-
#2020 by Tellmeagain on 06 May, 2016 21:05
-
Yes I have Dr. Rodal...
Also note that the Einstein-Laub formulation is irrelevant for any EM Drive that anyone may test that does not contain a polymer (or other material) insert. Without a material inserted in the cavity, it is the same as Chu's, Abraham's and Mynkowski's formulations: they are all the same. One does not need any lab data to verify that, the same way that one does not need lab data to verify 1+1=2, all these formulations become the same unless one has a material insert that has significantly different properties from a vacuum.
I will not disagree, you reinforced what I was saying.
Found where I read about the 1973 green laser experiment.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.3262.pdf
My Best,
Shell
Please notice the reference you are citing:
QUESTION: SeeShells, have you been using a polymer insert, liquids, inorganics, etc., in your EM Drive tests? what material insert are you using as an insert in your tests?
Not finished with the testing and not ready to let go of the secret sauce(s) yet
. Know I'm evaluating more than one insert at a time and a layering scheme which takes into account both the Mach Effect of Dr. Woodward and the QV VP of Dr. White and my own... with interesting results. Also since each component insert changes the resonate frequencies I've had to be creative in the tune-ability of the frustums. My funding hasn't allowed for me to go with the extra hardware in a variable sweep high power microwave generator.
I was doing this before you started talking about inserts....
Shell
PS: Sometimes it feels like finding the right filament for my light.
I suggest you to buy several $4.99 multimeter (http://www.harborfreight.com/7-function-digital-multimeter-90899.html; free with coupon) to, 1. record the power supply current for each of your test; 2. record the magnetron DC current (this one is tricky; avoid danger; solder the multimeter to the circuit and do not rely on test bits; usually the 10A DC one does not go through the switch on the multimeter) for each of your test. 3. Do not ground your frustum with a separate wire, but rely on the feeding cable to indirectly ground it. This is to break a ground loop. I do not want you to make many test just to find out that they are artifacts later.
-
#2021 by Tellmeagain on 06 May, 2016 21:10
-
...
Do you have any comments on whether a coaxial cable completely eliminates electromagnetic power cable artifacts ?
I suggest you to buy several $4.99 multimeter (http://www.harborfreight.com/7-function-digital-multimeter-90899.html; free with coupon) to, 1. record the power supply current for each of your test; 2. record the magnetron DC current (this one is tricky; avoid danger; solder the multimeter to the circuit and do not rely on test bits; usually the 10A DC one does not go through the switch on the multimeter) for each of your test. 3. Do not ground your frustum with a separate wire, but rely on the feeding cable to indirectly ground it. This is to break a ground loop. I do not want you to make many test just to find out that they are artifacts later.
I think probably yes. But this is true only when there is no ground loop. -
#2022 by Tellmeagain on 06 May, 2016 21:27
-
Have you considered energy conservation and momentum conservation of:...
Do you have any comments on whether a coaxial cable completely eliminates electromagnetic power cable artifacts ?
I suggest you to buy several $4.99 multimeter (http://www.harborfreight.com/7-function-digital-multimeter-90899.html; free with coupon) to, 1. record the power supply current for each of your test; 2. record the magnetron DC current (this one is tricky; avoid danger; solder the multimeter to the circuit and do not rely on test bits; usually the 10A DC one does not go through the switch on the multimeter) for each of your test. 3. Do not ground your frustum with a separate wire, but rely on the feeding cable to indirectly ground it. This is to break a ground loop. I do not want you to make many test just to find out that they are artifacts later.
I think probably yes. But this is true only when there is no ground loop.
1) device on moving platform powered from stationary source
vs
2) device and power source both integrated in moving platform
considering the center of mass-energy in #1 vs. #2 ?
Working on showing this, in another thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1526577#msg1526577), but it takes a lot of writing and lots of equations...
I think 2 is the gold standard; but 1 is bad not because of the mass-energy center but because of difficulty to control artifacts such as heating of the power wires. For 2, care still must be taken to avoid the inference of Lorentz force unless the experiment tests motion of translation other than rotation. -
#2023 by rfmwguy on 06 May, 2016 21:57
-
Guess you could go back to January 30, 2016 for discussions on density remaining away from too small an area. Visually, it is similar to a video I presented. I believe this is the same general discussion when you advocated pointed cones for cavity resonance.
