-
#1500 by Rodal on 22 Apr, 2016 18:01
-
is a very interesting possible way out of the energy paradox (as the acceleration will actually decrease with enough input power): recall that because according to these EM Drive theories (Shawyer and McCulloch) the force is proportional to the input power, and this exceeds by orders of magnitude the force/PowerInput of a photon rocket, eventually (at high enough speed) the kinetic energy exceeds the input energy. However, since according to McCulloch's theory the excess mass of the photon increases with the square of the power, the acceleration will reach a plateau and will actually eventually decrease, and so will the increase in speed and hence the kinetic energy may be limited, posing the question whether energy, after all, may be conserved under the assumptions of McCulloch's theory.
Has this way out of the energy paradox been previously explored?
I'm not understanding the reasoning. Relativity is still a thing. Hell, we went ahead and confirmed it yet again with advanced LIGO. Why would speed, or velocity, or really anything to do with kinetic energy, stop a drive from accelerating? It's always standing still from the perspective of the ship. This is not, as I understand it, some funny way of looking at things. It's literally true and just as valid as any other observer's perspective.
Yes, as remarked by iorgfeflkd (see: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1522382#msg1522382 ) , McCulloch's equations start by defining "conservation of momentum for a photon using the Newtonian formulation, which is not at all appropriate because it's classical, non-relativistic, and depends on mass." He also uses the relation E=mc^2 to get rid of the photon mass. McCulloch's derivation needs to be re-derived more formally (my understanding is that McCulloch recognizes this in his paper), to investigate whether they have any validity.
It is only that, suspending criticism/disbelief of McCulloch's formulation for discussion's sake, and taking McCulloch's formulation for granted (admittedly this maybe a step too far to take, for discussion's sake, to take his derivation for granted ) , the excess of mass of the photon increases with the square of the power, and therefore the acceleration will reach a plateau and will actually eventually decrease (because the force McCulloch derives increases only linearly with the power), and so will the increase in speed and hence the kinetic energy may be limited, posing the question whether energy, after all, may be conserved under the assumptions of McCulloch's theory.
So, it appears that according to McCulloch's theory energy may be conserved (this needs to be further analyzed to see whether it is correct). But to get there, one must take for granted that there is indeed such a thing as an "excess of mass for the photon" such that " photons in the EM Drive cavity have a rest mass of 832 times that of a proton". In this respect, see the book:
Theory of Photon Acceleration
J T Mendonca
IOP Publishing Ltd 2001
December 13, 2000 by CRC Press
Reference - 222 Pages
ISBN 9780750307116 - CAT# IP764
Series: Series in Plasma PhysicsQuote from: J T MendoncaUsing physical intuition, we can say that the photons can be
accelerated because they have an effective mass (except in a vacuum).
In a plasma, the photon mass is simply related with the electron plasma
frequency, and, in a general optical medium, this effective mass is a consequence
of the linear polarizability of the medium.
This photon effective mass is, in essence, a linear property, but the particlelike
aspects of the electromagnetic radiation, associated with the concept of the
photon, can also be extended in order to include the medium nonlinearities.
.....
A related microwave experiment by Savage, Joshi, Mori, in 1992 [95] was able to show
that the frequency of microwave radiation contained in a cavity can be up-shifted
to give a broadband spectrum, in the presence of an ionization front produced by
an ultraviolet laser pulse. These results provided the first clear indication that the
photon acceleration mechanism was possibly taking place.
Frequency upconversion of electromagnetic radiation upon transmission into an ionization front
Savage. Joshi and Mori
Physical Review Letters 68(7):946-949 · February 1992
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.946
http://bit.ly/1SBnYzL
It is noteworthy:
1) The importance of the dielectric (and its anisotropic polarizability) used in NASA's experiments (both in air and in partial vacuum) plays a role (as per photon acceleration in such a medium as per Mendoca's books).
2) The difference between EM Drive experiments in air and in partial vacuum
-
#1501 by rfmwguy on 22 Apr, 2016 18:06
-
Special Notice
SeeShells (Michelle) has been absent from the forum for good reason, she is completing her emdrive testing and validation. Since this process will take a while, she does want folks to get an update. I will be receiving her approved, pre-release info regarding preliminary test findings and will post them here on NSF. I will also try and field any questions for her. She might be able to address them herself, but...
