-
#1160 by zen-in on 01 Oct, 2016 18:41
-
If there is hostility to EM-Drive research you won't find it on this forum. The moderators remove any comments that are not up to their standards for civility. There is probably less criticism of experimental results than you would normally see at a scientic conference because of that. Lately this forum has devolved into philosophical musings on the EM-Drive. There are several DIY'rs who have built experiments yet we hear nothing about their tests. Earlier this month there was a conference and nothing has come out of that. I can only conclude that despite all the effort and talk there is still nothing to show.QuoteThere are several DIY'rs who have built experiments yet we hear nothing about their tests. Earlier this month there was a conference and nothing has come out of that. I can only conclude that despite all the effort and talk there is still nothing to show
You did see Rfmwguy's and Monrphic's test results! Where they showed what appears to be thrusts, but they were pushed to a higher bar as many did me last December when I reported something. This level of detail to present good data with all the errors quantified and accounted for take time and money. I'm glad they are taking the engineering time with the work it demands to present solid data.
On the Advanced Propulsion Workshop, I was pleasantly surprised. They were not a bunch of Kool Aid drinkers spouting nonsensical information and theories. A quite serious, down to earth nuts and bolts meeting to present detailed analytical analysis of advanced propulsion systems. I understand that the video of the meeting will be presented after they do the immense amount of work needed so we all can view it.
Best,
Shell
Actually I haven't seen any results. All I saw was videos and some graphs. Can you send me a link to any experiment reports that describe the protocol, and that show raw data from different test runs, etc?
As to the conference I think it would be helpful to publish the speaker list, an abstract of each talk and the powerpoint presentation. That would be useful for interpreting the video when it is finally edited. No one seems to want to discuss anything about the conference, aside from a few comments earlier. So I think I am correct in assuming there have been no breakthroughs and that nothing new has happened in the last 2 years. EW earlier attempts to ascribe first Lorentz error forces and then thermal effects (in the vacuum tests) as proof of an actual EM-Drive thrust has made me more of a skeptic. -
#1161 by Bob012345 on 01 Oct, 2016 19:15
-
Sorry, but I just showed that rockets do not provide constant thrust for constant power. Ever. There is no flight regime where neglecting the fact that rockets are throwing mass out the back is acceptable. If you neglect that, you have to neglect that it generates any force as well.First, while Shawyer may have said the EMDrive is an open system, none of his theory supports that statement at all. He claims no new physics needed, and does not describe anything that the device pushes against, or any type of exhaust from the device.
I am not sure where you got 2/c, but the limit is 1/c from special relativity. I am guessing you may have been thinking about an external laser being reflected by the ship, but that is not a case of constant force, due to the doppler effect as the device accelerates. Photon recycling is completely different, because then you have another body involved on the other end, and you have to account for that in your calculations.
Rockets do not provide constant thrust for constant power. First, you have to define your system. If you take the whole rocket at the beginning (including fuel) then you will find that center of mass never moves, in that sense force is 0.
For a non-trivial example, Let's instead draw the box only around the payload (here I am including tanks, etc. as part of the payload), and exclude the fuel.
definitions:
mp = mass of payload
mf = initial mass of fuel
me = rate that mass is expelled (take this as a positive number)
ve = velocity that fuel is expelled at (ship frame, again positive number)
Using the rocket equation:
Force on payload as a function of time is: F = mp*ve*me / ( mp + mf - me*t)
While this is an increasing function of time, the power applied to the payload to cause the force is increasing faster:
dEp/dt = v*mp*ve*me / ( mp + mf - me*t)
where v = ve * ln( (mp+mf) / (mp + mf - me*t) )
The ratio of force to power is therefore 1/v, which is a function of time, not a constant.
The reason the increasing power is possible is because while the chemical energy (or electric for ion thrusters) per unit mass expelled remains constant, that expelled mass had gained kinetic energy from the previously expelled mass, some of which is transferred to the payload as the fuel is sent out the back.
I could post the rest of the energy balance equations, but equations are a pain to type and I think I have made my point.