The cutoff diameter for an open waveguide does not take place in in a truncated cone in the same manner / in the way as in a open waveguide(As shown in your paper). As shown by the feko simulations of Monomorphic (for TE01p) the position of highest energy density depends on the actual mode. The order of a mode (in this case the p value) and therefore the frequency must be huge to take place very close to the singularity of the apex.I had a few more thoughts about entropy, photons and Gravitation
A perturbation to your thoughts, as they appear to assume constant particle counts.
If one were to continue to shrink the region containing your photon gas, it would eventually cause enough of a rise in local energy density form a cavity-sized schwarzchild radius. In this instance, your first thought experiment transitions into your second! Suggest that there exists localized minima between the two situations; e.g. a large quantity of mass will try to stabilize as a neutron star until 'forced' into a singularity.
Should also note that the treatment of entropy within a singularity was often avoided and is still very much under theoretical debate; though general consensus agrees with you that singularities must be high-entropy constructs.
As I said, however Shawyer's prescription (which has been followed so far by EM Drive experimenters) forbids that from happening. The rise in local energy density has been analyzed by Dr. Frasca (StrongGR) in these pages and his paper: it takes place near the apex of the cone. EM Drive experimenters truncate the cone far from the apex, hence their constructions don't allow that to happen. That is due to Shawyer's bizarre constraint on the small diameter.
Even it's a spitz cone the actual em mode predicts the position of the highest energy density.
Thank you for reminding me of my report.
After all this time, I can see that when extending the truncated cone beyond the cut-off diameter, there are diminishing returns as to further push the energy density maximum towards the small end.
So, Shawyer's prescription can be interpreted as his way to make sense (since Shawyer probably did not deal with/understand the tensor formulations leading to the importance of energy density, so he explained this in his terms using waveguides) of the following:
the best EM Drive design is the one where the energy density is located closest to the small end, and a maximum smooth gradient is established for the energy density from one end to the other
*truncated cones that extend much beyond the cut-off end up (see my report) with an energy density located away from the small end
*very high order modes with "p" very high end up with a large portion of wasted mass where the energy density is not changing much (from the big end to the middle)
NOTE: Need a theory for "thrust" to justify this, that relies on energy density, for example Dr. White's QV theory, or Prof. Woodward's theory
Pictures of TE012 and TE013 close to cut-off (credit: the great Monomorphic )
Picture of TE013 in a cavity a little beyond cut-off (from Greg Egan):
Attachment: TE013 with small diameter way beyond cut-off: observe how energy density (here I am showing the Poynting vector field, but the energy density is also located there) stays away from end, the energy density cannot be pushed towards the small end, much beyond cut-off
We finally make some sense of Shawyer's prescription
!!!!!!
Reference: my post http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1526577#msg1526577
showing in detail the importance of the energy density (and in particular the magnetic energy density) for the stress in the EM Drive
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1485592#msg1485592 -
#2024 by 1 on 06 May, 2016 22:29
-
I had a few more thoughts about entropy, photons and Gravitation
A perturbation to your thoughts, as they appear to assume constant particle counts.
If one were to continue to shrink the region containing your photon gas, it would eventually cause enough of a rise in local energy density form a cavity-sized schwarzchild radius. In this instance, your first thought experiment transitions into your second! Suggest that there exists localized minima between the two situations; e.g. a large quantity of mass will try to stabilize as a neutron star until 'forced' into a singularity.
Should also note that the treatment of entropy within a singularity was often avoided and is still very much under theoretical debate; though general consensus agrees with you that singularities must be high-entropy constructs.
As I said, however Shawyer's prescription (which has been followed so far by EM Drive experimenters) forbids that from happening. The rise in local energy density has been analyzed by Dr. Frasca (StrongGR) in these pages and his paper: it takes place near the apex of the cone. EM Drive experimenters truncate the cone far from the apex, hence their constructions don't allow that to happen. That is due to Shawyer's constraint on the small diameter.
Understood. To clarify, I didn't mean to imply that such a condition actually occurred, but that the entropy of a photon gas may not necessarily be a good model to apply to this geometry. I believe a photon gas would be a quite good approximation in a geometry where the dimensions are much larger than your associated wavelength, but not in one which is borderline near-field. Apologies for any confusion.
I'm also interested to hear any insights Notsosureofit might have to add. -
#2025 by SeeShells on 06 May, 2016 23:01
-
...
Do you have any comments on whether a coaxial cable completely eliminates electromagnetic power cable artifacts ?
