-
#880 by zen-in on 03 Apr, 2016 16:21
-
I have only 1 issue that needs to be resolved at the moment in taking my 0.4N EmDrive S band thruster to market.
Finding a hard / high vac test chamber that will be able to test my 0.4N S band thruster for 2 weeks continuous operation. Vac chamber also needs to supply 1.8KW DC power to the thruster.
After that the space industry will need to learn to deal with the reality that the EmDrive works and is commercially available.
BTW, my 0.4N EmDrive S band thruster, if attached to the ISS, will increase orbital velocity by 1m/sec every 12 days. So no more ISS reboosts. Cost to the ISS is an increased electrical load of 1.8kW and 1.8KW or a bit less of waste heat to deal with. Can be mounted internal to the station & easily turned off during docking or departure.
Like SpX, who came from no where and is now very disruptive to the chemical Old Space launch industry, so to will Shawyer Effect Propulsion's 0.4N EmDrive thruster be disruptive to the in space propulsion industry.
BTW "Shawyer Effect Propulsion" is used with permission from Roger Shawyer.
2016 is going to be such an interesting year.
You should get in touch with Robert Brand. He is Australian and as far as I know lives in Australia. He is very interested in new and innovative spacecraft propulsion ideas and would be eager to help you find the facilities you need to do those tests. If you want I can contact him on your behalf.
http://www.ss3f.com/ambassadors/brand.htm -
#881 by Rodal on 03 Apr, 2016 16:36
-
I think the wedge is just called a trapezoidal prism. Though I think it is important to point out that Shawyers wedge had a square big end. "Trapezoidal prism with square base"
"In geometry, a trapezoidal prism is a solid shape that has trapezoid cross-sections in one direction and rectangular cross-sections in the other directions. To compute the volume of a symmetric trapezoidal prism, you need to know four measurements: the length of the prism L, the height of the trapezoidal cross-section H, the base width of the trapezoid B, and the top width of the trapezoid A."
Thanks. One more geometry to try, when you have a chance is the "circularly truncated pizza slice" SPR Ltd. is using for their superconducting EM Drive (*):
None of these shapes being used by SPR Ltd. involve 3-D spherical waves any longer, but SPR Ltd. has switched to 2-D fields having a constant field in one-Cartesian-direction. Using curved ends as above, or flat ends, as below:
(*) Shawyer's superconducting design drawing is not a truncated cone with spherical ends. The fact that it is a pizza slice with rectangular cross-section is described by Shawyer:
Second generation EmDrive propulsion applied to SSTO launcher and interstellar probe
RogerShawyer
Acta Astronautica 116 (2015) 166–174Quote from: Shawyer Acta Astronautica 116 (2015) page 169The engine comprises eight rectangular kovar cavities,internally coated with YBCO, cooled with liquid
hydrogen and operating at 915MHz.
This single lift engine is mounted in a two axis gimballed spherical housing 790m min diameter,with the cavities in a 4x2 configuration as shown in Fig. 5.
-
#882 by Monomorphic on 03 Apr, 2016 16:40
-
Perhaps (if he has time) Monomorphic would run a sweep on a truncated rectangular pyramid (or at least on the distal portion of a rectangular one)
I did this from 2.4Ghz to 2.6Ghz over 10 steps, I just never posted the sweep animation. I need to run s-parameters so I can see the reflection coefficient.
-
#883 by SeeShells on 03 Apr, 2016 17:30
-
One other suggestion mono. Curve the bottom Large end. I've been looking at this very form in a TE013 and I think you'll like what it does to the energy levels and thereby the Q.Perhaps (if he has time) Monomorphic would run a sweep on a truncated rectangular pyramid (or at least on the distal portion of a rectangular one)
I did this from 2.4Ghz to 2.6Ghz over 10 steps, I just never posted the sweep animation. I need to run s-parameters so I can see the reflection coefficient.
Shell -
#884 by Rodal on 03 Apr, 2016 17:41
-
All these geometries
1) Frustum of a cone
2) "Wedge": Trapezoidal prism with square base
3) Frustum of a square pyramid
result in a wave-patterns inside the frustum with a variable wavelength in the longitudinal direction (see: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1511058#msg1511058 ), with the wavelength getting longer as it approaches the small end. All that is required is a taper, even a simple taper in only one direction, for a wedge shape, to result in "stretching of the wavelength":
TAPER = stretching of wavelength towards the small end
There should be an analytical expression for Notsosureofit's hypothesis for the wedge
http://emdrive.wiki/@notsosureofit_Hypothesis
The proposition that dispersion caused by an accelerating frame of reference implies an accelerating frame of reference caused by a dispersive cavity resonator.
