-
#2040 by Tellmeagain on 07 May, 2016 13:31
-
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
Shell, I suggest you to only secure the top end of the piano wire to the frame. This ensures the piano wire is perpendicular to the earth surface at all time. If you secure the end point too, you may suffer the same symptom of NASA's new experiment, that the thermal expansion of the frustum or magnetron will shift the mass center, and when the rotation pivot is not perpendicular to the earth surface, this shift of mass center will show up as beam rotation. NASA's balance is a little bit "drooped" because of the weight of all the things mounted on the beam. -
#2041 by rfmwguy on 07 May, 2016 13:46
-
I have heard the term Free Energy Machine since I began researching the emdrive. The language was disparaging at first read and so have general questions you should be able to help me with:...
(snip)
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 is 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.
(snip)
Q) Why is an imaginary (so far) photon rocket used as a standard of reference? Is this because of standard behavior of light photons? If so, do you equivocate all photons regardless of the EM spectrum?
I know of no single expert on the subject of photons. There is still much debate on what they are and the physics is far from rock-solid. This being the case, Isn't it overly dramatic/not helpful to infer the emdrive is a Free Energy Machine? -
#2042 by SeeShells on 07 May, 2016 14:08
-
Have a little time before I get busy.
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
Shell, I suggest you to only secure the top end of the piano wire to the frame. This ensures the piano wire is perpendicular to the earth surface at all time. If you secure the end point too, you may suffer the same symptom of NASA's new experiment, that the thermal expansion of the frustum or magnetron will shift the mass center, and when the rotation pivot is not perpendicular to the earth surface, this shift of mass center will show up as beam rotation. NASA's balance is a little bit "drooped" because of the weight of all the things mounted on the beam.
A visual might help see the captured torsional wires actions when faced with a shifting center of mass across the rotational platform. As you can see in either case it would make little difference to the platform rotation but the oscillatory actions will be greater for the single point captured wire. This action depending on the speed of the mass changes could influence measurements.
-
#2043 by Gilbertdrive on 07 May, 2016 14:12
-
Dr Rodal.
Of course your statement that if the device is announced as giving a constant thrust force at constant power input that exceeds by orders of magnitude the one of a perfectly collimated photon rocket, it is a free Energy machine, is undeniable.
But SeeShell, and other DIYers may test it just as a device that is giving a constant thrust that exceeds by orders of magnitude the one of a perfectly collimated photon rocket, on our Earth, and at low speed relatively to earth.
Seeshell does not need to make hypothesis, at this time, to what would happen if the device was going very fast in the Earth Referential.
Earlier in these threads, The Traveller told us that the force was supposed becoming lower when the speed rises. It is the same for Shawyer. The formula given by Shawyer is still corresponding to a free energy device, because the force was not decreasing much.
I will formulate the following theory : The Emdrive has a way to interact with other masses (to a non specified distance) with respect of CoE, and CoM, so that, when the emdrives accelerate, the other bodies interacting with the emdrive accelerate at the opposite. Also, the acceleration of an EMdrive device needs to use at least an energy corresponding to the growth of kinetic energy of the device, and of the concerned bodies.
If SheeShell was adhering to this theory
she may consider that she is not testing a free energy device.
Anyway, I am spliting hairs. Because your argumentation is still valid even in this theory. If I have to test a device that is supposed to interact with other masses with no contact, I need no other contact that the one with the mesuring device.
It is like if I was wanting to proove telekinesis powers, by making move a spoon that is attached to my finger by a cord. Even if I try to convince the spectators that the cord can not help, that I am not using it to make moove the spoon, they will tell me "And why not without the cord ?"
Sheeshell, following the Pr Yang nullification, I support Dr Rodal's advice. Compared to the time and money that you used to make your build, making it battery powered will not take you so long time. And, if it is a positive result, the comparison with the data with external power will be very interesting.
-
#2044 by rfmwguy on 07 May, 2016 14:28
-
This is useful for my test stand assembly, thanks to seeshell and Mr Li. A vertical force would "bleed over" to rotation. All test setups WILL have a thermal lift component so this and the center of mass change must be compensated for.
Have a little time before I get busy.