A lot of her work will continue as she organizes the test data for a formal release...She will not have much time to answer many questions.
I have no timeline other than the pre-release should be soon. This is just an early head's up for our readership. -
#1502 by rfmwguy on 22 Apr, 2016 18:24
-
Thanks again for your help Mr. Li...I ordered the single strand wire today for torsion wire testing...great find!
Thank you. I've looked around for this type of wire, if you see something, I'd appreciate a link. So many welding wires to sort through.
The wire hasn't been selected yet, need about 15 lbs total weight support (don't know exactly yet). Rather than a torsion estimate, was planning on actual weight displacement calibration for horizontal deflections measured by the laser displacement sensor...40 MM +/- 10 MM range with micrometer level accuracy, so don't want too much Z axis (horizontal) displacement which would push LDS out of range.
May i suggest that you think about music wire around 0.030" diameter. You would want to preload (stretch) it so that the lower section never comes out of tension at your expected payload. I did not do the math but it might be in the range of 0.020 inches of stretch. The wire should hold 75 lbs in tension overall.
Just ebay piano wire. We bought ours there.
I'll send you some pics of the test assembly before I begin in a few weeks. I'd appreciate if you'd comment on my wiring as you did last time to limit lorentz effect. -
#1503 by Rodal on 22 Apr, 2016 19:34
-
A short answer (*) is that it is not proposed that speed or kinetic energy in any way will stop a drive from further acceleration, but that instead that the acceleration of the drive is limited, reaching a plateau and eventual decrease, and hence that energy is conserved. Acceleration requires a privileged frame and it is not part of special relativity frame-independence, it is instead part of General Relativity and it involves the principle of equivalence.is a very interesting possible way out of the energy paradox (as the acceleration will actually decrease with enough input power): recall that because according to these EM Drive theories (Shawyer and McCulloch) the force is proportional to the input power, and this exceeds by orders of magnitude the force/PowerInput of a photon rocket, eventually (at high enough speed) the kinetic energy exceeds the input energy. However, since according to McCulloch's theory the excess mass of the photon increases with the square of the power, the acceleration will reach a plateau and will actually eventually decrease, and so will the increase in speed and hence the kinetic energy may be limited, posing the question whether energy, after all, may be conserved under the assumptions of McCulloch's theory.
Has this way out of the energy paradox been previously explored?
I'm not understanding the reasoning. Relativity is still a thing. Hell, we went ahead and confirmed it yet again with advanced LIGO. Why would speed, or velocity, or really anything to do with kinetic energy, stop a drive from accelerating? It's always standing still from the perspective of the ship. This is not, as I understand it, some funny way of looking at things. It's literally true and just as valid as any other observer's perspective.
--------
(*) under the unproven assumption that the "excess of mass" of the photon increases with the square of the power as per previous discussion -
#1504 by X_RaY on 22 Apr, 2016 19:44
-
is a very interesting possible way out of the energy paradox (as the acceleration will actually decrease with enough input power): recall that because according to these EM Drive theories (Shawyer and McCulloch) the force is proportional to the input power, and this exceeds by orders of magnitude the force/PowerInput of a photon rocket, eventually (at high enough speed) the kinetic energy exceeds the input energy. However, since according to McCulloch's theory the excess mass of the photon increases with the square of the power, the acceleration will reach a plateau and will actually eventually decrease, and so will the increase in speed and hence the kinetic energy may be limited, posing the question whether energy, after all, may be conserved under the assumptions of McCulloch's theory.
Has this way out of the energy paradox been previously explored?
I'm not understanding the reasoning. Relativity is still a thing. Hell, we went ahead and confirmed it yet again with advanced LIGO. Why would speed, or velocity, or really anything to do with kinetic energy, stop a drive from accelerating? It's always standing still from the perspective of the ship. This is not, as I understand it, some funny way of looking at things. It's literally true and just as valid as any other observer's perspective.Quote from: DortexIt's always standing still from the perspective of the ship.
