It 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 ?"
It is worse than that: since when somebody dares to ask, "how does that relate to Space Flight applications since in space you cannot use a cord" the answer is: because I say that my cord does not carry any force that can move the spoon, and otherwise prove me wrong. Thus the responsibility for proving that the cord is not moving the spoon is shifted to the shoulders of the spectators, who are asked to prove otherwise, rather than the responsibility for proving so being on the shoulders of the one with the spoon and the cord 
. Yes, a good analogy, because it looks like we are asked to be a docile audience, being asked to ignore the cord, while skeptical remarks are met defensively and unwelcome.
Yes, it is far worse. I was giving the soft version.
The true version would be :
It 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 that I am the worst illusionist they have ever seen.
Anyway, I am sure that the DYERS present here are making good and honnest work. But I will not be convinced by any experiment without battery included. The aim of an experiment is not only to be convinced himself, but also to convince others
Another simpler way to assess the Lorentz force is to position the test apparatus at several orientations relevant to the earth magnetic field. If the thrust is reversed with opposite orientations you know something is wrong. If the thrust is constant with different orientations, we can start to take serious look of the experiment.
True, but you would have to do this very carefully to avoid introducing additional variables such as the level verses CoM artifacts.
Yang mounted to beam, but not in center. Center mount is not necessary, and may exhibit weaker movement (not sure about this?). Better perhaps to move it off to one side of the beam.
If the mirror is attached to the end of the beam would there be a bigger deflection?
If the mirror is attached to the end of the beam would there be a bigger deflection?
I think it depends on where the laser is mounted and the angle the beam strikes the mirror. There is probably a sweet spot for maximum deflection.
If the mirror is attached to the end of the beam would there be a bigger deflection?
I think it depends on where the laser is mounted and the angle the beam strikes the mirror. There is probably a sweet spot for maximum deflection.
It depends on what one is trying to measure. If one is trying to measure angle of rotation, from reflection of an incident wave on a mirror, and the beam you are attaching the mirror to is perfectly rigid, and there is no swinging of the pendulum, then it should not make any difference where you mount the mirror on the rigid beam.
If the beam is not perfectly rigid (nothing is rigid in nature, since everything has a finite modulus of elasticity) then, it makes most sense to mount the mirror at the center of rotation, which is where both Yang and also Brito, Marini and Galian mounted their mirrors.
If one is trying to measure deflection, then obviously the point of largest deflection is at the ends of the beam, and the minimum displacement is at the center. Actually at the center of rotation the displacement is zero
(unless one has swinging of the pendulum, as well as rotation, which is always possible). With no swinging of the pendulum, at the center of torsion, there is only a rotation of the mirror.
So, is one trying to measure angle of rotation or is one trying to measure displacement?
Is the torsional pendulum going to exhibit swinging of the pendulum as well as rotation (around its torsional axis) of the pendulum?
If both swinging of the pendulum and rotation of the pendulum (around its axis of torsion) are taking place, then how is swinging and rotation taken into account to make the measurement?
***Special Alert for NSF readers and Science Writers***
As a builder, I just received an email and pdf from Roger Shawyer of SPR Ltd in England. I also received special permission to post it in its entirety here at NSF for the first time. Some of it may have been released some time ago but with a lack of recent releases, there may be some misunderstandings out there. Below is the new email from Mr Shawyer, attached is his pdf:
Hi all
I guess by now you have all measured thrust from your experimental EmDrives. The measured results are likely to vary considerably with stability of input match, the type of measurement system etc. However it is likely that your experiments can enable verification of some aspects of the classic theory of EmDrive operation to be tested. This work has been carried out in a number of research organisations, and in each case the predictions of classic theory have been demonstrated.
I have taken the liberty of attaching a presentation of basic theory. This is a “high level” presentation aimed at non-specialists but it summarises the results of many years of discussion, argument and study amongst professional Physicists, Mathematicians and Engineers on both sides of the Atlantic.
In particular two aspects can be noted.
Inside the cavity Einstein rules, EM waves travel at relativistic velocities and the EmDrive can be considered an open system. This was first pointed out many years ago by an eminent UK government scientist working at Farnborough, the late David Fearn. If the cavity is operated below cut-off frequency, travelling waves are distorted and thrust approaches zero.
