-
#1320 by X_RaY on 16 Apr, 2016 12:42
-
It is much more likely that imperfections of a frustum itself in an real experiment or improper model conditions caused that slightly correction is needed.
There is a fundamental contradiction between Shawyer stating in several reports available to the public that EM Drive thrust can be explained in terms of Maxwell's equations and people claiming in this thread that Shawyer e-mailed them that COMSOL cannot cope with conditions close to cut-off. Since it is evident to anybody knowledgeable about COMSOL that COMSOL solves Maxwell's partial differential equations, and that COMSOL is used by many companies making waveguides with conditions close to cut-off, this contradiction shows that either
What? Since when? This software solves field equations and for sure it will work near cutoff.Quote from: Roger Shawyer Email...Also no successful design used COMSOL without correction, as the software does not seem to cope with conditions close to cut-off, as NASA should have realised.
1) Shawyer does not understand that COMSOL solves Maxwell's differential equations
or that
2) Shawyer never stated that "COMSOL without correction, does not seem to cope with conditions close to cut-off"
Since there is no public report of Shawyer himself stating that "COMSOL without correction, does not seem to cope with conditions close to cut-off" and this statement cannot be independently verified as having being said by Shawyer, the preferable alternative is that Shaywer is being misquoted and/or misunderstood in some private communication where Shawyer intended to convey something else than what is being quoted out of context.
In any case, it does not seem right to use this thread to quote Shawyer disparaging a commercial code like COMSOL quoting a private e-mail that cannot be independently verfified. -
#1321 by otlski on 16 Apr, 2016 13:54
-
I am not sure that the sensitivity of this type or camera is in the range of what is needed. Cooled bolometer cam could be a better opinion! Its much more sensetive and delivers a faithful representation in the sub Kelvin resulutions (of course its extensive, several 10000$
)
One way to tease extra resolution out of an uncooled micro-bolometer camera is to use frame stacking. Stacking is used by astro-imaging folks to extract detail from a video stream (think planetary imaging). It works by registering and averaging many unique and individual frame captures together; thus knocking down the Gaussian noise component while allowing the "good" signal to build. The noise goes down by the square root of the number of frames averaged. So 100 frames reduces the noise by a factor of 10. Problem is that you lose temporal resolution in the process. I am not sure what you would need here. My Flir I7 is something like 7 fps. For me to average 9 frames and reduce noise by X3 would take 49 seconds.
A program such as Registax would do the stacking as well as allow for contrast stretching. It is best to use a non-lossy recording format such as .avi to avoid compression artifacts. My Filr does have a button that defeats the auto-gain (auto-scaling). You would point it at the object close up (out of focus and blurry does not matter), hit the defeat button, and move back to an appropriate distance to gather the real data. This locks the IR equivalent white point and black point to a narrow dynamic range. -
#1322 by Monomorphic on 16 Apr, 2016 14:19
-
Monomorphic, as busy as you are, is there any chance you could run your stacked frustums sim perhaps twice or three times as long (I'm not sure if FEKO accounts for the "loading" concept I mentioned earlier). Would you also comment on the sim it self: what is your opinion... did you have to increase the amount of RF energy in order to fill all three vessels, and finally assuming the EM effect is produced by each, would you expect a tripling of thrust?
Thank you for your time, FattyLumpkin
PS: looking forward to your FLIR without the outside "hotspots"
This is TE012 across all three frustum "cells" simultaneously. RF injection in side of bottom frustum. I think I will have better loading across all three by injecting into the middle cell. I may also need to change the dimensions of adjacent cells. They may need to be slightly smaller or slightly larger.
-
#1323 by X_RaY on 16 Apr, 2016 14:21
-
Averaging is often useful for better signal to noise ratio (S/N). Also useful is to subtract single frames from each other to make differences better visible( before and after heating). But first, for the image of the big base, I would try to cover all other heat sources like the magnetron and possible reflections to decrease the needed dynamic range and then amplify the rest.