Sorry but a rocket absolutely can provide a constant thrust for constant power, they do it all the time. I thought it was plainly obvious that I am referring to a flight regime where the mass change is trivial compared to the overall mass. Then it can be at or near a constant for a while. I really am not debating about the rocket equation over the whole trip. The main point is to compare it to the EmDrive which purports to have a constant thrust at a constant power. I'm not saying it must or it's always exactly thus but that it is possible. So, for my purposes, yes, the rocket has a constant thrust for a given power over some regime of flight.
...Yes, you can do twice as well with an external beam as propulsion than if you have the beam emitting from the rocket because you have twice the momentum change. No, the Doppler shift does happen but it's effect is very small until very high speeds are reached and that is not the main point we are debating. That's a second order issue.
You don't get to pick and choose what laws you pay attention to, either include the Doppler shift and see that it is not constant force/power ratio, or get the wrong answer. And this is the point we are debating, because you keep trying to find constant force/power ratio systems with a value greater than 1/c, and I am showing you that none of the ones you are coming up with are.
Photon recycling does involve another body but not another energy source. So you can do better than 2/c over the whole trip. If fact if you recycle at an effective momentum of 4 * power/c you run into 'over unity' past c/2.
For photon recycling, you have to account for Doppler shifts at both ends, and the acceleration of the reflector on the other end. As the spacecraft and reflector accelerate away from each other, force/power ratio decreases. Not constant force/power, so it does not break CoE.
I'd like to point out that both points miss the point so it would be pointless to point out those points again. But here is my main point again, I don't think the EmDrive, Cannae or Woodward's device breaks CoE. Ever.
-
#1162 by Star One on 01 Oct, 2016 19:19
-
If there is hostility to EM-Drive research you won't find it on this forum. The moderators remove any comments that are not up to their standards for civility. There is probably less criticism of experimental results than you would normally see at a scientic conference because of that. Lately this forum has devolved into philosophical musings on the EM-Drive. There are several DIY'rs who have built experiments yet we hear nothing about their tests. Earlier this month there was a conference and nothing has come out of that. I can only conclude that despite all the effort and talk there is still nothing to show.QuoteThere are several DIY'rs who have built experiments yet we hear nothing about their tests. Earlier this month there was a conference and nothing has come out of that. I can only conclude that despite all the effort and talk there is still nothing to show
You did see Rfmwguy's and Monrphic's test results! Where they showed what appears to be thrusts, but they were pushed to a higher bar as many did me last December when I reported something. This level of detail to present good data with all the errors quantified and accounted for take time and money. I'm glad they are taking the engineering time with the work it demands to present solid data.
On the Advanced Propulsion Workshop, I was pleasantly surprised. They were not a bunch of Kool Aid drinkers spouting nonsensical information and theories. A quite serious, down to earth nuts and bolts meeting to present detailed analytical analysis of advanced propulsion systems. I understand that the video of the meeting will be presented after they do the immense amount of work needed so we all can view it.
Best,
Shell
Actually I haven't seen any results. All I saw was videos and some graphs. Can you send me a link to any experiment reports that describe the protocol, and that show raw data from different test runs, etc?
As to the conference I think it would be helpful to publish the speaker list, an abstract of each talk and the powerpoint presentation. That would be useful for interpreting the video when it is finally edited. No one seems to want to discuss anything about the conference, aside from a few comments earlier. So I think I am correct in assuming there have been no breakthroughs and that nothing new has happened in the last 2 years. EW earlier attempts to ascribe first Lorentz error forces and then thermal effects (in the vacuum tests) as proof of an actual EM-Drive thrust has made me more of a skeptic.
For a start one of the speeches is embargoed that's the one relating to the AIAA paper. The other contributors have indicated that people will just have to wait. If you really want to see a few hints then I suggest reading some of Dr Rodal's recent posts. -
#1163 by SeeShells on 01 Oct, 2016 19:26
-
You ask quite a bit on the Advanced Propulsion Workshop that is not in my power to do or even have. It is up to SSI.org, as it's their material.
