-
#460
by
zen-in
on 21 Dec, 2015 01:53
-
...
Things are happening. EagleWorks has a paper in peer review and I'm restoring my lab into my home and the frustum antennas I fried. I'll say it. I got thrust and yes it was above EagleWorks and rfmwguy's and several others. It was a O. M.G. moment. Honestly, I got so excited I was shaking, it was like a new hot rod car and I regressed turning up the power. I didn't record any of it as it was just a preliminary test to see if everything worked. I got more thrust and as the digital scales were climbing it went pffft. That wasn't good.
...
Shell
PS: Dad, you tell your daughter that you're proud of her, as am I.
Congratulations!
-
#461
by
zen-in
on 21 Dec, 2015 02:08
-
What constitutes violations of CoE ("Conservation of Energy") and/or CoM ("Conservation of Momentum")?
Then why are some saying that for the EM Drive to do what it maybe doing, would in fact need to violate CoE and/or CoM to do so?
The reason why so many people have said the em-drive violates conservation of energy is really quite simple. One central claim of the em-drive is that the force it produces is constant and requires only a constant input of energy. If you plotted the energy that was input over time it would be a straight line with a positive slope; ie E
I = kt, where k = the input energy/ Sec. The constant force, F, produces a constant acceleration, a = F/M, where M = the mass being accelerated (em-drive + hypothetical space ship, lol). Since the velocity, V, after time t is: V = a*t the velocity increases linearly. However the kinetic energy with respect to time is a square function, E
K = MV
2/2. It wouldn't take very long for the kinetic energy curve to achieve a higher value than the input energy curve. Where does this excess energy come from?
Edit: One more analogy. Please don't lump this one with the one above unless it justifies it.
If this bulb was placed free-floating in space and completely sealed would/could it create thrust as photons were spinning it's sails ("Like man swimming in space can and could")? If so, is that also a violation of Coe and/or CoM?
Again, if not? Then why are some saying that for the EM Drive to do what it maybe doing, would in fact need to violate CoE and/or CoM to do so?
Don
If the radiometer was free-floating in space it would just spin the way it does on Earth; maybe a lot faster because of a looser bearing, brighter sunlight and better heat radiation into the coldness of space. But it wouldn't move by itself. There might be some recoil of the glass envelope due to the movement of air molecules inside it. That recoil would just be a spin in the opposite direction of the glass envelope.The paddles are inside the glass envelope so they aren't providing any propulsion. It is not sunlight reflecting off the paddles that makes the radiometer spin.
-
#462
by
Fugudaddy
on 21 Dec, 2015 02:14
-
Things are happening. EagleWorks has a paper in peer review and I'm restoring my lab into my home and the frustum antennas I fried. I'll say it. I got thrust and yes it was above EagleWorks and rfmwguy's and several others. It was a O. M.G. moment. Honestly, I got so excited I was shaking, it was like a new hot rod car and I regressed turning up the power. I didn't record any of it as it was just a preliminary test to see if everything worked. I got more thrust and as the digital scales were climbing it went pffft. That wasn't good.
...
Shell
Data, data, data. It is going to be an interesting 2016.
Congratulations, Shell. I'm excited that you're excited enough to begin full scale detailed documented testing of all sorts of variables and variations. It's like an engineering nirvana; that state of enlightenment where something you've built with your own hands does something that most people say it can't possibly do.
And thank you, (and so many others) for the hard work so far. It looks like there's more to go.
Ronald
-
#463
by
Eer
on 21 Dec, 2015 02:22
-
Congrats, Shell ... looking forward to hearing more. Stay on course and document it carefully. There will still be folks who want more, but I suspect you might get volunteers to come out and help with the boring repetitious testing once thrust above noise is repeatedly demonstrated. Good on ya!
-
#464
by
rfmwguy
on 21 Dec, 2015 02:35
-
What constitutes violations of CoE ("Conservation of Energy") and/or CoM ("Conservation of Momentum")?
Then why are some saying that for the EM Drive to do what it maybe doing, would in fact need to violate CoE and/or CoM to do so?