I am not sure that the sensitivity of this type or camera is in the range of what is needed. Cooled bolometer cam could be a better opinion! Its much more sensetive and delivers a faithful representation in the sub Kelvin resulutions (of course its extensive, several 10000$ )
One way to tease extra resolution out of an uncooled micro-bolometer camera is to use frame stacking. Stacking is used by astro-imaging folks to extract detail from a video stream (think planetary imaging). It works by registering and averaging many unique and individual frame captures together; thus knocking down the Gaussian noise component while allowing the "good" signal to build. The noise goes down by the square root of the number of frames averaged. So 100 frames reduces the noise by a factor of 10. Problem is that you lose temporal resolution in the process. I am not sure what you would need here. My Flir I7 is something like 7 fps. For me to average 9 frames and reduce noise by X3 would take 49 seconds.
A program such as Registax would do the stacking as well as allow for contrast stretching. It is best to use a non-lossy recording format such as .avi to avoid compression artifacts. My Filr does have a button that defeats the auto-gain (auto-scaling). You would point it at the object close up (out of focus and blurry does not matter), hit the defeat button, and move back to an appropriate distance to gather the real data. This locks the IR equivalent white point and black point to a narrow dynamic range. -
#1324 by X_RaY on 16 Apr, 2016 14:25
-
Fits exactly what I measured some times ago. Nice work!Monomorphic, as busy as you are, is there any chance you could run your stacked frustums sim perhaps twice or three times as long (I'm not sure if FEKO accounts for the "loading" concept I mentioned earlier). Would you also comment on the sim it self: what is your opinion... did you have to increase the amount of RF energy in order to fill all three vessels, and finally assuming the EM effect is produced by each, would you expect a tripling of thrust?
Thank you for your time, FattyLumpkin
PS: looking forward to your FLIR without the outside "hotspots"
This is TE012 across all three frustum "cells" simultaneously. RF injection in side of bottom frustum. I think I will have better loading across all three by injecting into the middle cell. I may also need to change the dimensions of adjacent cells. They may need to be slightly smaller or slightly larger.
Thanks for sharing this result.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1518971#msg1518971 -
#1325 by Rodal on 16 Apr, 2016 14:42
-
Fits exactly what I measured some times ago. Nice work!Monomorphic, as busy as you are, is there any chance you could run your stacked frustums sim perhaps twice or three times as long (I'm not sure if FEKO accounts for the "loading" concept I mentioned earlier). Would you also comment on the sim it self: what is your opinion... did you have to increase the amount of RF energy in order to fill all three vessels, and finally assuming the EM effect is produced by each, would you expect a tripling of thrust?
Thank you for your time, FattyLumpkin
PS: looking forward to your FLIR without the outside "hotspots"
This is TE012 across all three frustum "cells" simultaneously. RF injection in side of bottom frustum. I think I will have better loading across all three by injecting into the middle cell. I may also need to change the dimensions of adjacent cells. They may need to be slightly smaller or slightly larger.
Thanks for sharing this result.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1518971#msg1518971
The great conclusions from X-Ray bear repeating again:Quote from: X-RayEvery half wavelength a part of the energy is reflected and goes back to the antenna. There will be a constructive interference all Lambda(0.5Lambda forward direction and 0.5Lambda backward) at the trace back to the antenna cause of the equal length of the single cavities.
Based on the periodic structure with some regions equal to cutoff there is no long way propagation of the wave along the structure.
The field strength in every single cavity in the forward direction will smaller from one to the next conical cavity in this case.
So i am no longer sure that this structure is able to increase possible net forces. It may be helpful to do research in evanescent wave theories / effects of conical resonators like posted here in the forum.