If there is hostility to EM-Drive research you won't find it on this forum. The moderators remove any comments that are not up to their standards for civility. There is probably less criticism of experimental results than you would normally see at a scientic conference because of that. Lately this forum has devolved into philosophical musings on the EM-Drive. There are several DIY'rs who have built experiments yet we hear nothing about their tests. Earlier this month there was a conference and nothing has come out of that. I can only conclude that despite all the effort and talk there is still nothing to show.QuoteThere are several DIY'rs who have built experiments yet we hear nothing about their tests. Earlier this month there was a conference and nothing has come out of that. I can only conclude that despite all the effort and talk there is still nothing to show
You did see Rfmwguy's and Monrphic's test results! Where they showed what appears to be thrusts, but they were pushed to a higher bar as many did me last December when I reported something. This level of detail to present good data with all the errors quantified and accounted for take time and money. I'm glad they are taking the engineering time with the work it demands to present solid data.
On the Advanced Propulsion Workshop, I was pleasantly surprised. They were not a bunch of Kool Aid drinkers spouting nonsensical information and theories. A quite serious, down to earth nuts and bolts meeting to present detailed analytical analysis of advanced propulsion systems. I understand that the video of the meeting will be presented after they do the immense amount of work needed so we all can view it.
Best,
Shell
Actually I haven't seen any results. All I saw was videos and some graphs. Can you send me a link to any experiment reports that describe the protocol, and that show raw data from different test runs, etc?
As to the conference I think it would be helpful to publish the speaker list, an abstract of each talk and the powerpoint presentation. That would be useful for interpreting the video when it is finally edited. No one seems to want to discuss anything about the conference, aside from a few comments earlier. So I think I am correct in assuming there have been no breakthroughs and that nothing new has happened in the last 2 years. EW earlier attempts to ascribe first Lorentz error forces and then thermal effects (in the vacuum tests) as proof of an actual EM-Drive thrust has made me more of a skeptic.
Also the raw data was furnished by rfmwguy and monomorphic in data spreadsheets and detailed videos. You are welcome dig through the pages of NSF using the search routines to pull it out.
You seem to have a propensity to jump to conclusions when all the data isn't on the plate, I'm willing to wait, you should do likewise.
Shell
-
#1164 by Bob012345 on 01 Oct, 2016 19:52
-
If there is hostility to EM-Drive research you won't find it on this forum. The moderators remove any comments that are not up to their standards for civility. There is probably less criticism of experimental results than you would normally see at a scientic conference because of that. Lately this forum has devolved into philosophical musings on the EM-Drive. There are several DIY'rs who have built experiments yet we hear nothing about their tests. Earlier this month there was a conference and nothing has come out of that. I can only conclude that despite all the effort and talk there is still nothing to show.QuoteThere are several DIY'rs who have built experiments yet we hear nothing about their tests. Earlier this month there was a conference and nothing has come out of that. I can only conclude that despite all the effort and talk there is still nothing to show
You did see Rfmwguy's and Monrphic's test results! Where they showed what appears to be thrusts, but they were pushed to a higher bar as many did me last December when I reported something. This level of detail to present good data with all the errors quantified and accounted for take time and money. I'm glad they are taking the engineering time with the work it demands to present solid data.
On the Advanced Propulsion Workshop, I was pleasantly surprised. They were not a bunch of Kool Aid drinkers spouting nonsensical information and theories. A quite serious, down to earth nuts and bolts meeting to present detailed analytical analysis of advanced propulsion systems. I understand that the video of the meeting will be presented after they do the immense amount of work needed so we all can view it.
Best,
Shell
Actually I haven't seen any results. All I saw was videos and some graphs. Can you send me a link to any experiment reports that describe the protocol, and that show raw data from different test runs, etc?
As to the conference I think it would be helpful to publish the speaker list, an abstract of each talk and the powerpoint presentation. That would be useful for interpreting the video when it is finally edited. No one seems to want to discuss anything about the conference, aside from a few comments earlier. So I think I am correct in assuming there have been no breakthroughs and that nothing new has happened in the last 2 years. EW earlier attempts to ascribe first Lorentz error forces and then thermal effects (in the vacuum tests) as proof of an actual EM-Drive thrust has made me more of a skeptic.
For a start one of the speeches is embargoed that's the one relating to the AIAA paper. The other contributors have indicated that people will just have to wait. If you really want to see a few hints then I suggest reading some of Dr Rodal's recent posts.
Which AIAA paper? Thanks. -
#1165 by Tellmeagain on 01 Oct, 2016 20:09
-
Actually I haven't seen any results. All I saw was videos and some graphs. Can you send me a link to any experiment reports that describe the protocol, and that show raw data from different test runs, etc?