Three ways to accomplish dispersion in a cavity resonator:
1) Geometrical taper (all modes)
2) Asymmetrically placed dielectric in non-tapered cavity (for TM modes, particularly, since they have a longitudinal electric field in the longitudinal direction, the direction in which the cavity is tapered)
3) Geometrical taper + Asymmetrically placed dielectric
For just geometrical taper, we could state Notsosureofit's hypothesis as:
The proposition that dispersion caused by an accelerating frame of reference implies an accelerating frame of reference caused by a tapered cavity resonator.
-
#885 by Notsosureofit on 03 Apr, 2016 18:36
-
Preferably one with an exact analytic frequency solution...
-
#886 by VAXHeadroom on 03 Apr, 2016 20:41
-
One other suggestion mono. Curve the bottom Large end. I've been looking at this very form in a TE013 and I think you'll like what it does to the energy levels and thereby the Q.Perhaps (if he has time) Monomorphic would run a sweep on a truncated rectangular pyramid (or at least on the distal portion of a rectangular one)
I did this from 2.4Ghz to 2.6Ghz over 10 steps, I just never posted the sweep animation. I need to run s-parameters so I can see the reflection coefficient.
...
Shell
I'm really interested to see what this does to the E and H field vectors too!
Really great work, there's some nice science going on here
--VAXHeadroom
-
#887 by Rodal on 03 Apr, 2016 21:09
-
I haven't published any paper on my quantized vacuum energy theory but I can describe it briefly.
Is there a more extensive description giving more information?. If not so, can you supply more information on your theory of the g-drive and how you deal with conservation of momentum and conservation of energy? How can standing waves provide self-acceleration? Thanks
I have my theory of vacuum energy quanta.
The thrust would be based on standing waves which guide quanta. The cavity form is a cone closed with spherical reflectors at top and bottom. The distance from bottom to top must be exactly the multiple of the wavelength of radiation....
Simply, there are the flux of the vacuum energy that define the amount of space. The speed of quanta stream in the flux is the limit speed c. Every inertial body have comoving standing waves as gravity field as flux gradient. Standing spherical waves guide the vacuum energy to the space-support so that massive matter can exist as inertial particles. So the quanta stream propagates not from the gravitating body but towards the body.
The standing gravity field is possible the same as magnetic field but not coherent. So in the g-drive spherical standing waves guide the vacuum quanta towards smaller reflector. Because the outer vacuum gravity flux must be balanced for the gravity field for the needs of gravitating objects, it's only way for the g-drive to accelerate to the same direction where the flux density was artificially thickened.
The energy and momentum are conserved via gravity field by accelerating other bodies. The changes in the gravity field propagates at speed of light.
1) Welcome to the forum , we all hope that you are here to stay.
2) As an introduction, (and for you to form a scientific opinion on whether there is an experimental basis for the "EM Drive" self-acceleration), please see this list that I originally put together, but I do not longer curate:
http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results
in this list I struggled to get the dimensional data, materials, etc. (with several institutional researchers, i.e. Shawyer, Yang, etc. not providing complete dimensions, with the exception of NASA that has provided all dimensions and material specifications, including their dielectric materials) as well as the forces they measured, the power input, quality of resonance Q, etc. I also compared all claims to the force/PowerInput of a perfectly collimated photon rocket because one of the big enigmas around the EM Drive is how could a closed cavity under internal electromagnetic resonance experience self-acceleration exceeding the one of a perfectly collimated photon rocket. For example, it is obvious that it should experience some force and sel-acceleration due to black-body radiation heat transfer due to induction heating, but this should result in much smaller force/powerInput than a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
When examining these experimental data please consider several facts:
1) many dimensions have been ascertained from analysis of reported data because the author's failed to provide it (one exception: NASA)
2) the quality of resonance factor Q, which is the most important variable according to several theories of the EM Drive has been determined using different methods by different authors and many times they have failed to provide information on how it was determined (one exception: NASA)
3) the power coupling has not been provided (or even measured ?) by many authors, hence a comparison between different experiments on the basis of force and force/powerInput is subject to question
4) only two authors have conducted experiments in partial vacuum (Dr. White et.al at NASA and Prof. Tajmar at TU Dresden. Neither the inventor, Shawyer nor Yang in China ever provided a single reported result in partial vacuum).