Outside the cavity Newton rules, thus action and reaction are equal and opposite. A fully constrained EmDrive thruster will therefore not exhibit thrust, whilst an unconstrained thruster will accelerate in the opposite direction to the thrust vector. Any static thrust measurement system will apply some constraint to the thruster and depending on spring constants etc, it can be set up to measure thrust, reaction force or zero force.
Unfortunately I am not now able to enter into public disclosure of anything other than general theory and the experimental work already published, but the information in the attachment has been widely discussed and feel free to distribute it and discuss it as you wish.
Good luck with your work, I hope that successful public experiments, such as yours, will eventually release the floodgates of information from the more constrained organisations that I work with.
Best regards
Roger
***Special Alert for NSF readers and Science Writers***
As a builder, I just received an email and pdf from Roger Shawyer of SPR Ltd in England. I also received special permission to post it in its entirety here at NSF for the first time. Some of it may have been released some time ago but with a lack of recent releases, there may be some misunderstandings out there. Reviewers of this pdf do note that slide 4 contains the assumption that photons interact with the Quantum Vacuum, which is currently being expanded by Dr White and crew at EW. Below is the new email from Mr Shawyer, attached is his pdf:
...
Concerning " there may be some misunderstandings out there. Reviewers of this pdf do note that slide 4 contains the assumption that photons interact with the Quantum Vacuum"
please consider whether you may be misunderstanding this rehash by Shawyer of his previous papers:
1) The word "photon" does not appear a single time in Shawyer's presentation. The word "Quantum Vacuum" does not appear a single time in Shawyer's presentation.
2) His slide number 4
Independence of Velocities
The velocity of an EM wave inside the cavity Vg is independent of the velocity of the cavity Ve
An observer measures the velocity of the wave as Vg. Not Vg+Vc
(Einstein's theory of special relativity)
The wave and cavity form an open system allowing momentum to be transferred between wave and cavity
never mentions photons interacting with the Quantum Vacuum. Slide number 4 states that Special Relativity (not the Quantum Vacuum) allows (in Shaywer's mind) for the system to become open so that momentum is transferred to the cavity to self-accelerate.
3) His summary (last slide,
in red) states that "no new physics is required". There is nothing about the Quantum Vacuum here, on the contrary he still repeats the same old stuff, that according to him self-acceleration of the EM Drive can be explained "with Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell's equations and Special Relativity".
Not only he writes that no new physics (Quantum Vacuum interaction) is required, but he does not even consider whether General Relativity (instead of the much restricted Special Relativity, where conservation of momentum and conservation of energy are fully satisfied) is required.
I am not going to repeat the same old tired arguments, but suffice it to say that what Shawyer presents here has been debunked multiple times and is self-contradictory and inconsistent.
Why does Shawyer resort to sending e-mails for other people to openly publish in a forum instead of himself engaging in defense of his controversial explanations, like Dr. McCulloch is presently doing, and as most other scientists and engineers have done? (foremost among them, the scientists he is basing his explanation on: Newton, Maxwell and Einstein who engaged in critical debate of their theories).
If Shawyer wants to engage in discussion of his explanations, it would be helpful for him to address the conservation of energy problem for the EM Drive: at the force/powerInput he claims in his experiments it has been shown that the EM Drive becomes a free-energy machine:
Reconciling a Reactionless Propulsive Drive with the First Law of Thermodynamics
Andrew J. Higgins
http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.00494
There has been much discussion on Lorentz forces and transmission if momentum in coax cables. Many posts ago, IIRC, a paper was posted suggesting that Lorentz forces in a given test setup were of the order of perhaps 10 micro-Newtons. Shells is aware of the problem, and has taken steps to mitigate. If Shell's results are above the 100 micro-Newton range, I believe they will demonstrate thrust irrespective of this potentially confounding factor. If anyone believes otherwise, perhaps they could post their calculation of what they believe the confounding forces would be in Shell's test setup. Only the total quantitative bounds matter.
There has also been mention of rotating test stands. Recall that Shawyer has actually done this, and posted a video on the internet. A prominent sceptic here aeons ago posted an analysis of that data concluding that the dynamics were consistent with Shawyer's explanation.
Dr. Rodal also asked whether anyone had done a linear air bearing experiment. We know from the Horizon program that Shawyer has such a test setup. It is likely that he used it, and one must assume that he at least felt the results were positive.