Not really if acceleration take place, in this regard a measurable effect called mass moment of inertia is present that act on all particle of the ship. Therefore this point of view is true for constant velocity only.
Also the ship is part of a universe full of radiation and virtual particles. The acceleration can not be constant for ever because of the radiation pressure increase dramatically while speedup near the speed of light.
The acceleration almost stops slightly below the speed of light, to get closer it's necessary to pump more and more energy into the system. That's why it so hard to get higher energy levels/velocities in particle accelerators.
Of course this is also a relativistic point of view.
-
#1505 by Rodal on 22 Apr, 2016 22:08
-
Analyzing the equations further, personally, I do not see a way out of the energy conservation paradox, based on McCulloch's equations.
A short answer (*) is that it is not proposed that speed or kinetic energy in any way will stop a drive from further acceleration, but that instead that the acceleration of the drive is limited, reaching a plateau and eventual decrease, and hence that energy is conserved. Acceleration requires a privileged frame and it is not part of special relativity frame-independence, it is instead part of General Relativity and it involves the principle of equivalence.is a very interesting possible way out of the energy paradox (as the acceleration will actually decrease with enough input power): recall that because according to these EM Drive theories (Shawyer and McCulloch) the force is proportional to the input power, and this exceeds by orders of magnitude the force/PowerInput of a photon rocket, eventually (at high enough speed) the kinetic energy exceeds the input energy. However, since according to McCulloch's theory the excess mass of the photon increases with the square of the power, the acceleration will reach a plateau and will actually eventually decrease, and so will the increase in speed and hence the kinetic energy may be limited, posing the question whether energy, after all, may be conserved under the assumptions of McCulloch's theory.
Has this way out of the energy paradox been previously explored?
I'm not understanding the reasoning. Relativity is still a thing. Hell, we went ahead and confirmed it yet again with advanced LIGO. Why would speed, or velocity, or really anything to do with kinetic energy, stop a drive from accelerating? It's always standing still from the perspective of the ship. This is not, as I understand it, some funny way of looking at things. It's literally true and just as valid as any other observer's perspective.
--------
(*) under the unproven assumption that the "excess of mass" of the photon increases with the square of the power as per previous discussion -
#1506 by demofsky on 22 Apr, 2016 23:08
-
Quote from: J T Mendonca
Using physical intuition, we can say that the photons can be
accelerated because they have an effective mass (except in a vacuum).
In a plasma, the photon mass is simply related with the electron plasma
frequency, and, in a general optical medium, this effective mass is a consequence
of the linear polarizability of the medium.
We might be getting somewhere with this since the above would be a good explanation for poor EM Drive performance in a vacuum. In fact, it could be argued there would be no thrust until CU+ (or other) ions started flying around to generate a bit of plasma. (Apologies if this has been discussed before in an earlier thread.) -
#1507 by tchernik on 22 Apr, 2016 23:48
-
Quote from: J T Mendonca
Using physical intuition, we can say that the photons can be
accelerated because they have an effective mass (except in a vacuum).
In a plasma, the photon mass is simply related with the electron plasma
frequency, and, in a general optical medium, this effective mass is a consequence
of the linear polarizability of the medium.
We might be getting somewhere with this since the above would be a good explanation for poor EM Drive performance in a vacuum. In fact, it could be argued there would be no thrust until CU+ (or other) ions started flying around to generate a bit of plasma. (Apologies if this has been discussed before in an earlier thread.)
This is something I have had in the background of my mind since the results of the first vacuum experiments were released, showing much less thrust performance (but still showing some thrust).
What is different between experiments done in air and those in a vacuum?
Well, one important thing is the air inside and outside of the cavity, of course!
Nevertheless, this creates 2 options:
- Either the Emdrive works because of air thermal effects (in short, it doesn't work, it's an artifact)
- Or it works thanks to some phenomenon the presence of air molecules impinges upon the microwaves in the resonating cavity (it works, and it does better with air inside, even in space).
Wouldn't it be wonderfully ironic, if it worked but it looks as it did only by atmospheric thermal effects if you happen to live and test it on Earth? and it only could be verified by running an air filled Emdrive in the vacuum of space?