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
Shell, I suggest you to only secure the top end of the piano wire to the frame. This ensures the piano wire is perpendicular to the earth surface at all time. If you secure the end point too, you may suffer the same symptom of NASA's new experiment, that the thermal expansion of the frustum or magnetron will shift the mass center, and when the rotation pivot is not perpendicular to the earth surface, this shift of mass center will show up as beam rotation. NASA's balance is a little bit "drooped" because of the weight of all the things mounted on the beam.
A visual might help see the captured torsional wires actions when faced with a shifting center of mass across the rotational platform. As you can see in either case it would make little difference to the platform rotation but the oscillatory actions will be greater for the single point captured wire. This action depending on the speed of the mass changes could influence measurements.
The single attachment to the top of the platform is the way to go IMO as well. Sensor pickup must be able to remain completely vertical despite the thermal lift. In my particular case, a longer laser target (vertically) is essentially the solution. Regarding center of mass, the simplest way I know is to rotate the frustum 180 degrees and take measurements again. This should present the amount of deflection due to a mass imbalance. Good news here is copper is so thermally conductive, heat transfers fast and distributes evenly. A thermal cam is very helpful.
Glad Mr. Li is helping us here with useful suggestions. Critical, very specific inputs are what's needed for an improved test method. -
#2045 by Rodal on 07 May, 2016 14:30
-
Dr Rodal.
Please note that I carefully wrote "acts as a free-energy machine" which is different from "is a free-energy machine"
Of course your statement that if the device is announced as giving a constant thrust force at constant power input that exceeds by orders of magnitude the one of a perfectly collimated photon rocket, it is a free Energy machine, is undeniable.
But SeeShell, and other DIYers may test it just as a device that is giving a constant thrust that exceeds by orders of magnitude the one of a perfectly collimated photon rocket, on our Earth, and at low speed relatively to earth.
Seeshell does not need to make hypothesis, at this time, to what would happen if the device was going very fast in the Earth Referential.
Earlier in these threads, The Traveller told us that the force was supposed becoming lower when the speed rises. It is the same for Shawyer. The formula given by Shawyer is still corresponding to a free energy device, because the force was not decreasing much.
I will formulate the following theory : The Emdrive has a way to interact with other masses (to a non specified distance) with respect of CoE, and CoM, so that, when the emdrives accelerate, the other bodies interacting with the emdrive accelerate at the opposite. Also, the acceleration of an EMdrive device needs to use at least an energy corresponding to the growth of kinetic energy of the device, and of the concerned bodies.
If SheeShell was adhering to this theory she may consider that she is not testing a free energy device.
Anyway, I am spliting hairs. Because your argumentation is still valid even in this theory. If I have to test a device that is supposed to interact with other masses with no contact, I need no other contact that the one with the mesuring device.
It is like if I was wanting to proove telekinesis powers, by making move a spoon that is attached to my finger by a cord. Even if I try to convince the spectators that the cord can not help, that I am not using it to make moove the spoon, they will tell me "And why not without the cord ?"
Sheeshell, following the Pr Yang nullification, I support Dr Rodal's advice. Compared to the time and money that you used to make your build, making it battery powered will not take you so long time. And, if it is a positive result, the comparison with the data with external power will be very interesting.
Different theories have different explanations for why it acts that way, for example:
Dr. McCulloch: he accepts that it would provide extra energy, and justifies this energy as coming from the Unruh effect/Rindler Horizon/Quantum Vacuum
Prof. Woodward: concludes that there is no free-energy (see his Dec. 2015 paper on overunity http://ssi.org/exotic-propulsion-update/)
Dr. White, 1) details of his QV computer code have not been made public, 2) it appears (but this is not clear) that he may see some over unity energy provided by some levels of a multi-level degradable Quantum Vacuum that has.
Regardless of the theory, when an experimenter proposes results that give force/InputPower > photon rocket, the device acts (obviously, using Special Relativity) as a free-energy machine and therefore this should be taken into account in the experiment. In this case it means using batteries, as done by Yang and by Brito, Marini and Galian.
Your analogy is excellent in this regards:QuoteIt is like if I was wanting to prove telekinesis powers, by making move a spoon that is attached to my finger by a cord. Even if I try to convince the spectators that the cord can not help, that I am not using it to make move the spoon, they will tell me "And why not without the cord ?"