In particle accelerators particle beams are accelerated when passing through each symmetric resonant cavity:
Notice that the fundamental accelerating mode in a particle accelerator is TM01 (TM21 quadrupole mode is mostly used by NASA for the EM Drive) having an electric field in the longitudinal direction, it is a transverse magnetic mode and not a transverse electric mode like TE01 used by Shawyer and Yang that have a magnetic instead of an electric field in the longitudinal direction (*), and notice that higher order modes are detrimental:QuoteIn addition to the fundamental accelerating TM01 mode of an RF cavity, numerous higher frequency modes and a few lower-frequency dipole modes are excited by charged particle beam wakefields, all generally denoted higher order modes (HOMs). These modes serve no useful purpose for accelerator particle beam dynamics, only giving rise to beam instabilities, and are best heavily damped to have as low a QL as possible. The damping is accomplished by preferentially allowing dipole and all HOMs to leak out of the SRF cavity, and then coupling them to resistive RF loads. The leaking out of undesired RF modes occurs along the beampipe, and results from a careful design of the cavity aperture shapes. The aperture shapes are tailored to keep the TM01 mode "trapped" with high Qo inside of the cavity and allow HOMs to propagate away.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_radio_frequency#Higher_order_modes_.28HOMs.29
____________
(*) this is important for NSF members that have been looking at the possibility of asymmetrically accelerating (real or virtual) particles with electric charge like electrons (and positrons ?) inside the EM Drive cavity -
#1326 by RERT on 16 Apr, 2016 16:19
-
Err...not to be pedantic, but Shawyer saying that there is thrust close to cut-off, Maxwell's equations predicting no thrust, and COMSOL SOLVING Maxwell's equations, it seems entirely consistent that COMSOL would not correctly simulate conditions where thrust is developed......
R. -
#1327 by Rodal on 16 Apr, 2016 16:23
-
Err...not to be pedantic, but Shawyer saying that there is thrust close to cut-off, Maxwell's equations predicting no thrust, and COMSOL SOLVING Maxwell's equations, it seems entirely consistent that COMSOL would not correctly simulate conditions where thrust is developed......
R.
You state: <<Maxwell's equations predicting no thrust>>. But your statement is completely inconsistent with Shawyer's theory, as Shawyer states that Maxwell's equations predict thrust. Contrary to what you state, Shawyer states that the EM Drive thrust can be explained purely in terms of Classical Physics, the physics of Newton and Maxwell. I don't agree with Shaywer's theory, but what we are discussing here is whether such statement would be consistent with Shawyer's theory. Shawyer explains the EM Drive using Maxwell's theory. He is emphatic that he doesn't think that anything new is needed besides Newton's 3rd law and Maxwell's equations. He explicitly states that there is no need to bring in exotic physics, no need for quantum vacuum, and no need for warp drive to explain the EM Drive.
To be fair, let us have Shaywer speak for himself, please see:
Starting at: 2:42Quote from: ShaywerEM Drive is based purely on Classical Physics, the physics of Newton, Maxwell...
If you know of any paper where Shawyer has ever stated or agreed with your statement that <<Maxwell's equations predicting no thrust>> please let us know.
I am sure that COMSOL is fully consistent with Classical Physics: the physics of Newton and Maxwell.
If you know of any inconsistency of COMSOL with Classical Physics, the physics of Newton and Maxwell, please let us know.
So, to summarize, the problem is that this attributed quote (supposedly from a fragment of a private e-mail)Quote from: Roger Shawyer Email...Also no successful design used COMSOL without correction, as the software does not seem to cope with conditions close to cut-off, as NASA should have realised.
contradicts Shawyer's often repeated public statements, because COMSOL is fully consistent with the physics of Newton and Maxwell, and Shaywer's theory says that's all that is needed to explain the EM Drive. -
#1328 by SteveD on 16 Apr, 2016 17:16
-
Regarding the theory that thrust is dependent on motion, or acceleration as I interpret it, isn't this problematic as both acceleration and being in a gravity field are the same thing via general relativity? This is not my field so I could be completely mistaken.
Could you elaborate a bit more? I keep coming back to this:
The rf energy is moving on line CD. The photon rocket effect is going to put point C into motion. The line between A and C is longer than the line between C and D. If point D accelerates when the light from point C arrives then it implies that point A is also accelerating. Because the rf energy is moving over the shortest possible path at the speed of light for point A to move would mean that point A has received a signal faster than the speed of light.
If point D accelerates before point A (because it accelerates when the light from point C arrives) then I could use a precisely timed series of explosions to separate the bottom from the top of the triangle prior to the acceleration of point C entering point A's light cone. This would give me point C accelerating, point D accelerating and point A not accelerating. This would seem paradoxical.