As to the conference I think it would be helpful to publish the speaker list, an abstract of each talk and the powerpoint presentation. That would be useful for interpreting the video when it is finally edited. No one seems to want to discuss anything about the conference, aside from a few comments earlier. So I think I am correct in assuming there have been no breakthroughs and that nothing new has happened in the last 2 years. EW earlier attempts to ascribe first Lorentz error forces and then thermal effects (in the vacuum tests) as proof of an actual EM-Drive thrust has made me more of a skeptic.
For a start one of the speeches is embargoed that's the one relating to the AIAA paper. The other contributors have indicated that people will just have to wait. If you really want to see a few hints then I suggest reading some of Dr Rodal's recent posts.
Which AIAA paper? Thanks.
It is the NASA EW Paul March, Soony White's vacuum experiment paper. -
#1166 by Bob012345 on 01 Oct, 2016 20:35
-
Which AIAA paper? Thanks.
I am surprised that you did not know this. It is the NASA EW Paul March, Soony White's vacuum experiment paper.
Of course. I thought it might be a new critique of the Shawyer AIAA paper for some odd reason. Thanks. -
#1167 by SeeShells on 01 Oct, 2016 21:19
-
Just to clear up the air by anyone from EagleWorks or NASA. Nothing was presented on the paper being released. Dr. White wasn't there and Paul March was very mum on any of the current testing or theories or anything on the new paper. I was really hoping for more, but sadly it didn't happen. grrrr
Which AIAA paper? Thanks.
I am surprised that you did not know this. It is the NASA EW Paul March, Soony White's vacuum experiment paper.
Of course. I thought it might be a new critique of the Shawyer AIAA paper for some odd reason. Thanks.
Best,
Shell -
#1168 by Star One on 01 Oct, 2016 21:43
-
Just to clear up the air by anyone from EagleWorks or NASA. Nothing was presented on the paper being released. Dr. White wasn't there and Paul March was very mum on any of the current testing or theories or anything on the new paper. I was really hoping for more, but sadly it didn't happen. grrrr
Which AIAA paper? Thanks.
I am surprised that you did not know this. It is the NASA EW Paul March, Soony White's vacuum experiment paper.
Of course. I thought it might be a new critique of the Shawyer AIAA paper for some odd reason. Thanks.
Best,
Shell
Thank you for the clarification. Surprised then the talk was embargoed then. -
#1169 by zen-in on 01 Oct, 2016 21:48
-
...
You ask quite a bit on the Advanced Propulsion Workshop that is not in my power to do or even have. It is up to SSI.org, as it's their material.
Actually I haven't seen any results. All I saw was videos and some graphs. Can you send me a link to any experiment reports that describe the protocol, and that show raw data from different test runs, etc?
As to the conference I think it would be helpful to publish the speaker list, an abstract of each talk and the powerpoint presentation. That would be useful for interpreting the video when it is finally edited. No one seems to want to discuss anything about the conference, aside from a few comments earlier. So I think I am correct in assuming there have been no breakthroughs and that nothing new has happened in the last 2 years. EW earlier attempts to ascribe first Lorentz error forces and then thermal effects (in the vacuum tests) as proof of an actual EM-Drive thrust has made me more of a skeptic.
Also the raw data was furnished by rfmwguy and monomorphic in data spreadsheets and detailed videos. You are welcome dig through the pages of NSF using the search routines to pull it out.
You seem to have a propensity to jump to conclusions when all the data isn't on the plate, I'm willing to wait, you should do likewise.
Shell
I did look at rfmwguy's videos and excel files when they were posted. My recollection was they showed a strong thermal signature (second order response), just like EW's vacuum tests. I have done my own research and I helped with research projects when I was at university so know there is no substitute for well archived, traceble raw data and a write-up that describes the experiment protocol. EW did provide a good write-up that described their protocol and had some interesting raw data but there was so little of it I came to the conclusion that any data that did not support their theory was thrown out. In any investigation all data should have equal weight. It doesn't matter if you are trying to invent new science or are just trying to improve a product. When people have been working for years and have only a few results to show one has to conclude the majority of their experiments were inconclusive. This is the pattern I have seen with EM-Drive experiments. If the EW people, in their upcoming paper, recognize the difference between a first order response and a second order response and can show valid thrust results I will be really surprised. -
#1170 by SeeShells on 01 Oct, 2016 22:39
-
...