Lastly, the Abraham-Minkowski controversy was discussed. Clearly, it is irrelevant to photon momentum in a vacuum. However, the fields aka photons penetrate the skin. The momentum of photons in copper has to be very relevant to this subject. With earlier papers posted showing that BOTH Abraham and Minkowski momentum are correct under different circumstances, it would only take differences in the probabity of each effect at different ends of the frustrum to create potentially interesting effects.
R.
...
Lastly, the Abraham-Minkowski controversy was discussed. Clearly, it is irrelevant to photon momentum in a vacuum. However, the fields aka photons penetrate the skin. The momentum of photons in copper has to be very relevant to this subject. With earlier papers posted showing that BOTH Abraham and Minkowski momentum are correct under different circumstances, it would only take differences in the probabity of each effect at different ends of the frustrum to create potentially interesting effects.
R.
I am interested on your further elaboration as to how the Abraham-Minkowski controversy can apply to a conductor like copper. I am not aware of either Abraham or Minkowski ever addressing that there was a controversy for conductors like copper, where, the models I know of, agree on the real part of ε
r=1 (at GHz frequency), and μ
r=0.999994, or μ
r~1.
On the contrary, the treatments of the Abraham-Minkowski controversy that I am aware of, deal with
dielectric media, and not conductors like copper
Even the popular article in Wikipedia on the Abraham-Minkowski controversy states:
Leonhardt implicitly used a plane-wave model, where a plane wave propagates in a lossless, non-conducting
and Griffiths wrote about the Abraham-Minkowski controversy:
Electromagnetic Momentum
David J. Griffiths
Am. J. Phys. 80 (1), January 2012
we assume that all charges are glued to nonconductors, and the magnetic fields are produced by charged nonconductors in motion
***Special Alert for NSF readers and Science Writers***
As a builder, I just received an email and pdf from Roger Shawyer of SPR Ltd in England. I also received special permission to post it in its entirety here at NSF for the first time. Some of it may have been released some time ago but with a lack of recent releases, there may be some misunderstandings out there. Reviewers of this pdf do note that slide 4 contains the assumption that photons interact with the Quantum Vacuum, which is currently being expanded by Dr White and crew at EW. Below is the new email from Mr Shawyer, attached is his pdf:
...
Concerning " there may be some misunderstandings out there. Reviewers of this pdf do note that slide 4 contains the assumption that photons interact with the Quantum Vacuum"
please consider whether you may be misunderstanding this rehash by Shawyer of his previous papers:
1) The word "photon" does not appear a single time in Shawyer's presentation. The word "Quantum Vacuum" does not appear a single time in Shawyer's presentation.
2) His slide number 4
Independence of Velocities
The velocity of an EM wave inside the cavity Vg is independent of the velocity of the cavity Ve
An observer measures the velocity of the wave as Vg. Not Vg+Vc
(Einstein's theory of special relativity)
The wave and cavity form an open system allowing momentum to be transferred between wave and cavity
never mentions photons interacting with the Quantum Vacuum. Slide number 4 states that Special Relativity (not the Quantum Vacuum) allows (in Shaywer's mind) for the system to become open so that momentum is transferred to the cavity to self-accelerate.
3) His summary (last slide, in red) states that "no new physics is required". There is nothing about the Quantum Vacuum here, on the contrary he still repeats the same old stuff, that according to him self-acceleration of the EM Drive can be explained "with Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell's equations and Special Relativity".
Not only he writes that no new physics (Quantum Vacuum interaction) is required, but he does not even conside whether General Relativity is required.
I am not going to repeat the same old tired arguments, but suffice it to say that what Shawyer presents here has been debunked multiple times and is self-contradictory and inconsistent.
Why does he resort to sending e-mails for other people to openly publish in a forum instead of himself engaging in defense of his controversial explanations, like Dr. McCulloch is presently doing, and as most other scientists and engineers have done? (foremost among them, the scientists he is basing his explanation on: Newton, Maxwell and Einstein who engaged in critical debate of their theories).
I removed the sentence you objected to. These were the words of a reviewer. Shawyers latest is what it is...for others to read, critique, ignore, etc...it comes at a time where little information is being presented.