Further, I keep going back to the logic that if you can build and test a device in your garage then the explanation has to be something dead simple. I could be wrong, but I believe Maxwell worked under a newtonian understanding where events propagated instantly. If Maxwell's equations are showing no net thrust, and experimental observations differ, then my guess is that this is showing something basic about light cones. -
#1329 by CriX on 16 Apr, 2016 18:45
-
I have read that some emDrive researchers claim that the emdrive frustum must be set in motion in order for the thrust effect to be observed. I would assume this actually means that the frustum must be accelerated, if for only a small amount of time (we all have velocity around the sun already). Remembering back to high school physics now, aren't an accelerating object and an object in a gravitation field indistinguishable as far as i forget if it is Special or General Relativity? Since all emdrive experiments were performed on earth, and thus were performed within a gravitational field, this would seem to contradict the claim that the frustum must be set in motion in order to observe the thrust, as it would be impossible to conduct an experiment without these conditions baked in. .... Sorry for the amateur observation, back to the real scientists!
-
#1330 by Rodal on 16 Apr, 2016 18:51
-
I have read that some emDrive researchers claim that the emdrive frustum must be set in motion in order for the thrust effect to be observed. I would assume this actually means that the frustum must be accelerated, if for only a small amount of time (we all have velocity around the sun already). Remembering back to high school physics now, aren't an accelerating object and an object in a gravitation field indistinguishable as far as i forget if it is Special or General Relativity? Since all emdrive experiments were performed on earth, and thus were performed within a gravitational field, this would seem to contradict the claim that the frustum must be set in motion in order to observe the thrust, as it would be impossible to conduct an experiment without these conditions baked in. .... Sorry for the amateur observation, back to the real scientists!
.
This is an excellent observation. Your high school physics course was excellent ("Remembering back to high school physics now, aren't an accelerating object and an object in a gravitation field indistinguishable" --> (this is General Relativity, the famous https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle of Einstein)) and you are to be congratulated for bringing this up. It is something that escapes many people.
You may be interested in looking at the excellent posts by Professor Frobnicat, for further discussions of important issues associated with the EM Drive claims regarding conservation of energy and conservation of momentum
See:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=19278 -
#1331 by rfmwguy on 16 Apr, 2016 19:16
-
So ends the speculation that the emdrive cannot work considering the DOE video on accelerator cavities. Trouble being is this system is mechanically open, the emdrive is not.
This video shows what looks like a cannae drive system, it takes matter and accelerates it using rf. Opposite reaction is created. So we still have a predicament...an equal and opposite reaction force yields no net motion.
So something else needs to be occurring here. The matter that might be driven toward the small end of a frustum will bounce with the equal amount of force it took to create them. For argument's sake, lets call the matter Cu ions, one of 2 states Cu+ and Cu++ (one and two electrons, 63.546 Da mass either way). Potentially billions could be impacting the small plate, loose energy and perhaps become recycled. But that energy must be equal to the whatever accelerated them...reaction force.
So...long winded discussion of CoM and CoE...unless, we can find the loophole which creates Cu+ or Cu++ ions and has a reduced reaction force compared to impact force...an imbalance.
I understand why some theorists dove into the quirky world of Quantum Mechanics to explain the inexplicable. But lets play that old game we did several threads ago...
A floating astronaut in an open shuttle bay has a bowling ball handed to them. They throw it against the far wall...it impacts moving the shuttle 1 micrometer in that direction. They move in the opposite direction and after hitting the wall opposite moves the shuttle in that direction 1 micrometer. CoM is preserved albeit not instantaneously.
So, the Cu ions can be accelerated, but not by anything attached to the frustum itself, for an equal an opposite force occurs...unless along the way, the bowling ball picks up more mass or energy without a reaction force.
Which...brings me around to my working theory I posted a while back. HIPIMS from Lawrence Berkeley Labs:
The great advantage of HIPIMS is to increase the ratio of metal ions to neutral atoms reaching the substrate (think small diameter endplate-Dave), which makes for great improvements in coating quality. Even in HIPIMS, however, the discharge current – in the circuit that powers the sputter gun – is typically more than ten times greater than the current of positive ions that actually reaches the substrate.
