-
#3080 by Monomorphic on 09 Jun, 2016 12:39
-
Monomorphic, X_Ray---A question for you (if you would be so kind): am still not sure about geometry for given shapes of CRCs: Monomorphic you indicated that a great number of triangles were required to create the 1st below. ?: how do you know the geometry for the cavity is "correct"? I recognize that the "design" appears to be that of 2nd and 3rd below, but their (Cannae's) papers and patents display a somewhat different geometry 4th below. While I understand that Cannae purports to "create" a "bias" in the QV, I don't understand how this might be achieved by geometries that are nearly 100% symmetrical. Would you please comment and if possible perform a sim of shape #4. I can calculate dimensions if you need them. (Additionally, the images 1-3 do not appear to differ from RC's associated with a particle accelerators)! Flummoxed FL
I had to guess at the dimensions for a lot of the model as precise measurements are not available. I'm working on a new version of this sim that incorporates the PTFE insert. My initial FEKO results didn't get interesting until around 6Ghz - while their frequency is listed as 1.047Ghz (for superconducting). Does anyone know what frequency they use for non-superconducting?
As for the symmetry, Dr. Rodal addressed this a few pages back. It's not symmetric when the PTFE insert is taken into account - along with the longer arm on one side. -
#3081 by Mulletron on 09 Jun, 2016 17:27
-
Haven't we talked about "jerk" before somewhere? I remember this being discussed somewhere. The only thing I can find on nsf is this and it's ancient. Don't see anything on the other forum or talk-polywell either, hmmm...
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13020.msg657468#msg657468
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerk_(physics) -
#3082 by Rodal on 09 Jun, 2016 18:17
-
In this post https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1546438#msg1546438, I show that
* Juan Yang
* Alexander Trunev
* Guido Fetta
papers incorrectly define the force on the EM Drive and this is the reason why they arrive at the result that an EM Drive can self accelerate its center of mass, in contradiction with Maxwell's equations or Yang-Mills' equations that are known to satisfy conservation of momentum (hence their results contradict conservation of momentum in the absence of external forces).
The mistake they make is rather simple: it would be like defining the force in a vibrating system (floating in space) of two masses connected by a spring as being due only to the spring force or as being due only to the acceleration force (they would compute a force even though the center of mass never accelerates). If somebody would use MEEP for example, or COMSOL, and calculate the force also only on the basis of one variable in the equations of motion (for example only calculating the stress) one would also arrive at similarly absurd results for the transient RF excitation of an EM Drive.
The body force acting on the center of mass of an EM Drive must take into account ALL terms in the equations of motion. If these authors would properly define the force, they would get zero body force acting on the center of mass, under Maxwell's or Yang-Mills equations unless an external force is applied.
Their main error is incorrectly defining the force. The force has to be correctly defined to arrive at correct results. -
#3083 by SeeShells on 09 Jun, 2016 22:06
-
In this post https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1546438#msg1546438, I show that
* Juan Yang
* Alexander Trunev
* Guido Fetta
papers incorrectly define the force on the EM Drive and this is the reason why they arrive at the result that an EM Drive can self accelerate its center of mass, in contradiction with Maxwell's equations or Yang-Mills' equations that are known to satisfy conservation of momentum (hence their results contradict conservation of momentum in the absence of external forces).
The mistake they make is rather simple: it would be like defining the force in a vibrating system (floating in space) of two masses connected by a spring as being due only to the spring force or as being due only to the acceleration force (they would compute a force even though the center of mass never accelerates). If somebody would use MEEP for example, or COMSOL, and calculate the force also only on the basis of one variable in the equations of motion (for example only calculating the stress) one would also arrive at similarly absurd results for the transient RF excitation of an EM Drive.
The body force acting on the center of mass of an EM Drive must take into account ALL terms in the equations of motion. If these authors would properly define the force, they would get zero body force acting on the center of mass, under Maxwell's or Yang-Mills equations unless an external force is applied.
Their main error is incorrectly defining the force. The force has to be correctly defined to arrive at correct results.
EXCELLENT!
You have been very busy Dr. Rodal.
This is a beautiful summary and conclusion. I'll be reading it again...
Shell
-
#3084 by tchernik on 09 Jun, 2016 22:56
-
Interesting result by Dr. Rodal. And if I understand it well, this means there is no force that can be predicted from Maxwell's equations or Yang-Mills' equations.