You ask quite a bit on the Advanced Propulsion Workshop that is not in my power to do or even have. It is up to SSI.org, as it's their material.
Actually I haven't seen any results. All I saw was videos and some graphs. Can you send me a link to any experiment reports that describe the protocol, and that show raw data from different test runs, etc?
As to the conference I think it would be helpful to publish the speaker list, an abstract of each talk and the powerpoint presentation. That would be useful for interpreting the video when it is finally edited. No one seems to want to discuss anything about the conference, aside from a few comments earlier. So I think I am correct in assuming there have been no breakthroughs and that nothing new has happened in the last 2 years. EW earlier attempts to ascribe first Lorentz error forces and then thermal effects (in the vacuum tests) as proof of an actual EM-Drive thrust has made me more of a skeptic.
Also the raw data was furnished by rfmwguy and monomorphic in data spreadsheets and detailed videos. You are welcome dig through the pages of NSF using the search routines to pull it out.
You seem to have a propensity to jump to conclusions when all the data isn't on the plate, I'm willing to wait, you should do likewise.
Shell
I did look at rfmwguy's videos and excel files when they were posted. My recollection was they showed a strong thermal signature (second order response), just like EW's vacuum tests. I have done my own research and I helped with research projects when I was at university so know there is no substitute for well archived, traceble raw data and a write-up that describes the experiment protocol. EW did provide a good write-up that described their protocol and had some interesting raw data but there was so little of it I came to the conclusion that any data that did not support their theory was thrown out. In any investigation all data should have equal weight. It doesn't matter if you are trying to invent new science or are just trying to improve a product. When people have been working for years and have only a few results to show one has to conclude the majority of their experiments were inconclusive. This is the pattern I have seen with EM-Drive experiments. If the EW people, in their upcoming paper, recognize the difference between a first order response and a second order response and can show valid thrust results I will be really surprised.QuoteEW did provide a good write-up that described their protocol and had some interesting raw data but there was so little of it I came to the conclusion that any data that did not support their theory was thrown out.
This is where you and I disagree, that's making assumptions about data presented by NASA. If anything it would be in their interest to present data that either refutes or denies, not to cherry pick data to make someone look good. That is counter to what NASA has stood for for years.
A researcher should be willing to look at the data objectively and when I say there is no bad data, I mean just that. If this evolves to something that gets us to the stars, then great, if this evolves to something that will not, then great. All that means is the next step from here will be different.
Shell
PS: Didn't you see monomorphic's data? -
#1171 by Rodal on 02 Oct, 2016 00:13
-
....
Shell
.......
Shell and Monomorphic
You may be interested to consider this material as a dielectric insert, due to its giant electrostrictive properties. (*)
In this article:
Q. M. Zhang, J. Su, Chy Hyung Kim, R. Ting and Rodger Capps "An experimental investigation of electromechanical responses in a polyurethane elastomer", Journal Applied Physics, Vol. 81, No. 6, 15 March 1997, pp. 2772
the authors find a giant electrostrictive effect in the particular kind of thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer they tested., The polyurethane used was produced by Deerfield Urethane, Inc. using a Dow polyurethane (Dow
2103-80AE).
It is important to use exactly the same type of polyurethane elastomer (as polyurethanes can be thermoset or thermoplastic, and they have a wide variety of hardness depending on the formulation (**)).
Lubrizol acquired the Pellethane product line from Dow in 2009, but this thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer is still marketed by Lubrizol:
https://lubrizol.com/Engineered-Polymers/Estane/2103-80AE.pdf
There is still a Deerfield Urethanes in Massachusetts that may be able to provide this: http://www.bloomberg.com/profiles/companies/0953577D:US-deerfield-urethane-inc
NOTE: the tan delta of this material may be a problem, if too large, it will lower the Q and result in significant heat generation. The softening point of this material is low, at 185 deg F=85 degC. The Tg is below room temperature, at -40 deg C (it is an elastomer at room temperature). I rapidly looked for the dielectric tan delta but could not readily find a value in the Internet.