But with their new approach, says Anders, “under certain conditions, the ion current can greatly exceed the discharge current.” (think of a bigger bowling ball hitting wall than was originally thrown-Dave) While this sounds counterintuitive, he says, “we don’t break any laws of nature, we’ve just shaken up a few assumptions.”
The trick is to send short, very high-power pulses through the magnetron at a low repetition rate. When the voltage is high enough, the ion current does not fall off as the gas is depleted but instead, sustained by self-sputtered metal ions, jumps to a new, much higher level (without reaction forces - Dave). Self-sputtering continues as long as the power supply can deliver a high-voltage discharge current."
(snip)
"Because a sustained, self-sputtering plasma can operate in pure vacuum, the new method could also be used for coating materials in space, or even for ion thrusters whose fuel consists of a low-cost, noncombustible metal target, making it unnecessary to carry bottled gases or liquids into space."
Sorry for lengthy, non-academic style post...its how my mind thinks.
Ref: http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2009/01/28/a-supercharged-metal-ion-generator/
and: http://www2.lbl.gov/tt/publications/2498pub2.pdf
My original T6 post: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1499364;topicseen#msg1499364 -
#1332 by Rodal on 16 Apr, 2016 19:30
-
...A floating astronaut in an open shuttle bay has a bowling ball handed to them. They throw it against the far wall...
For this thought-experiment you need to specify the system further than just "has a bowling ball handed to the floating astronaut".
Where did the ball come from?
Is is a meteorite that came from outer space?
Of is it a bowling ball that was already inside the space shuttle and was an integral part of the mass of the space shuttle ? -
#1333 by rfmwguy on 16 Apr, 2016 19:35
-
a bowling ball that was already inside the space shuttle and was an integral part of the mass of the space shuttle ?...A floating astronaut in an open shuttle bay has a bowling ball handed to them. They throw it against the far wall...
For this thought-experiment you need to specify the system further than just "has a bowling ball handed to the floating astronaut".
Where did the ball come from?
Is is a meteorite that came from outer space?
Of is it a bowling ball that was already inside the space shuttle and was an integral part of the mass of the space shuttle ?
-
#1334 by Rodal on 16 Apr, 2016 19:39
-
If the bowling ball was already inside the space shuttle and was an integral part of the mass of the space shuttle, the center of mass never accelerated by the astronaut throwing the ball to a wall of the space shuttle, because the mass of the space shuttle did not change by any of these actions. For the center of mass to accelerate, the mass of the space shuttle has to change (for example by ejecting some propellant). Or otherwise an external field has to act on the space shuttle (like gravitational forces, solar radiation, magnetic forces from the earth, drag from the atmosphere, etc.)
a bowling ball that was already inside the space shuttle and was an integral part of the mass of the space shuttle ?...A floating astronaut in an open shuttle bay has a bowling ball handed to them. They throw it against the far wall...
For this thought-experiment you need to specify the system further than just "has a bowling ball handed to the floating astronaut".
Where did the ball come from?
Is is a meteorite that came from outer space?
Of is it a bowling ball that was already inside the space shuttle and was an integral part of the mass of the space shuttle ?
Can't accelerate the space shuttle at all by throwing balls to a wall or by moving furniture inside it. Not by a micrometer, not by a nanometer. Need to change the mass of the space shuttle or otherwise be acted by external fields.
You can accelerate the space shuttle by throwing the ball out of the space shuttle, in order to decrease the mass.
To accelerate, you must eject mass, like when she uses the fire extinguisher to propel herself in the film Gravity
-
#1335 by rfmwguy on 16 Apr, 2016 19:52
-
If a bowling ball was removed from floor, given to a floating astronaut, it then become something from "outside". The astronaut does too as they throw it, except they will hit the opposite wall, equaling the original force.
If the bowling ball was already inside the space shuttle and was an integral part of the mass of the space shuttle, the center of mass never accelerated by the actions of this astronaut, because the mass of the space shuttle did not change by any of these actions. For the center of mass to accelerate, the mass of the space shuttle has to change (for example by ejecting some propellant). Or otherwise an external field has to act on the space shuttle (like gravitational forces, solar radiation, magnetic forces from the earth, drag from the atmosphere, etc.)
a bowling ball that was already inside the space shuttle and was an integral part of the mass of the space shuttle ?...A floating astronaut in an open shuttle bay has a bowling ball handed to them. They throw it against the far wall...
