-
#3020 by SeeShells on 03 Jun, 2016 22:53
-
Monomorphic,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).
Does this graph show the time delay before the magnetron produces RF which is about 4-5 seconds or is the start point the RF generation part?
Shell -
#3021 by Monomorphic on 03 Jun, 2016 23:17
-
Monomorphic,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).
Does this graph show the time delay before the magnetron produces RF which is about 4-5 seconds or is the start point the RF generation part?
Shell
No, it does not. Four seconds is a fairly small increment over 5.5 minutes. It looks to me that the beam begins to move immediately with power on, slightly before RF is shown on the spectrum analyser, but then there is what looks like an increase in anomalous force at the time I was expecting maximum resonance.
-
#3022 by SteveD on 04 Jun, 2016 00:08
-
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).
Thanks. Good work and a, at first blush, surprisingly clear result. Any idea how much force is being generated? -
#3023 by mwvp on 04 Jun, 2016 00:13
-
What referential for Kinetic Energy ?
...
Consequently, one need only kick the can, nudge it a bit, for the can to begin converting electromagnetic energy into kinetic energy and heat.
...
Referential? Not sure what you mean. If I'm in a rocket, at whatever velocity relative to whomever, and throw out a marker beacon, then "burn" or expend a joule of energy to accelerate myself at some transfer efficiency, then I might, using my mass, say I've accelerated to some velocity relative to the marker I've deployed before the burn.
I never really followed the conservation disputes here too closely, other than get annoyed over specifying N/kw rather than specific impulse or something less ambiguous once. It's nit-picking over red-herrings to no good end.
So I won't. Perhaps I missed it a long ways back, but a conversation over transfer efficiency is worthwhile. Although non-recycling vs. recycled photon rockets have been already discussed. -
#3024 by RERT on 04 Jun, 2016 11:52
-
Monomorphic -
Congrats on the great data! One question: the .xls files you posted show discontinuities in x-position from frame to frame at a number of points. I see that you have corrected these in your plots, effectively putting in a gap in time as well as x-position, smoothing the curves.
Can I ask how that's done, and whether you could post the corrected xls files so that I (and maybe others) could do some analysis on the data?
On a slightly different topic, are you planning calibration runs or some other means to assess the absolute value of the anomalous force?
Thanks,
R. -
#3025 by Mulletron on 04 Jun, 2016 11:57
-
.../...
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)
I'm okay with losing Lorentz invariance. It's not really a catastrophe. Locally we have a preferred frame and globally everything is fine. That reminds me of a really good article about this http://backreaction.blogspot.it/2016/05/dear-dr-b-if-photons-have-mass-would.html?m=1
I agree with you about massive photons ending in a zero sum momentum game. As I was remaining "theory agnostic" I only remarked about photon effective mass, and not the magic that happens next, which ultimately leads to thrust. I have some ideas about the magic step in the middle which I'll post next, along with a video. -
#3026 by frobnicat on 04 Jun, 2016 12:15
-
What referential for Kinetic Energy ?
...
Consequently, one need only kick the can, nudge it a bit, for the can to begin converting electromagnetic energy into kinetic energy and heat.
...
Referential? Not sure what you mean. If I'm in a rocket, at whatever velocity relative to whomever, and throw out a marker beacon, then "burn" or expend a joule of energy to accelerate myself at some transfer efficiency, then I might, using my mass, say I've accelerated to some velocity relative to the marker I've deployed before the burn.
I never really followed the conservation disputes here too closely, other than get annoyed over specifying N/kw rather than specific impulse or something less ambiguous once. It's nit-picking over red-herrings to no good end.
So I won't. Perhaps I missed it a long ways back, but a conversation over transfer efficiency is worthwhile. Although non-recycling vs. recycled photon rockets have been already discussed.
