-
#3340 by SeeShells on 28 Jun, 2016 00:11
-
Found an interesting link to a paper while browsing Mike McCulloch's site, shared by the user qraal. It may be relevant to the current discussion:
THANKS! Looking for something just like this.
https://www.academia.edu/11093756/Confinement_of_Light_Standing_Wave_Transformations_in_a_Phase-Locked_Resonator
Shell -
#3341 by FattyLumpkin on 28 Jun, 2016 03:39
-
To clarify attached is what I'm am referring to as a Mach-Lorentz force thruster. Yes ? No?
Second image is of the first but under construction?
-
#3342 by FattyLumpkin on 28 Jun, 2016 04:01
-
The question re the size of a cyclical RF cavity means a cylinder of X diameter and X length ....with the dimensions being large enough to "generate?" the cyclical type action noted in the photonic laser thruster. Assume a CLOSED cavity, frequency is 2.45 GHz, cylinder is composed of niobium or other and held a +/- temperature of liquid Helium. (superconducting).
Can a cyclical be built that would achieved this? If yes, what are the dimensions of the cylinder? Antenna , power, dielectric et al. could be addressed later?
I do recognize such a design would not create directional thrust.
-
#3343 by Stormbringer on 28 Jun, 2016 04:45
-
Just a few thoughts and a half formed question here:
I once read a few article about the premature disappearance of free neutrons where a proposed mechanism involved a discrete mirror domain of the universe into which the neutrons disappeared, a mirror, and a mirrored magnetic field provided by mirror matter trapped by gravitational interaction with normal matter. The articles and scientists involved took the whole concept pretty seriously. Here is an example article from which you can find other articles and the papers published on the topic.
http://phys.org/news/2012-06-neutrons-parallel-world.html
Question: if this mirror domain thing works for neutrons; why not other massive particles and bosons? And is there an analogous process WRT EM Drive physics? Is the EM thruster the equivalent to a mirror of the sort proposed for disappearing neutrons? Or even the reverse: a way to pluck such things from the mirror domain?
would this help explain what is observed in EM thrusters?
-
#3344 by dustinthewind on 28 Jun, 2016 08:01
-
I have my doubts about a thermal gradient induced in the frustum. I don't think there could be much of a difference in force from that. The paper below was fascinating and does suggest differences in the force of light if it changes in wavelength. This immediately made me think of the stretched wavelength at the narrow end of the frustum and if there could be an overall difference in force. I would think Maxwell's equations would take that into account when solving the system though. I think the force they mention is a force/distance and integrating it over one wavelength is F.dx=E, E=energy, is constant so I'm doubtful anything can come of it.
They claim the mass/energy of light has been theoretically discovered and is a fundamental constant. They also seem to claim that it uncovers hidden variables in quantum mechanics?
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=7498212624230893803&hl=en&as_sdt=0,48
The Fundamental Physics of
Electromagnetic Waves
Juliana H. J. Mortenson
General Resonance, LLC
USA
"3.5 The mass of light
De Broglie bemoaned the absence of “an isolated quantity of energy” with which he could
calculate the constant rest mass of light. Using the energy constant for light, it is now
possible to complete de Broglie’s calculations and determine the rest mass of a single
quantum of light. Under de Broglie’s original formulation using Einstein’s energy-mass
equivalence equation of “E = mc2”, the rest mass of light is readily determined:
..." - m = 7.372 X 10^-51 kg/oscillation
3.7 The force of light
Energy, mass and momentum are all constant and conserved for light. Using classical
mechanics, however, it is easily discerned that the force exerted by light is not constant. " -
#3345 by Rodal on 28 Jun, 2016 10:01
-
To clarify attached is what I'm am referring to as a Mach-Lorentz force thruster. Yes ? No?
Yes, you are showing pictures again of the "Lockheed Martin/ March" MLT thruster which we discussed before. There was a paper by Paul March and Andrew Palfreyman on this MLT thruster :
Second image is of the first but under construction?
