I think that the question about coupling of electromagnetism and gravity is wrong question. Gravity is coupled with magnetism but charge potential make the currents of its own.
Still, the cyclic structure of the universe is coupled with both gravitomagnetism and electricity. They have a common space (naturally) and in my model they have common relation to the magnetic monopole; gravity as longitudinal contact - electricity as spinal contact. The electricity make gravity coherent to be magnetic.
In my model the real magnetic monopole is a singularity of spacetime gathering vacuum quanta ie reducing the space in all directions. All fundamental particles have this monopole structure just like Higgs mechanism. Cycles between normal and anti-energy states make monople to be dipole when measuring from electrical dual world.
The very opening shot was when I noticed that basically the fundament for all must be the self-contained universe, curved to itself, maybe without any definable size. I have reached the decision that whole geometry could be like klein bottle that keep straight lines and cyclic fluctuations are like both-handed möbius tape pairs...
Ok. I think this is now so hands swinging that I draw back to my studies. Let's see if self accelerating will make breaktrough some day...
FYI:
http://bit.ly/1SwxdeqInteresting because the Sach-Schwebel formulation of General Relativity showed gravitational currents when the time-reversal symmetry of electromagnetic radiation was asymmetric.
The question is if this represents true asymmetry or just a swept duplexer.
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).
The Shawyer claim mentions "a tapered microwave cavity with internal convex and concave shaped end plates, such that the radii of curvature of these end plates assure every point on the wavefront of the propogated electromagnetic wave has the same path length between the end plates."
Wouldn't this be two concentric fragments of a sphere?
If a section were to be cut at right angles to the sphere radius, one could have a circle, triangle, sphere, hexagon, or any regular or irregular outline, with the inner and the outer plate being topologically equivalent but at different scales.
So, no matter what you guys invent, Shawyer's got ya covered by his patent already.
Just sayin'.
I think that the question about coupling of electromagnetism and gravity is wrong question. Gravity is coupled with magnetism but charge potential make the currents of its own.
I believe that since "they" are proposing to convert electrical energy to forward momentum, that coupling electromagnetism and gravity is exactly the right question.
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).
The Shawyer claim mentions "a tapered microwave cavity with internal convex and concave shaped end plates, such that the radii of curvature of these end plates assure every point on the wavefront of the propogated electromagnetic wave has the same path length between the end plates."
Wouldn't this be two concentric fragments of a sphere?
If a section were to be cut at right angles to the sphere radius, one could have a circle, triangle, sphere, hexagon, or any regular or irregular outline, with the inner and the outer plate being topologically equivalent but at different scales.
So, no matter what you guys invent, Shawyer's got ya covered by his patent already.
Just sayin'.
A sphere is a 3-Dimensional object, existing in 3-Dimensional space:
a perfectly round geometrical object in three-dimensional space that is the surface of a completely round ball,
a round solid figure, or its surface, with every point on its surface equidistant from its center.
Shaywer's patent claim satisfies that.
Shawyer's patent claim also works OK in a 2-Dimensional geometry (with the electromagnetic fields only varying in 2-D flat space and being constant in the third dimension perpendicular to the plane), as the "pizza slice with circular inner boundary" <<a round solid figure in 2-D flat space, with every point in 2-D flat space on its surface equidistant from its center>>
<<such that the radii of curvature of these end plates assure every point on the wavefront of the propogated electromagnetic wave [in 2-D flat space] has the same path length between the end plates>>
Shawyer could
claim that the patent's claim does not specify that 3-D space is used for the definition, and that the claim covers both cases: the electromagnetic fields varying in 3-D space and varying only in 2-D space.
Of course, somebody could counter-argue that real physical space is 3-D, that talking about 2-D space is a mathematical abstraction, etc., so I do get your point.My experience with patent litigation (which is very expensive: millions of dollars, as remarked by rq3) is that such disputes
would have to be decided not by commonly accepted definitions in dictionaries, but first and foremost by patent lawyers using
the description and definitions in the patent itself.
