-
#3000 by Rodal on 02 Jun, 2016 22:41
-
Touche'2) how does one recycle photons and exceed a photon rocket force/Input power in a microwave cavity?
By using a frustum of course!
-
#3001 by Monomorphic on 02 Jun, 2016 23:19
-
As promised, 6-minute unpowered test with HVAC turned off several minutes before. Raw data included.
-
#3002 by Monomorphic on 03 Jun, 2016 02:31
-
Powered Test 03: Same "reverse" anomalous force after retooling and making sure the HVAC is off. Raw data attached.
-
#3003 by zen-in on 03 Jun, 2016 02:47
-
Same "reverse" anomalous force after retooling and making sure the HVAC is off. Raw data attached.
What are you displaying in the two images? The top one (u-toob) sort of looks like highly amplified shot noise. Is that the displacement of your pendulum? It appears to have a stable baseline and just positive going pulses. Maybe it is being digitized by an A/D circuit that doesn't handle negative going signals. -
#3004 by Monomorphic on 03 Jun, 2016 02:52
-
What are you displaying in the two images? The top one (u-toob) sort of looks like highly amplified shot noise. Is that the displacement of your pendulum? It appears to have a stable baseline and just positive going pulses. Maybe it is being digitized by an A/D circuit that doesn't handle negative going signals.
The top it the laser that is reflecting off a first surface mirror on the torsional pendulum (see Yang's latest paper). The bottom is simply a view of a monitor displaying in real time the readout from the spectrum analyser.
The second image is a plot of the movement of the laser over the 5.5 minute test. -
#3005 by Mulletron on 03 Jun, 2016 07:35
-
I briefly touched on this a few months ago. I'm not in a position where I can experiment right now to verify because I'm in a state of flux of my own. Studying this thing for the past couple of years has me thinking that the resonant rf isn't the cause of the thrust (thousands of times better than a photon rocket), rather it's the perturbation needed. The non Newtonian motion of the matter in the cavity is the final cause. So I propose adding this. A visual:
....
Very impressive video.
When you speak of the perturbation, do you means the vibration of the cavity ? The movement of electrons in copper ? or other types of perturbations ?
I emitted the hypothesis earlier (and maybe some others before that I did not see) that the vibration could help to get periodically the resonance if the system is not perfectly calibrated. The sound in copper is around 4600 M/S. So, when a side of the frustrum moves, it takes some times before the other side is pushed or pulled. If the frustrum is not at the exact size required for good resonance, it may get good resonnance for a little period of time at each vibration. And, since the speed of light is around 65000 times the speed of the sound in copper, even if the resonance is maintained during one tenth of each vibration, it should work, with around one tenth of the thrust of an always resonnating emdrive. Of course, when Q is very high, the thrust would be less thant a tenth.
So, my hypothesis would explain that vibrations make the emdrive work, still in the theory where the resonance make the thrust
Added to the fact that the magnetrons does not make only the exact frequency, it may also help to get some resonnance when it is not perfectly collimated.
That should at the same time allow both magnetrons, and Solid state /RF Generators to work, and explain why the magnetron can not be just replaced in any build. In my hypothesis, only almost perfectly realized frustrum, would work with a non vibrating, and pure frequency generator. I remember that the Traveller told us how precise the frustrum had to be, referring to Shawyer.
Really remaining agnostic to the underlying theory behind the EmDrive with this approach, even though I've spent considerable time studying theories related to gravitomagnetism (most of my focus is with gravitomagnetism), non-reciprocity in the speed of light, non-equilibrium thermodynamics, and another approach related to the Feigel process; I'm not explicitly applying any of those to be the underlying cause of the action/reaction symmetry break. Rather I'm going on the assumption that such a spontaneous symmetry break exists inside the cavity when rf is properly applied. Assuming EmDrive does in fact "work" first (still don't know for sure), and that the thrust depends on the presence of, and motion of, matter in the cavity....I'm reasoning that adding mechanical vibrational energy to the molecules within the cavity (beyond the random thermal motion already present) may be useful.
-
#3006 by Gilbertdrive on 03 Jun, 2016 07:43
-
What referential for Kinetic Energy ?