The Woodward Effect: Math Modeling and Continued Experimental Verifications at 2 to 4 MHz
2006 STAIF
NSF download link: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31119.0;attach=496011
FIGURE 7. Woodward’s Mach-2MHz MLT Test Article, vxB core & March’s Test Stand.
That was 10 years ago
Since then Paul March joined NASA's Dr. Sonny White's efforts and they tested together this MLT thruster at NASA, as well as other thrusters like the one by Boeing/DARPA/Serrano, the Cannae drive and the EM Drive, all hypothesized by Dr. White as perhaps being able to operate thanks to a mutable/degradable Quantum Vacuum operating like a magnetohydrodynamics drive, which he calls Q thrusters:
Paul March's MLT-2006 vxB Test Article as tested again at NASA Eagleworks and held in the hands of Dr. White:
Paul March with Dr. Sonny White at NASA have been focusing instead on the EM Drive tests during the last couple of years.
Now, your point is...?
-
#3346 by Rodal on 28 Jun, 2016 15:11
-
The question re the size of a cyclical RF cavity means a cylinder of X diameter and X length ....with the dimensions being large enough to "generate?" the cyclical type action noted in the photonic laser thruster. Assume a CLOSED cavity, frequency is 2.45 GHz, cylinder is composed of niobium or other and held a +/- temperature of liquid Helium. (superconducting).
<<Can a cyclical be build that would achieved this? >>
Can a cyclical be build that would achieved this? If yes, what are the dimensions of the cylinder? Antenna , power, dielectric et al. could be addressed later?
I do recognize such a design would not create directional thrust.
What do you mean by "a cyclical"?
and to achieve precisely what ?
without defining these concepts, without being able to understand your question I doubt that your question can be answered to your satisfaction. At least I don't understand the question.
Talk about "recycling of photons": not clear what it means in this context. The way it is apparently being used here, it happens all the time without producing any self-acceleration: when a photon enters a glass, the photon that comes out the other side is not the same photon that went in. So what? That does not violate conservation of momentum nor does it explain the EM Drive.
So, again, if by recycling you mean the photon bouncing not being the same photon, or you mean just the fact that it is reflecting back and forth between surfaces, the answer is yes, this happens all the time. Nothing preventing that, as long as conservation of momentum and conservation of energy are satisfied.
----------------------------
The photonic laser thruster does not self-accelerate: it completely satisfies conventional, well-known old classical physics. The resource vehicle has to move backwards in direct proportion of momentum m1v2=m2v2 of the change in speed forward of the spaceship.
If the photon that bounces back from a surface is not generally the same photon, so what? There is nothing by that fact by itself that justifies breaking conservation of momentum.
Bottom line: For a closed cavity to self-accelerate either it has to change its mass or it has to receive an external force field. Any theory trying to explain self-acceleration of the EM Drive clearly must state why does the mass change and/or what is the origin of the external force. "Recycling photons in a closed cavity" does not seem to address either, unless I missed something...
If breaking momentum symmetry is added to "recycling of photons" what matters is not the recycling of photons, what matters is how does the break in momentum symmetry come about. We could postulate a Maxwell demon that would do something inside to break conservation of momentum, but that does not explain anything unless somebody explains the nature of the Maxwell demon responsible for breaking symmetry, responsible for violating conservation of momentum.
Since internal recycling of photons in a closed system can never produce an external force (it is internal) the only way that it could explain anything would be if it would involve changing the internal mass-energy or have a connection to the outside (like the degradable QV of White or Unruh waves of McCulloch or Woodward's General Relativity gradients of the gravitational potential) -
#3347 by Monomorphic on 28 Jun, 2016 17:15
-
We could postulate a Maxwell demon that would do something inside to break conservation of momentum, but that does not explain anything unless somebody explains the nature of the Maxwell demon responsible for this.
A while back when conducting laser ray-trace sims of a concave-convex optical cavity with reflective side-walls, I noticed there was a path the laser can travel that produced equal end-plate bounces, in addition to side wall bounces. The thought then was that since reaction force is perpendicular to the incident beam, and given equal numbers of end-plate bounces cancelling out, side-wall bounces may produce a force towards the small end. Increasing "thrust" would then just be a matter of recycling photons in the cavity. The frustum and frustum derived geometries were the only shapes I could find similar laser paths. It is beyond my capability, but I think it would be interesting to see this mathematically disproved.