-
#1508 by Rodal on 23 Apr, 2016 00:35
-
If it works due to air as a medium, it is quite likely that there are much better mediums than air. For example, the first Maser, built in 1953 used Ammonia since it strongly emits at 24 GHz. Ditto for a medium inside it if it is due to its dielectric (permittivitty), magnetic (permeability), or piezoelectric properties.Quote from: J T MendoncaUsing physical intuition, we can say that the photons can be
accelerated because they have an effective mass (except in a vacuum).
In a plasma, the photon mass is simply related with the electron plasma
frequency, and, in a general optical medium, this effective mass is a consequence
of the linear polarizability of the medium.
We might be getting somewhere with this since the above would be a good explanation for poor EM Drive performance in a vacuum. In fact, it could be argued there would be no thrust until CU+ (or other) ions started flying around to generate a bit of plasma. (Apologies if this has been discussed before in an earlier thread.)
This is something I have had in the background of my mind since the results of the first vacuum experiments were released, showing much less thrust performance (but still showing some thrust).
What is different between experiments done in air and those in a vacuum?
Well, one important thing is the air inside and outside of the cavity, of course!
Nevertheless, this creates 2 options:
- Either the Emdrive works because of air thermal effects (in short, it doesn't work, it's an artifact)
- Or it works thanks to some phenomenon the presence of air molecules impinges upon the microwaves in the resonating cavity (it works, and it does better with air inside, even in space).
Wouldn't it be wonderfully ironic, if it worked but it looks as it did only by atmospheric thermal effects if you happen to live and test it on Earth? and it only could be verified by running an air filled Emdrive in the vacuum of space?
-
#1509 by masterharper1082 on 23 Apr, 2016 00:43
-
Ammonia and copper are not generally compatible with each other. Ammonia refrigeration systems use carbon steel, stainless steel, or aluminum for their piping and heat exchangers.
If it works due to air as a medium, it is quite likely that there are much better mediums than air. For example, the first Maser, built in 1953 used Ammonia since it strongly emits at 24 GHz. Ditto for a medium inside it if it is due to its dielectric (permittivitty), magnetic (permeability), or piezoelectric properties.Quote from: J T MendoncaUsing physical intuition, we can say that the photons can be
accelerated because they have an effective mass (except in a vacuum).
In a plasma, the photon mass is simply related with the electron plasma
frequency, and, in a general optical medium, this effective mass is a consequence
of the linear polarizability of the medium.
We might be getting somewhere with this since the above would be a good explanation for poor EM Drive performance in a vacuum. In fact, it could be argued there would be no thrust until CU+ (or other) ions started flying around to generate a bit of plasma. (Apologies if this has been discussed before in an earlier thread.)
This is something I have had in the background of my mind since the results of the first vacuum experiments were released, showing much less thrust performance (but still showing some thrust).
What is different between experiments done in air and those in a vacuum?
Well, one important thing is the air inside and outside of the cavity, of course!
Nevertheless, this creates 2 options:
- Either the Emdrive works because of air thermal effects (in short, it doesn't work, it's an artifact)
- Or it works thanks to some phenomenon the presence of air molecules impinges upon the microwaves in the resonating cavity (it works, and it does better with air inside, even in space).
Wouldn't it be wonderfully ironic, if it worked but it looks as it did only by atmospheric thermal effects if you happen to live and test it on Earth? and it only could be verified by running an air filled Emdrive in the vacuum of space?
Sent from my SM-T710 using Tapatalk
-
#1510 by sghill on 23 Apr, 2016 01:56
-
Special Notice
SeeShells (Michelle) has been absent from the forum for good reason, she is completing her emdrive testing and validation. Since this process will take a while, she does want folks to get an update. I will be receiving her approved, pre-release info regarding preliminary test findings and will post them here on NSF. I will also try and field any questions for her. She might be able to address them herself, but...
A lot of her work will continue as she organizes the test data for a formal release...She will not have much time to answer many questions.
I have no timeline other than the pre-release should be soon. This is just an early head's up for our readership.
Can we get "white smoke", "black smoke" updates from time to time? -
#1511 by Rodal on 23 Apr, 2016 02:00
-
...
