-
#1180
by
Monomorphic
on 02 Oct, 2016 16:49
-
Highly flexible "silicone" wire is preferred to prevent transfer of forces to the frustum.
The three leads are braided together. Here is a better image. I will probably redo the leads, move them around, try different windings. I am using the highly flexible silicone wire.
-
#1181
by
Augmentor
on 02 Oct, 2016 19:20
-
Monomorphic,
The wire braids may contribute to thrust.
Will the leads be secured to avoid thrust contributions or do they need to be floating for some reason,
Will the leads be shielded?
(edited for clarity)
-
#1182
by
jay343
on 02 Oct, 2016 20:35
-
Highly flexible "silicone" wire is preferred to prevent transfer of forces to the frustum.
The three leads are braided together. Here is a better image. I will probably redo the leads, move them around, try different windings. I am using the highly flexible silicone wire.
The electrostatic and magnetic forces between the conductors will affect the stiffness of the cable when power is applied. I think it will want to straighten out. Whatever net force caused by that and/or thermal expansion of the wires, MAY be reduced by routing the cable as closely as possible to the axis of rotation of your test rig. That might reduce the leverage that the cable has on the frustum. Also, if there is any way to attach the ground wire directly to the magnetron, that might help too.
Peanut gallery out.
-
#1183
by
jay343
on 02 Oct, 2016 21:02
-
OK, the peanut gallery has one more. This might be over the top, but when considering forces in the micro-newton range, maybe not.
Consider making cables with two wires per polarity in a diamond configuration (thinking of the cross section). Then, at any point in time, two conductors will be attracting each other, and two will be repelling each other, by equal amounts.
The same strategy could be used to minimize the effect of thermal expansion by pairing wires that have a positive coefficient of expansion with wires that have a negative coefficient (if such beasties exist!).
Peanut gallery out. Again.
-
#1184
by
Monomorphic
on 02 Oct, 2016 21:13
-
Will the leads be secured to avoid thrust contributions or do they need to be floating for some reason,
Will the leads be shielded?
Right now I simply have the leads hanging from the torsional pendulum support beam in a drop loop. I don't have any plans to shield the wires, though it is not out of the question. It is obvious from the data that I will need to spend some time working on the leads. That or go with a solid state amp and batteries.
-
#1185
by
spupeng7
on 03 Oct, 2016 00:33
-
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.
dustinthewind makes good points here,
understanding that a magnetic field is comprised of dynamic electric fields will add clarity to this argument. In my opinion the lateral component of inertia generated by absorption of em energy into a conductor, is what enables thrust production. There is no equivalent to this in dynamics and it must be carefully considered in the analysis because it is a constant component of the mechanism of thrust production from all perspectives.
Please consider.
-
#1186
by
Augmentor
on 03 Oct, 2016 01:33
-
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.
dustinthewind makes good points here,
understanding that a magnetic field is comprised of dynamic electric fields will add clarity to this argument. In my opinion the lateral component of inertia generated by absorption of em energy into a conductor, is what enables thrust production. There is no equivalent to this in dynamics and it must be carefully considered in the analysis because it is a constant component of the mechanism of thrust production from all perspectives.
Please consider.
Is there an equation for this lateral force? One would think that the lateral component would need to be symmetric in some way.
-
#1187
by
WarpTech
on 03 Oct, 2016 05:19
-
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.
dustinthewind makes good points here,
understanding that a magnetic field is comprised of dynamic electric fields will add clarity to this argument. In my opinion the lateral component of inertia generated by absorption of em energy into a conductor, is what enables thrust production. There is no equivalent to this in dynamics and it must be carefully considered in the analysis because it is a constant component of the mechanism of thrust production from all perspectives.
Please consider.
Is there an equation for this lateral force? One would think that the lateral component would need to be symmetric in some way.
Look up Gravitoelectromagnetism. My simplistic model of the Mach effect at present is that the force depends on d(1/m * dm/dt)/dt. The oscillating mass generates a gravitoelectric field that acts on the mass of the frustum, dragging it forward. However, m here is not the mass of the frustum, it's the mass of the universe. In this frame, the oscillation is a relativistic effect, so the gravitoelectric field produced by the motion is relative to the mass of the universe, and not the mass that's oscillating. That makes it an open system, not a closed system subject to COM.