Basically, if there is any actual measurable force greater than a photon rocket here, its explanation must be actual new physics.
I guess this emphasizes the burden of proof on the experiments then. -
#3085 by SeeShells on 09 Jun, 2016 23:47
-
Interesting result by Dr. Rodal. And if I understand it well, this means there is no force that can be predicted from Maxwell's equations or Yang-Mills' equations.
Yes very much so.
Basically, if there is any actual measurable force greater than a photon rocket here, its explanation must be actual new physics.
I guess this emphasizes the burden of proof on the experiments then.
As to what new physics I can't say, or if it's something we missed in the old physics, which IMHO would be as monumental... as even detailed as Dr. Rodal has referenced. No matter what is found out, it has been a heck of a ride to discover the why.
It would be great to have a perfect theory as to the why, building this would be easier we have so little to go from. I reflect back just a year ago and it might not seem like it but we have made great progress.
Shell -
#3086 by Rodal on 10 Jun, 2016 00:25
-
Interesting result by Dr. Rodal. And if I understand it well, this means there is no force that can be predicted from Maxwell's equations or Yang-Mills' equations.
Excellent !
Basically, if there is any actual measurable force greater than a photon rocket here, its explanation must be actual new physics.
I guess this emphasizes the burden of proof on the experiments then.
Your understanding of the post is correct. -
#3087 by Mulletron on 10 Jun, 2016 00:52
-
Lots to follow up on here.
http://copaseticflow.blogspot.it/2013/05/gravitomagnetism-and-antigravity-for.html?m=1QuoteHe referenced an article from Schiff and Barnhill, (yes, the textbook author Schiff), that predicted the interior of a conducting cylinder in the presence of a gravitational field wouldn't have zero electric field. It would actually have an electric field that produced an upward force on an electron exactly equal to the gravitational force that acts downward on the electron.
Quote2. Schiff and Barnhills' work is often referenced in experiments and theories about whether a positron, (an anti-electron), will fall down or up. If the positron does fall down, S & Bs' work implies that it will fall down a metallic cylinder twice as fast with twice the force of gravity while an electron will merely float in place.
-
#3088 by Eusa on 10 Jun, 2016 05:47
-
In fact, only one conventional explanation remains: a gravity, a modified energy field, that accelerates space to diminish just like with a real mass. Still, if a mass concentrate can move with a drive without increased inertia for a drive, there seem to exist an order for new physics.Interesting result by Dr. Rodal. And if I understand it well, this means there is no force that can be predicted from Maxwell's equations or Yang-Mills' equations.
Excellent !
Basically, if there is any actual measurable force greater than a photon rocket here, its explanation must be actual new physics.
I guess this emphasizes the burden of proof on the experiments then.
Your understanding of the post is correct. -
#3089 by Mulletron on 10 Jun, 2016 06:15
-
Haven't we talked about "jerk" before somewhere? I remember this being discussed somewhere. The only thing I can find on nsf is this and it's ancient. Don't see anything on the other forum or talk-polywell either, hmmm...
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13020.msg657468#msg657468
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerk_(physics)
Aha! I read it in Project Greenglow.
-
#3090 by Robotbeat on 10 Jun, 2016 06:59
-
Interesting result by Dr. Rodal. And if I understand it well, this means there is no force that can be predicted from Maxwell's equations or Yang-Mills' equations.
I don't want to say "I told you so," but... I've been saying this from the beginning. Current physics doesn't let this happen, so either the effect isn't real or new physics of some sort must be invoked. The latter is just fine, PROVIDED the experimental evidence is conclusive (and replicable and transparent, etc).
Basically, if there is any actual measurable force greater than a photon rocket here, its explanation must be actual new physics.
I guess this emphasizes the burden of proof on the experiments then. -
#3091 by Eusa on 10 Jun, 2016 07:58
-
Maybe I made a little progress with my theory concerning with the emDrive effect.
It seem to be possible that a resonant cavity form a perfect magnetic plasma where all the magnetic poles are situated in perfect orthogonal lattice so that all (electro-)magnetic spectra can effect an orientated force targeting to the structure of electric current, to the shell of the cavity (the waveguide effect). That could be considered as one-directional gravity.