-
#3348 by Rodal on 28 Jun, 2016 17:21
-
We could postulate a Maxwell demon that would do something inside to break conservation of momentum, but that does not explain anything unless somebody explains the nature of the Maxwell demon responsible for this.
A while back when conducting laser ray-trace sims of a concave-convex optical cavity with reflective side-walls, I noticed there was a path the laser can travel that produced equal end-plate bounces, in addition to side wall bounces. The thought then was that since reaction force is perpendicular to the incident beam, and given equal numbers of end-plate bounces cancelling out, side-wall bounces may produce a force towards the small end. Increasing "thrust" would then just be a matter of recycling photons in the cavity. The frustum and frustum derived geometries were the only shapes I could find similar laser paths. It is beyond my capability, but I think it would be interesting to see this mathematically disproved.
Samael Lilith as the Maxwell Demon responsible for a break in symmetry ?
I had to look that up, since I had never heard of Lilith :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LilithQuoteLilith left Adam after she refused to become subservient to him and then would not return to the Garden of Eden after she had coupled with the archangel Samael.
learned something new today !
I will take a break as well
-
#3349 by Monomorphic on 28 Jun, 2016 17:28
-
Samael Lilith is the Maxwell Demon responsible for a break in symmetry ?
I had to look that up, since I had never heard of Lilith :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LilithQuoteLilith left Adam after she refused to become subservient to him and then would not return to the Garden of Eden after she had coupled with the archangel Samael.
learned something new today !
It's not every day that upside down stars appear in your sims! But of course, it's totally a product of the laser start point and orientation of the camera. I'm not superstitious. -
#3350 by dustinthewind on 28 Jun, 2016 19:05
-
This is hilarious.Samael Lilith is the Maxwell Demon responsible for a break in symmetry ?
I had to look that up, since I had never heard of Lilith :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LilithQuoteLilith left Adam after she refused to become subservient to him and then would not return to the Garden of Eden after she had coupled with the archangel Samael.
learned something new today !
It's not every day that upside down stars appear in your sims! But of course, it's totally a product of the laser start point and orientation of the camera. I'm not superstitious.To clarify attached is what I'm am referring to as a Mach-Lorentz force thruster. Yes ? No?
Yes, you are showing pictures again of the "Lockheed Martin/ March" MLT thruster which we discussed before. There was a paper by Paul March and Andrew Palfreyman on this MLT thruster :
Second image is of the first but under construction?
The Woodward Effect: Math Modeling and Continued Experimental Verifications at 2 to 4 MHz
2006 STAIF
NSF download link: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31119.0;attach=496011
...
video edited out
...
FIGURE 7. Woodward’s Mach-2MHz MLT Test Article, vxB core & March’s Test Stand.
That was 10 years ago
...
When I saw the above get the feeling this is highly related to the phased array propulsion. There should be a capacitor on the inside and outside of the wire torus to polarize the barium and accelerate charges in opposite directions in the material. This is a lot like inducing a current in a wire. Am I wrong in suspecting that Barium Titanate has a high index of refraction for RF, slowing the light signal passing through? The idea is to time-retard the signal between the inner part of the Barium Titanate and the current in the torus.
Normally two wires operating in the RF range have to be very far apart for their signals to be time retarded. If a dielectric can slow their light, we can get the two wires much closer together and still have the light between them have time retarded effects. They also mention the -90 degrees and +90 degrees phase relationship.
This seems highly related to this thread here, http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.0 . The patent from the http://www.uspto.gov/ "patent 8,459,002.pdf " even suggested using barium titanate and RF wavelengths so as to get the wires sufficiently close enough that the time retarded interaction had near field effects inducing some form of near field phased array propulsion.
The reverse magnetic phased array in the 3rd image below "Reverse mag phased array.png" just makes the normally opposing magnetic and electric forces work together.