For this thought-experiment you need to specify the system further than just "has a bowling ball handed to the floating astronaut".
Where did the ball come from?
Is is a meteorite that came from outer space?
Of is it a bowling ball that was already inside the space shuttle and was an integral part of the mass of the space shuttle ?
Can't accelerate the space shuttle at all by throwing balls or by moving furniture inside it. Not by a micrometer, not by a nanometer. Need to change the mass of the space shuttle or otherwise be acted by external fields.
You can accelerate the space shuttle by throwing the ball out of the space shuttle, in order to decrease the mass.
To accelerate, you must throw objects out.
Better yet said, the bowling ball temporarily leaves the mass of the shuttle (picked up by temporary floating astronaut). If the astronaut leaves the shuttle, there's a force imbalance. -
#1336 by Rodal on 16 Apr, 2016 20:00
-
OK, then it becomes an accounting exercise of what you count "in" or "out" of the system, and when do you count them in or out.
If a bowling ball was removed from floor, given to a floating astronaut, it then become something from "outside". The astronaut does too as they throw it, except they will hit the opposite wall, equaling the original force.
If the bowling ball was already inside the space shuttle and was an integral part of the mass of the space shuttle, the center of mass never accelerated by the actions of this astronaut, because the mass of the space shuttle did not change by any of these actions. For the center of mass to accelerate, the mass of the space shuttle has to change (for example by ejecting some propellant). Or otherwise an external field has to act on the space shuttle (like gravitational forces, solar radiation, magnetic forces from the earth, drag from the atmosphere, etc.)
a bowling ball that was already inside the space shuttle and was an integral part of the mass of the space shuttle ?...A floating astronaut in an open shuttle bay has a bowling ball handed to them. They throw it against the far wall...
For this thought-experiment you need to specify the system further than just "has a bowling ball handed to the floating astronaut".
Where did the ball come from?
Is is a meteorite that came from outer space?
Of is it a bowling ball that was already inside the space shuttle and was an integral part of the mass of the space shuttle ?
Can't accelerate the space shuttle at all by throwing balls or by moving furniture inside it. Not by a micrometer, not by a nanometer. Need to change the mass of the space shuttle or otherwise be acted by external fields.
You can accelerate the space shuttle by throwing the ball out of the space shuttle, in order to decrease the mass.
To accelerate, you must throw objects out.
Better yet said, the bowling ball temporarily leaves the mass of the shuttle (picked up by temporary floating astronaut). If the astronaut leaves the shuttle, there's a force imbalance.
For example, as often said, when a rocket accelerates to the moon, the center of mass of the rocket + the ejected propellant never accelerated. All that happened is that the propellant went in the opposite direction and for practical purposes, we don't count it as being part of the rocket anymore, because the ejected propellant is permanently gone and getting farther and farther from the rocket as the rocket accelerates.
But back to this thread's topic: the EM Drive. If the EM Drive is a closed system nothing escapes it, and hence it cannot accelerate by any internal actions.
If you are proposing that something is escaping out of the EM Drive permanently, (and hence providing a permanent acceleration to the EM Drive) what is escaping permanently the EM Drive? -
#1337 by rfmwguy on 16 Apr, 2016 20:27
-
The anomaly of the increase self-sputtering without an increase in current in LBL's paper is counterintuitive as they say. In other words, Cu+ reach a high, self-sustained state without putting more energy (current) into it.
This apparent CoE violation is described in detail in their paper. So, effectively what I am positing is Cu+ are self-generating to higher energy state as they are "floating in the shuttle bay" and impacting one wall by the pulsed RF of the magnetron. The higher energy state causes a more energy released on impact on the target (end plate of frustum), thus no opposite reaction when they drop to the low energy state. And the cycle repeats itself.
-
#1338 by rfmwguy on 16 Apr, 2016 20:43
-
Yes, there are swimming Cu+ inside the frustum, temporarily disconnected from the mass (walls) of the frustum. They are excited by the pulsed magnetron and strike the far endplate, and according to LBL if conditions are right, lay down more copper without an appreciable increase in input current (power)...a sort of self-sputtering phenomena.