Referential as to define velocity to equal Power=Force×Velocity. Also 'gained kinetic energy' is ill defined, you are confusing force with acceleration. A thrusting system at constant velocity gains or loses no kinetic energy and yet it can generate or receive some power with respect to another force (thrust working against an aerodynamic drag at constant velocity for instance). So speaking of converting electric energy to gained kinetic energy is meaningless really.
And what's wrong with N/W ? This is quite unambiguous, this is the natural unit for photon rockets, this is also applicable to all action/reaction schemes when considering the spent energy flow equivalent to the spent mass flow if considering propellantless schemes with propellant based propulsion on same terms (accounting all the flows that are spent in terms of W). Would you prefer kW of gained kinetic energy per kW of spent RF power ? But again, gained kinetic energy is ill defined... On the other hand, Isp (by weight, unit of seconds) uses g0 implicitly, this is not the most universal of units, and it relates (proportionately to g0) to ejection velocity in m/s, and that is exactly the inverse of N/W. So I really don't understand why you would prefer Isp over N/W, this is basically the same thing.
Recycled photon rocket ? I don't know of "recycled photon rocket", the photonic laser thruster scheme is a beamed momentum system, it exchanges force between two well defined rigid bodies having a well defined velocity relative to one another. This is nothing like a rocket, this is just a high tech "actuator" attaching 2 vessels. Photonic laser thruster has nothing to tell us about a self powered single spacecraft accelerating alone in deep space. Rocket is all about ejecting momentum, and by definition what is ejected is not to be "recycled".
-
#3027 by Mulletron on 04 Jun, 2016 13:24
-
Assuming it is true that a photon can have an effective non-invariant mass, be it as a quasiparticle inside of a medium, or confined to a waveguide with a group velocity <c, or confined to a counter propagating standing wave in a resonator. What I have is a small amount of mass, which is capable of being accelerated. Logically that tells me that I should be able to produce a gravitomagnetic field (however weak) in the same way that a moving electric charge produces a magnetic field. That's no new revelation other than a photon can possibly made useful for such a purpose.
Now I have another kind of mass in the cavity (the air and dielectric slug). What I'm getting at is that the relativistic periodic motion of the confined photons could be producing a weak gravitomagnetic field and that the changing gravitomagnetic field in turn induces a periodic gravitational field. This is no new revelation either. It's called gravitational induction.
https://arxiv.org/abs/0803.0390
https://en.m.wikiversity.org/wiki/Gravitational_induction
This has really been bugging me. Here's where I think it gets weird...this induced AC gravitational field. It obviously isn't strong enough to be responsible for the thrust alone, but it may be enough to perturb the natural equations of motion for individual atoms (or parts of atoms) in the cavity, and collectively the stuff in the cavity is actually making EMDrive move.
This AC gravitational field (gEMF) isn't equal and opposite. They have different values and opposite polarities. It doesn't trace equally above and below zero if you graphed it over time. At least I don't think it would be. I can't prove it. All this is based on the idea that since the Maxwell-Faraday equation for EM and GEM are the same, they should naturally follow the same rules. In the following video, you'll see where an induced electric field doesn't obey Kirchhoff's 2nd rule but it does obey Faraday's Law. He demonstrated this in another video in posted a few months ago. See scope trace at the end but think gravitational potential instead of electrical http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1492398#msg1492398
In EMDrive, I see analogous current loops and changing magnetic flux so I'm wondering if this lesson by Walter Lewin can help with understanding this thing.
-
#3028 by Monomorphic on 04 Jun, 2016 13:25
-
Any idea how much force is being generated?
No idea. I haven't done the math yet. I was hoping my wireless laser switch would arrive before I go through the trouble so I'm not duplicating my efforts. Once I move the laser, the calculations have to be redone. -
#3029 by bmcgaffey20 on 04 Jun, 2016 14:50
-
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.