______________________
(*) Q11= 450 m^4/C^2 for this TPU, compared with inorganic ceramic PZT which has Q11=0.1 m^4/C^2
(**) Here are more technical details of the TPU formulation they used:
The soft segment was poly(tetramethylene glycol) (PTMEG) with a molecular weight of about 1000. The hard segment is comprised of a di-isocyanate and a diol chain extender. The diisocyanate is methylenedi-p-phenyl di-isocyanate (MDI) and the dial chain extender is 1,4-butanediol (BD). The mole ratio of the components is about 1.8 mol MDI/0.8 mol BD/1.0 mol PTMEG. Hence, the hard segment (MDI+BD) is approximately 34% by weight in the sample.
-
#1172 by Rodal on 02 Oct, 2016 02:19
-
....
Shell
.......
Shell and Monomorphic
You may be interested to consider this material as a dielectric insert, due to its giant electrostrictive properties. (*)
In this article:
Q. M. Zhang, J. Su, Chy Hyung Kim, R. Ting and Rodger Capps "An experimental investigation of electromechanical responses in a polyurethane elastomer", Journal Applied Physics, Vol. 81, No. 6, 15 March 1997, pp. 2772
...
See this more recent article (2012)
Electroactive Thermoplastic Dielectric Elastomers as a New Generation Polymer Actuators
Chong Min Koo
Table 3, page 410, showing a number of polymers with even higher values of electrostriction Q(m^/C^2)
http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/34076.pdf
SEBS poly (Styrene-Ethylene-Butylene-Styrene) triblock copolymer and MA (maleic anhydride) thermoplastic dielectric elastomers have even more gigantic electrostrictive constants -
#1173 by SeeShells on 02 Oct, 2016 02:28
-
Very nice, morning reading!....
Shell
.......
Shell and Monomorphic
You may be interested to consider this material as a dielectric insert, due to its giant electrostrictive properties. (*)
In this article:
Q. M. Zhang, J. Su, Chy Hyung Kim, R. Ting and Rodger Capps "An experimental investigation of electromechanical responses in a polyurethane elastomer", Journal Applied Physics, Vol. 81, No. 6, 15 March 1997, pp. 2772
...
See this more recent article (2012)
Electroactive Thermoplastic Dielectric Elastomers as a New Generation Polymer Actuators
Chong Min Koo
Table 3, page 410, showing a number of polymers with even higher values of electrostriction Q(m^/C^2)
http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/34076.pdf
SEBS (Styrene-Ethylene-Butylene-Styrene) and MA (maleic anhydride) thermoplastic dielectric elastomers have even more gigantic electrostrictive constants
Thanks Dr. Rodal!
Shell -
#1174 by meberbs on 02 Oct, 2016 05:28
-
I'd like to point out that both points miss the point so it would be pointless to point out those points again. But here is my main point again, I don't think the EmDrive, Cannae or Woodward's device breaks CoE. Ever.
On that point we are in agreement, I don't expect the emDrive to break CoE even if it works, and that means certain theories (e.g. Shawyer's) must not be correct.
For reference, I don't have any specific complaints about the Mach effect, only Woodward's paper that uses a bunch of bad logic to defend the Mach effect. -
#1175 by dustinthewind on 02 Oct, 2016 05:57
-
I thought the graphic below was a really simple illustration of energy conservation for a very simple rocket with propellant. The energy in the explosion is added to the system so the system appears to gain energy but only because the energy required to accelerate the components doesn't initially show up in the system.
I have issues with the concept that energy can go from the light directly to the frustum in that when the light is emitted from the antenna it has no net momentum. In order for the cavity to give this light net momentum it has to some how flip the direction of the momentum of some of the light which violates conservation of momentum.
Without a 3rd party involved to conserve momentum I can't see how that happens. Now the idea of instantly pushing on the rest of the universe to me seems a bit of a jump. Maybe that is just me. However, I can see that if that push had to do with disturbing the vacuum, that the rest of the universe rests in, such that the rest of the universe will feel the result in time, then I can understand that. Maybe I'm not seeing the big picture though.
There was some talk about currents in the cavity being responsible rather than the light which I think were connected to the concept of Woodward and changing mass of a capacitor inductance system. I am a bit unconvinced that something that would influence the currents inside the cavity would not also influence the behavior of the light and possibly modifying is characteristics.