Rfmwguy do you remenber, there was a discussion in thread4 about "swimming in curved spacetime":
If a bowling ball was removed from floor, given to a floating astronaut, it then become something from "outside". The astronaut does too as they throw it, except they will hit the opposite wall, equaling the original force.
If the bowling ball was already inside the space shuttle and was an integral part of the mass of the space shuttle, the center of mass never accelerated by the actions of this astronaut, because the mass of the space shuttle did not change by any of these actions. For the center of mass to accelerate, the mass of the space shuttle has to change (for example by ejecting some propellant). Or otherwise an external field has to act on the space shuttle (like gravitational forces, solar radiation, magnetic forces from the earth, drag from the atmosphere, etc.)
a bowling ball that was already inside the space shuttle and was an integral part of the mass of the space shuttle ?...A floating astronaut in an open shuttle bay has a bowling ball handed to them. They throw it against the far wall...
For this thought-experiment you need to specify the system further than just "has a bowling ball handed to the floating astronaut".
Where did the ball come from?
Is is a meteorite that came from outer space?
Of is it a bowling ball that was already inside the space shuttle and was an integral part of the mass of the space shuttle ?
Can't accelerate the space shuttle at all by throwing balls or by moving furniture inside it. Not by a micrometer, not by a nanometer. Need to change the mass of the space shuttle or otherwise be acted by external fields.
You can accelerate the space shuttle by throwing the ball out of the space shuttle, in order to decrease the mass.
To accelerate, you must throw objects out.
Better yet said, the bowling ball temporarily leaves the mass of the shuttle (picked up by temporary floating astronaut). If the astronaut leaves the shuttle, there's a force imbalance.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/mmedia/1367-2630/8/5/068/movie1.avi
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/6706/AIM-2002-017.pdf?sequence=2
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/SwimmingInCurvedSpace/
Is your suggestion something like this to the Cu ions swirling around inside the cavity?
No mass has to be expelled in this case. But as pointed out:Quote from: Jack WisdomThe curvature of spacetime is very slight,
so the ability to swim in spacetime is unlikely
to lead to new propulsion devices. For a
meter-sized object performing meter-sized
deformations at the surface of the Earth, the
displacement is of order 10^(-23) m .
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1423374#msg1423374
So my working theory back on T6 involved Cu+ striking one wall, some getting deposited, some bouncing off, getting recycled and jumping into a higher energy state and once again being slammed into the endplate (target) by the resonant TE field.
In this theory scenario, TM is of no consequence, nor would there be a need for a Quantum Vacuum...no CoM or CoE violation.
Granted, I am not a Theorist, my wording is less than desirable as I try to document my visualizations. -
#1339 by Rodal on 16 Apr, 2016 20:50
-
...
Yes, there are swimming Cu+ inside the frustum, temporarily disconnected to the mass (walls) of the frustum. They are excited by the pulsed magnetron and strike the far endplate, and according to LBL if conditions are right, lay down more copper without an appreciable increase in input current (power)...a sort of self-sputtering phenomena.
So my working theory back on T6 involved Cu+ striking one wall, some getting deposited, some bouncing off, getting recycled and jumping into a higher energy state and once again being slammed into the endplate (target) by the resonant TE field.
In this theory scenario, TM is of no consequence, nor would there be a need for a Quantum Vacuum...no CoM or CoE violation.
Granted, I am not a Theorist, my wording is less than desirable as I try to document my visualizations.
1) Do you have the TM and TE modes switched around in the statement above?
Cu+ has a charge, and to be "slammed into the endplate (target) by the resonant" as you state, what is needed is an electric field in the longitudinal direction.
But it is the TM (transverse magnetic) modes (used in NASA's EM Drive and also used in resonant cavity particle accelerators) that have an electric field in the longitudinal direction, so a TM mode would be needed to "slam them into the end plate" as you state (in a stacked series of EM Drives with a hole in the center). The TE (transverse electric) modes used by Shawyer and Yang only have an electric field in the circumferential direction, NO electric field in the longitudinal direction to slam any charged particle against the end plates in TE modes.
2) I have to take the time to read the paper you cite
)