I suggest you to buy several $4.99 multimeter (http://www.harborfreight.com/7-function-digital-multimeter-90899.html; free with coupon) to, 1. record the power supply current for each of your test; 2. record the magnetron DC current (this one is tricky; avoid danger; solder the multimeter to the circuit and do not rely on test bits; usually the 10A DC one does not go through the switch on the multimeter) for each of your test. 3. Do not ground your frustum with a separate wire, but rely on the feeding cable to indirectly ground it. This is to break a ground loop. I do not want you to make many test just to find out that they are artifacts later.
I think probably yes. But this is true only when there is no ground loop.
They do eliminate Lorentz and stray field actions Dr. Rodal. Please refer a couple pages back and read what I posted on coax cables.
<Quote>
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1527030#msg1527030
It is true that running power wires to a magnetron where Lorentz actions have to be taken into effect an can create false measurements but also realize that I didn't run power cables to the frustum magnetron. My magnetron was shielded (thermally and EM isolated) and away from the frustum. I used highly flexible coaxial cable to an antenna.
Please note, in a coaxial cable the electromagnetic field carrying the signal exists only in the space between the inner and outer conductors.
http://ecee.colorado.edu/~ecen3400/Textbook/Chapter%2012%20-%20Magnetic%20Field%20in%20a%20Vacuum.pdf
Please reference: Chapter 12 page 196 of coaxial Lorentz forces that equate out to effectively zero and there is no magnetic field outside of the cable.
<End Quote>
The only thing that becomes a issue would be the thermal expansion of the coaxial cable providing a potential bending moment to a beam if using a teeter/todder beam and that component can be addressed with the layout of the coax.
Addressing the ground loop. Basic engineering. It's critical that you have a common ground return post that all the grounds return too. Some call it a Star Grounding system. Also any leads that carry any currents must be twisted pairs and this isn't only to keep them from interfering with other wires and electronics it to keep stray fields from having a large impact on them as well. If you're unsure of any power wires in your system causing issues then slide a braided sheath over the wires and only ground one end to the common Star ground, you'll bleed off any fields produced to the return Star ground.
On using a multi-meter from HF, I've got like 10 of them (Harbor Freight loves me) and I considered using one on the HV lead to the magnetron but felt it was risky so I found one that's rated and enclosed just because it's safer. BTW it is a great idea to use the cheap meters where you can.
Shell -
#2026 by Rodal on 06 May, 2016 23:36
-
...
The only thing that becomes a issue would be the thermal expansion of the coaxial cable providing a potential bending moment to a beam if using a teeter/todder beam and that component can be addressed with the layout of the coax.
...
Shell
The only thing?
CASE 1) Powerful laser rigidly clamped on ground, accelerates, through radiation pressure, a flying object away (to the extent that the flying object is close enough to the Laser)
CASE 2) Sun pushes solar sail (to the extent that the solar sail is close enough to the Sun)
CASE 3) Spacecraft uses electric power obtained from solar panels to power an ion rocket and accelerate itself (to the extent that the spacecraft is close enough to the Sun)
CASE 4) Spacecraft uses electric power obtained from solar panels to power an open microwave guide and accelerate itself (to the extent that the spacecraft is close enough to the Sun) and only to an extent not exceeding a microwave photon rocket force/InputPower
CASE 5) Same powerful laser as in case #1 but now clamped on spacecraft in deep space, can it accelerate the center of mass of the spacecraft by beaming its laser light to a mirror clamped at the front of the same spacecraft, bouncing back into another mirror at the back end of the spacecraft ? ANSWER: NO (assuming perfectly reflecting mirrors, with the photons bouncing back and forth between the mirrors, Q as high as you like)
CASE 6) Spacecraft uses electric power obtained from solar panels to power an EM Drive (to the extent that the spacecraft is close enough to the Sun) any acceleration of the Center of Mass? Can it exceed a photon rocket force/InputPower? What about conservation of energy?
CASE 7) Spacecraf in deep space (too far from the Sun) uses nuclear energy to power an EM Drive , any acceleration to the Center of Mass?
Think about the cases 1 and 5 regarding case 7
The only thing?
Do you think using a coaxial power cable from a stationary supply feeding electrons to a magnetron in a moving platform is (for the purposes of moving the center of mass of the moving platform) identical as feeding the power from a battery located on the moving platform?
I'm not so sure of it.