-
#2046 by Gilbertdrive on 07 May, 2016 14:32
-
I have heard the term Free Energy Machine since I began researching the emdrive. The language was disparaging at first read and so have general questions you should be able to help me with:...
(snip)
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 is 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.
(snip)
Q) Why is an imaginary (so far) photon rocket used as a standard of reference? Is this because of standard behavior of light photons? If so, do you equivocate all photons regardless of the EM spectrum?
I know of no single expert on the subject of photons. There is still much debate on what they are and the physics is far from rock-solid. This being the case, Isn't it overly dramatic/not helpful to infer the emdrive is a Free Energy Machine?
It was already explained earlier, but not always in an explicit way.
The kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the relative speed of a moving object.
If a car goes to a certain speed, it has a kinetic energy relatively to the road. If it goes 2 times faster, it has 4 times more Kinetic energy.
If my car has a motor that gave a constant force for a constant amount of supplied power, it would get linear acceleration, and so, it's kinetic energy would grow as a square.
So, when my car is accelerating, it would still drain the same power, and increasing it's kinetic energy as a square.
If it is more efficient that a photon rocket, it means that if my car go faster that a certain speed, it gets more kinetic energy that it power supply provides. It acts as a free energy device.
Of course, our cars are far far more efficient that photon rockets
but, due to this, the force what their motors gives per watt of energy decrease when the speed rises. That is why, even if there is no air, it would be slower to accelerate from 50 to 100 mPh that to accelerate from 0 to 50mPh.
If the emdrive gives constant thrust to constant power, it would take the same time to accelerate from 0 to 50mPh that to 50 to 100mPh.
-
#2047 by SeeShells on 07 May, 2016 14:43
-
Of course it's ripe with arguments and what your saying isn't anything different with the violation of Conservation laws since this thread started and honestly it goes back into when this drive was first introduced years ago. I never said they was going to be a violation of laws and neither can you, Mother Nature has the rule book and in the end will determine what will happen. This is a test to find the truth and data. Simple....
Your 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
On the Feynman Cylinder Paradox which I love. BTW you forgot that along with being able to test with an external power supply off the rotating torsional pendulum I'll be able to mount on the center platform a battery and inverter with the magnetron to power the frustum. This should be able to address the Feynman Cylinder Paradox issues and your concerns.
Very basic outline on the running tests.
1. Dummy load external power from off the torsional pendulum.
2. 3-4 different Frustum designs
3. ~14 different Frustum configurations in antenna or multi-antenna and or pulsed RF
4. ~5 different insert(s)
5. No rotation and use digital scales for pressure measurements and run all tests again.
6. Rotate the stand 900 and run again as a balance beam and run all tests again
Run all above as a enclosed power supply ie: battery and inverter on the torsional beam pendulum
Run all tests a minimum of 40 times.
I think this is enough for now but I might expand more later.
Shell
-
#2048 by rfmwguy on 07 May, 2016 14:44
-
The Emdrive has a way to interact with other masses (to a non specified distance) with respect of CoE, and CoM, so that, when the emdrives accelerate, the other bodies interacting with the emdrive accelerate at the opposite. Also, the acceleration of an EMdrive device needs to use at least an energy corresponding to the growth of kinetic energy of the device, and of the concerned bodies. - Gilbertdrive
I will join you on this theory as it appears to be the only workaround to CoE/M. I've been studying all the known "transparencies" of energy that extend beyond the closed confines of the frustum. Of course magnetic fields, gravity and a few particles are the only clues I have to go on so far.
We already know some particles can "communicate" over a distance but can they impart kinetic energy? The exact solution is perhaps years away. Part of the problem I feel is we don't fully understand what is occurring within the closed, asymmetric cavity which is totally saturated with resonating EM without a "relief valve".
In other words, no one would design a cavity filter to contain EM and not have an output. A load resistor? Yes. A cavity filter? No. Cavities normally have an I/O, for their prior purpose in life was to shape the EM spectrum going into or out of something else. These were the only uses for cavities I had any experience with.
(note - technically a cavity notch filter has only one input, but at this input, the transmission line is "tapped" by the cavity, which provide a band-reject function.)