Are the mass fluctuations just that the current interacting with current in a lower wire experiences a negative impulse while an upper wire experiences a positive impulse?
-
#3351 by FattyLumpkin on 28 Jun, 2016 21:00
-
Dr. Rodal, my apologies: I did spell cylinder incorrectly. :_( Am reviewing what I can find (your, frobnicat's and X_Ray's posts) to see if I can formulate a question that makes (some) sense. Indeed, I do understand that the light photons in the LASER require being simulated/excited to where the photons align "become coherent", and that the light if injected into a frustum would remain coherent but not resonant as in our RF TE and TM et al. modes?
Re the MLT: I was not attempting to make a point, I was seeking further clarification about this device because of it's reported "good" performance in the lab. Does this particular design demonstrate the significant thermal (heat build up) problems as other Mach design thrusters?
-
#3352 by Rodal on 28 Jun, 2016 21:59
-
Dr. Rodal, my apologies: I did spell cylinder incorrectly. :_( Am viewing what I can find (your, frobnicat's and X_Ray's posts) to see if I can formulate a question that makes (some) sense. Indeed, I do understand that the light photons in the LASER require being simulated/excited to where the photons align "become coherent", and that the light if injected into a frustum would remain coherent but not resonant as in our RF TE and TM et al. modes?
Re the MLT: I was not attempting to make a point, I was seeking further clarification about this device because of it's reported "good" performance in the lab. Does this particular design demonstrate the significant thermal (heat build up) problems as other Mach design thrusters?
No need to apologize, otherwise I should be the first one to apologize for not writing a more friendly post
Concerning Paul March's 2006 MLT I don't know the details (we would need to hear from him again in public ) but I can observe the following:
1) Paul March subsequently joined forces with Dr. Sonny White and they are still working together. As of last notice they have been focusing for the last couple of years on the EM Drive. If the MLT would be much better I would think they would have concentrated on the MLT instead.
2) The co-author (with Paul March) of the 2006 MLT paper was involved in several previous EM Drive threads and his focus was one of skepticism (due to the energy conservation problem). If that MLT would have been a clear demonstration of propellant-less thrust (and thus amply exceeded a photon rocket's thrust/InputPower by orders of magnitude) I would have thought his focus would have been instead in developing its prompt use to get to Mars or beyond
-
#3353 by TheTraveller on 29 Jun, 2016 15:48
-
rfmwguy (@rfmwguy) tweeted at 11:45 PM on Wed, Jun 29, 2016:
#emdrive test results on calibrated [torsion] beam 18.4mN force measured. More testing ahead.
https://t.co/ohJxnelo67
https://twitter.com/rfmwguy/status/748157828951572481?s=03
Please note, NO DIELECTRIC.
All copper frustum, highly polished end plates & sidewalls.
Magnetron antenna positioned centre of the big end plate.
Power: 900W
Loaded Q: 10K Q (conservative)
Dimensions: 6.25 X 10 X 8.1 inches, d1 x d2 x L
-
#3354 by Rodal on 29 Jun, 2016 19:57
-
For scientific balance, here is what Eric1600 wrote:Quote from: Eric1600
Criticism both constructive and non-constructive have pushed the DIY testers into safe spaces.
And this isn't surprising to me because it is very hard to do technical work and at the same time cope with critics.
This is why in professional research situations you pick your critics and work directly with them before expanding your research efforts to a wider critical audience in reviews prior to publishing. Trying to do "open science" or whatever people were calling it when the DIY EM drive craze started is almost impossible and I pointed this out at the time.
However in isolation with only a few people who are light critics, the results can be poor too. There has to be a balance.
Here is an example. RFMWGUY is close to declaring his new design works. I can't comment on this sub and he honestly thinks I'm a troll. So I'm done trying to discuss things directly with him, which I sort of gave up about 8 or more months ago.