No not exactly. Consider a cavity containing radiation at frequency F. The forces at each end of the cylinder for reflecting boundaries are 2 x (twice) the incident energy. Imagine one end is coated with a magic material that absorbs Doppler down-shifted radiation at frequency F - [cavity acceleration]. The end that absorbs radiation, dissipating it as heat, only experiences 1 x incident energy as radiation pressure force.
Consequently, one need only kick the can, nudge it a bit, for the can to begin converting electromagnetic energy into kinetic energy and heat.
It is my understanding that a conical frustrum is anisotropic with respect to dispersion and dissipation. Moreover this is similar to what occurs in photonic cooling and optomechanical oscillation.
How much? How useful is it? Surely any analysis and theory must take into account enhanced thermal dissipation of energy and momentum, especially as a result of Doppler spreading induced by acceleration.
Cavity optomechanics
http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0733
-
#3007 by Gilbertdrive on 03 Jun, 2016 08:16
-
Really remaining agnostic to the underlying theory behind the EmDrive with this approach, even though I've spent considerable time studying theories related to gravitomagnetism (most of my focus is with gravitomagnetism), non-reciprocity in the speed of light, non-equilibrium thermodynamics, and another approach related to the Feigel process; I'm not explicitly applying any of those to be the underlying cause of the action/reaction symmetry break. Rather I'm going on the assumption that such a spontaneous symmetry break exists inside the cavity when rf is properly applied. Assuming EmDrive does in fact "work" first (still don't know for sure), and that the thrust depends on the presence of, and motion of, matter in the cavity....I'm reasoning that adding mechanical vibrational energy to the molecules within the cavity (beyond the random thermal motion already present) may be useful.
I understand the idea. Even if you can not realize experiments for now, do you have a plan for your next setups ? with what matter inside ? -
#3008 by Mulletron on 03 Jun, 2016 08:55
-
I understand the idea. Even if you can not realize experiments for now, do you have a plan for your next setups ? with what matter inside ?
A big honking LIPO battery would be nice, and a DC powered solid state RF source would be nice. As far as the presence of matter in the cavity goes, be it a dielectric slug or atmosphere, there's not a lot of data to support its importance other than what Eagleworks provided in a couple different ways. The first being their report that the thrust was dependent on the presence of a dielectric insert. The second being their vacuum tests, which showed diminished thrust when the air was removed (but the dielectric insert remained.) Even with the lack of data from other sources to back up Eaglework's claim, it shouldn't be discounted. I'm not going to.
The other thing about matter being present in the cavity, is that it opens up a lot of possibilities related to light matter interactions, one such interaction being the slowing of light while in a medium. Photons in vacuum travel at c, but within matter it's <c. If light is traveling <c, one can define a rest frame (and mass) for those photons (using the quasiparticle model). I think we get hung up too much on the fact that photons are massless and always travel at c. It's true, but that's in vacuum. In waveguide, or a resonator, or inside matter, they aren't massless and don't travel at c. -
#3009 by frobnicat on 03 Jun, 2016 12:20
-
.../...
The other thing about matter being present in the cavity, is that it opens up a lot of possibilities related to light matter interactions, one such interaction being the slowing of light while in a medium. Photons in vacuum travel at c, but within matter it's <c. If light is traveling <c, one can define a rest frame (and mass) for those photons (using the quasiparticle model). I think we get hung up too much on the fact that photons are massless and always travel at c. It's true, but that's in vacuum. In waveguide, or a resonator, or inside matter, they aren't massless and don't travel at c.
Mulletron, nice to read you.
Comments on that "effective mass" of photons coupled with ambient matter (or ambient fields supported by surrounding matter) :
As I understand it such a system is not Lorentz invariant, the matter defines a preferred frame, I don't think that the equations governing time evolution of the "heavy photons" remain Lorentz covariant neither by using c in vacuum nor another c, but maybe I'm wrong (please correct me). Anyway, any gain in apparent momentum from such virtual mass must be accounted for by opposite momentum of supporting ambient matter : this would be a zero sum game in terms of acquired deltaV of hull of a spacecraft (and a very small delta position due to possible shift of center of energy, of necessarily limited amplitude unless the system cares to spit and abandon some mass).