There is no need to use copper, what is needed for the Maser resonant cavity is an inner thin layer (the skin depth is around a micrometer at GHz frequencies) of a highly conductive metal. It is the ammonia molecules themselves that get stimulated, no need for copper ions. Under stimulated emission, electromagnetic waves of the right frequency can “stimulate” an excited atom or molecule of the gas (Ammonia for example) to fall to a lower energy state and emit even more waves. Thus the stimulated emission acts as an amplifier. As a very low noise amplifier, actually.
Ammonia and copper are not generally compatible with each other. Ammonia refrigeration systems use carbon steel, stainless steel, or aluminum for their piping and heat exchangers.
Sent from my SM-T710 using Tapatalk
I think that SeeShells discussed that she was going to use an inner layer of Silver, rather than Copper, for her experiment since it has higher conductivity, and hence it will result in a higher Q quality of resonance in the resonant cavity. NASA discussed a few of their EM Drive tests with an Aluminum cavity. -
#1512 by Bob Woods on 23 Apr, 2016 02:48
-
Special Notice
SeeShells (Michelle) has been absent from the forum for good reason, she is completing her emdrive testing and validation. Since this process will take a while, she does want folks to get an update. I will be receiving her approved, pre-release info regarding preliminary test findings and will post them here on NSF. I will also try and field any questions for her. She might be able to address them herself, but...
A lot of her work will continue as she organizes the test data for a formal release...She will not have much time to answer many questions.
I have no timeline other than the pre-release should be soon. This is just an early head's up for our readership.
Great news, but my bad timing
Leaving for a month in Spain tomorrow AM. I will try mightily to keep track.
Dave, please ask Shell not to open a wormhole or anything!
-
#1513 by 1 on 23 Apr, 2016 02:57
-
Special Notice
SeeShells (Michelle) has been absent from the forum for good reason, she is completing her emdrive testing and validation. Since this process will take a while, she does want folks to get an update. I will be receiving her approved, pre-release info regarding preliminary test findings and will post them here on NSF. I will also try and field any questions for her. She might be able to address them herself, but...
A lot of her work will continue as she organizes the test data for a formal release...She will not have much time to answer many questions.
I have no timeline other than the pre-release should be soon. This is just an early head's up for our readership.
Can we get "white smoke", "black smoke" updates from time to time?
Personally, I'm hoping we don't see ANY color of smoke from Shell's setup.
-
#1514 by Rodal on 23 Apr, 2016 03:01
-
...
There is no need to use copper, what is needed for the Maser resonant cavity is an inner thin layer (the skin depth is around a micrometer at GHz frequencies) of a highly conductive metal. It is the ammonia molecules themselves that get stimulated, no need for copper ions. Under stimulated emission, electromagnetic waves of the right frequency can “stimulate” an excited atom or molecule of the gas (Ammonia for example) to fall to a lower energy state and emit even more waves. Thus the stimulated emission acts as an amplifier. As a very low noise amplifier, actually.
Ammonia and copper are not generally compatible with each other. Ammonia refrigeration systems use carbon steel, stainless steel, or aluminum for their piping and heat exchangers.
Sent from my SM-T710 using Tapatalk
I think that SeeShells discussed that she was going to use an inner layer of Silver, rather than Copper, for her experiment since it has higher conductivity, and hence it will result in a higher Q quality of resonance in the resonant cavity. NASA discussed a few of their EM Drive tests with an Aluminum cavity.
Here is the original paper by the inventors of the first ammonia maser:
PHYSICAL REVIEW VOLUME 99, NUMBER 4 AUGUST 15, 1955
The Maser New Type of Microwave Amplier, Frequency Standard, and Spectrometer
J. P. Gordon, t H. J. Zeiger, and C. H. Townes
Columbia University
(Received May 4, 1955)
http://journals.aps.org/pr/pdf/10.1103/PhysRev.99.1264
their resonant cavity was made of copper-plated Invar (a nickel-iron alloy with very low coefficient of thermal expansion) or silver-plated Invar. The resonant mode shape was TE011 (although they remark that a TM mode would have been more advantageous), and the Q was 12,000.QuoteSince the free space wavelength of 24-kMc/sec microwaves is only
about 0.5 in., and an axial wavelength of about 9 in.