With the hypothesis there is maybe problem when cavity accelerates and moves in respect to the gravity field. The drive can be as gravity pendulum; the altered wavelength in acceleration might make thrust-counterthrust -loop. That could be handled with changing microwave radiation frequency at the same rate with the loop.
That's all the speculation with no tests of my own.
-
#3092 by Mulletron on 10 Jun, 2016 09:14
-
IRT this: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1546803#msg1546803
I'm not comfortable with any scheme in which the emission of radiation (be it electromagnetic or gravitational) is invoked as a means to conserve momentum, as we all know such a scheme would do no better than a photon rocket. Electromagnetic radiation can't escape the cavity anyway. It seems like any gravitational wave production (which can escape the cavity) would do no better than a photon rocket. So for now I don't think the radiation of anything has to do with the thrust. I'm thinking of a different mechanism which uses the principle of superposition of gravitational fields on a particle inside the cavity, building on an earlier post about the crazy notion of inducing a gravitational field from a changing gravitomagnetic field. Since the equations of GEM are a linear approximation to GR, superposition should apply.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/152.mf1i.spring02/GravField.htm
-
#3093 by Rodal on 10 Jun, 2016 12:58
-
More reports assessed as "good" from the Hackaday team in Aachen Germany. Noteworthy is that these results that are being assessed as "good" have been obtained with a polymer inserted asymmetrically inside the tapered cavity. Hackaday reports much better results using a polymer insert than when running an empty cavity. This is in agreement with NASA's reports reporting much more significant results when using a polymer insert placed asymmetrically in the cavity. Also noteworthy is that Paul Kocyla's results are obtained in a rotational set-up and powered with batteries (not using any power cables from stationary power sources):
https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/emdriveQuote from: Paul KocylaJamie Sibley performed an analysis of our recent #EMDrive data with the improved floating platfom and found a clear confirmation for thrust. The best news today
The EMDrive must fly to space to test if the thrust is really coming from the EMDrive itself and not from parasitic sources.
Th data with the improved floating platfom and found a clear confirmation for thrust. The best news today
https://hackaday.io/project/5596-em-drive/log/39469-new-testsQuote from: Paul Kocylaimproved the floating platform by making the magnetic suspension weaker and made new#EMDrive tests:
This looks quite good. The tests with the cavity reversed show peaks in the opposite direction, but they are more narrow. -
#3094 by Rodal on 10 Jun, 2016 13:15
-
Interesting post by pomezi at Reddit EM Drive informing about upcoming 52nd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference July 26-27 2016 and Dr. White and Dr. Tajmar's role:Quote
The details of the conference are here. https://aiaa-mpe16.abstractcentral.com/itin.jsp.
It does not seem that the EmDrive is actually on the list of concepts being presented. This is unlike the last two years. Dr. Tajmar delivered an Emdrive paper in 2015 (http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2015-4083) and Eagleworks did a paper in 2014 (http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2014-4029).
It is also noteworthy that Dr. Harold White of Eagleworks is chairing a conference on "Advanced EP Concepts" on July 27, 2016 in the morning. All the presentations in that session appear to be plasma based.
Interestingly, speculative or futuristic concepts are being presented at the conference. There is a session on July 26, 2016 titled: "Future Flight Propulsion Systems I" where a professor in engineering at the University of Connecticut, Brice Cassenti, discusses warp drive and Dr. Tajmar from the University of Dresden delivers a presentation on gravity manipulation based on "Highly-Polarized Electrets." On July 27, 2016, Dr. Tajmar chairs the session titled "Future Flight Propulsion Systems II". During this session, there is a presentation on Mach-Effect Thrusters by Dr. Tajmar and something called a "RAMA Device" by Hector Brito. However, nothing like the EmDrive is presented.
So, why is Dr. Harold White chairing the session related to plasma based propulsion? Why is Dr. Tajmar delivering a presentation on Mach Effect thrusters, but not the EmDrive?