5) different authors have performed experiments using different devices (I recently reported why the torsional pendulum used by NASA and by TU Dresden is the preferred method of measurements for micro-thrust in 50 years of R&D in rocket propulsion).
6) there is a paucity of null results (consider whether there is reluctance to report and publish null results)
7) the more scientifically conducted experiments (by NASA and by Prof. Tajmar) : in a partial vacuum (as expected in space), and using a torsional pendulum have resulted in substantially lower force/PowerInput
8 ) there are many experimental issues involved in measuring such small forces: thermal convection due to induction heating (when performed in ambient conditions), thermal expansion (also present in vacuum), Lorentz forces from cables, etc.
9) the most convincing experiment would be one that is self-integrated with power provided from a battery, in a Cavendish pendulum or a torque pendulum, such that the center of energy-mass is also in the platform undergoing self-acceleration. Unfortunately I do not know of a single reported EM Drive experiment with the power provided from a battery, to this date (with the exception of the "Baby EM Drive" by a Do-It-Yourself team at Aachen Germany, but please note: 1) results are inconclusive or null up to now and 2) not a torque pendulum or Cavendish, 3) 10 times higher frequency: 24 GHz instead of 2.4 GHz, 4) not in partial vacuum).
3) I have many questions on your interesting theory. Please be patient with me as I ask questions to understand what you are proposing.
We have examined several theories involving gravitation. What version of General Relativity are you using in your formulation? Explicitly what is the expression coupling gravity and electromagnetism and does such coupling play a strong role in your formulation ?
-
#888 by FattyLumpkin on 03 Apr, 2016 21:20
-
Traveller, is the above mentioned super conducting design indeed and "slice" or a broad based frustum of a cone with concave bottom & convex top? Am unable to find any references. Thank you FL
-
#889 by not_a_physicist on 03 Apr, 2016 22:39
-
Traveller, is the above mentioned super conducting design indeed and "slice" or a broad based frustum of a cone with concave bottom & convex top? Am unable to find any references. Thank you FL
His patent seems to describe it not as a thick pizza slice, but rather as something with endplates that could have been cut out of spheres. https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-find-publication-getPDF.pdf?PatentNo=GB2493361&DocType=A&JournalNumber=6455
It says:
In Figure 2, the small end plate assembly 5 includes a number of piezoelectric elements 6, which control the length of the thin wall section 7. The small end plate assembly 5 is fixed to the conical wall section 8 which is fixed to the large end plate 9, to form the complete resonant cavity 10.
No mention of rectangular sidewalls to be found. This patent is referenced as "further information" a bit before introducing that 8-cavity thing in this paper: http://www.emdrive.com/IAC14publishedpaper.pdf . In that paper, he does go on to refer to them as "rectangular kovar cavities", which is confusing given the patent.
-
#890 by Rodal on 03 Apr, 2016 22:58
-
Really and practically, nowadays, the main (and practically only thing) enforceable about Patents are the patent claims (*). The description in Shawyer's patent of a conical wall, may be interpreted in the patent literature as "one possible embodiment of the patent." (**)Traveller, is the above mentioned super conducting design indeed and "slice" or a broad based frustum of a cone with concave bottom & convex top? Am unable to find any references. Thank you FL
His patent seems to describe it not as a thick pizza slice, but rather as something with endplates that could have been cut out of spheres. https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-find-publication-getPDF.pdf?PatentNo=GB2493361&DocType=A&JournalNumber=6455
It says:
In Figure 2, the small end plate assembly 5 includes a number of piezoelectric elements 6, which control the length of the thin wall section 7. The small end plate assembly 5 is fixed to the conical wall section 8 which is fixed to the large end plate 9, to form the complete resonant cavity 10.
No mention of rectangular sidewalls to be found. This patent is referenced as "further information" a bit before introducing that 8-cavity thing in this paper: http://www.emdrive.com/IAC14publishedpaper.pdf . In that paper, he does go on to refer to them as "rectangular kovar cavities", which is confusing given the patent.
As known to those familiar with patent litigation, nowadays, for practical patent prosecution, litigation and patent enforcement, practically all (certainly most) that matters are the claims.
Claim 1 (reproduced below) only states "tapered microwave cavity with internal convex and concave end shaped plates", and it does not specify whether the side walls are conical or flat. Hence both embodiments are possible, actually any and all embodiments of the patent consistent with the claim are covered. (If you can think of other embodiments, other than conical or flat side-walls, that are consistent with claim, they should be covered by claim 1).