-
#1188
by
rfmwguy
on 03 Oct, 2016 13:54
-
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.
dustinthewind makes good points here,
understanding that a magnetic field is comprised of dynamic electric fields will add clarity to this argument. In my opinion the lateral component of inertia generated by absorption of em energy into a conductor, is what enables thrust production. There is no equivalent to this in dynamics and it must be carefully considered in the analysis because it is a constant component of the mechanism of thrust production from all perspectives.
Please consider.
Is there an equation for this lateral force? One would think that the lateral component would need to be symmetric in some way.
Look up Gravitoelectromagnetism. My simplistic model of the Mach effect at present is that the force depends on d(1/m * dm/dt)/dt. The oscillating mass generates a gravitoelectric field that acts on the mass of the frustum, dragging it forward. However, m here is not the mass of the frustum, it's the mass of the universe. In this frame, the oscillation is a relativistic effect, so the gravitoelectric field produced by the motion is relative to the mass of the universe, and not the mass that's oscillating. That makes it an open system, not a closed system subject to COM.
Good thoughts Todd, I finally remembered what kept me from becoming interested in the mach-effect device a couple of years ago; it is basically like an ultrasonic transducer, subject to vibrations like a Piezo-electric buzzer.
However, I never researched it thoroughly and cannot make that statement with any author, it was just a red flag for me when I considered which methodology I wanted to experiment with.
Also, this was one of the reasons I used a "bare-naked" cavity without inserts for fear of mechanical vibration, outgassing, etc, etc.
I've learned that each methodology has is positives and negatives, non of which totally eliminate them from consideration IMO...just happen to have committed to EmDrive myself.
p.s. Glad you were able to attend the workshop.
-
#1189
by
flux_capacitor
on 03 Oct, 2016 15:24
-
Look up Gravitoelectromagnetism. My simplistic model of the Mach effect at present is that the force depends on d(1/m * dm/dt)/dt. The oscillating mass generates a gravitoelectric field that acts on the mass of the frustum, dragging it forward. However, m here is not the mass of the frustum, it's the mass of the universe. In this frame, the oscillation is a relativistic effect, so the gravitoelectric field produced by the motion is relative to the mass of the universe, and not the mass that's oscillating. That makes it an open system, not a closed system subject to COM.
Todd, at the Estes Park exotic propulsion workshop you intended, did your presentation (or the presentation by someone else there) could explain the EmDrive
without any dielectric insert (I emphasis on that point) as a genuine propellantless thruster also in terms of Mach effects, or is the dielectric insert mandatory for the M-E explanation?
This new path is so exciting I can't wait for your presentation and paper (as well as those from Dr Rodal, SeeShells and others) to appear online!
-
#1190
by
Bob012345
on 03 Oct, 2016 16:47
-
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.
Sure, but that potential energy just comes from they kinetic energy of the fuel before it was burned. All frames will agree that the net energy released is the same, that of the chemical energy of the fuel in the ships frame assuming that was all converted to kinetic energy between the ship and exhaust. A rocket that does a burn from a frame at rest wrt earth, one moving at the exhaust velocity and one moving at very high speed will use the same energy in the burn as calculated by all observers yet the ships kinetic energy gain is extrodinarily higher for the fast frames. That is real and useful and it's similar to the Oberth effect. It is well known that the final stage of a multistage rocket can gain far more kinetic energy from its own fuel than chemical energy alone contained in that fuel. Rocket engineers use that.
Also, your comment regarding currents is interesting. Since we know a photon rocket becomes near 100% efficient as the rocket nears the speed of light, I have wondered if there is an interaction between electrons in they skin moving near c and co moving EM waves that couple so efficiently that a lot of kinetic energy is gained by the electrons and thus the ship somehow. Just a though.
-
#1191
by
Bob012345
on 03 Oct, 2016 17:46
-
I wish to ask everyone's opinion on why EM Drive and related (Woodward etc.) research draws so much hostility.
I mean, there are some surprising experimental results, which some labs confirm and others don't, and some tentative theoretical explanations, over which scientists argue.
What else is new? That's how scientific research has always been, messy, uncertain, and ultimately glorious.
Clearly, what is called for is more experimental and theoretical work. But EM Drive (etc.) discussions in online communities, with a few exceptions like this one, are mostly name calling and accusations of "pseudoscience," without scientific arguments related to the ongoing experimental and theoretical work.