was required in the cavity, the diameter of the cavity
had to be very close to the cut-off diameter for the
TE01 mode in circular wave guide. The diameter of the
beam entrance hole was well beyond cuto8 for this
mode and so very little loss of microwave power from
it was encountered. The cavities were machined and
mechanically polished. They were made of copper or
silver-plated Invar, and had values of Q near 12000
First prototype ammonia maser and inventor Charles H. Townes. The ammonia nozzle is at left in the box, the four brass rods at center is the quadrupole state selector, and the resonant cavity is at right. The 24 GHz microwaves exit through the vertical waveguide Townes is adjusting. At bottom are the vacuum pumps. -
#1515 by Eusa on 23 Apr, 2016 06:05
-
I see all these obs that might get drive work or work better verify my theory:
If it works due to air as a medium, it is quite likely that there are much better mediums than air. For example, the first Maser, built in 1953 used Ammonia since it strongly emits at 24 GHz. Ditto for a medium inside it if it is due to its dielectric (permittivitty), magnetic (permeability), or piezoelectric properties.Quote from: J T MendoncaUsing physical intuition, we can say that the photons can be
accelerated because they have an effective mass (except in a vacuum).
In a plasma, the photon mass is simply related with the electron plasma
frequency, and, in a general optical medium, this effective mass is a consequence
of the linear polarizability of the medium.
We might be getting somewhere with this since the above would be a good explanation for poor EM Drive performance in a vacuum. In fact, it could be argued there would be no thrust until CU+ (or other) ions started flying around to generate a bit of plasma. (Apologies if this has been discussed before in an earlier thread.)
This is something I have had in the background of my mind since the results of the first vacuum experiments were released, showing much less thrust performance (but still showing some thrust).
What is different between experiments done in air and those in a vacuum?
Well, one important thing is the air inside and outside of the cavity, of course!
Nevertheless, this creates 2 options:
- Either the Emdrive works because of air thermal effects (in short, it doesn't work, it's an artifact)
- Or it works thanks to some phenomenon the presence of air molecules impinges upon the microwaves in the resonating cavity (it works, and it does better with air inside, even in space).
Wouldn't it be wonderfully ironic, if it worked but it looks as it did only by atmospheric thermal effects if you happen to live and test it on Earth? and it only could be verified by running an air filled Emdrive in the vacuum of space?
- standing magnetic(gravitational) wave with appropriate em-mode and wavelength
- medium inside cavity
- dielectric inside cavity affecting to manage interfering charges
So there is a little hope to concentrate vacuum energy and In that way accelerate other universe and at the same time the apparatus as reaction. -
#1516 by Eusa on 23 Apr, 2016 06:10
-
But if the drive absorbed that radiation energy and would use it warping space to accelerate the universe behind and itself forward...?is a very interesting possible way out of the energy paradox (as the acceleration will actually decrease with enough input power): recall that because according to these EM Drive theories (Shawyer and McCulloch) the force is proportional to the input power, and this exceeds by orders of magnitude the force/PowerInput of a photon rocket, eventually (at high enough speed) the kinetic energy exceeds the input energy. However, since according to McCulloch's theory the excess mass of the photon increases with the square of the power, the acceleration will reach a plateau and will actually eventually decrease, and so will the increase in speed and hence the kinetic energy may be limited, posing the question whether energy, after all, may be conserved under the assumptions of McCulloch's theory.
Has this way out of the energy paradox been previously explored?
I'm not understanding the reasoning. Relativity is still a thing. Hell, we went ahead and confirmed it yet again with advanced LIGO. Why would speed, or velocity, or really anything to do with kinetic energy, stop a drive from accelerating? It's always standing still from the perspective of the ship. This is not, as I understand it, some funny way of looking at things. It's literally true and just as valid as any other observer's perspective.Quote from: DortexIt's always standing still from the perspective of the ship.
Not really if acceleration take place, in this regard a measurable effect called mass moment of inertia is present that act on all particle of the ship. Therefore this point of view is true for constant velocity only.