5 Papers being presented by Martin Tajmar:
Fusion and Alternative Nuclear Concepts II NFF-03 Technical Paper 52nd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference 26-Jul-16 9:30 AM 12:00 PM 150 G Co-Chair: Bryan Palaszewski, [email protected], NASA Glenn Research Center;Chair: Mitchell Rodriguez, [email protected], Novel Inertial Electrostatic Confinement Fusion with Buckyball Shaped Grids 10:00 AM 10:30 AM M. Tajmar*; J. Wulfkuehler
Future Flight Propulsion Systems I NFF-05 Technical Paper 52nd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference 26-Jul-16 7:00 PM 8:30 PM 150 G Co-Chair: Brice Cassenti, [email protected], University of Connecticut;Chair: Bryan Palaszewski, [email protected], NASA Glenn Research Center Testing the Possibility of Weight Changes in Highly-Polarized Electrets 8:00 PM 8:30 PM M. Tajmar*; T. Schreiber Sessioned 3
Pulsed Plasma Thruster EP-19 Technical Paper 52nd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference 26-Jul-16 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 250 E Co-Chair: Joe Cardin, [email protected], VACCO;Chair: Rei Kawashima, [email protected], The University of Tokyo Development and Testing of Electric Propulsion Systems at TU Dresden 5:00 PM 5:30 PM M. Tajmar*; D. Bock; F. Nürmberger; C. Drobny; P. Laufer Sessioned 6
Future Flight Propulsion Systems II NFF-06 Technical Paper 52nd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference 27-Jul-16 9:30 AM 12:00 PM 150 G Chair: Brice Cassenti, [email protected], University of Connecticut;Co-Chair: Martin Tajmar, [email protected], Dresden University of Technology First Measurements of a 0.6 Gigawatt Superconducting Gravity-Impulse-Generator 10:00 AM 10:30 AM I. Lörincz*; M. Tajmar Sessioned 2
"Design and First Measurements of a Superconducting Gravity-Impulse-Generator, Istvan Lorincz, Martin Tajmar"
DOWNLOAD LINK (Do NOT click unless you want to download this file !!! ): https://tu-dresden.de/die_tu_dresden/fakultaeten/fakultaet_maschinenwesen/ilr/rfs/forschung/folder.2007-08-21.5231434330/ag_raumfahrtantriebe/JPC%20-%20Design%20and%20First%20Measurements%20of%20a%20Superconducting%20Gravity-Impulse-Generator.pdf
Future Flight Propulsion Systems II NFF-06 Technical Paper 52nd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference 27-Jul-16 9:30 AM 12:00 PM 150 G Chair: Brice Cassenti, [email protected], University of Connecticut;Co-Chair: Martin Tajmar, [email protected], Dresden University of Technology Characterization of a Mach-Effect-Thruster with a Nano-Newton Thrust Balance and Onboard Class-D Amplifiers 10:30 AM 11:00 AM M. Tajmar*; W. Stark; J. Heisig Sessioned 3
Presentations being co-chaired by Martin Tajmar:
Future Flight Propulsion Systems II NFF-06 Technical Paper 52nd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference 27-Jul-16 9:30 AM 12:00 PM 150 G Chair: Brice Cassenti, [email protected], University of Connecticut;Co-Chair: Martin Tajmar, [email protected], Dresden University of Technology Anomalous Electromagnetically Induced Propulsion Effects on Self-contained “RAMA” Devices 9:30 AM 10:00 AM H. H. Brito*; R. De Alessandro; M. A. Brito Sessioned 1
See: http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2012-3862
Future Flight Propulsion Systems II NFF-06 Technical Paper 52nd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference 27-Jul-16 9:30 AM 12:00 PM 150 G Chair: Brice Cassenti, [email protected], University of Connecticut;Co-Chair: Martin Tajmar, [email protected], Dresden University of Technology Propulsion Estimates for High Energy Lunar Missions Using Future Propellants 11:00 AM 11:30 AM B. A. Palaszewski*; G. Bennett Sessioned 4
Presentations being chaired by Harold White:
Advanced EP Concepts EP-23 Technical Paper 52nd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference 27-Jul-16 9:30 AM 12:00 PM 250 D Co-Chair: Jonathan Kolbeck, [email protected], ;Chair: Harold (Sonny) White, [email protected], NASA-Johnson Space Center Antenna Coupling and Thrust Measurements in a Direct Wave-Drive Thruster 9:30 AM 10:00 AM M. S. Feldman*; E. Choueiri Sessioned 1
Advanced EP Concepts EP-23 Technical Paper 52nd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference 27-Jul-16 9:30 AM 12:00 PM 250 D Co-Chair: Jonathan Kolbeck, [email protected], ;Chair: Harold (Sonny) White, [email protected], NASA-Johnson Space Center Experimental Performance Analysis of the BUSTLab Microwave Electrothermal Thruster 10:00 AM 10:30 AM M. S. Yildiz*; M. Celik Sessioned 2