I have no real educations, im not qualified to explain my ideas in detail or even really to explain them at all. Its just a hunch. The energy density is greater on the compressed side because this is where the photons trajectory is compressed and it takes longer for them to travel through the same area of space time, thus there is more of them in the same area of space. Its like having a beach ball with a sand pouch in it.... Turn the ball upsidedown, tilt it slightly to the side, and watch it roll until its center of gravity evens out. This is the affect the emdrive sees, but since the photons center of gravity only exists in this cavity which, the center of gravity shifts to the compressed side of the frustum perpetually, the ball rolls forever until the power is removed. -
#3030 by keithpickering on 04 Jun, 2016 16:17
-
Big News.
Tweet today from Mike McCullouch:
"Expt using cylindrical #emdrive w/ dielectric at one end. #MiHsC predicts 2.2 mN thrust (estimate). Observd = 2.4 mN"
And he cites this link:
http://www.slideshare.net/BrianKraft2/investigation-of-anomalous-thrust-from-a-partially-loaded-resonant-cavity?ref=https://twitter.com/i/cards/tfw/v1/739086845032697856?cardname=player&earned=true&lang=en&card_height=130 -
#3031 by keithpickering on 04 Jun, 2016 16:30
-
I'm also going to crow here a bit, since I suggested a similar idea (without realizing what Zeller & Kraft were up to months ago) here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1522784#msg1522784 -
#3032 by keithpickering on 04 Jun, 2016 16:39
-
Big News.
Tweet today from Mike McCullouch:
"Expt using cylindrical #emdrive w/ dielectric at one end. #MiHsC predicts 2.2 mN thrust (estimate). Observd = 2.4 mN"
And he cites this link:
http://www.slideshare.net/BrianKraft2/investigation-of-anomalous-thrust-from-a-partially-loaded-resonant-cavity?ref=https://twitter.com/i/cards/tfw/v1/739086845032697856?cardname=player&earned=true&lang=en&card_height=130
Zeller & Kraft also report that their setup has an experimental error of ±0.5 mN. So the result of 2.4 ±0.5 mN contains McCullouch's MiHsC estimate of 2.2 mN within the error bars. -
#3033 by X_RaY on 04 Jun, 2016 18:06
-
The region(s) of highest energy density depends on the actual used wave mode (frequency and shape of a cavity resonator). Please see Pics below.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.
I have no real educations, im not qualified to explain my ideas in detail or even really to explain them at all. Its just a hunch. The energy density is greater on the compressed side because this is where the photons trajectory is compressed and it takes longer for them to travel through the same area of space time, thus there is more of them in the same area of space. Its like having a beach ball with a sand pouch in it.... Turn the ball upsidedown, tilt it slightly to the side, and watch it roll until its center of gravity evens out. This is the affect the emdrive sees, but since the photons center of gravity only exists in this cavity which, the center of gravity shifts to the compressed side of the frustum perpetually, the ball rolls forever until the power is removed.
Can´t comment your answer much.
The changing of the wavelength along the central axis in a frustum is well defined as propagation constant which is a complex quantity:
γ=α+iβ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagation_constant
I really dont see how this can change the center of mass in the way you describe, at least based on standard equations.
Maybe you are interested in related work of Dr.Rodal "CONSERVATION OF RELATIVISTIC MOMENTUM FOR REACTION-LESS PROPULSION THROUGH VARIABLE INERTIAL MASS"
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1486645#msg1486645
and the following posts in this regard.
-
#3034 by Tellmeagain on 04 Jun, 2016 18:22
-
Big News.
Tweet today from Mike McCullouch:
"Expt using cylindrical #emdrive w/ dielectric at one end. #MiHsC predicts 2.2 mN thrust (estimate). Observd = 2.4 mN"
And he cites this link:
http://www.slideshare.net/BrianKraft2/investigation-of-anomalous-thrust-from-a-partially-loaded-resonant-cavity?ref=https://twitter.com/i/cards/tfw/v1/739086845032697856?cardname=player&earned=true&lang=en&card_height=130
Dr. McCullouch did not know that Zellerium thought the original 2mN force in his paper you have cited was confounded by Lorentz force. See this post for detail,
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1524137#msg1524137 -
#3035 by Mulletron on 04 Jun, 2016 19:10
-
.../...