The "Sociology of EM Drive research" is fascinating. Why so many people are so passionately against something good? I don't know how to answer my question, but I have the impression that powerful emotional and most likely political factors are involved. Thoughts welcome.
I am one of the skeptics. I am mostly not hostile at all. I am friendly to all the DIYers, trying to help them to make their experiments better. I myself do experiments. If I have somehow hostility, it is toward Cannae, which like the E-Cat, is likely a deliberate fraud.
The experiments are all problematic. I have published about that. The experiments are not pseudoscience, they just have problems. Most theoretic works are pseudoscience. Some do not know what they are talking about. I have just analyzed a short paper by Professor Woodward so I know that.
EmDrive is not "something good". It started from a misconception by Mr. Shawyer. His "light reflected within frustum" explanation was directly simulated by an NSF user. After I debugged the code, the simulation generated no thrust. EmDrive does not work, that's why so many people are against it. If you ask my motive, it is mostly like this:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
There is unlikely political factors involved. If you believe in that, you might be one of those who believe moon landing is a fake.
As promised, I looked at your paper and found issues with parts II and IV. In part II, I believe you are confusing two different powers. The power (F a t) is the instantaneous Mechanical power, for any force. It is a fundamental property of mechanics, the way things work and it has absolutely no relationship to the electrical, chemical or any kind of power assumed for the force. It can also be written as (F v) for constant acceleration and it is frame dependent. A rocket, observed at two different velocities in relation to two frames will have two different instantaneous mechanical powers for the same exact chemical power released. If you're trying to say the chemical power has to match with velocity in each separate frame to maintain the same acceleration across all frames you would be contradicting known physics.
In part IV I believe you are applying Woodward's formula incorrectly. Woodward's formula is basic physics that applies to all systems. For a constant acceleration, one can always, irrespective of Mach devices, EmDrives or any such devices, break an interval into a series of steps. Each step has an co-moving inertial instantaneous rest frame where the acceleration starts from rest. In your case, for 10 steps, the kinetic energy of the first step is 2E5 but the correct way to sum up the 10 steps is not to simply multiply the first step kinetic energy by 10. Since velocity increases linearly with constant acceleration, the velocity of each step increases by the same amount. For the nth step, the velocity is n times the first step velocity and the kinetic energy is n squared times the first step. Thus, after 10 steps the kinetic energy is 100*2E5 or 2E7. This works for 10 steps or 1000 steps or any number.
In the limit, you do end up with the physical concept that the power applied in the ships frame is always enough to create the force it was designed to create and it is always starting from zero velocity. That doesn't imply it won't move, it just means an infinite series of new frames and energy is not violated in any frame. This is what Woodward's formula actually implies for his device in the continuous regime because any movement at all is always new frame and is always below the 'over unity' condition for that frame. I hope this helps.
-
#1192
by
Tellmeagain
on 03 Oct, 2016 18:33
-
...(unrelated)
As promised, I looked at your paper and found issues with parts II and IV. In part II, I believe you are confusing two different powers. The power (F a t) is the instantaneous Mechanical power, for any force. It is a fundamental property of mechanics, the way things work and it has absolutely no relationship to the electrical, chemical or any kind of power assumed for the force. It can also be written as (F v) for constant acceleration and it is frame dependent. A rocket, observed at two different velocities in relation to two frames will have two different instantaneous mechanical powers for the same exact chemical power released. If you're trying to say the chemical power has to match with velocity in each separate frame to maintain the same acceleration across all frames you would be contradicting known physics.
In section II I did not talk about rocket at all, but talked about "Simple Mechanical System" where the force F is an external force, as had been exaggerated in Fig 1. In such a system, mass M did not change. This is also emphasized by Professor Woodward.
In part IV I believe you are applying Woodward's formula incorrectly. Woodward's formula is basic physics that applies to all systems. For a constant acceleration, one can always, irrespective of Mach devices, EmDrives or any such devices, break an interval into a series of steps. Each step has an co-moving inertial instantaneous rest frame where the acceleration starts from rest. In your case, for 10 steps, the kinetic energy of the first step is 2E5 but the correct way to sum up the10 steps is not to simply multiply the first step kinetic energy by 10. Since velocity increases linearly with constant acceleration, the velocity of each step increases by the same amount. For the nth step, the velocity is n times the first step velocity and the kinetic energy is n squared times the first step. Thus, after 10 steps the kinetic energy is 100*2E5 or 2E7. This works for 10 steps or 1000 steps or any number.