The reason why so many people have said the em-drive violates conservation of energy is really quite simple. One central claim of the em-drive is that the force it produces is constant and requires only a constant input of energy. If you plotted the energy that was input over time it would be a straight line with a positive slope; ie EI = kt, where k = the input energy/ Sec. However the kinetic energy would be a square function, EK = MV2/2. It wouldn't take very long for the kinetic energy curve to achive a higher value than the input energy curve. Where does this excess energy come from?
Edit: One more analogy. Please don't lump this one with the one above unless it justifies it.
If this bulb was placed free-floating in space and completely sealed would/could it create thrust as photons were spinning it's sails ("Like man swimming in space can and could")? If so, is that also a violation of Coe and/or CoM?
Again, if not? Then why are some saying that for the EM Drive to do what it maybe doing, would in fact need to violate CoE and/or CoM to do so?
Don
If the radiometer was free-floating in space it would just spin the way it does on Earth; maybe a lot faster because of a looser bearing, brighter sunlight and better heat radiation into the coldness of space. But it wouldn't move by itself. There might be some recoil of the glass envelope due to the movement of air molecules inside it. That recoil would just be a spin in the opposite direction of the glass envelope.The paddles are inside the glass envelope. It is not sunlight reflecting off the paddles that makes the radiometer spin.
Like the unpredicted new particle reported by lhc, I think the emdrive force falls into the unpredictable realm. I've struggled with theory to be sure and still believe in com/coe. Trillions of confined photons, only a small number being absorbed and turned into heat is producing something unpredicted. What it is, I don't know. Ew proceeds with a QV theory and perhaps this will win out at the end of the day. Gut tells me its a phenonena associated with photonic energy, an extreme condition of compression and shaping of these ghostly particles...or what they morph into. its a micro force I think only witnessed on a cosmic scale is as far as my bfain matter has let me proceed...so far.
-
#465
by
OnlyMe
on 21 Dec, 2015 02:43
-
What constitutes violations of CoE ("Conservation of Energy") and/or CoM ("Conservation of Momentum")?
Then why are some saying that for the EM Drive to do what it maybe doing, would in fact need to violate CoE and/or CoM to do so?
The reason why so many people have said the em-drive violates conservation of energy is really quite simple. One central claim of the em-drive is that the force it produces is constant and requires only a constant input of energy. If you plotted the energy that was input over time it would be a straight line with a positive slope; ie EI = kt, where k = the input energy/ Sec. However the kinetic energy would be a square function, EK = MV2/2. It wouldn't take very long for the kinetic energy curve to achive a higher value than the input energy curve. Where does this excess energy come from?
.....
I don't see how that is a convincing argument, because you would wind up with the same situation even using conventional chemical rockets... Given an unlimited fuel supply, you might even be expending a decreasing amount of fuel to maintain a constant acceleration..., and the delima would be the same.
It is an argument that has been made repeatedly but the real issue people are trying to deal with is that if thrust can be continuously produced, from something happening inside the frustum, the system as a whole does not seem to be pushing against or interacting with anything outside the frustum. Which in itself at least superficially seems to challenge.., for every action their is an equal and opposite reaction!
I can see a few ways to address the CoM problem. None of my own design, just abstractions of theory papers others have produced over the years. But I really don't believe trying to pin anything down would be of value, at this time, without a great deal more information... But yes no matter how it happens.., when thrust clearly above thermal and systemic noise is confirmed, it will be New Physics. Even if that just amounts to some new understanding of existing physics.
-
#466
by
zen-in
on 21 Dec, 2015 03:07
-
What constitutes violations of CoE ("Conservation of Energy") and/or CoM ("Conservation of Momentum")?
Then why are some saying that for the EM Drive to do what it maybe doing, would in fact need to violate CoE and/or CoM to do so?
The reason why so many people have said the em-drive violates conservation of energy is really quite simple. One central claim of the em-drive is that the force it produces is constant and requires only a constant input of energy. If you plotted the energy that was input over time it would be a straight line with a positive slope; ie EI = kt, where k = the input energy/ Sec. The constant force, F, produces a constant acceleration, a = F/M, where M = the mass being accelerated (em-drive + hypothetical space ship, lol). Since the velocity, V, after time t is: V = a*t the velocity increases linearly. However the kinetic energy with respect to time is a square function, EK = MV2/2. It wouldn't take very long for the kinetic energy curve to achieve a higher value than the input energy curve. Where does this excess energy come from?