Advanced EP Concepts EP-23 Technical Paper 52nd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference 27-Jul-16 9:30 AM 12:00 PM 250 D Co-Chair: Jonathan Kolbeck, [email protected], ;Chair: Harold (Sonny) White, [email protected], NASA-Johnson Space Center High Density Electron Cyclotron Resonance Propulsion 10:30 AM 11:00 AM A. I. Reisz*; J. A. Bossard; H. Guendel Sessioned 3
Advanced EP Concepts EP-23 Technical Paper 52nd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference 27-Jul-16 9:30 AM 12:00 PM 250 D Co-Chair: Jonathan Kolbeck, [email protected], ;Chair: Harold (Sonny) White, [email protected], NASA-Johnson Space Center Advances in Duration Testing of the VASIMR® VX-200SS™ System 11:00 AM 11:30 AM J. P. Squire*; M. D. Carter; F. R. Chang Diaz; L. Dean; M. Giambusso; J. Castro; J. Del Valle Sessioned 4
Advanced EP Concepts EP-23 Technical Paper 52nd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference 27-Jul-16 9:30 AM 12:00 PM 250 D Co-Chair: Jonathan Kolbeck, [email protected], ;Chair: Harold (Sonny) White, [email protected], NASA-Johnson Space Center Preliminary Investigation of an External Discharge Plasma Thruster 11:30 AM 12:00 PM B. Karadag*; S. Cho; Y. Oshio; I. Funaki; K. Komurasaki Sessioned 5
-
#3095 by gargoyle99 on 10 Jun, 2016 15:35
-
Interesting result by Dr. Rodal. And if I understand it well, this means there is no force that can be predicted from Maxwell's equations or Yang-Mills' equations.
Basically, if there is any actual measurable force greater than a photon rocket here, its explanation must be actual new physics.
I guess this emphasizes the burden of proof on the experiments then.
No force can be predicted if the system is closed. Another possibility is the system is not closed (i.e. it interacts with an external field). An open system makes it much easier to reconcile with standard physics like conservation of momentum, but won't necessarily make the drive not useful for space travel. For example, the external field it interacts with could be gravity or the planetary magnetic field and either of those could have useful and far reaching consequences.
-
#3096 by tchernik on 10 Jun, 2016 16:26
-
Dr. Tajmar is my hero. He is taking over all the wild claims you can find about anomalous thrust devices, and putting them to the test.
Which is extremely good, don't get me wrong. It's only that so few people in academia seem to have the authority, means and interest to do such replications, that Tajmar's lab own work still stands as an oddity, despite the several claims done through recent years deserving further investigation and receiving very little.
Of particular interest to me is that he is actually testing Mach effect devices (which have a spot in the heart of most people interested in this topic of anomalous forces).
Also, that he is looking at the several "superconductive force impulse" family of devices proposed by people like E. Podkletnov and C. Poher.
I have been looking at these results with interest for years, ever since the failed replication of E. Podkletnov "gravity shielding disc" at NASA, and Tajmar's own findings (later recanted) of gravitomagnetic effects on rotating superconductors.
Seems the good doctor hasn't stopped researching and looking for answers in similar reports to his own recanted findings. Claude Poher's in particular, are another oddity, because he has hundreds of experiments with electrical discharges done on superconducting disks made of layers of conductive and superconductive materials, with seemingly consistent reports of force happening across these many experiments.
Even if his theories for explaining the effect are "out of this world" and not really compatible with any standard theories, the consistency of his presumed results is really remarkable.
He himself is a remarkable fellow, with a background of physics and EE, he worked in his youth on several french institutions dedicated to space exploration, and later dedicated himself to the CPAN, an institute made to study UFO reports in his native country, until his retirement.
And it's after his retirement, when he proposes a theory for explaining some anomalous results like those of E. Podkletnov, and when he starts testing these superconductive discs under strong electrical discharges. Which are now the subject of Tajmar's paper.
And he did all that on his own, only with his retirement stipend. Seems like retired engineers are also a force to be reckoned with in France.