Shawyer's Acta Astronautica paper I quoted in my post ( https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1511075#msg1511075 ) does specify the rectangular cross-section "embodiment of the patent claim", in other words: it is a thick pizza-slice what he proposes in his Acta Astronautica paper (see also Fig.5 I posted in my above-mentioned post).
_______________
(*)QuotePatents have not always contained claims. In many European countries, patents did not contain claims before the 1970s. It was then often difficult to decide whether a product infringed a patent, since the sole basis to know the extent of protection was the description, in view of the prior art. Claims have been necessary parts of U.S. patent applications since the enactment of the Patent Act of 1836.
However, even among patent legal systems in which the claims are used as the reference to decide the scope of protection conferred by a patent, the way the claims are used may vary substantially. Traditionally, two types of claiming system exist:
the "central claiming system", according to which the claims identify the "centre" of the patented invention. The exact scope of the protection depends on the actual nature of the inventor’s contribution to the art in the concerned technology.
the "peripheral claiming system", according to which the claims identify the exact periphery, or boundary, of the conferred protection. In this system, the burden of drafting good claims is much higher on the patent applicant (or on his or her counsel). The applicant receives the protection he or she requested and almost nothing more, provided that the invention is new and non-obvious. This theoretically makes it easier for third parties to examine whether infringement may exist or not.
No patent system today is a purely either central or peripheral, but the system used in Germany and most of the other countries of continental Europe is considered more central than the system currently used in the United Kingdom, the United States, and especially Japan, which are more peripheral.[3] In recent years,[vague] Japan's system has become more peripheral,[4] while the system used in the United States was becoming more central because of the increasing resort in US patent litigation to the doctrine of equivalents to expand claim scope unpredictably, until the US Supreme Court reversed that trend in the Warner-Jenkinson case in 1997.
In most modern patent laws, patent applications must have at least one claim, which are critical defining elements of the patent and the primary subject of examination. In some patent laws however, a date of filing may be obtained for an application which does not contain any claim.
(**)QuoteThe expressions "in one embodiment", "in a preferred embodiment", "in a particular embodiment", "in an advantageous embodiment" or the like often appear in the description of patent applications and are used to introduce a particular implementation or method of carrying out the invention. These various embodiments may or may not each be claimed with specificity. They might serve as multiple examples of a more general "genus" that is claimed. In some cases the examiner might declare that what the applicant presented as variations of one invention are actually separate inventions that need to be examined individually.
-
#891 by rq3 on 03 Apr, 2016 23:42
-
Really and practically, nowadays, the main (and practically only thing) enforceable about Patents are the patent claims (*). The description in Shawyer's patent of a conical wall, may be interpreted in the patent literature as "one possible embodiment of the patent." (**)Traveller, is the above mentioned super conducting design indeed and "slice" or a broad based frustum of a cone with concave bottom & convex top? Am unable to find any references. Thank you FL
His patent seems to describe it not as a thick pizza slice, but rather as something with endplates that could have been cut out of spheres. https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-find-publication-getPDF.pdf?PatentNo=GB2493361&DocType=A&JournalNumber=6455
It says:
In Figure 2, the small end plate assembly 5 includes a number of piezoelectric elements 6, which control the length of the thin wall section 7. The small end plate assembly 5 is fixed to the conical wall section 8 which is fixed to the large end plate 9, to form the complete resonant cavity 10.
No mention of rectangular sidewalls to be found. This patent is referenced as "further information" a bit before introducing that 8-cavity thing in this paper: http://www.emdrive.com/IAC14publishedpaper.pdf . In that paper, he does go on to refer to them as "rectangular kovar cavities", which is confusing given the patent.
As known to those familiar with patent litigation, nowadays, for practical patent prosecution, litigation and patent enforcement, practically all (certainly most) that matters are the claims.
Claim 1 (reproduced below) only states "tapered microwave cavity with internal convex and concave end shaped plates", and it does not specify whether the side walls are conical or flat. Hence both embodiments are possible, actually any and all embodiments of the patent consistent with the claim are covered. (If you can think of other embodiments, other than conical or flat side-walls, that are consistent with claim, they should be covered by claim 1).
Shawyer's Acta Astronautica paper I quoted in my post ( https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1511075#msg1511075 ) does specify the rectangular cross-section "embodiment of the patent claim", in other words: it is a thick pizza-slice what he proposes in his Acta Astronautica paper (see also Fig.5 I posted in my above-mentioned post).