The reason I say there is a problem with his data is you can visibly see there are still thermal problems as there is a large slope across the data as well as short term non-linear jumps. In addition, his reasoning about Lorentz forces is not sound:
New power harness location stabilizes torsion beam, no evidence of Lorentz which would spike strongly at transition of power on and off. Thermal force remains a possibility as beam "floats" a bit during cool down/power off but not at initial power on which shows a linear track up. Up is force moving towards North or small diameter. link
They do not need to act instantaneously and rarely do. He is measuring the displacement of mass which does not move instantaneously. How quickly it responds is partially due to how strong the force is, friction in the setup, etc. So he could have reduced the Lorentz magnitude some which would also slow it's ability to move the beam quickly.
He is still working on it though Its looking very likely [this experiment shows thrust], but have to remain skeptical until all mundane stuff minimized. Lorentz is probably too weak to account for it after harness mod and thermals on a horizontal measuring stand seem unlikely, but will start thermal shielding against jets and retest.
Using multiple orientations, a null design, opposite biased magnetron, an E & H probe, and better testing cycles (why is the power cycle being varied all the time? and why only 5 or 6 samples?) should really done to measure the amount of "mundane stuff".
Without a healthy balance of strong criticism it is easy to mislead yourself into a conclusion, become emotionally attached, and then defend it irrationally. People eager to believe the results will only re-enforce this desire to believe the conclusions are correct. However if you can't quantity the error contributors, you can't prove anything anomalous exists. And this trend for safe spaces is a bad thing overall.
Edit: Here are just some thoughts after looking at his chart. Why does nothing happen in the first part of the 100% cycle? Why does it stop moving on the other cycles before power is cut? Why are there plateaus and valleys in the cooling cycle - is something physically deforming due to thermals in the test setup? link Hopefully he continues testing as he stated, unlike his first paper he released, and he measures his error terms. -
#3355 by tchernik on 29 Jun, 2016 20:37
-
I dearly hope Dave does a self-contained battery powered test now.
-
#3356 by dustinthewind on 29 Jun, 2016 21:02
-
I just think I had a light come on... or I'm deluding myself but it seems so simple I can't believe I didn't think of this before. Well honestly I think I heard some one mention before if they were considering the force on the antenna in the frustum when they were doing their simulations.
Here is what I am contemplating might be going on in the frustum that could possibly cause thrust. I apear to be discussing here a TE mode - possibly TE01 or something similar. First we can divide the frustum with the right mode into 4 parts (center-magnetic_max, 1/4 lambda-electric_max and 3/4 lambda-electric_max). [We could possibly include the plates also as radial magnetic maximums.] The bottom plate should have only a radial magnetic field (1st magnetic maximum). A quarter wavelength up and the transverse electric field should be maximum (1st electric maximum). 1/4 wavelength more up or 1/2 lambda (center of frustum) we have the 2nd radial magnetic maximum. At 3/4 lambda near the top of the frustum we have the 2nd transverse electric maximum and last at the top we should have the 3rd radial magnetic maximum.
The idea is that the ideal placement of the antenna to induce energy into the cavity is where the electric maximums are (and that the antenna is in the shape of that electric field {transverse or circular around the axis.}). At this precise location the entire current in the cavity appears to be moving to make light that impedes the current in the antenna, so in other words, all the current in the cavity appears to be in phase at this location. This is a time retarded effect. In other words, there should be no force induced in the antenna at this location but it is the optimal location to input energy into the cavity.
In the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd magnetic maximum the time retarded appearance of the cavity current is such that it appears to be out of phase above and below. Here, the antenna has difficulty inputting energy into the cavity but this is the optimal location for thrust. That is, if the current accelerates in the antenna near the magnetic maximum, the top of the cavity appears to have current moving in the same direction, while below the antenna the current in the cavity appears to be moving in the opposite direction. That is the antenna is repulsed from the bottom and attracted to the top or the opposite depending on phase relations. Also by q(v x B) we see a force on the current loop.
Optimally to maximize this thrust it would take 2 antenna. One located at the 1st electric maximum and the other antenna located in one of the magnetic maximums.