In the limit, you do end up with the physical concept that the power applied in the ships frame is always enough to create the force it was designed to create and it is always starting from zero velocity. That doesn't imply it won't move, it just means an infinite series of new frames and energy is not violated in any frame. This is what Woodward's formula actually implies for his device in the continuous regime because any movement at all is always new frame and is always below the 'over unity' condition for that frame. I hope this helps.
I do not know how to convince you that your understanding is not correct.
-
#1193
by
Augmentor
on 03 Oct, 2016 21:26
-
Look up Gravitoelectromagnetism. My simplistic model of the Mach effect at present is that the force depends on d(1/m * dm/dt)/dt. The oscillating mass generates a gravitoelectric field that acts on the mass of the frustum, dragging it forward. However, m here is not the mass of the frustum, it's the mass of the universe. In this frame, the oscillation is a relativistic effect, so the gravitoelectric field produced by the motion is relative to the mass of the universe, and not the mass that's oscillating. That makes it an open system, not a closed system subject to COM.
Todd, at the Estes Park exotic propulsion workshop you intended, did your presentation (or the presentation by someone else there) could explain the EmDrive without any dielectric insert (I emphasis on that point) as a genuine propellantless thruster also in terms of Mach effects, or is the dielectric insert mandatory for the M-E explanation?
This new path is so exciting I can't wait for your presentation and paper (as well as those from Dr Rodal, SeeShells and others) to appear online!
One scenario is where the vacant emDrive has the effect and the dielectric insert only amplifies the effect to somewhat desirable levels. Whether the dielectric is simply influencing the field or is ablative has not been established experimentally and reported by any experimenter. Before and after weighings of dielectric materials as well as examining the inside of the frustum for any coating from ablative dielectrics would be an indicator.
-
#1194
by
spupeng7
on 03 Oct, 2016 22:26
-
...
Is there an equation for this lateral force? One would think that the lateral component would need to be symmetric in some way.
Radiation pressure equations are considered in the attached paper by Rothman & Boughn in 2008. Yes the lateral component of inertia (consequent upon the momentum of the current) induced in a reflector by absorption of em energy, may be symmetric but if the ends of a resonant chamber are not the same size then the duration of the containment of that inertia must be asymmetric between the ends. If the duration is asymmetric then the consequence would surely be acceleration of the entire device.
This argument only holds if the inertia of charges is a consequence of interaction with all charges. It is a wildly divergent paradigm but one that could provide an explanation for the generation of thrust we are trying to understand.
-
#1195
by
Augmentor
on 04 Oct, 2016 00:46
-
...
Is there an equation for this lateral force? One would think that the lateral component would need to be symmetric in some way.
Radiation pressure equations are considered in the attached paper by Rothman & Boughn in 2008. Yes the lateral component of inertia (consequent upon the momentum of the current) induced in a reflector by absorption of em energy, may be symmetric but if the ends of a resonant chamber are not the same size then the duration of the containment of that inertia must be asymmetric between the ends. If the duration is asymmetric then the consequence would surely be acceleration of the entire device.
This argument only holds if the inertia of charges is a consequence of interaction with all charges. It is a wildly divergent paradigm but one that could provide an explanation for the generation of thrust we are trying to understand.
Ref:
Rothman & Boughn in 2008
The Lorentz Force and the Radiation Pressure of Light
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310v5.pdfA number of papers address the issue of radiation reaction. The following relate to the emDrive systems as well as Mach Effects Thruster (MET) Here are a few papers by Dr. Fearn on Radiation Reaction.
2013
arXiv:1301.7051 [pdf, ps, other]
On radiation reaction and the [x,p ] commutator for an accelerating charge
H. Fearn
2012
arXiv:1212.4469 [pdf, ps, other]
Radiation Reaction Force on a Particle
Fearn's List of Papers on CSU Fullerton web site
https://physics.fullerton.edu/~heidi/pubs.pdfPapers on Arxiv by author
Rothman's papers
https://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Rothman_T/0/1/0/all/0/1Boughn's papers
https://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Boughn_S/0/1/0/all/0/1Fearn's papers
https://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+Fearn+heidi/0/1/0/all/0/1
-
#1196
by
WarpTech
on 04 Oct, 2016 03:38
-
Look up Gravitoelectromagnetism. My simplistic model of the Mach effect at present is that the force depends on d(1/m * dm/dt)/dt. The oscillating mass generates a gravitoelectric field that acts on the mass of the frustum, dragging it forward. However, m here is not the mass of the frustum, it's the mass of the universe. In this frame, the oscillation is a relativistic effect, so the gravitoelectric field produced by the motion is relative to the mass of the universe, and not the mass that's oscillating. That makes it an open system, not a closed system subject to COM.
