechanical conditions including frequency, power, phase and cavity resonance (changes with heating - significantly at higher Q). Wonder why Greg Egan made this assumption. ...
Because Greg Egan was seeking an exact solution, in order to understand the problem and make salient observations. An exact solution is achievable under the assumption of steady-state resonance which results in an eigenvalue problem, where the eigensolutions are the natural frequencies and associated mode shapes. Many numerical solutions (using COMSOL Finite Element Analysis or FEKO Boundary Element method eigensolutions) are also just solving the problem under the assumption of steady state resonance.
The transient problem is not amenable to an exact solution, one has to resort to numerical analysis, as for example using the finite difference simulation in the time domain, as in the Meep analysis.
The problem with such numerical solutions is that one has to demonstrate that convergence has been achieved and that the solution is stable. Many analysts just show solutions without proving convergence or stability.
The other issue with numerical solutions (other than the fact that one may not know whether they are converged or stable) is the difficulty in achieving simulation of the complete response, unless one has a supercomputer available: the analysis by Meep conducted by aero (going by memory) were for fractions of a microsecond total response while the EM Drive experiments are conducted for dozens of seconds or longer time-frames. -
#2837 by Rodal on 13 Feb, 2016 18:37
-
Great answer Doc. I guess the only question I would have is whether the transition of em waves has anything to do with the effect, such as collapsing fields. Seems most "work" done in things like electric motors depend on variable fields. Your explanation makes perfect sense though...not practical for an exact mathematical solution.A static standing wave implies absolute stability of electromechanical conditions including frequency, power, phase and cavity resonance (changes with heating - significantly at higher Q). Wonder why Greg Egan made this assumption. ...
Because Greg Egan was seeking an exact solution, in order to understand the problem and make salient observations. An exact solution is achievable under the assumption of steady-state resonance which results in an eigenvalue problem, where the eigensolutions are the natural frequencies and associated mode shapes. Many numerical solutions (using COMSOL Finite Element Analysis or FEKO Boundary Element method eigensolutions) are also just solving the problem under the assumption of steady state resonance.
The transient problem is not amenable to an exact solution, one has to resort to numerical analysis, as for example using the finite difference simulation in the time domain, as in the Meep analysis.
The problem with such numerical solutions is that one has to demonstrate that convergence has been achieved and that the solution is stable. Many analysts just show solutions without proving convergence or stability.
The other issue with numerical solutions (other than the fact that one may not know whether they are converged or stable) is the difficulty in achieving simulation of the complete response, unless one has a supercomputer available: the analysis by Meep conducted by aero (going by memory) were for fractions of a microsecond total response while the EM Drive experiments are conducted for dozens of seconds or longer time-frames.
Alexander Trunev explains in his paper (quoted above) that the EM Drive anomalous force can be explained as an open system. He explains in his paper that as a closed-system operating only under Maxwell's equations, it should not have any anomalous force. So Trunev disagrees with Yang and with Shawyer closed-system explanations.
Trunev explains that there are two fields making the anomalous force possible: the gravitational field of General Relativity and the Yang-Mills field of the vacuum.
We now have at least three authors that mention the vacuum in relation to the EM Drive:
White
Minotti
Trunev
and all of them appeal to unified theories to make their arguments. Minotti appeals to a Kaluza Klein derived theory, while Trune appeals to a unified theory using Yang Mills field theory. -
#2838 by rfmwguy on 13 Feb, 2016 19:00
-
So, looks like many are assuming open system. Makes total sense. Appears the battle now is through which action/mechanism does an assumed closed EM system interact with the outside world other than workmanship (leaks), etc. Think you ran off a list of all particles/waves that fly through the system as if it were closed. This made me wonder what type of waves or particles could the system produce which would directly interact with it. White's interferometry test seems to be leaning to near-field space-time distortions as a by-product.
Whether there is an extremely small ripple in space time on the order of a few mm or cm in the locality remains to be proven. However, a 1.5 billion light year distant collision was just measured, so who knows. Read somewhere that the BH collision lost a significant amount of mass as it was converted to energy. Conversion/transition/gravitational waves...hmmm. -
#2839 by CuriousDreamer on 13 Feb, 2016 19:16
-
Here is my translation of Trunev's paper 'GENERAL RELATIVITY AND THEORY OF
ELECTROMAGNETIC DRIVE'
keep in mind that the actual translation was done by Google Translator while the editing to make it legible was done by me, and that my understanding of the Russian language consists of about two dozen words and my understanding of this level of mathematics isn't much better. So if there are a few errors here and there, I apologize
~Dreamer