For non-RF geeks, I'll describe what the technician is doing in this pic. On the VNA screen in the background, there are 2 traces that dip down. The leftmost is an S21 trace or RF (throughput) Amplitude over a certain bandwidth. The rightmost dip is an S11 trace, measuring return loss (or VSWR). On the right trace, you might notice a couple of markers. This is the operating bandwidth of the cavity filter, where you want the best return loss (the further the drop on-screen, the better). The screwdriver adjust is for coupling and will slight deflect both traces up or down in frequency but mainly the S11 trace. The larger, fixed vertical rod in the center of the cavity is a tuned-stub adjusted up and down to "roughly" center the reject frequency, or the leftmost trace. Once that rod is locked down, the coupling screw near the connector is all that is needed to finish the job. -
#2049 by SeeShells on 07 May, 2016 14:47
-
Show me where you found out that the magnetic fields on a coaxial cable extend outside of the enclosed environment of the coax....
Very specific inputs as follows:
Glad Mr. Li is helping us here with useful suggestions. Critical, very specific inputs are what's needed for an improved test method.
1) Don't use a teeter-totter, use instead a torsional pendulum (as has been known in Aerospace R&D for 50 years of testing electromagnetic micro-thrusters), and has been known for hundreds of years since Cavendish tested big G using a torsional pendulum.
2) When testing a device that depends on radiation pressure, with forces from microNewtons to milliNewtons, use a vacuum chamber, as it has been known since the 19th century that radiation pressure tests performed in ambient conditions are subject to thermal convection artifacts, and since 1900 when Lebedev was the first person to successfully test radiation pressure. He was able to do this using a vacuum chamber. That was 116 years ago.
3) When testing a device that acts as a free-energy machine, the test must use batteries self-integrated in the moving device, as used by Yang and by Brito, Marini and Galian to nullify their previous tests conducted with power cords. Ignoring this, ignores the flow of momentum in the power cord, from the stationary source of power, as electromagnetic fields carry momentum as has been known for over a century. There is momentum being carried in a coaxial power cord: S=ExH
Shell -
#2050 by Rodal on 07 May, 2016 14:52
-
Show me where you found out that the magnetic fields on a coaxial cable extend outside of the enclosed environment of the coax....
Very specific inputs as follows:
Glad Mr. Li is helping us here with useful suggestions. Critical, very specific inputs are what's needed for an improved test method.
1) Don't use a teeter-totter, use instead a torsional pendulum (as has been known in Aerospace R&D for 50 years of testing electromagnetic micro-thrusters), and has been known for hundreds of years since Cavendish tested big G using a torsional pendulum.
2) When testing a device that depends on radiation pressure, with forces from microNewtons to milliNewtons, use a vacuum chamber, as it has been known since the 19th century that radiation pressure tests performed in ambient conditions are subject to thermal convection artifacts, and since 1900 when Lebedev was the first person to successfully test radiation pressure. He was able to do this using a vacuum chamber. That was 116 years ago.
3) When testing a device that acts as a free-energy machine, the test must use batteries self-integrated in the moving device, as used by Yang and by Brito, Marini and Galian to nullify their previous tests conducted with power cords. Ignoring this, ignores the flow of momentum in the power cord, from the stationary source of power, as electromagnetic fields carry momentum as has been known for over a century. There is momentum being carried in a coaxial power cord: S=ExH
Shell
I am not talking about magnetic fields extending outside a power cable! You are!
I am talking about the fact that electromagnetic fields carry momentum, and that you are transmitting momentum through the power cables from a stationary device (that is being depleted) to the EM Drive that may self-accelerate as a result of the electromagnetic power flowing through your coaxial cable. I am discussing the issue of center of energy-momentum and that in electromagnetics momentum and energy are tied together in the same equation, for several posts now.
In electromagnetics, energy and momentum are tied together: (*)
in the same equation!
To quote GilbertDrive:QuoteIt is like if I was wanting to prove telekinesis powers, by making move a spoon that is attached to my finger by a cord. Even if I try to convince the spectators that the cord can not help, that I am not using it to make move the spoon, they will tell me "And why not without the cord ?"
______________
(*) where the electromagnetic energy density is uem and S is the momentum. It is improper to ignore the momentum that is being supplied from a location outside the moving platform.
The best test uses batteries self-integrated with the device, as done by Yang in her latest tests that nullify her previous tests with power cords.