_______________
(*)QuotePatents have not always contained claims. In many European countries, patents did not contain claims before the 1970s. It was then often difficult to decide whether a product infringed a patent, since the sole basis to know the extent of protection was the description, in view of the prior art. Claims have been necessary parts of U.S. patent applications since the enactment of the Patent Act of 1836.
However, even among patent legal systems in which the claims are used as the reference to decide the scope of protection conferred by a patent, the way the claims are used may vary substantially. Traditionally, two types of claiming system exist:
the "central claiming system", according to which the claims identify the "centre" of the patented invention. The exact scope of the protection depends on the actual nature of the inventor’s contribution to the art in the concerned technology.
the "peripheral claiming system", according to which the claims identify the exact periphery, or boundary, of the conferred protection. In this system, the burden of drafting good claims is much higher on the patent applicant (or on his or her counsel). The applicant receives the protection he or she requested and almost nothing more, provided that the invention is new and non-obvious. This theoretically makes it easier for third parties to examine whether infringement may exist or not.
No patent system today is a purely either central or peripheral, but the system used in Germany and most of the other countries of continental Europe is considered more central than the system currently used in the United Kingdom, the United States, and especially Japan, which are more peripheral.[3] In recent years,[vague] Japan's system has become more peripheral,[4] while the system used in the United States was becoming more central because of the increasing resort in US patent litigation to the doctrine of equivalents to expand claim scope unpredictably, until the US Supreme Court reversed that trend in the Warner-Jenkinson case in 1997.
In most modern patent laws, patent applications must have at least one claim, which are critical defining elements of the patent and the primary subject of examination. In some patent laws however, a date of filing may be obtained for an application which does not contain any claim.
(**)QuoteThe expressions "in one embodiment", "in a preferred embodiment", "in a particular embodiment", "in an advantageous embodiment" or the like often appear in the description of patent applications and are used to introduce a particular implementation or method of carrying out the invention. These various embodiments may or may not each be claimed with specificity. They might serve as multiple examples of a more general "genus" that is claimed. In some cases the examiner might declare that what the applicant presented as variations of one invention are actually separate inventions that need to be examined individually.
Patent law, at least in the United States, is out of control. As a rough rule of thumb, if an invention is viable (capable of commercialization), the inventor needs to figure on at least $12 million in ready funds to defend the patent.
A tactic I have used is to file (which places the information in the public domain), but with insufficient information to "reduce to practice". Once the filing is public, others cannot obtain a patent on the disclosed information. Of course, you run the risk of disclosing enough information to allow those "schooled in the art" to re-trace your steps, but generally the first to market is the winner, patented or not.
Of course, none of this applies to the topic of this forum, since it hasn't been "reduced to practice", generally meant as a recipe to allow others to replicate the invention in toto, and then improve upon it. That is, after all, the original intent of a patent, i.e., to enhance the progess of the human race, while rewarding those who have done so. -
#892 by Rodal on 04 Apr, 2016 01:26
-
Traveller, is the above mentioned super conducting design indeed and "slice" or a broad based frustum of a cone with concave bottom & convex top? Am unable to find any references. Thank you FL
...BTW the attached is not a round cryo thruster. It is more like a thick slice of Pizza that has a circular bite taken out of the pointy end.
Suggest you read Roger's papers and checkout the attached drawing, which shows the 8 cavities of the lift engine. Note their shape.
The spherical housing is stated to be 790mm is diameter, which implies each of the 8 cavity is fairly small, probably something like 100mm thick, 200mm high and 400mm wide. -
#893 by DnA915 on 04 Apr, 2016 03:22
-
I have a somewhat elementary question, so I apologize if this is already common knowledge. Is it known on what part of the EM drive the unaccounted force is acting upon (rear plate, front plate, walls, uniformly)? If this isn't solved, wouldn't solving it via a design (which may not be optimal for thrust), be very useful in explaining the phenomenon?
-
#894 by meberbs on 04 Apr, 2016 06:47
-
I have a somewhat elementary question, so I apologize if this is already common knowledge. Is it known on what part of the EM drive the unaccounted force is acting upon (rear plate, front plate, walls, uniformly)? If this isn't solved, wouldn't solving it via a design (which may not be optimal for thrust), be very useful in explaining the phenomenon?
It is not currently known if there is any net force other than experimental error. Standard electromagnetism says that radiation pressure will be acting on all surfaces (in a generally outward direction), and that the net of all these forces will be 0. The proposed mechanisms of operation mostly differ from existing theory by some mechanism that causes the forces to only partially cancel.