In one case you are delivering power, and moving electrons from a stationary power source, that is being depleted on terra firma.
In the other case (batteries on board) the power and the electrons are being delivered from the same platform you are trying to accelerate.
In the first case you are depleting the power source on firm ground and transferring that power and electrons to a platform that will move as a result.
In the second case you moving power and electrons from one location to another location on the same spacecraft
You are moving the furniture inside the spacecraft, or pushing balls from one place to another in the same spacecraft you are trying to accelerate. That won't move the spacecraft's center of mass.
-
#2027 by 1 on 06 May, 2016 23:41
-
I think that we discussed that the statistics of a photon gas are appropriate for the cavity (given the dimensions and the number of photons) before with Notsosureofit, but my memory is incorrect. Also I'm not aware of what model he is presently using, so I look forward to his feedback.I had a few more thoughts about entropy, photons and Gravitation
A perturbation to your thoughts, as they appear to assume constant particle counts.
If one were to continue to shrink the region containing your photon gas, it would eventually cause enough of a rise in local energy density form a cavity-sized schwarzchild radius. In this instance, your first thought experiment transitions into your second! Suggest that there exists localized minima between the two situations; e.g. a large quantity of mass will try to stabilize as a neutron star until 'forced' into a singularity.
Should also note that the treatment of entropy within a singularity was often avoided and is still very much under theoretical debate; though general consensus agrees with you that singularities must be high-entropy constructs.
As I said, however Shawyer's prescription (which has been followed so far by EM Drive experimenters) forbids that from happening. The rise in local energy density has been analyzed by Dr. Frasca (StrongGR) in these pages and his paper: it takes place near the apex of the cone. EM Drive experimenters truncate the cone far from the apex, hence their constructions don't allow that to happen. That is due to Shawyer's constraint on the small diameter.
Understood. To clarify, I didn't mean to imply that such a condition actually occurred, but that the entropy of a photon gas may not necessarily be a good model to apply to this geometry. I believe a photon gas would be a quite good approximation in a geometry where the dimensions are much larger than your associated wavelength, but not in one which is borderline near-field. Apologies for any confusion.
I'm also interested to hear any insights Notsosureofit might have to add.
1) What specific statistical model are you proposing that you think would be superior to the one of a photon gas for the EM Drive cavity?
2) Just to understand what you are saying, do you think that Gravitational effects are important for photons for a typical EM Drive geometry?
Thanks
1) In regards to entropy, I have no proposals. You could very well be correct that a photon gas is statistically applicable; and I'm just reading too far into the word "photon" (a necessity in my day job). Wouldn't be the first time I've jumped the gun.
I'll look for the discussion you mention and read through it before commenting any further.
2) As I understand things (i.e. in the absence of new physics), no. I could understand seeing a dipole effect of sorts (for example, an asymmetric frustum could attempt to 'tide-lock' itself with the Earth's existing gravitational field; and perhaps injecting large amounts of energy into the cavity could perturb that effect) but I certainly wont suggest that such an effect explains everyone's results, or that such a perturbation would even be detectable.
And of course, I welcome additional thoughts from you on the subjects as well. -
#2028 by Rodal on 06 May, 2016 23:57
-
...
OK I see the similarity regarding the lack of electric action on the neck of those glass bulbs. Thanks. However the action inside the round bulbs looks pretty uniform.
Guess you could go back to January 30, 2016 for discussions on density remaining away from too small an area. Visually, it is similar to a video I presented. I believe this is the same general discussion when you advocated pointed cones for cavity resonance.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1485592#msg1485592
Differences
1) I showed that the electromagnetic fields penetrate beyond the cut-off area, beyond their pre-cut-off-area location (just not too much). It is not a wall of "death" as Shawyer makes it look, or the neck of those bulbs (it depends on the cone angle and distance to vertex). The electromagnetic fields still propagate and resonate a little beyond the cut-off area (just not too far). See my report for details.
2) One could have the following two cases:
a) Truncated cone cavity with small diameter larger than cut-off. Mode shape TE012 and dimensions are such that the energy density is located towards the middle of the truncated cone.
b) Truncated cone cavity with small diameter a little smaller than cut-off. Mode shape TE013 and dimensions are such that the energy density is located near the small end of the truncated cone.
Case b is better than case a, although case b has small diameter smaller than cut-off.