As an exemple (rather analogy) in Newtonian mechanics, the "effective mass" of a solid immersed in water is higher than that due solely to intrinsic mass of the solid, because any acceleration of the solid must also accelerate some mass of surrounding water (by coupled displacement at the boundary). So in effect one experiences, for small movements on a single axis, Fme/solid=(m+madded)a, all goes as if we add an inertia and get to an effective mass or "virtual mass" of mvirtual=m+madded. If we wan't to use that added mass for propulsion purpose in deep space (where there is no privileged frame because there is no ambient matter significantly), we are obliged to have the fluid onboard. An actuated beam between the hull of the rocket and the immersed solid can transmit a bigger "thrust" to the hull (for a given acceleration of solid) that if the solid wasn't immersed, because of the apparent added mass. But when the recoiling solid reaches the opposite of the tank, either the tank is closed and the solid must stop and that cancels all initially gained momentum, or it is open to let the solid exit the hull and fly away (abandoned mass => gained deltaV). Whether the initial benefit of added momentum is lost or not will depend on surrounding fluid being contained or expelled with the solid. If fluid is being contained then this will cancel the initial apparent added momentum. If some of the fluid is expelled with the solid then the initial benefit of added momentum is kept but the expelled fluid counts as loss of propellant mass.
I know "heavy photons" and resonant EM waves are not immersed solids, but why should they behave differently ? Not only the EM drive is supposed to spit nothing (appart from waste heat infra-reds) but even if it did spit "heavy photons" those photons would be useful (above photon thrust figures) only if some mass (or energy) of what makes them heavy were ejected with them, making the EM drive no longer propellantless (or no longer above photon rocket figures). In the end, past moving the furniture inside a hull (which buy us only a shift in position, not an acquired deltaV), what gets a spacecraft its acquired deltaV can always be accounted by what momentum crosses a boundary asymptotically far from the spacecraft (ie. momentum in matter or field that is decoupled and flying away from spacecraft).
(added : blue)
-
#3010 by Monomorphic on 03 Jun, 2016 13:02
-
I am also still noticing that slight upward trend in the laser position. The only explanation I have so far is that the big end pitches down and the front up.
-
#3011 by Rodal on 03 Jun, 2016 13:46
-
.../...
The other thing about matter being present in the cavity, is that it opens up a lot of possibilities related to light matter interactions, one such interaction being the slowing of light while in a medium. Photons in vacuum travel at c, but within matter it's <c. If light is traveling <c, one can define a rest frame (and mass) for those photons (using the quasiparticle model). I think we get hung up too much on the fact that photons are massless and always travel at c. It's true, but that's in vacuum. In waveguide, or a resonator, or inside matter, they aren't massless and don't travel at c.
Mulletron, nice to read you.
Comments on that "effective mass" of photons coupled with ambient matter (or ambient fields supported by surrounding matter) :
As I understand it such a system is not Lorentz invariant, the matter defines a preferred frame, I don't think that the equations governing time evolution of the "heavy photons" remain Lorentz covariant neither by using c in vacuum nor another c, but maybe I'm wrong (please correct me). Anyway, any gain in apparent momentum from such virtual mass must be accounted for by opposite momentum of supporting ambient matter : this would be a zero sum game in terms of acquired deltaV of hull of a spacecraft (and a very small delta position due to possible shift of center of energy, of necessarily limited amplitude unless the system cares to spit and abandon some mass).
As an exemple (rather analogy) in Newtonian mechanics, the "effective mass" of a solid immersed in water is higher than that due solely to intrinsic mass of the solid, because any acceleration of the solid must also accelerate some mass of surrounding water (by coupled displacement at the boundary). So in effect one experiences, for small movements on a single axis, Fme/solid=(m+madded)a, all goes as if we add an inertia and get to an effective mass or "virtual mass" of mvirtual=m+madded. If we wan't to use that added mass for propulsion purpose in deep space (where there is no privileged frame because there is no ambient matter significantly), we are obliged to have the fluid onboard. An actuated beam between the hull of the rocket and the immersed solid can transmit a bigger "thrust" to the hull (for a given acceleration of solid) that if the solid wasn't immersed, because of the apparent added mass. But when the recoiling solid reaches the opposite of the tank, either the tank is closed and the solid must stop and that cancels all initially gained momentum, or it is open to let the solid exit the hull and fly away (abandoned mass => gained deltaV). Whether the initial benefit of added momentum is lost or not will depend on surrounding fluid being contained or expelled with the solid. If fluid is being contained then this will cancel the initial apparent added momentum. If some of the fluid is expelled with the solid then the initial benefit of added momentum is kept but the expelled fluid counts as loss of propellant mass.