Also the ship is part of a universe full of radiation and virtual particles. The acceleration can not be constant for ever because of the radiation pressure increase dramatically while speedup near the speed of light.
The acceleration almost stops slightly below the speed of light, to get closer it's necessary to pump more and more energy into the system. That's why it so hard to get higher energy levels/velocities in particle accelerators.
Of course this is also a relativistic point of view. -
#1517 by rfmwguy on 23 Apr, 2016 10:44
-
Me too. She was taking the magnetron out of its natural environment and converting it into a split 50 ohm system with a lot of hardware between the source and load. At high pulsed power levels, this has to be an exact impedance balance or it can become...a bad match...pun intended.Special Notice
SeeShells (Michelle) has been absent from the forum for good reason, she is completing her emdrive testing and validation. Since this process will take a while, she does want folks to get an update. I will be receiving her approved, pre-release info regarding preliminary test findings and will post them here on NSF. I will also try and field any questions for her. She might be able to address them herself, but...
A lot of her work will continue as she organizes the test data for a formal release...She will not have much time to answer many questions.
I have no timeline other than the pre-release should be soon. This is just an early head's up for our readership.
Can we get "white smoke", "black smoke" updates from time to time?
Personally, I'm hoping we don't see ANY color of smoke from Shell's setup.
She's a smart engineer from her semiconductor days and am certain she used this to better her unique configuration. If I recall, one of the 2 frustum injection antennas failed taking that leg and the mag with it. I've smoked a few final amps in my day so am sympathetic to the possibility.
She is super precise bordering on OCD when it comes to electromechanical precision...a necessity in the semiconductor industry.
-
#1518 by keithpickering on 23 Apr, 2016 14:37
-
Longtime lurker, seldom poster.
I've been quite interested in the fact that the NASA experiments, which show more thrust than any theory yet predicts, also has a cavity only partially filled with dielectric material. Not fully, but partially, at the small end only. That leads to the following thoughts, based on the McCullogh theory.
One thing about a dielectric is that it will have an index of refraction n substantially above 1, which implies that the photons within the dielectric move slower than c by some amount. McCulloghs's theory implies that photons have mass (or perhaps virtual mass may be a better term) that is modulated by Unruh radiation, and that during resonance, the photons gain mass while moving within the big end, and lose mass while moving within the small end. The presence of a partial dielectric indicates that in the NASA experiment, the photons would necessarily be moving faster in the big end (while more massive) and slower in the small end (while less massive). If in fact photons do have mass, this is exactly what we would expect from the relativistic change in v caused by the dielectric. In other words, the "dielectric effect" would enhance the effect from the shape of the frustum alone. So far, so good for McCullogh.
If this is true, this also suggests that perhaps the optimum dielectric would be a layered one, starting with a layer of very high n at the small endplate, followed by another of slightly lower n, and another of slightly lower n, until the entire cavity is filled (with perhaps the final layer being air or vacuum, next to the big endplate). Thus the photons would be in states of continuously differential v during the entire traverse of the cavity.
One potential issue with that approach is that any photons not perfectly axial (or parallel to the axis) would refract in odd ways at the interfaces, possibly increasing the number of wall collisions and hence degrading Q.
But this could be avoided if the sides of the frustum were not flat, but rather flaring, like the bell of a trumpet. By computing the angle of refraction at every interface, (which depends on the differing values of n) it would be possible to build a frustum with a layered dielectric and a flared bell, so that a photon could travel along the wall of the cavity, not touching, as it passed through successive refractions in the dielectric. If the endplates were also spherical instead of flat, perfect reflection would allow the photons to retrace their paths exactly.
Just a thought. -
#1519 by X_RaY on 23 Apr, 2016 15:29
-
I am surprised (and was it all the time) about the placement of a dielectric at the small end.
Thats the region inside the cavity where the wavelength is greater and the wavenumber is small. When placing a dielectric there the wavenumber increases and the difference in relation to the big end will be smaller
To increase the effect of the frustum in regard to the wavelength it would make more sense to place the dielectric at the big end. IMHO
Leaving for a month in Spain tomorrow AM. I will try mightily to keep track.