I guess that if Shawyer prescribes, as stated by TheTraveller:
1) small diameter equal to cut-off (just a little larger)
and
2) mode shape TE013
Now you have a pretty good prescription, as you ensure the energy density towards the small end.
So the cut-off diameter prescription is not good if not accompanied by a mode shape prescription. You need both prescriptions.
There are geometries where TE011 is also good. -
#2029 by SeeShells on 07 May, 2016 01:27
-
...
The only thing that becomes a issue would be the thermal expansion of the coaxial cable providing a potential bending moment to a beam if using a teeter/todder beam and that component can be addressed with the layout of the coax.
...
Shell
The only thing?
CASE 1) Powerful laser rigidly clamped on ground, accelerates, through radiation pressure, a flying object away (to the extent that the flying object is close enough to the Laser)
CASE 2) Sun pushes solar sail (to the extent that the solar sail is close enough to the Sun)
CASE 3) Spacecraft uses electric power obtained from solar panels to power an ion rocket and accelerate itself (to the extent that the spacecraft is close enough to the Sun)
CASE 4) Spacecraft uses electric power obtained from solar panels to power an open microwave guide and accelerate itself (to the extent that the spacecraft is close enough to the Sun) and only to an extent not exceeding a microwave photon rocket force/InputPower
CASE 5) Same powerful laser as in case #1 but now clamped on spacecraft in deep space, can it accelerate the center of mass of the spacecraft by beaming its laser light to a mirror clamped at the front of the same spacecraft, bouncing back into another mirror at the back end of the spacecraft ? ANSWER: NO (assuming perfectly reflecting mirrors, with the photons bouncing back and forth between the mirrors, Q as high as you like)
CASE 6) Spacecraft uses electric power obtained from solar panels to power an EM Drive (to the extent that the spacecraft is close enough to the Sun) any acceleration of the Center of Mass? Can it exceed a photon rocket force/InputPower? What about conservation of energy?
CASE 7) Spacecraf in deep space (too far from the Sun) uses nuclear energy to power an EM Drive , any acceleration to the Center of Mass?
Think about the cases 1 and 5 regarding case 7
The only thing?
Do you think using a coaxial power cable from a stationary supply feeding electrons to a magnetron in a moving platform is (for the purposes of moving the center of mass of the moving platform) identical as feeding the power from a battery located on the moving platform?
I'm not so sure of it.
In one case you are delivering power, and moving electrons from a stationary power source, that is being depleted on terra firma.
In the other case (batteries on board) the power and the electrons are being delivered from the same platform you are trying to accelerate.
In the first case you are depleting the power source on firm ground and transferring that power and electrons to a platform that will move as a result.
In the second case you moving power and electrons from one location to another location on the same spacecraft
You are moving the furniture inside the spacecraft, or pushing balls from one place to another in the same spacecraft you are trying to accelerate. That won't move the spacecraft's center of mass.
Unless you burn the furniture and shoot the balls out the end of the craft.
If I feed a enclosed craft with a long extension wire or enclose the power source in the craft and nothing gets out, the furniture or the balls it still just sits and doesn't accelerate regardless of where the power comes from.
If you power it with a long wire it will still just sit. Electrons going in and coming out of the craft are going to be equal other than the ones converted to heat or into something that escapes the craft.
Your argument of a power source is limited after it gets into the enclosed craft you just want to make sure the incoming power line has no influence on the craft before the electrons and electromagnetic fields can have an effect externally.
Shell
Last post for a day of so... Mother's Day ahead and I've hot tub and steak and something bubbly going on tonight.
Shell -
#2030 by Monomorphic on 07 May, 2016 01:36
-
When simulating the Cannae drive, I didn't start to see resonance until ~6Ghz.
There are over 1,000 triangles in this mesh!
-
#2031 by rfmwguy on 07 May, 2016 01:38
-
Bookmark this post if you want to watch tmro.tv's discussion with me tomorrow 5 pm e.s.t. usa. Think there's a countdown timerr on it. They record so I'll post link to that in a few days. Believe I join about 25 minutes in. Anything you want me to mention, PMMe and I'll try to add your inputs. Will give a broad overview of efforts to date. Will not say much if anything about wild, speculative applications, just spaceflight related general info. If you have any breaking news, nows the time. PM me.
-
#2032 by Tellmeagain on 07 May, 2016 01:54
-
I sketched a grounding scheme for an imagined EmDrive experiment, with See-Shell's design in mind. Is this grounding scheme plausible? Anybody interested can try to answer. Treat it as a test. Thank you!