Todd, at the Estes Park exotic propulsion workshop you intended, did your presentation (or the presentation by someone else there) could explain the EmDrive without any dielectric insert (I emphasis on that point) as a genuine propellantless thruster also in terms of Mach effects, or is the dielectric insert mandatory for the M-E explanation?
This new path is so exciting I can't wait for your presentation and paper (as well as those from Dr Rodal, SeeShells and others) to appear online!
There was not a lot said about the "Theory" of the EM Drive. Based on what was said, it may work with or without a dielectric, due to the Mach Effect. Fluctuating energy density is equivalent to fluctuating mass density, as required by the physics.
As for my presentation, if you have read my paper, you've already seen everything that was in it. Verbally, I gave the gist of the paper and mostly answered questions. I also messed up with the laser pointer/slide changer quite a bit, so it's far from a great performance.
For my own model, I would like to know if anyone has measured the impedance, feeding the frustum from each end. In other words, what is Z looking into the small end? What is Z looking into the big end? And for that matter, what is Z looking in from the center side-wall. Showing an asymmetry in Z would imply the mass density varies as required.
-
#1197
by
Augmentor
on 04 Oct, 2016 04:27
-
Towards the end of the last day there were about 8 presentations with a 10 minute time slot. Dr. Woodward gave up a good portion of his time to allow others to speak and limited his time to 10 minutes. Various topics were discussed including Todd's ten minutes of quantum gravity.
In another ten minute delivery, Paul Nation's PPT on "Photon Production from the Quantum Vacuum. was presented briefly. The slides with four methods were used to mention McCulloch's use of dynamic Casimir force and Unruh radiation which is an interpretation of Hawking radiation. Interesting, Nation cites as the fourth source of photon production is parametric amplification, and proceeds to connect the four sources of production.
Note that Woodward cites in his patents, book and other works the use of parametric amplification.
The speculation continues of possibly common ground between emDrive and Mach Effect Gravity Assist (MEGA) suggests that there are common effects at the root with various types of amplification at the quantum level as noted above and at the general relativity level. However, the experiments still need a rigorous wringing out of errors and artifacts.
References
Photon Production from the Quantum Vacuum
Paul D. Nation
http://www.ncts.ncku.edu.tw/phys/qis/120213/files/0216-Paul_D_Nation.pdfTesting quantised inertia on the emdrive
McCulloch
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03449v1.pdf
-
#1198
by
ThinkerX
on 04 Oct, 2016 07:00
-
More tests are definitely needed, but it seems to me that Monomorphics latest results confirm those of Yang: that 'thrust' in a cavity with no dielectric and an external power source comes from thermal heating (artifact, not actual).
I seem to recollect that the Eagleworks and Cannae tests that produced 'thrust' all involved dielectrics. (Apologies, but to me these devices presumably function in much the same way.)
Hence, workable any theory of operation for must include the reason for requiring a dielectric. (though again, more tests are needed).
(Also need to account for the greatly reduced 'thrust' in vacuum conditions.)
-
#1199
by
TheTraveller
on 04 Oct, 2016 10:15
-
More tests are definitely needed, but it seems to me that Monomorphics latest results confirm those of Yang: that 'thrust' in a cavity with no dielectric and an external power source comes from thermal heating (artifact, not actual).
I seem to recollect that the Eagleworks and Cannae tests that produced 'thrust' all involved dielectrics. (Apologies, but to me these devices presumably function in much the same way.)
Hence, workable any theory of operation for must include the reason for requiring a dielectric. (though again, more tests are needed).
(Also need to account for the greatly reduced 'thrust' in vacuum conditions.)
Except Dave achieved 18.4mN and I achieved 8mN without using a dielectric.
If you reference the EW in atmo test results against what Dr. Rodal reported of 1.2mN/kW for the latest vac results, there is no significant reduced thrust in vac. Earlier reduced thrust in vac results were due to improper tuning in vac as it is just a bit difficult to manually tune in vac