Alas, according to Tajmar's results, the only anomalous force detected is the one that makes the devices self-destruct. But it seems they continue looking for better ways to build them and test them. -
#3097 by Rodal on 10 Jun, 2016 20:11
-
Easier said than done
In fact, only one conventional explanation remains: a gravity, a modified energy field, that accelerates space to diminish just like with a real mass. Still, if a mass concentrate can move with a drive without increased inertia for a drive, there seem to exist an order for new physics.Interesting result by Dr. Rodal. And if I understand it well, this means there is no force that can be predicted from Maxwell's equations or Yang-Mills' equations.
Excellent !
Basically, if there is any actual measurable force greater than a photon rocket here, its explanation must be actual new physics.
I guess this emphasizes the burden of proof on the experiments then.
Your understanding of the post is correct.
. General relativity is a nonlinear theory.
The Schwarzschild radius and the EM Drive
Nobody has found an exact solution even for the two-body problem in General Relativity (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-body_problem_in_general_relativity), just approximations, usually as asymptotic series expansions, for the case of the first body's mass being negligibly small compared to the second body. An exact solution to the Einstein field equations for such a case (one mass being important and the other one negligibly small) is the Schwarzschild metric, which corresponds to the external gravitational field of a stationary, uncharged, non-rotating, spherically symmetric body of mass M. It is characterized by a length scale rs, known as the Schwarzschild radius, which is defined by the formula
where G is the gravitational constant. The classical Newtonian theory of gravity is recovered in the limit as the ratio rs/r, where r is the distance to the body with negligible mass, goes to zero. In that limit, the metric returns to that defined by special relativity.
The Schwarzschild radius rs of the Earth is roughly 9 mm (3⁄8 inch); at the surface of the Earth, the corrections to Newtonian gravity are only one part in a billion. The Schwarzschild radius of the Sun is much larger, roughly 2953 meters, but at its surface, the ratio rs/r is roughly 4 parts in a million. A white dwarf star is much denser, but even here the ratio at its surface is roughly 250 parts in a million. The ratio only becomes large close to ultra-dense objects such as neutron stars (where the ratio is roughly 50%) and black holes.
Hence it is difficult to see how something significant due to General Relativity could occur in the EM Drive.
Marco Frasca paper on GR and the EM Drive
NSF user StrongGR made a valiant effort in this regard, and we had great discussions with him while he was writing this paper:
Einstein-Maxwell equations for asymmetric resonant cavities
Marco Frasca
http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.06917v1
He found a significant effect only if the EM Drive would have the small end extremely close to the apex of the cone. This is a geometry which has been forbidden by Roger Shawyer and none of the experimenters claiming an anomalous force has explored. Such a geometry (apex of a cone) would probably involve no significant field amplitude in that area for anything than extremely high frequencies.
Otherwise:Quote from: Marco FrascaThis effect appears to be really small. If we assume a cavity with r1 = 0.025 m, r2 = 0.1 m and h = 0.1 m, for a mode having N = 42.272946, k = 701.897366 m−1, α = 0 and frequency = 210.423537 GHz the given thrust is T = 5.945503835·10−22 Newton
Fernando Minotti's paper on GR and the EM Drive
Minotti used scalar tensor theory
Scalar-tensor theories and asymmetric resonant cavities
Grav. & Cosmol. 19 (2013) 201
https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.5690
where he defined the force as being due to the gradient of the gravitational potential.
Unfortunately, the weakest part of the theory used by Minotti is that there is no clear way of preventing large gravitational effects due to the magnetic field of the Earth, and such large gravitational effects run contrary to all our measurements, hence the theory leads to non-physical consequences. -
#3098 by Monomorphic on 11 Jun, 2016 01:25
-
Exciting New Data: I moved the high voltage leads to the opposte side of the torsional pendulum to see if thermal heating of the wires was causing the anomalous force - as doing so should reverse the direction of the force. To my surprise, the same anomalous force was seen with the wires moved to the opposite position!
One note: the only difference between this run and the previous, besides the reversed leads, is the addition of the oil dampening.
-
#3099 by Monomorphic on 11 Jun, 2016 01:35
-
I also received the 900Mhz wireless switch to control the laser a day early! This switch has two channels, so I can control up to two devices without having to touch the torsional pendulum. It works for 3.7V - 12V.
The EMDrive must fly to space to test if the thrust is really coming from the EMDrive itself and not from parasitic sources. 
. General relativity is a nonlinear theory.