Your equivalent circuit does not take into account the fact that the high current DC power leads are twisted together. Also the high voltage AC will not produce any Lorentz force. It isn't necessary to twist the high voltage AC wires together. Doing so may result in arcing. The goal is to minimize any stray magnetic fields from the high current DC wiring. As long as the + and - leads are twisted together or coaxially fed any external magnetic field will be minimal and there will be a very low Lorentz force. This is because the currents through the 2 wires are in opposite directions so the interaction with the geomagnetic field cancels when they are in close proximity. if you have a third DC wire, as I think you suggested in your figures, it will not make any difference as long as all wires are twisted together or the 2 ground (return current) wires are inside the coaxial tube. if the wires were separated you would have a current loop. That would produce a torque against the geomagnetic field in most orientations. That might be recorded as an error force in the apparatus. However if the DC wires are tightly twisted together the area of the loop is practically zero so the Lorentz force is very small. It is easier to twist smaller gauge wire together than heavy gauge so if the battery voltage was higher and the current supplied to the inverter was lower, any Lorentz force would be easier to minimize.
The goal is to minimize any Lorentz force against a current loop by minimizing the area of the loop and/or the current. The term ground loop does not actually apply in this situation.
I am not quite sure what wires you are referring to. I labeled the wires with numbers. Please refer to the numbers.
...
The figures were already labeled "DC", "AC", etc so it will just be more confusing if new labels are used. My earlier post is all the explanation required. If you don't understand it there is nothing I can do that will change that.
As Dr Rodal has written earlier, the Shawyer explanation is clearly inconsistent for momentum
But there is a point where I think that I have seen something big, even if it poorly explained.
In the slide "Conservation of Energy"
Note that as stored Energy decreases, Q decreases and thus Thrust decreases.
Before having read this statement, I thought that in Shawyer theory, Q was constant for a given cavity at a given temperature, given imput power, and given frequency. This statement changes many things.
My interpretation of the "Conservation of Energy" Slide would be that (even if this line is not written directly)
Imput Microwawe Energy=Kinetic Energy+Lost Thermal Energy
It would means that, for Shawyer, the thrust is not constant, So the thrust would decrease with speed, as Q is decreasing, and the conservation of Energy would be verified.
I recognise that it is not perfectly explicit. For example, the arrows Kinetic Energy and Lost Thermal Energy are longer that the Arrow Imput Microwawe Energy. It would be logical for the arrow Imput Microwave Energy to be as long as the two others added together.
So, the equality Imput Microwawe Energy=Kinetic Energy+Lost Thermal Energy is not written. In fact only one equality is written : Stored Energy=Q*Energy Lost Per Cycle
As Q is supposed to variate, we can write that Q=Stored Energy/Energy Lost Per Cycle.
It is clearly written that when The Cavity accelerates with continuous imput, some stored energy is converted into kinetic energy, so the Stored Energy decreases, and Q decreases.
Presented like that, the emdrive does not act a a free Energy device.
If I assume this interpretation, the Q that used later are the Q at 0 speed.
At zero speed, the kinetic Energy is 0, than the energy lost per cycle is equal to the Lost by thermal energy.
When the speed rises, there is energy from the frustrum converted into Kinetic energy, so the energy lost per cycle=Lost thermal Energy+Kinetic energy Gained by the device
And so Q decreases, and thrust decreases.
Even if this slide is poorly explained, If I logically take the points mentionned, and make the link between, I arrive to something consistent with conservation of Energy, with the big revelation that Q is not a constant, but is decreased by the kinetic energy gained.
It would have been more explicit if Q mesured by SPR, NASA, etc were noted Q0, since Q is not anymore a constant.
I hope that I have correctly explained that I means. If not, please, tell me what is unclear, it is difficult to make good explanations starting from this document.
As Dr Rodal has written earlier, the Shawyer explanation is clearly inconsistent for momentum
But there is a point where I think that I have seen something big, even if it poorly explained.
In the slide "Conservation of Energy"
Note that as stored Energy decreases, Q decreases and thus Thrust decreases.
...
Yes, but I think that Frobnicat has addressed the problems with this. My interpretation of one of Frobnicat's arguments (the argument by Frobnicat is based on Special Relativity which Shawyer claims to use in his explanation) is that Special Relativity forbids this explanation: because how can Shawyer's EM Drive "know" how to control its force in a manner that is consistent with Special Relativity?
I have never seen a paper by Shawyer that mathematically covers this conservation of energy issue in a way that can resolve Frobnicat's arguments.
Monumentally stupid question, maybe, but I'll ask anyhow:
Maybe this relates somehow to 'paired' particles (the experiments that appear to be FTL?)