.....
I don't see how that is a convincing argument, because you would wind up with the same situation even using conventional chemical rockets... Given an unlimited fuel supply, you might even be expending a decreasing amount of fuel to maintain a constant acceleration..., and the delima would be the same.
It is an argument that has been made repeatedly but the real issue people are trying to deal with is that if thrust can be continuously produced, from something happening inside the frustum, the system as a whole does not seem to be pushing against or interacting with anything outside the frustum. Which in itself at least superficially seems to challenge.., for every action their is an equal and opposite reaction!
I can see a few ways to address the CoM problem. None of my own design, just abstractions of theory papers others have produced over the years. But I really don't believe trying to pin anything down would be of value, at this time, without a great deal more information... But yes no matter how it happens.., when thrust clearly above thermal and systemic noise is confirmed, it will be New Physics. Even if that just amounts to some new understanding of existing physics.
I am not a rocket scientist so I will leave it to someone else to answer your question about rockets. I can offer another analogy. Lets say you have a car moving 1 MPH. Its rear wheels exert a force F against the road that is enough to accelerate the car at some fixed rate. The horsepower required to accelerate the car when it is going 1 MPH is porportional to the torque, τ = D*F/2, Where D = dia of the wheels. The horsepower required is also porportional to how fast the wheels are spinning. So to get the same acceleration at 2 MPH the wheels would be spinning at twice the RPM. The torque would be the same but you should be able to see the horsepower required to keep the car accelerating at the same rate is twice as much. The faster the car goes the more horsepower required to maintain that acceleration. If you add up all the energy the car expends to achieve this constant acceleration for a period of time, it will be equal to the kinetic energy the car has gained, excluding wind resistance, rolling friction, etc. The faster something goes the more energy required to keep it accelerating at the same rate.
-
#467
by
Tellmeagain
on 21 Dec, 2015 03:13
-
Things are happening. EagleWorks has a paper in peer review and I'm restoring my lab into my home and the frustum antennas I fried. I'll say it. I got thrust and yes it was above EagleWorks and rfmwguy's and several others. It was a O. M.G. moment. Honestly, I got so excited I was shaking, it was like a new hot rod car and I regressed turning up the power. I didn't record any of it as it was just a preliminary test to see if everything worked. I got more thrust and as the digital scales were climbing it went pffft. That wasn't good.
As a non-believer of EmDrive I do not believe you have something that can't be explained by current physics. If you are not far away from Maryland I'd like to offer free scrutiny for your experiment. Rfmwguy is too far away, though I once lived in Ohio.
-
#468
by
DIYFAN
on 21 Dec, 2015 03:17
-
I've been following this discussion since page one of thread 1.
An overwhelming amount of the information has been beyond my comprehension, as a musician with just one college physics class.
However, the confusion hasn't been enough to discourage me from keeping up with all the remarkable work you're all doing here.
I just want to say congratulations to you Shell.
And as a lay citizen, I just want to thank the rest of you all for doing what you do. I feel it's immensely important work, and I truly admire your skills, expertise, knowledge, and ability to work with each other. It's extraordinarily inspiring.
I'm another day one thread 1 follower. I've recently been silent but nevertheless have maintained a keen interest in the slow but steady progress being made by the collective efforts of many. Shell's results have reinvigorated my interest even more--as I bet it has for many others including the prominent contributors, the occasional contributors, and the vastly higher number of lurkers among us. Best wishes as now the arduous task of gathering the data and expanding the replication efforts takes flight with a new wind beneath those wings.
-
#469
by
ThereIWas3
on 21 Dec, 2015 03:22
-
I have been noodling away on my Meep program, simplifying the input format and improving the reports it generates. I just finiahed a part that computes various dimensions of the frustrum in both meters and wavelengths. Relationships to wavelengths are always interesting when looking at the pictures. Here is some output for Shell's frustrum:
Height 0.248m 2.06w
BigDia 0.295m 2.45w
SmlDia 0.170m 1.41w
Side 0.256m 2.13w
HalfAn 14.2 deg
I will be happy to add any more derived dimensions that people think might be interesting. I will be adding the distance of the feedline attachment from the small end, and the diameter of the frustrum at that point, once I get the code added for feedlines.