However, it is likely possible if the antenna is slightly out of place and resides in both the electric, and magnetic field locations that the antenna can both store energy in the cavity while also seeing current in the cavity as slightly out of phase. The idea is to, maximize the current in the cavity while also maximizing how out of phase the antenna sees the "time retarded" current.
I suspect this is similar to a phased array but the fields are larger and the idea is the antenna in the magnetic maximum it is taking energy in the cavity and compressing it below/above the antenna. It depends on the phase relation so the force is reversible if with a single antenna, you have it slightly above or below the electric maximum. If the antenna in the magnetic field does take energy and compress it above or below the antenna, this may cause a thermal imbalance, but I am not sure what that means exactly.
Oh if 2 antennas are used they are 90 degrees out of phase just like a phased array but one resides in electric maximum while the other resides in magnetic maximum. The force on the antenna in the magnetic maximum should be purely relativistic, or that is the force from the magnetic field is relativistic in nature.
Another fascinating thing to note is the antenna pushing on the light in the magnetic field induces its own electric field. The magnetic part of the standing wave inside the cavity has two superimposed electric fields that cancel each other out so that only the B field exists at this location. When the antenna in the B field accelerates its current it cancels part of the superimposed electric fields so that they no longer cancel. As a result an electric field appears inside the cavity but this electric field is 1/4 cycle out of phase with the cavities normal electric field.
-
#3357 by TheTraveller on 29 Jun, 2016 21:31
-
For scientific balance, here is what Eric1600 wrote:
Quote from: Eric1600Here are just some thoughts after looking at his chart. Why does nothing happen in the first part of the 100% cycle? Why does it stop moving on the other cycles before power is cut? Why are there plateaus and valleys in the cooling cycle - is something physically deforming due to thermals in the test setup? link Hopefully he continues testing as he stated, unlike his first paper he released, and he measures his error terms.
The initial delay occurs as the maggie takes time to warm up and form an electron cloud around the cathode to support anode current and maggie cavity oscillation which start above the high Q cavities bandwidth. At the maggie warms up, the freq drops enough for the high Q cavity to pull the maggie freq into the narrow high Q cavities bandwidth, obtains freq lock, Rf energy finally enters the cavity and developes a force.
As the maggie freq will continue to drop as the maggie gets hotter and hotter during the power on periods, the maggie freq may drop too low to be pulled to the narrow high Q cavities bandwidth and lose freq lock with the cavity., thus dropping force generation during the last portion of the power on periods.
Remember we are are dealing with 18mN of force and not 0.1mN as in the EW and Tajmar devices. Also there is NO dielectric involved.
Dave, with others assisting are investigating why the non powered curves look not as expected. -
#3358 by SeeShells on 29 Jun, 2016 22:33
-
I don't post at other sites anymore because it had become so very time consuming and not so much with the technical aspect, but the name calling and such negativity none gained. Just no time for it and it was not constructive.
I'm still here and will share later, but the most important thing for me is time in my build.
Sorry if I'm not as prolific as I was on here, but to do this right it becomes very time consuming.
My very best to all those who have offered great advise and support, you know who you are.
Shell -
#3359 by TheTraveller on 29 Jun, 2016 22:41
-
I find this image very interesting.
What I believe we see in Dave's zoomed in data is a very small Lorentz force as the maggie heater current initially powers up, which is of course very much higher amps than the say 3 sec later maggie anode current, which can't be seen to have any effect.
So there you have it. Neither the 1st very large heater current nor the 3 sec later much smaller anode current caused any significant force generation.
Significant force generation occured maybe 30 seconds later as the fully powered on maggie warmed and dropped it's splatter output bandwidth to be close enough to the lower freq high Q cavities bandwidth, was then pulled into freq lock and generated 18.4mN of propellentless thrust, without needing a dielectric, as Roger has advised for a long time.
Seems clear there is no Lorentz force involved here nor does the initial force generation curve suggest thermal action as the maggie was warming the frustum with 900Wrf (remember the maggie antenna is INSIDE the frustum) for approx 30 seconds without any sign of force generation, until the maggie locked to the frustum and very significant force was rapidly generated.