TheTraveller has recently stated he plans to run an experiment to measure the force on each surface individually, but such an experiment has several difficulties with producing useful results. Since he only gave a rough sketch of the experiment design I don't know if it will be effective. -
#895 by TheTraveller on 04 Apr, 2016 07:13
-
I have only 1 issue that needs to be resolved at the moment in taking my 0.4N EmDrive S band thruster to market.
Finding a hard / high vac test chamber that will be able to test my 0.4N S band thruster for 2 weeks continuous operation. Vac chamber also needs to supply 1.8KW DC power to the thruster.
After that the space industry will need to learn to deal with the reality that the EmDrive works and is commercially available.
BTW, my 0.4N EmDrive S band thruster, if attached to the ISS, will increase orbital velocity by 1m/sec every 12 days. So no more ISS reboosts. Cost to the ISS is an increased electrical load of 1.8kW and 1.8KW or a bit less of waste heat to deal with. Can be mounted internal to the station & easily turned off during docking or departure.
Like SpX, who came from no where and is now very disruptive to the chemical Old Space launch industry, so to will Shawyer Effect Propulsion's 0.4N EmDrive thruster be disruptive to the in space propulsion industry.
BTW "Shawyer Effect Propulsion" is used with permission from Roger Shawyer.
2016 is going to be such an interesting year.
You should get in touch with Robert Brand. He is Australian and as far as I know lives in Australia. He is very interested in new and innovative spacecraft propulsion ideas and would be eager to help you find the facilities you need to do those tests. If you want I can contact him on your behalf.
http://www.ss3f.com/ambassadors/brand.htm
Thanks.
Found his FaceBook page.
https://m.facebook.com/robertbrandspace?fref=nf
Will get in contact. -
#896 by TheTraveller on 04 Apr, 2016 07:31
-
TAPER = stretching of wavelength towards the small end
The "Stretching" (increasing guide wavelength as diameter decreases) is a natural function of the tapered waveguide's diameter decreasing, which increases the guide wavelength, reduces the group velocity and reduces the momentum transfer upon reflection.
-
#897 by Eusa on 04 Apr, 2016 07:41
-
Thank You, your report is comprehensive.
I haven't published any paper on my quantized vacuum energy theory but I can describe it briefly.
Is there a more extensive description giving more information?. If not so, can you supply more information on your theory of the g-drive and how you deal with conservation of momentum and conservation of energy? How can standing waves provide self-acceleration? Thanks
I have my theory of vacuum energy quanta.
The thrust would be based on standing waves which guide quanta. The cavity form is a cone closed with spherical reflectors at top and bottom. The distance from bottom to top must be exactly the multiple of the wavelength of radiation....
Simply, there are the flux of the vacuum energy that define the amount of space. The speed of quanta stream in the flux is the limit speed c. Every inertial body have comoving standing waves as gravity field as flux gradient. Standing spherical waves guide the vacuum energy to the space-support so that massive matter can exist as inertial particles. So the quanta stream propagates not from the gravitating body but towards the body.
The standing gravity field is possible the same as magnetic field but not coherent. So in the g-drive spherical standing waves guide the vacuum quanta towards smaller reflector. Because the outer vacuum gravity flux must be balanced for the gravity field for the needs of gravitating objects, it's only way for the g-drive to accelerate to the same direction where the flux density was artificially thickened.
The energy and momentum are conserved via gravity field by accelerating other bodies. The changes in the gravity field propagates at speed of light.
1) Welcome to the forum , we all hope that you are here to stay.
2) As an introduction, (and for you to form a scientific opinion on whether there is an experimental basis for the "EM Drive" self-acceleration), please see this list that I originally put together, but I do not longer curate:
http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results
in this list I struggled to get the dimensional data, materials, etc. (with several institutional researchers, i.e. Shawyer, Yang, etc. not providing complete dimensions, with the exception of NASA that has provided all dimensions and material specifications, including their dielectric materials) as well as the forces they measured, the power input, quality of resonance Q, etc. I also compared all claims to the force/PowerInput of a perfectly collimated photon rocket because one of the big enigmas around the EM Drive is how could a closed cavity under internal electromagnetic resonance experience self-acceleration exceeding the one of a perfectly collimated photon rocket. For example, it is obvious that it should experience some force and sel-acceleration due to black-body radiation heat transfer due to induction heating, but this should result in much smaller force/powerInput than a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
When examining these experimental data please consider several facts:
1) many dimensions have been ascertained from analysis of reported data because the author's failed to provide it (one exception: NASA)
2) the quality of resonance factor Q, which is the most important variable according to several theories of the EM Drive has been determined using different methods by different authors and many times they have failed to provide information on how it was determined (one exception: NASA)
3) the power coupling has not been provided (or even measured ?) by many authors, hence a comparison between different experiments on the basis of force and force/powerInput is subject to question
4) only two authors have conducted experiments in partial vacuum (Dr. White et.al at NASA and Prof. Tajmar at TU Dresden. Neither the inventor, Shawyer nor Yang in China ever provided a single reported result in partial vacuum).