Patent disputes would have to be decided not by commonly accepted definitions in dictionaries, but first and foremost by patent lawyer using the description and definitions in the whole patent itself.
To the extent that the descriptions and definitions in those patents describe common geometry configurations, such as portions of concentric spheres, as being central to the unique operating principles of the patent, then one can begin to see that our patent system is broken.
Geometry is becoming a field of innovation itself:
http://www.danieldavis.com/patenting-geometry/"Are you *coughing* kidding me."
As an aside, and as we all *coughing* know, actual rounded rectangles have been patented:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/11/apple-awarded-design-patent-for-actual-rounded-rectangle/I don't think that the point I'm making is the point being taken.
Should a functioning EM drive be invented and fabricated using portions of two concentric spheres, then I would expect to see a patent infringement case being brought against that inventor. My observation is strictly limited to what I see happening in the patent industry, and has no bearing on the theoretical and experimental work being showcased in this thread.
Patent discussions, in and of themselves, are off-topic unless there is a technical component.
I had to build the geometry for the pizza slice in another application as FEKO's primitives are limited. It's really just a section of a polygon pipe.
Got some interesting resonance patterns, including some of the TE modes talked about here (image below). One note, this model is smaller than I intended so things get more interesting closer to 3Ghz and beyond. And I didn't switch to a superconductor - i'm still using copper for the sim.
I had to build the geometry for the pizza slice in another application as FEKO's primitives are limited. It's really just a section of a polygon pipe.
Got some interesting resonance patterns, including some of the TE modes talked about here (image below). One note, this model is smaller than I intended so things get more interesting closer to 3Ghz and beyond. And I didn't switch to a superconductor - i'm still using copper for the sim.
Love this !
"Wavelength stretching" is significantly greater for the wedge shape geometry that has:
length of lateral walls significantly longer than distance between walls,
than for the latest case you run:
Lateral walls that are shorter length than the length of the circular arcs between them
We are learning a lot from these computer runs ! 
THIS
does not look like this:
Wavelength stretching is a function of both
1) taper angle
and
2) ratio of: length of lateral walls to distance between walls.
I had to build the geometry for the pizza slice in another application as FEKO's primitives are limited. It's really just a section of a polygon pipe.
Got some interesting resonance patterns, including some of the TE modes talked about here (image below). One note, this model is smaller than I intended so things get more interesting closer to 3Ghz and beyond. And I didn't switch to a superconductor - i'm still using copper for the sim.
...snip
Could you run a simulation not so far away from the apex and maybe for a smaller "pizza slice"(small angle)?
Near this geometry, or maybe the same but with the curved plates, would be much easier to compare..
I ask this because I think Dr Rodal is right with the impact of the boundary conditions. The tendency to greater wavelength is much easier to see near the apex of the tapered structure.
The stretching of the wavelength is nonlinear with the linear changing geometry of the taper. Therefore the stretching effect may simply hard to see in your last run.
Please ask me for details tomorrow. Bad time... Zzzzz
The stretching of the wavelength
Why not use the correct name / term? IE, increasing guide wavelength?
Which is caused as cutoff wavelength increases due to reducing waveguide dimensions. Doesn't matter if it is a tapered rectangular waveguide or a tapered circular waveguide. Same effect on guide wavelength occurs.
Should add that as guide wavelength increases, group velocity decreases.
Upper equation for circular waveguide, lower equation for rectangular waveguide.
The stretching of the wavelength
Why not use the correct name / term? IE, increasing guide wavelength?
Which is caused as cutoff wavelength increases due to reducing waveguide dimensions. Doesn't matter if it is a tapered rectangular waveguide or a tapered circular waveguide. Same effect on guide wavelength occurs.
Should add that as guide wavelength increases, group velocity decreases.
Upper equation for circular waveguide, lower equation for rectangular waveguide.
Because I am a german guy and it's not my natural language 
. I am trying to be expressed my minds based on translation software and my limited knowledge in english.
Would think Guide Wavelength is a standard term used by all microwave engineers?