-
#2033 by Monomorphic on 07 May, 2016 01:59
-
I sketched a grounding scheme for an imagined EmDrive experiment, with See-Shell's design in mind. Is this grounding scheme plausible? Anybody interested can try to answer. Treat it as a test. Thank you!
Wouldn't it be best to have the emdrive self-contained on one side of the tortional pendulum fulcrum?
-
#2034 by Rodal on 07 May, 2016 02:16
-
I sketched a grounding scheme for an imagined EmDrive experiment, with See-Shell's design in mind. Is this grounding scheme plausible? Anybody interested can try to answer. Treat it as a test. Thank you!
Wouldn't it be best to have the emdrive self-contained on one side of the tortional pendulum fulcrum?
1) Yes, that would be the most convincing test (because there are also possible issues of conservation of angular momentum and energy when having the power supply at the opposite end of the EM Drive)
2) I also think that your linear bearing experiment is very interesting. Someone please correct me, but has such a linear bearing displacement with an EM Drive ever been reported by anyone?
The argument can be made that many tests involve rotations that many times lead to paradoxes (Feynman paradox etc) due to hidden angular momentum, while I'm not aware of hidden momentum paradoxes for movement in a straight line. -
#2035 by Tellmeagain on 07 May, 2016 02:24
-
I sketched a grounding scheme for an imagined EmDrive experiment, with See-Shell's design in mind. Is this grounding scheme plausible? Anybody interested can try to answer. Treat it as a test. Thank you!
Wouldn't it be best to have the emdrive self-contained on one side of the tortional pendulum fulcrum?
I modified my sketch a little bit to reflect your comments. Anybody?
updated for clarification (rotation balance instead of seesaw)
-
#2036 by zen-in on 07 May, 2016 05:10
-
I sketched a grounding scheme for an imagined EmDrive experiment, with See-Shell's design in mind. Is this grounding scheme plausible? Anybody interested can try to answer. Treat it as a test. Thank you!
I don't think it is necessary to run a DC ground from the Copper cone. In fact the magnetron case, unless I am mistaken, is at a very high - DC potential and if it is galvanically (a fancy word that just means there is a metal to metal connection) connected to the low voltage DC ground it may create a lethal danger. More likely though it would just short out the HV output, destroying the magnetron supply faster than you can say Oh @&%$!. Even if the magnetron did not have a high potential on its case there would be no need for a DC ground. The coax or waveguide that connects the two supplies all the ground you need. Single point ground typically refers to power supplies and the single ground point would be at the power supply; in this case the low voltage DC supply (battery) that powers the distance sensor, control electronics, indicator LEDs, etc.
-
#2037 by Tellmeagain on 07 May, 2016 05:58
-
I don't think it is necessary to run a DC ground from the Copper cone. In fact the magnetron case, unless I am mistaken, is at a very high - DC potential and if it is galvanically (a fancy word that just means there is a metal to metal connection) connected to the low voltage DC ground it may create a lethal danger. More likely though it would just short out the HV output, destroying the magnetron supply faster than you can say Oh @&%$!. Even if the magnetron did not have a high potential on its case there would be no need for a DC ground. The coax or waveguide that connects the two supplies all the ground you need. Single point ground typically refers to power supplies and the single ground point would be at the power supply; in this case the low voltage DC supply (battery) that powers the distance sensor, control electronics, indicator LEDs, etc.
Thank you. I update the sketch according to your suggestions. One thing you were mistaken is that in a microwave oven, the two filament wires are actually at -5000V potential and the case of magnetron is at 0 potential. I draw a dashed line that grounds the frustum. This is because you suggested not to have it, but I suspect See-Shell has it. Anybody, other suggestions?
-
#2038 by SeeShells on 07 May, 2016 07:17
-
Good grasp on negating Lorentz issues and ground loops.I don't think it is necessary to run a DC ground from the Copper cone. In fact the magnetron case, unless I am mistaken, is at a very high - DC potential and if it is galvanically (a fancy word that just means there is a metal to metal connection) connected to the low voltage DC ground it may create a lethal danger. More likely though it would just short out the HV output, destroying the magnetron supply faster than you can say Oh @&%$!. Even if the magnetron did not have a high potential on its case there would be no need for a DC ground. The coax or waveguide that connects the two supplies all the ground you need. Single point ground typically refers to power supplies and the single ground point would be at the power supply; in this case the low voltage DC supply (battery) that powers the distance sensor, control electronics, indicator LEDs, etc.