5) different authors have performed experiments using different devices (I recently reported why the torsional pendulum used by NASA and by TU Dresden is the preferred method of measurements for micro-thrust in 50 years of R&D in rocket propulsion).
6) there is a paucity of null results (consider whether there is reluctance to report and publish null results)
7) the more scientifically conducted experiments (by NASA and by Prof. Tajmar) : in a partial vacuum (as expected in space), and using a torsional pendulum have resulted in substantially lower force/PowerInput
8 ) there are many experimental issues involved in measuring such small forces: thermal convection due to induction heating (when performed in ambient conditions), thermal expansion (also present in vacuum), Lorentz forces from cables, etc.
9) the most convincing experiment would be one that is self-integrated with power provided from a battery, in a Cavendish pendulum or a torque pendulum, such that the center of energy-mass is also in the platform undergoing self-acceleration. Unfortunately I do not know of a single reported EM Drive experiment with the power provided from a battery, to this date (with the exception of the "Baby EM Drive" by a Do-It-Yourself team at Aachen Germany, but please note: 1) results are inconclusive or null up to now and 2) not a torque pendulum or Cavendish, 3) 10 times higher frequency: 24 GHz instead of 2.4 GHz, 4) not in partial vacuum).
3) I have many questions on your interesting theory. Please be patient with me as I ask questions to understand what you are proposing.
We have examined several theories involving gravitation. What version of General Relativity are you using in your formulation? Explicitly what is the expression coupling gravity and electromagnetism and does such coupling play a strong role in your formulation ?
I don't understand what do you mean with "version of General Relativity". I know only one version. Do you mean the metric, the linear approximation?
My theory is compatible with General Relativity. I think it has abilities to handle perturbations with spinor-tensor into to metrics but I haven't studied them yet.
It doesn't have a direct coupling method between gravity and electricity, those are separated; gravity as "non-duality" and electricity as duality. But the magnetism is the special case of gravity, coherent standing waves. Also the em-radiation would be based on the same waving as gravitational waves but coherent with both handedness.
At this study moment many mechanisms are possible but I have my instant favorities:
- gravitational waves and neutrinos could be the same waving spacetime
- em-radiation could be built from neutrino and antineutrino
- standing waves of gravity field would be part of the mass construction of particles and the same waving spacetime as gravitational waves but standing in respect of the massive particle
- the spacetime waves (neutrinos, gravity/gravitational waves) would be longitudinal, not transverse
- electricity would be a transverse compound of opposite-handed neutrinowaves, quantum state -conservational wave in wave
Then the quantum mechanism adaptation is a whole big part of my theory. I don't want you get bored with details about magnetic monopole, cyclic dualism and other concepts of theory (for example the local electric force seem to be only between charges of the same spin-handedness negative-negative, positive-positive, negative-positive attraction would be apparent falling due to gravity and push from outside).
Added: I saw the basic angular momentum of transverse waves cannot be understood without revealing the cyclic structure of the Universe. I found that the charge mechanism and the quantum fluctuations can be modelled by cyclic coordinates, handedness is changing from left to right and back and so on. It's like a global spinor and maybe it has something to do with spatiality too. At least it solves many problems with symmetry breakings.
For formulating the hypotheses and the theory I must better complete my physical education. The big question is: what could be the vacuum energy quanta that is streaming from space to the masses? Is it the radiation field generally resonating bodies and keeping them apart of each other? At least the quanta streaming gives the curvature of spacetime just like in General Relativity but more naturally as scalar gradient. Gravitational lensing is including because of vacuum quanta interact with em-radiation, maybe there is little bit tired-light effect also...
In g-drive it's important to reduce harms of absorbing electricity and get pure as possible standing (gravitational) wave between reflectors.