-
#2051 by SeeShells on 07 May, 2016 15:05
-
Sheeshell, following the Pr Yang nullification, I support Dr Rodal's advice. Compared to the time and money that you used to make your build, making it battery powered will not take you so long time. And, if it is a positive result, the comparison with the data with external power will be very interesting.
This is why I have advanced to this test stand. I'll be keeping most of the hardware and be able to change very basic items like power source, rotational versus teeter totter (rotate the stand 900), rotational acceleration and even just a thrust component.
I welcome any ideas to enhance this test bed (other than a vacuum chamber).
Shell
-
#2052 by SeeShells on 07 May, 2016 15:17
-
THIS is my very first bookmark after bookmarking this site last year.
Show me where you found out that the magnetic fields on a coaxial cable extend outside of the enclosed environment of the coax....
Very specific inputs as follows:
Glad Mr. Li is helping us here with useful suggestions. Critical, very specific inputs are what's needed for an improved test method.
1) Don't use a teeter-totter, use instead a torsional pendulum (as has been known in Aerospace R&D for 50 years of testing electromagnetic micro-thrusters), and has been known for hundreds of years since Cavendish tested big G using a torsional pendulum.
2) When testing a device that depends on radiation pressure, with forces from microNewtons to milliNewtons, use a vacuum chamber, as it has been known since the 19th century that radiation pressure tests performed in ambient conditions are subject to thermal convection artifacts, and since 1900 when Lebedev was the first person to successfully test radiation pressure. He was able to do this using a vacuum chamber. That was 116 years ago.
3) When testing a device that acts as a free-energy machine, the test must use batteries self-integrated in the moving device, as used by Yang and by Brito, Marini and Galian to nullify their previous tests conducted with power cords. Ignoring this, ignores the flow of momentum in the power cord, from the stationary source of power, as electromagnetic fields carry momentum as has been known for over a century. There is momentum being carried in a coaxial power cord: S=ExH
Shell
I am not talking about magnetic fields extending outside a power cable! You are!
I am talking about the fact that electromagnetic fields carry momentum, and that you are transmitting momentum through the power cables from a stationary device (that is being depleted) to the EM Drive that may self-accelerate as a result of the electromagnetic power flowing through your coaxial cable. I am discussing the issue of center of energy and that in electromagnetics momentum and energy are tied together in the same conservation laws for several posts now.
In electromagnetics, energy and momentum are tied together: (*)
in the same equation!
To quote GilbertDrive:QuoteIt is like if I was wanting to prove telekinesis powers, by making move a spoon that is attached to my finger by a cord. Even if I try to convince the spectators that the cord can not help, that I am not using it to make move the spoon, they will tell me "And why not without the cord ?"
______________
(*) where the internal energy density is u and S is the momentum
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/conser.html
If I'm to believe this and believe what your saying I should not waste my time chasing any data for here within lays all the answers and even Cannae with their multi-thousand dollar setup is just chasing ghosts or NASA who's anomaly still remaining are doing the same.
Shell -
#2053 by Gilbertdrive on 07 May, 2016 15:24
-
So you were very precise, Dr Rodal. Act as a free Energy machine
Rfmwguy, to be more complete about my preceding message, I will take a precise example and detail Calculus.
If I got a spatial probe of mass m including a Cannae Drive with Power of 1KW and batteries, with already a relative earth speed of 10^7 m/S^2. (around C/30.)
If I accelerate it of just 1 m/S^2, see what it makes to Kinetic Energy.
The kinetic Energy at 10^7 M/S is (m/2)*(10^7)^2
The Kinetic Energy at (10^7+1) M/S is (m/2)*(10^7+1)^2
So, The Kinetic Energy that was gained is ((m/2)*(10^7+1)^2)-((m/2)*(10^7)^2)
It gives (M/2)*2*10^7+1 J
equal to (M/2)*20000001 Joules)
The Kinetic Energy has grown of more than 10 MJ per kg of weight.
My Cannae Drive gives 761.9 mN/Kw (0.7619 N/Kg)
It means that it will take to my probe a time equal to 1/0.7619*m = 1.314*m to accelerate of 1M/S
(If it was weighting 1kg it would take 1.314s to accelerate of 1 M/S.) If it weights one ton it would take 1314s to accelerate of 1M/S.