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).
....
Wait, wouldn't Lorentz's interpretation of the Fizeau water experiment, and later Einstein's velocity addition formula apply here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment#Lorentz.27s_interpretation -
#3036 by Monomorphic on 04 Jun, 2016 22:15
-
Oil dampening: Check
-
#3037 by mwvp on 05 Jun, 2016 01:38
-
Referential? Not sure what you mean. If I'm in a rocket, at whatever velocity relative to whomever, and throw out a marker beacon, then "burn" or expend a joule of energy to accelerate myself at some transfer efficiency, then I might, using my mass, say I've accelerated to some velocity relative to the marker I've deployed before the burn.
I never really followed the conservation disputes here too closely, other than get annoyed over specifying N/kw rather than specific impulse or something less ambiguous once. It's nit-picking over red-herrings to no good end.
So I won't. Perhaps I missed it a long ways back, but a conversation over transfer efficiency is worthwhile. Although non-recycling vs. recycled photon rockets have been already discussed.
Referential as to define velocity to equal Power=Force×Velocity. Also 'gained kinetic energy' is ill defined, you are confusing force with acceleration. A thrusting system at constant velocity gains or loses no kinetic energy and yet it can generate or receive some power with respect to another force (thrust working against an aerodynamic drag at constant velocity for instance). So speaking of converting electric energy to gained kinetic energy is meaningless really.
<sigh>, ok, ok. True in the case of maintaining constant velocity against drag, or hovering against gravity, no velocity increase of the vehicle although efficient (say, 90%) propulsion work may be done.And what's wrong with N/W ? This is quite unambiguous, this is the natural unit for photon rockets, this is also applicable to all action/reaction schemes when considering the spent energy flow equivalent to the spent mass flow if considering propellantless schemes with propellant based propulsion on same terms (accounting all the flows that are spent in terms of W). Would you prefer kW of gained kinetic energy per kW of spent RF power ? But again, gained kinetic energy is ill defined... On the other hand, Isp (by weight, unit of seconds) uses g0 implicitly, this is not the most universal of units, and it relates (proportionately to g0) to ejection velocity in m/s, and that is exactly the inverse of N/W. So I really don't understand why you would prefer Isp over N/W, this is basically the same thing.
After reviewing the units for Isp, I conclude you're right. No contest.
Always helps to review what you think you know.Recycled photon rocket ? I don't know of "recycled photon rocket", the photonic laser thruster scheme is a beamed momentum system, it exchanges force between two well defined rigid bodies having a well defined velocity relative to one another. This is nothing like a rocket, this is just a high tech "actuator" attaching 2 vessels. Photonic laser thruster has nothing to tell us about a self powered single spacecraft accelerating alone in deep space. Rocket is all about ejecting momentum, and by definition what is ejected is not to be "recycled".
I guess it depends on how you want to define "rocket", whether you want to specify massive particles, or Doppler shift of mass-less relativistic bosons, and whether the photons are generated or reflected.
-
#3038 by Monomorphic on 05 Jun, 2016 17:31
-
Lots of tying up loose ends. So as not to inconvenience my better half any further - I built a stand out of scrap wood for the spectrum analyser monitor and HD camera. I can now get all vehicles back in the garage and continue testing.
-
#3039 by SeeShells on 05 Jun, 2016 21:42
-
Lots of tying up loose ends. So as not to inconvenience my better half any further - I built a stand out of scrap wood for the spectrum analyser monitor and HD camera. I can now get all vehicles back in the garage and continue testing.
I see 5 modes of transportation.
Good to see you're keeping your better half happy. Also working up to being a very good build.
Shell