The summary: I need a few years to formulate my findings in decent respect to the previous concerned research. If my g-drive ideas of standing wave lead better thrust in tests, then it is easier to falsify non-working components out of the theory. -
#898 by Rodal on 04 Apr, 2016 11:58
-
It should also be remarked that this is not a characteristic of spherical waves in general, but a characteristic of the solution of the partial differential equations, satisfying given boundary conditions for a particular problem, for a tapered geometry. The boundary conditions on the side walls that impose the taper are critical. The wall boundary conditions impose the "wavelength stretching" behavior, rather than being a characteristic of the spherical geometry of spherical waves in free space.TAPER = stretching of wavelength towards the small end
The "Stretching" (increasing guide wavelength as diameter decreases) is a natural function of the tapered waveguide's diameter decreasing, which increases the guide wavelength, reduces the group velocity and reduces the momentum transfer upon reflection.
For example, one type of electromagnetic spherical wave in free space has an electric component given by (in spherical coordinates r, θ, φ and time t)
where A is a constant (*), with wavelength λ=2π/k independent of radius r. Power flow in this case is inversely proportional to r2. Except for this, in the "far-field" when r is much greater than the wavelength λ=2π/k, the behavior for this type of spherical wave in free-space is very similar to a plane wave.
I would not refer to the diameter of the ends of a waveguide as being the relevant parameter, because a waveguide has open ends by definition. The boundary conditions that matter for waveguide mode shapes are the lateral walls of the waveguide, since the mode shape for a waveguide is the result of the eigensolution between the lateral walls of the waveguide. The mode shape is strictly between the walls of the waveguide. In the longitudinal direction of the waveguide one only has power flow. There is no resonance, no mode shape in the longitudinal direction of a waveguide.
Instead of the diameter, I would refer to the taper angle. It is the taper angle that is the critical parameter.
Waveguide mode shapes are specified as TEmn or TMmn, instead of TEmnp or TMmnp for a cavity. There is no "p" in a waveguide because there is no resonance in the "p" longitudinal direction for a waveguide. The boundary condition that matters for a waveguide are the lateral walls.
For waveguide mode shapes, all that matters are the lateral walls, as the Beatles sung "All you need is Love, Love is all you need", in this case, for waveguide mode shapes, "All you need are the lateral walls, the lateral walls is all you need".
Hence it is the lateral walls taper that dictate the stretching of the wavelength as one approaches the small end.
If the taper angle is small, the waveguide walls are almost parallel, and the wavelength does not change much in the longitudinal direction.
If the taper angle is large, the waveguide walls are at a significant angle, and the wavelength get significantly longer towards the small end of the waveguide.
____________
(*) see for example Griffiths, David J. (2007), Introduction to Electrodynamics, 3rd Edition -
#899 by Rodal on 04 Apr, 2016 12:27
-
...I don't understand what do you mean with "version of General Relativity". I know only one version. ...[snip]
Thank you for your response, allowing us to further understand your theory for what you call the "g-drive".
Concerning your question above, there are several versions of General Relativity besides Einstein's. For example, an early version (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehead%27s_theory_of_gravitation) is due to the mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead)
, co-author (with Bertrand Russell) of Principia Mathematica.
See, for example, Whitehead's book "Principle of Relativity". In Chapter XVI, Whitehead discusses how magnetic fields are modified by the gravitational field, including the calculation of a small force due to this effect. This force is greatest at an inclination of 45 degrees to the direction of the gravity vector. Whitehead also discusses how an electric force is greatest when it is in the horizontal direction perpendicular to the direction of gravity, an (small) effect which is proportional to the magnitude of g (the gravitational acceleration).
Another great source is by the great Irish mathematician John Lighton Synge
, see his book (1951) "Relativity Theory of A. N. Whitehead".
Hyman, Andrew (1989). "A New Interpretation of Whitehead's Theory", 104B". Il Nuovo Cimento 387: 387–398, interpreted that the Nordvert effect follows from Whitehead's theory.
<< the gravitational self-energy of a body contributed differently to its gravitational mass than to its inertial mass. If observed, the Nordtvedt effect would violate the strong equivalence principle, which indicates that an object's movement in a gravitational field does not depend on its mass or composition.>>
Of course many people reserve the use of the term "General Relativity" only when referring to Einstein's theory and they call theories like Whitehead's by the author's name, although many of these "general relativity theories" agree on most predictions and they have otherwise few differences.
So, my concern was to know whether your theory is based on coupling of electromagnetism and gravity. My understanding now is that your answer is no.