So, my spatial probe would get 10 MJ of Kinetic Energy per kg, having used electrical energy of 1.314 KJ per kg (1 KW during 1,314s)
Of Course, I should have do a relativist calculus, but, at C/30, the error by using Newtonian physic is far far less that the difference between 1.314 KJ and 10 MJ
The conclusion if that, if the Cannae Drive gives constant thrust with constant power, at a speed, relatively to the earth, of 10^7 M/S, it will give 10MJ of kinetic energy, for 1.314 KJ of electric energy. It acts as free Energy.
I hope that I made no mistake in my calculus. But even it I did, the result will be exceed in Energy.
-
#2054 by Rodal on 07 May, 2016 15:28
-
...Rfmwguy, to be more complete, I will take a precise example and detail Calculus...
Excellent: you appreciate the fact that this has nothing to do with being an expert in photons. It has to do with the speed of light being a speed limit.
And what is being stated is not whether the EM Drive thrust is possible or not, is just that the best experiment to prove this at this point (given the experiments by Yang with batteries that nullified her previous tests with power cords) is to have batteries self-integrated in the moving platform instead of providing power (and hence electromagnetic momentum) from a stationary power supply. -
#2055 by otlski on 07 May, 2016 15:38
-
Have a little time before I get busy.
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
Shell, I suggest you to only secure the top end of the piano wire to the frame. This ensures the piano wire is perpendicular to the earth surface at all time. If you secure the end point too, you may suffer the same symptom of NASA's new experiment, that the thermal expansion of the frustum or magnetron will shift the mass center, and when the rotation pivot is not perpendicular to the earth surface, this shift of mass center will show up as beam rotation. NASA's balance is a little bit "drooped" because of the weight of all the things mounted on the beam.
A visual might help see the captured torsional wires actions when faced with a shifting center of mass across the rotational platform. As you can see in either case it would make little difference to the platform rotation but the oscillatory actions will be greater for the single point captured wire. This action depending on the speed of the mass changes could influence measurements.
In your drawings, on the left-hand side (where the lower wire is used), your demonstration is valid, but only if the torsion pendulum's axis of rotation is exactly parallel to the gravity vector. If this (constrained) axis of rotation were not exactly parallel, then a shifting CoM would induce a false rotation as the new CoM attempted to seek the low spot in the rotation. -
#2056 by Gilbertdrive on 07 May, 2016 15:40
-
If I'm to believe this and believe what your saying I should not waste my time chasing any data for here within lays all the answers and even Cannae with their multi-thousand dollar setup is just chasing ghosts or NASA who's anomaly still remaining are doing the same.
Shell
I am not saying that you loose your time. But that only the Battery Powered test will convince me.
The time spend with tests on external Power is not lost. The comparison of the thrust with external Power, and the thrust on batteries will be very interesting.
If the result was null on batteries and positive with external power, it will be an important confirmation of the external power artifact.
If both results are positive, the comparison of the data would be very interesting also. It would permitt to quantify, for your particular setup, the external power artifact. -
#2057 by rfmwguy on 07 May, 2016 15:50
-
So you were very precise, Dr Rodal. Act as a free Energy machine
Thank you, this is quite enlightening, albeit my days as an honor student in calculus are many years behind me
Rfmwguy, to be more complete about my preceding message, I will take a precise example and detail Calculus.
If I got a spatial probe of mass m including a Cannae Drive with Power of 1KW and batteries, with already a relative earth speed of 10^7 m/S^2. (around C/30.)
If I accelerate it of just 1 m/S^2, see what it makes to Kinetic Energy.
The kinetic Energy at 10^7 M/S is (m/2)*(10^7)^2
The Kinetic Energy at (10^7+1) M/S is (m/2)*(10^7+1)^2
So, The Kinetic Energy that was gained is ((m/2)*(10^7+1)^2)-((m/2)*(10^7)^2)
It gives (M/2)*2*10^7+1 J
equal to (M/2)*20000001 Joules)
The Kinetic Energy has grown of more than 10 MJ per kg of weight.