My reasoning is that light seems to me to be the universes way of keeping track of every charge's change in the magnetic field. The Biot Savart equation gives the magnetic field of a single charge. You will notice the B field in the direction the charge travels is zero. http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~teviet/Waves/empulse.html Light emitted from an accelerating charge is also zero in the direction (towards and away) the charge is accelerating. If one finds this magnetic field for a charge that changes velocity and integrates it from infinity to the observation distance and assumes this magnetic field is traveling at the speed of light you get the electric field of light. page 122 to 124 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286118593_Determining_if_an_axially_rotated_solenoid_will_induce_a_radial_EMF There seemingly being a static magnetic field that moves with the charge and then a dynamic magnetic field, moving at c, that is the sum of what is to be deposited over space (light). So my feeling that if there is a mass changing effect on charges in a cavity it may also effect the light, but is just a feeling.
-
#1176 by Monomorphic on 02 Oct, 2016 15:35
-
Phase change collar worked very well. The magnetron remained cool, and since the heatsink is now sealed, I was able to eliminate the vortex shedding problem. Hot vortices would rise and flow around one side of the torsional pendulum arm, causing the test article to move "forward." You can see a comparison from the 9-1 test below.
It looks like what I am seeing now is displacement caused by current heating the leads - since displacement begins on power on, and before any RF is present.
-
#1177 by Bob012345 on 02 Oct, 2016 15:48
-
I'd like to point out that both points miss the point so it would be pointless to point out those points again. But here is my main point again, I don't think the EmDrive, Cannae or Woodward's device breaks CoE. Ever.
On that point we are in agreement, I don't expect the emDrive to break CoE even if it works, and that means certain theories (e.g. Shawyer's) must not be correct.
For reference, I don't have any specific complaints about the Mach effect, only Woodward's paper that uses a bunch of bad logic to defend the Mach effect.
Thanks, but just to clarify, when you say it won't break CoE, do you specifically mean it won't keep accelerating past a certain velocity wrt the starting frame of reference. If my view it does yet nothing ever can break any true law of physics but may bend our current understanding of them. -
#1178 by WarpTech on 02 Oct, 2016 16:23
-
Phase change collar worked very well. The magnetron remained cool, and since the heatsink is now sealed, I was able to eliminate the vortex shedding problem. Hot vortices would rise and flow around one side of the torsional pendulum arm, causing the test article to move "forward." You can see a comparison from the 9-1 test below.
It looks like what I am seeing now is displacement caused by current heating the leads - since displacement begins on power on, and before any RF is present.
Wires in each circuit should be twisted tightly in pairs. If you can use shielded cables for the ground, it will prevent spurious fields from interacting. I see your ground wire in the photo. This should be twisted with the other wires and terminated much closer to the point of power input, or eliminated in favor of a shielded cable. Minimize inductance of every circuit by twisting them tight. Highly flexible "silicone" wire is preferred to prevent transfer of forces to the frustum. -
#1179 by meberbs on 02 Oct, 2016 16:46
-
It depends on how it works, if it works by pushing on something new, like dark matter, degradable QV, etc, then the performance of the drive would be affected by the magnitude and direction of the local flow of what it is pushing against. If it is pushing on the entire rest of the matter in the universe, which is how I understand the Mach effect, then the effect of velocity/direction on its performance would be negligible. Although if you did the math for a hypothetical universe with only the drive and one other small object, I would expect some relative velocity terms to appear.I'd like to point out that both points miss the point so it would be pointless to point out those points again. But here is my main point again, I don't think the EmDrive, Cannae or Woodward's device breaks CoE. Ever.
On that point we are in agreement, I don't expect the emDrive to break CoE even if it works, and that means certain theories (e.g. Shawyer's) must not be correct.
For reference, I don't have any specific complaints about the Mach effect, only Woodward's paper that uses a bunch of bad logic to defend the Mach effect.
Thanks, but just to clarify, when you say it won't break CoE, do you specifically mean it won't keep accelerating past a certain velocity wrt the starting frame of reference. If my view it does yet nothing ever can break any true law of physics but may bend our current understanding of them.
The details of the theory would be needed to conclude anything, but most valid theories should show increasing power required to accelerate against the local flow of what it is pushing against.