-
#470
by
ThinkerX
on 21 Dec, 2015 03:37
-
The reason why so many people have said the em-drive violates conservation of energy is really quite simple. One central claim of the em-drive is that the force it produces is constant and requires only a constant input of energy. If you plotted the energy that was input over time it would be a straight line with a positive slope; ie EI = kt, where k = the input energy/ Sec. The constant force, F, produces a constant acceleration, a = F/M, where M = the mass being accelerated (em-drive + hypothetical space ship, lol). Since the velocity, V, after time t is: V = a*t the velocity increases linearly. However the kinetic energy with respect to time is a square function, EK = MV2/2. It wouldn't take very long for the kinetic energy curve to achieve a higher value than the input energy curve. Where does this excess energy come from?
Except then you have Doctor David Bae's photon bouncing scheme. Yes, it requires two platforms, but the force produced by those recycled photons is 2000+ times greater than the energy input. Which sounds like a violation of Conservation of Energy, and maybe violation of Conservation of Momentum as well. Yet the consensus is, with this scheme, CoE and CoM are not violated.
I have wondered on these threads multiple times in the past that if the EM Drive is somehow valid, then a clue as to why it is valid might be somewhere in Bae's research.
-
#471
by
OnlyMe
on 21 Dec, 2015 04:05
-
....
I am not a rocket scientist so I will leave it to someone else to answer your question about rockets. I can offer another analogy. Lets say you have a car moving 1 MPH. Its rear wheels exert a force F against the road that is enough to accelerate the car at some fixed rate. The horsepower required to accelerate the car when it is going 1 MPH is porportional to the torque, τ = D*F/2, Where D = dia of the wheels. The horsepower required is also porportional to how fast the wheels are spinning. So to get the same acceleration at 2 MPH the wheels would be spinning at twice the RPM. The torque would be the same but you should be able to see the horsepower required to keep the car accelerating at the same rate is twice as much. The faster the car goes the more horsepower required to maintain that acceleration. If you add up all the energy the car expends to achieve this constant acceleration for a period of time, it will be equal to the kinetic energy the car has gained, excluding wind resistance, rolling friction, etc. The faster something goes the more energy required to keep it accelerating at the same rate.
Zen-in, this is a frame of reference problem. Your analogy does not apply to any kind of propulsion system in space. It does mirror the issues involved when accelerating particles at the LHC. You see the LHC is a lab frame of reference and the road is your lab frame of reference. In both cases the acceleration is relative to and pushing off of the frame of reference that applies.., lab or road.
For a spaceship the frame of reference for the acceleration is the ship itself, no mater what propulsion system it uses.., and that frame of reference is always inertial relative to the acceleration, in a manner of speaking. Until or unless velocities become relativistic, but that would require more thought...
Kinetic energy is frame of reference dependent. And the EMDrive's frame of reference is always its own and inertial with respects to its acceleration.
This could become far more complex, since the quantum vacuum and just what it is, has been introduced elsewhere, but there really is no consensus on whether it even exists, so let's leave those complications for another time.
Got to stop there, as this threatens to devolve into one of those special relativity vs general relativity hypotheticals that runs round and round.
-
#472
by
JonathanD
on 21 Dec, 2015 04:06
-
Chiming in to say congrats to Shells, really inspiring, especially knowing how much careful work you've put into that build. Can't wait to see more!
-
#473
by
demofsky
on 21 Dec, 2015 04:07
-
Things are happening. EagleWorks has a paper in peer review and I'm restoring my lab into my home and the frustum antennas I fried. I'll say it. I got thrust and yes it was above EagleWorks and rfmwguy's and several others. It was a O. M.G. moment. Honestly, I got so excited I was shaking, it was like a new hot rod car and I regressed turning up the power. I didn't record any of it as it was just a preliminary test to see if everything worked. I got more thrust and as the digital scales were climbing it went pffft. That wasn't good.
Congratulations!! Just amazing work!! When you were shaking you weren't shaking alone!! Thank you!