Anyway what you are seeing is what Roger's equations predict happen inside a frustum. The Df in his Accelerative Reaction Force equation
Force = (2 Qu Pwr Df) / c
Is based on guide wavelength variation between the ends, which is now very clearly shown to be happening.
Nice work on the presentation. Well done. That image is a keeper.
BTW is there any way to plot / display the guide wavelength changes between the end plates?
The stretching of the wavelength
Why not use the correct name / term? IE, increasing guide wavelength?
Which is caused as cutoff wavelength increases due to reducing waveguide dimensions. Doesn't matter if it is a tapered rectangular waveguide or a tapered circular waveguide. Same effect on guide wavelength occurs.
Should add that as guide wavelength increases, group velocity decreases.
Upper equation for circular waveguide, lower equation for rectangular waveguide.
Because increasing wavelength towards the small end due to tapering occurs even for waveguides (or cavities) with a small end that is larger than the cut-off length.
The phenomena are related, but
strictly speaking there is no such thing as a unique "wavelength" in a tapered waveguide. The wavelength continuously increases in length along the longitudinal direction, along the "tapered direction".The equations you showed are strictly applicable for
constant cross-section waveguides.
Constant cross-section waveguides (of any cross-sectional shape, circular, rectangular, etc.) have a unique wavelength.
The stretching of the wavelength
Why not use the correct name / term? IE, increasing guide wavelength?
Which is caused as cutoff wavelength increases due to reducing waveguide dimensions. Doesn't matter if it is a tapered rectangular waveguide or a tapered circular waveguide. Same effect on guide wavelength occurs.
Should add that as guide wavelength increases, group velocity decreases.
Upper equation for circular waveguide, lower equation for rectangular waveguide.
Because increasing wavelength towards the small end due to tapering occurs even for waveguides (or cavities) with a small end that is larger than the cut-off length.
The phenomena are related, but strictly speaking there is no such thing as a "waveguide wavelength" in a tapered waveguide because there is no unique wavelength. The wavelength continuously increases in length along the taper.
Expect at the end plates, where at the small end plate it achieves the longest guide wavelength & is reflected and at the big end plate, where it achieves the shortest guide wavelength & is reflected.
It is only the guide wavelength values at the end plates that are of interest.
Attached is a typical graph of guide wavelength along the length axis of a frustum.
Of course as the guide wavelength varies so to does the group velocity vary, being slowest at max guide wavelength (small end reflection) and fastest at min guide wavelength (big end reflection).
Please ask me for details tomorrow. Bad time... Zzzzz
I was able to get TE012 with the wedge geometry without curved end-plates. Notice the same "stretching."
Please ask me for details tomorrow. Bad time... Zzzzz
I was able to get TE012 with the wedge geometry without curved end-plates. Notice the same "stretching."
I notice the same increase in "guide wavelength", which also means the group velocity is dropping as the guide wavelength increases further as the waveguide dimensions reduce.
This is what I have been saying since I started posting on NSF.
Is the penny finally starting to drop?
Please ask me for details tomorrow. Bad time... Zzzzz
I was able to get TE012 with the wedge geometry without curved end-plates. Notice the same "stretching."
I notice the same increase in "guide wavelength", which also means the group velocity is dropping as the guide wavelength increases further as the waveguide dimensions reduce.
This is what I have been saying since I started posting on NSF.
Is the penny finally starting to drop?
Which is all consistent with the Notsosureofit's hypothesis:
http://emdrive.wiki/@notsosureofit_Hypothesisthe one equation that explicitly takes into account the mode shapes
It was always consistent with Todd DeSiato's (Warp-Tech) explanation.
Aside from that, the main issues (has always been and) remains:
how is conservation of momentum and
conservation of energy satisfied?
Is General Relativity involved?
Another geometry possible is the wedge/pizza-slice. Shawyer's image would not show this as it is from a single view only. I'm running a sweep on this now.
Surprisingly, I did not see the stretching I predicted with the wedge/pizza-slice geometry.
. I am trying to be expressed my minds based on translation software and my limited knowledge in english.