...
(added : blue)
<<But when the recoiling solid reaches the opposite of the tank, either the tank is closed and the solid must stop and that cancels all initially gained momentum>> what is worse is that the center of mass never moved as a result of this, so there really was not any gained momentum for the center of mass of the system, all there was, was a reconfiguration of the positions of the geometrical arrangement of the matter surrounding the center of mass of the system. There was no momentum imparted to the center of mass of the whole system during this whole example.
Even when mass escapes the rocket, and the rocket gains momentum as a result, the center of mass of the rocket and expelled mass system never moved either, all that happened is that we concentrate our attention on the vehicle and agree to disregard the motion of the expelled propellant as no longer being part of the rocket.
For a propellant-less rocket an open system is needed: an external force field or an external medium that can be acted upon. -
#3012 by SeeShells on 03 Jun, 2016 15:09
-
I am also still noticing that slight upward trend in the laser position. The only explanation I have so far is that the big end pitches down and the front up.
I saw the same instability in my beam without a frustum attached. This was one of the reasons I went to the capture tube running up the wire (captured top and bottom) to stop any non-horizontal movements and try to negate the thermal rise of the frustum.
If there were different thrust vectors other than the center-line Be to Se I would discover them by rotating the frustum and the thrust vector into the horizontal plane to characterize.
My Bestest,
Shell -
#3013 by SeeShells on 03 Jun, 2016 15:34
-
monomorphic,
If you reroute your magnetron wires so forces can be negated to mainly the center-line of the test bed you might be able to negate any forces caused by Lorentz or thermal expansion of the wire.
Attached badly drawn pcpaint but gives you the idea.
Shell
-
#3014 by Monomorphic on 03 Jun, 2016 16:34
-
Couple of infrared videos. One during powered test and the other directly after. Can definitely see heating of the HV power leads.
-
#3015 by bmcgaffey20 on 03 Jun, 2016 18:06
-
I still think that the photons are entering a region of space-time which is either compressed or expanded that causes the photons to experience a doppler-shift affect. Because their trajectory leads them repeatedly into and out of this affected area of the frustum, there is more of them on the expanded side and less of them on the compressed side. This gives them an artificial center of gravity which is unbalanced. Thoughts anyone?
-
#3016 by Croppa on 03 Jun, 2016 18:13
-
I am also still noticing that slight upward trend in the laser position. The only explanation I have so far is that the big end pitches down and the front up.
Are you accounting for the fact that the Y values you are plotting are distances from the top of the image? The laser spot is actually moving slightly downwards on the ruler. -
#3017 by X_RaY on 03 Jun, 2016 19:17
-
I still think that the photons are entering a region of space-time which is either compressed or expanded that causes the photons to experience a doppler-shift affect. Because their trajectory leads them repeatedly into and out of this affected area of the frustum, there is more of them on the expanded side and less of them on the compressed side. This gives them an artificial center of gravity which is unbalanced. Thoughts anyone?
If so why there are modes with higher energy density near the small base?
EDIT
Your description sounds like an explanation based on the pressure of the photon gas. We had discussions about it several times in these threads. Standard theory predict that the center of mass doesn't change in this regard, but you are very welcome to explain your ideas in detail if there is more than just a feeling.
-
#3018 by SteveD on 03 Jun, 2016 21:26
-
Powered Test 03: Same "reverse" anomalous force after retooling and making sure the HVAC is off. Raw data attached.
So what am I seeing here? About a third of that looks like the natural oscillation of the beam. Was resonance lost at that time? What about the rest of this. It looks like it moves in one direction, then in another, for no net change in position. Can you break this up into apparent thirds and determine resonant characteristics for each section of the graph? -
#3019 by Monomorphic on 03 Jun, 2016 21:41
-
So what am I seeing here? About a third of that looks like the natural oscillation of the beam. Was resonance lost at that time? What about the rest of this. It looks like it moves in one direction, then in another, for no net change in position. Can you break this up into apparent thirds and determine resonant characteristics for each section of the graph?
This graph shows power on and off. The frustum moves the torsional pendulum and the laser moves either left or right, depending on the direction of anomalous force. Right for reverse (which is up in the graph) or left for forward movement (down in the graph).