And, given that it's been brought up before, maybe evanescent waves figure into this 'knowing' somehow? After all, evanescent waves are supposed to be FTL. (Unless I'm badly misunderstanding things again.)
Can Shawyer's Boeing Flight Thruster claim that it delivered a mean force/InputPower that was ~10
5 times the one of a photon rocket, and disregarding the fact that Shawyer is off by a factor of 6.28 from the
definition of Q:
be made consistent with Shawyer claiming that this resolves the conservation of energy problem?
It looks like Shawyer is claiming that one can use the stored energy from electromagnetic resonance, to accelerate the EM Drive, similarly to the way one can harvest electric power from stored energy from mechanical resonance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibration-powered_generator
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/155102-energy-harvester-that-creates-power-from-ambient-vibrations-finally-comes-to-market
While in the EM Drive, Shawyer proposes that one can harvest a mechanical force from stored electromagnetic resonance in a cavity !but the difference is that vibration energy harvesting is an OPEN System, where the vibrations are maintained by a relatively inexhaustible supply of air pressure oscillations (or other sources of vibration), while in the EM Drive case, where is the energy in excess of the input Power come from? (At least Dr. White and Dr. McCulloch claim that it comes from a mutable and degradable Quantum Vacuum, but Shawyer says that all you need is Special Relativity and that you don't need anything else beyond Newton and SR).
Your equivalent circuit does not take into account the fact that the high current DC power leads are twisted together. Also the high voltage AC will not produce any Lorentz force. It isn't necessary to twist the high voltage AC wires together. Doing so may result in arcing. The goal is to minimize any stray magnetic fields from the high current DC wiring. As long as the + and - leads are twisted together or coaxially fed any external magnetic field will be minimal and there will be a very low Lorentz force. This is because the currents through the 2 wires are in opposite directions so the interaction with the geomagnetic field cancels when they are in close proximity. if you have a third DC wire, as I think you suggested in your figures, it will not make any difference as long as all wires are twisted together or the 2 ground (return current) wires are inside the coaxial tube. if the wires were separated you would have a current loop. That would produce a torque against the geomagnetic field in most orientations. That might be recorded as an error force in the apparatus. However if the DC wires are tightly twisted together the area of the loop is practically zero so the Lorentz force is very small. It is easier to twist smaller gauge wire together than heavy gauge so if the battery voltage was higher and the current supplied to the inverter was lower, any Lorentz force would be easier to minimize.
The goal is to minimize any Lorentz force against a current loop by minimizing the area of the loop and/or the current. The term ground loop does not actually apply in this situation.
I am not quite sure what wires you are referring to. I labeled the wires with numbers. Please refer to the numbers.
...
The figures were already labeled "DC", "AC", etc so it will just be more confusing if new labels are used. My earlier post is all the explanation required. If you don't understand it there is nothing I can do that will change that.
I am sorry if you were offended. The reason I labeled the figure and asked you for confirmation was because I did not want to misunderstand you. For example this one,
Your equivalent circuit does not take into account the fact that the high current DC power leads are twisted together.
Take a look of the equivalent circuit. I re-post it below, and change the color of the previously-too-faint overlaid circuit. The high current DC power leads are not even in the equivalent circuit.
It isn't necessary to twist the high voltage AC wires together. Doing so may result in arcing.
Ask rfmwguy whether he had arcing between the two AC wires. The voltage between them are a few volts. They are called high voltage because they had potential of -5000V relative to ground. The same high voltage does not exist between the two AC wires.
if you have a third DC wire, as I think you suggested in your figures, it will not make any difference as long as all wires are twisted together or the 2 ground (return current) wires are inside the coaxial tube.
That "third DC wire" you called is the anode current provider to the magneton and indispensable. It often show up as grounding of the magnetron but it is not only for safety. Ask Shell whether she can disconnect that one and still make the magnetron work.
I agree with the theoretical part of your post that I did not quote. It is just you did not apply the theory correctly to this circuit. Thank you!
I spent most of today getting the frame woman handled around (help didn't show up). Gusseted flat angle iron pieces on the sides to give greater strength. Left the front open for ease of access. Just finishing off painting it and hope to have it on the bench late today or tomorrow.
Hope you all are having a great day.
Shell
. Yes, a good analogy, because it looks like we are asked to be a docile audience, being asked to ignore the cord, while skeptical remarks are met defensively and unwelcome.