My Cannae Drive gives 761.9 mN/Kw (0.7619 N/Kg)
It means that it will take to my probe a time equal to 1/0.7619*m = 1.314*m to accelerate of 1M/S
(If it was weighting 1kg it would take 1.314s to accelerate of 1 M/S.) If it weights one ton it would take 1314s to accelerate of 1M/S.
So, my spatial probe would get 10 MJ of Kinetic Energy per kg, having used electrical energy of 1.314 KJ per kg (1 KW during 1,314s)
Of Course, I should have do a relativist calculus, but, at C/30, the error by using Newtonian physic is far far less that the difference between 1.314 KJ and 10 MJ
The conclusion if that, if the Cannae Drive gives constant thrust with constant power, at a speed, relatively to the earth, of 10^7 M/S, it will give 10MJ of kinetic energy, for 1.314 KJ of electric energy. It acts as free Energy.
I hope that I made no mistake in my calculus. But even it I did, the result will be exceed in Energy.
Builders like shell and myself are often overwhelmed with just the basics of design, construction and test. Specific critiques with "real numbers" is what helps. For example, I've been noticing momentum transfer commentary with formulas and no specific data. In a discussion like this, wouldn't it be more useful to plug in some numbers to translate into useful data?
IOW, if we're talking about simple power leads, calculate the momentum force in Newtons (and direction) of a horizontal length of 36 inches of twisted power leads containing 4000V DC at a 60 Hz rep rate and averaging 300 mA. Consider DC resistance is negligible.
THESE are what builders could use while they are swamped with all the other details they are working on.
For coaxial RF power transmission line, calculate the momentum force with direction of 36 inches of coaxial cable with a total loss of 2dB with an average RF power at +54.5 dBm.
So many of the critiques I have read do not contain real world scenarios. This is my point. I am not trying to be controversial with this statement, but those who are really interested in contributing while a huge effort on building is taking place, can prove their sincerity by helping with some of the specific math.
-
#2058 by aero on 07 May, 2016 15:58
-
...
snip
snip
I am not talking about magnetic fields extending outside a power cable! You are!
I am talking about the fact that electromagnetic fields carry momentum, and that you are transmitting momentum through the power cables from a stationary device (that is being depleted) to the EM Drive that may self-accelerate as a result of the electromagnetic power flowing through your coaxial cable. I am discussing the issue of center of energy-momentum and that in electromagnetics momentum and energy are tied together in the same equation, for several posts now.
In electromagnetics, energy and momentum are tied together: (*)
in the same equation!
snip
______________
(*) where the electromagnetic energy density is uem and S is the momentum. It is improper to ignore the momentum that is being supplied from a location outside the moving platform.
The best test uses batteries self-integrated with the device, as done by Yang in her latest tests that nullify her previous tests with power cords.
If I understand this, then what you have is a mechanism where the COAX cable carries force/momentum far in excess of that of a perfectly collimated photon rocket, as is required to react the forces of the EM Drive.
If so, then how does that work? -
#2059 by Rodal on 07 May, 2016 16:05
-
...
If I understand this, then what you have is a mechanism where the COAX cable carries force/momentum far in excess of that of a perfectly collimated photon rocket, as is required to react the forces of the EM Drive.
If so, then how does that work?
It works as with any experimental artifact, as with thermal expansion, thermal convection, etc. It has to do with how one calculates the anomalous (=unexplained) force, and how one calculates the power that it took to produce the anomalous force.
The unexplained force/InputPower may have been incorrectly calculated. If you ignore the electromagnetic momentum, then the "anomalous force" is incorrectly calculated: extra momentum seems to come magically. The actual force that is "anomalous" = unexplained, may be much smaller, negligible or non-existent. (*)
As to how such calculations matter, see this: http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/feynman_cylinder.pdf
Suggestion: more effort should go into providing power with batteries self-integrated in the test, as done by Yang. Imagine how much time and effort would have been saved if Yang would have done that years ago.
__________
(*) Evidence of incorrect calculation of anomalous forces abounds: Yang's prior calculations, prior to using batteries.
Incorrect calculation of electromagnetic stresses because of using incorrect equations that do not take into account the electromagnetic momentum.
she may consider that she is not testing a free energy device.
but, due to this, the force what their motors gives per watt of energy decrease when the speed rises. That is why, even if there is no air, it would be slower to accelerate from 50 to 100 mPh that to accelerate from 0 to 50mPh.