-
#474
by
demofsky
on 21 Dec, 2015 04:16
-
After all this posting getting a patent on your version of the EMDrive may be hard but you may be able to claim a Design Registration. Whether it is worth while I will leave up to you.
http://www.craske.co.uk/articles/art300809.htm
I agree with this. The dual waveguide approach is unique along with what you are doing to ensure dimensional control.
-
#475
by
jstepp590
on 21 Dec, 2015 04:35
-
Things are happening. EagleWorks has a paper in peer review and I'm restoring my lab into my home and the frustum antennas I fried. I'll say it. I got thrust and yes it was above EagleWorks and rfmwguy's and several others. It was a O. M.G. moment. Honestly, I got so excited I was shaking, it was like a new hot rod car and I regressed turning up the power. I didn't record any of it as it was just a preliminary test to see if everything worked. I got more thrust and as the digital scales were climbing it went pffft. That wasn't good.
Congratulations Shell, amazing news! The team on this site has put in a lot of hard work, with more to come, and it looks like it will all be worthwhile. A special thank you to the people who didn't believe this would work, but took their valuable time and effort anyway, that is science at its best. Props to Shawyer as well, it looks like The Traveler's faith in him was not misplaced. Really looking forward to more data on the Crazy Eddie drive next year.
P.S. Looks like The Traveler might have been correct on the power source as well.
-
#476
by
RotoSequence
on 21 Dec, 2015 05:09
-
For those of you that are wondering what I have in plans right now (other than getting things set up in the home) is to test two different antennas, one being a cone style and the other being a ball on the end of the antennas (like your car antenna) to see if I can negate some of the coronal discharges from the points of the antennas that it had to see to fry itself into a match. I've vowed it will not happen again at greater power.
I wonder if coronal discharge and corrosion can be avoided here by casting an insulating ceramic around the loop antenna?
Regardless, congratulations on the exciting results, Seashells! I can't wait to see what comes next!
-
#477
by
Vix
on 21 Dec, 2015 08:37
-
Congratulations Shell!
You made my day...
I feel like a kid who may have silently watched Wright brothers fly their first airplane...
It's simply awesome! To me, this was the best news and the best thing that has happened during this tumultuous year 2015!
Just know that you have admirers from all around the world, even from places you'd never expect (Kosovo)...
I wish you good health and a lot of strength to carry on!
-
#478
by
Flyby
on 21 Dec, 2015 09:17
-
.....
Things are happening. EagleWorks has a paper in peer review and I'm restoring my lab into my home and the frustum antennas I fried. I'll say it. I got thrust and yes it was above EagleWorks and rfmwguy's and several others. It was a O. M.G. moment. Honestly, I got so excited I was shaking, it was like a new hot rod car and I regressed turning up the power. I didn't record any of it as it was just a preliminary test to see if everything worked. I got more thrust and as the digital scales were climbing it went pffft. That wasn't good.
.........
Everyone have a great Sunday. I'm back to rebuilding a waveguide that wasn't as good as it needed to be the first time and may have caused my antennas to matchstick.
Shell
Damn Michelle,
wished I could have been a fly on your wall. I can kinda imagine the excitement that went on when you saw those numbers rising..
But let's be honest... if you can get that first result confirmed over and over, it will be because of your incredible engineering skills and many years of experience in building scientific equipment.
Very few times I've seen someone thinking ahead so many steps and anticipating so many potential pitfalls as you. You are indeed a great engineer...
and if you do succeed in convincing - by replicating Shawyer's/Yang's results - the most skeptical individuals inhere that there is a force generated from this EMdrive, it could very well be your most important career achievement. exciting no?
I know you'll continue gathering data and perfect your setup, but I admire you most for that unique combination of both being scientific and a dreamer at the same time.
*tips hat*
Although my contributions have been very,very modest so far, it has been an exciting roller coaster and I really have enjoyed being a front row spectator. Some of the topics really pushed me into self study on physic topics I had never heard before...
Never to stop learning...what more can a man/woman ask ?
-
#479
by
aceshigh
on 21 Dec, 2015 10:14
-
damn, maybe Crazy Eddie is not so crazy at all!
I bet SeeShells has a 3rd arm and has several tiny "watchmakers" that helped her creating the device.
Congrat's SeeShell.