Thank you. I update the sketch according to your suggestions. One thing you were mistaken is that in a microwave oven, the two filament wires are actually at -5000V potential and the case of magnetron is at 0 potential. I draw a dashed line that grounds the frustum. This is because you suggested not to have it, but I suspect See-Shell has it. Anybody, other suggestions?
This is my current build that the cage can rotate 900 on my lab table. This design should be able to support even a magnetron directly on the frustum and be able to map thermal issues.
Off to bed.
Shell
-
#2039 by Rodal on 07 May, 2016 12:55
-
...
You are arguing "there is no agreed upon theory, therefore...".
Unless you burn the furniture and shoot the balls out the end of the craft.
If I feed a enclosed craft with a long extension wire or enclose the power source in the craft and nothing gets out, the furniture or the balls it still just sits and doesn't accelerate regardless of where the power comes from.
If you power it with a long wire it will still just sit. Electrons going in and coming out of the craft are going to be equal other than the ones converted to heat or into something that escapes the craft.
Your argument of a power source is limited after it gets into the enclosed craft you just want to make sure the incoming power line has no influence on the craft before the electrons and electromagnetic fields can have an effect externally.
Shell
Last post for a day of so... Mother's Day ahead and I've hot tub and steak and something bubbly going on tonight.
Shell
The problem is that the EM Drive is proposed with a specific, very troublesome action :
constant thrust force at constant power input that exceeds by orders of magnitude the one of a perfectly collimated photon rocket
Therefore you are testing a device that as proposed acts as a free-energy machine ! (*)
It doesn't matter what theory one proposes or if you propose any theory at all, as long as anybody proposes this, one is proposing a machine that acts as a free-energy machine.
And if you are going to propose a machine that acts as a free-energy machine, then you bet that it makes a big difference whether you test your device with batteries self-integrated in the same moving device as your free-energy machine (as done in the tests by Yang and by Brito, Marini and Galian that nullified their prior tests) or whether you insist in powering your free-energy machine with a co-axial power cable from a stationary source, and you claim that it does not matter whether the source of your power is not in the same testing device as your free-energy machine.
If you provide the energy from a stationary source to your free-energy machine and you claim free-energy by force/PowerInput > photon rocket, without addressing that the power source is not in your moving device you are ignoring conservation of energy and momentum, because conservation of energy and conservation of momentum are tied together.
If you would be providing the power to the moving EM Drive from batteries in firm ground, those batteries are going to be drained. You would have energy flowing from the batteries (that are not moving) to the moving EM Drive, and you have electrons (momentum) flowing as well from a stationary source to a device that may gain that momentum. That's different from the case when the energy and momentum source are located in the moving platform. In the first case the center of energy/momentum is not in the moving platform while in the second case the center of energy/momentum is in the moving platform.
In Feynman's paradox, if one does not take into account the momentum and energy going into the device before the power is turned off, then its sudden rotation after the power is turned off appears to be magical, as if it would be a free-energy machine: with kinetic energy coming from a magical, unexplained source.
Look how difficult is the analysis, and why the clearest thing is to have a clean experiment:
Feynman Cylinder Paradox
John Belcher
Division of Astrophysics, Massachussetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139
Kirk T. McDonald
Joseph Henry Laboratories, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/feynman_cylinder.pdf
Thus, the most convincing experiment for a device that is proposed as acting as a free-energy machine (force/InputPower > photon rocket) is the one that has batteries self-integrated in the same moving device, so everything gets accelerated together.
__________________
(*) For anyone interested in why it acts a a free-energy machine, please refer to
1) the numerous posts by Frobnicat at NSF.
See posts here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=19278
and
2) Reconciling a Reactionless Propulsive Drive with the First Law of Thermodynamics
Andrew J. Higgins
McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.00494
. Know I'm evaluating more than one insert at a time and a layering scheme which takes into account both the Mach Effect of Dr. Woodward and the QV VP of Dr. White and my own... with interesting results. Also since each component insert changes the resonate frequencies I've had to be creative in the tune-ability of the frustums. My funding hasn't allowed for me to go with the extra hardware in a variable sweep high power microwave generator.
!!!!!!
I'll look for the discussion you mention and read through it before commenting any further.