-
#1220 by Augmentor on 05 Oct, 2016 01:22
-
Stipulating they are both producing thrust, what effects are unique to each, and what do effects or properties do they have in common?
-
#1221 by Bob012345 on 05 Oct, 2016 02:46
-
do you at least agree with my comments regarding the kinetic energies
Bob, your enthusiasm about EmDrive and physics is commendable!QuoteIt is well know that the upper stage of a multi-stage chemical rocket can yield far more kinetic energy than is accounted for by just the chemical energy of it's fuel.
QuoteA 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.
Those statements are not correct. The change in kinetic energy of both closed systems is exactly the same, even though the final kinetic energy may be much larger in the high speed reference frame. You are neglecting the loss of kinetic energy of the exhausted propellant (as has been mentioned before).
In classical Newtonian physics as well as in special relativity and general relativity, energy and momentum are conserved in all non-accelerating (inertial) reference frames. If your math doesn't show this, then it is not correct. In the case of rocket stages, it is because you are not properly accounting for the kinetic energy in the exhaust. If EmDrive obeys Newtonian physics, then it (in all closed systems) will also conserve energy and momentum in all inertial reference frames. If it doesn't, then that is obviously a different scenario.
Here is a link that simplifies the question and might help explain the apparent paradox to you:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/186587/work-and-chemical-energy-paradox/186602
And yes, I do happen to have a degree in physics, in case you were wondering.
(Hopefully this post is polite enough to avoid mod filtering.)
It seems to me that you are actually restating everything I just said yet then claiming I didn't understand it in the first place! Please go back and carefully read my words again. They are factually correct. We both say each case of the rocket uses the same energy in the burn and in the faster frames the kinetic energy ends up higher so where is my statement factually wrong? You probably thought that I think that the 'extra' kinetic energy is somehow 'over unity'. No, I never said that or meant that. Perhaps you are interpreting them from a different frame of reference than the one I wrote them in.
Thanks. BTW, I have a degree in physics also.
P.S. -
#1222 by WarpTech on 05 Oct, 2016 03:07
-
OK the over unity problem also remains (and gets even worse) without dielectric in the frequency range around 2.15GHz!
To answer the question regarding the impedance you are asking for, some parameters are needed first.
...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!
snip
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.
Frustum shape/dimensions, frequency of interest, with or without dielectric inserts and so on.
I tryed to use the brady cone with dielectric insert to simulate this problem. I found a freaky impedance curve in the complex plane with waveguide excitation at the small end (see attached). The upper curves (excited from the big end) is what I would expect, strong overcoupled resonance curve and a reflection coefficient near 1.
The mode at the port was predefined as TE01.
The impedance for each frequency could be read from the smith diagram when needed.
Regarding the curios curve, I will perform the same sim without dielectric next, but at higher frequency( around 2.168GHz instead of 1.88GHz). Maybe its needed to debug the model I use.
Cool Thanks X-RaY!
A reflection coefficient of 10+?
I would prefer Z without the dielectric insert and the TM212 mode. I do not consider it a waste of time. A variable impedance implies there is a differential acceleration and force required in each direction. That's what we're looking for.
Thanks.
Some thoughts:
For the TE01p mode the cutoff frequency wihout HDPE at the small diameter is roughly 2.3GHz while the resonant frequency of the truncated frustum for this mode is ~2.168 GHz.
This problem will be the same for TM212 without dielectric.
Regarding to the reflection coefficient above 1, this may be possible when the small diameter is still below the cutoff diameter. In this case β in this plane becomes pure imaginary(...)!
Add
Based on the last results I will test TM212 with dielectric.
X-RaY, you are giving me only half of what I need.
In the first simulation where you have the dielectric insert. When it was fed from the small end, I think the antenna is inside the dielectric. That is why the power is so low, compared to when it was fed from the big end.
In the second simulation, you only provided the plot for the big end, not the small end. The large value is not an issue. It only means that the impedance is capacitive, or negative. This is what is expected.
I think the dielectric is going to corrupt the differential data I'm looking for. What I need to know is the reflection coefficient from each end. Then I know the impedance at each end, it implies we know the power absorbed at each end.
According to my Engineering Model of Quantum Gravity, a gradient in the absorbed power and or lost power will create a gravitoelectric field in the metal, dragging it forward. I notice that your color plot has a readout for V/m. Can it also do Watts and Vars? A color plot of Watts and Vars would also be awesome!
Thanks.
-
#1223 by wicoe on 05 Oct, 2016 04:05
-
We both say each case of the rocket uses the same energy in the burn and in the faster frames the kinetic energy ends up higher so where is my statement factually wrong? You probably thought that I think that the 'extra' kinetic energy is somehow 'over unity'. No, I never said that or meant that. Perhaps you are interpreting them from a different frame of reference than the one I wrote them in.
Thanks. BTW, I have a degree in physics also.
P.S.
If you ignore the propellant and only talk about the accelerating rocket, then yes, its kinetic energy is increasing faster in reference frames moving relative to it (the faster the relative movement, the greater the increase over a unit of time). This does not make sense, and that's one of the reasons I doubt a truly propellentless drive is possible. There has to be something that offsets that kinetic energy. Moreover, this cannot be potential energy since it has to change as you pick faster moving reference frames. It can be the kinetic energy of a propellant, the energy of a photon (which also varies in different frames due to doppler shift), or something else that I can't think of right now... otherwise you get paradoxes like this (different rates of kinetic energy change in different frames). If I understand it correctly, in any "real" scenarios these paradoxes do not exist, and are easily resolved if you take into account the entire system. -
#1224 by OnlyMe on 05 Oct, 2016 04:17
-
Question for the theory guys, assuming the EmDrive does generate a constant force for a constant input of power.
Assumptions:
IXS Clarke location: 1/2 way between Earth & Mars.
Velocity change reason: Docking with trans Mars space station.
Ship mass: 100,000kg
EmDrive max Force: 100,000N
Specific Force: 10N/kW
Max EmDrive input Power: 10,000kW
Max Acceleration: 1m/s/s (~0.1g)
Velocity change needed to dock with trans Mars space station: 1,000m/s
Distance: 10,000km
Question: Calc EmDrive input power and duration to cause a 1,000m/sec velocity change that hits zero when arriving to dock with the trans Mars space station.
Unless I missed it you left out critical information...
The question is unanswerable, where you are including specific time/duration, without including where in their orbits the earth and mars are. The distance for a path between the earth and mars is not constant over time.
The basic data you did provide (acceleration) should allow the trip to take place over a far greater variation in launch times/dates than currently considered realistic. -
#1225 by TheTraveller on 05 Oct, 2016 04:47
-
Question for the theory guys, assuming the EmDrive does generate a constant force for a constant input of power.
Assumptions:
IXS Clarke location: 1/2 way between Earth & Mars.
Velocity change reason: Docking with trans Mars space station.
Ship mass: 100,000kg
EmDrive max Force: 100,000N
Specific Force: 10N/kW
Max EmDrive input Power: 10,000kW
Max Acceleration: 1m/s/s (~0.1g)
Velocity change needed to dock with trans Mars space station: 1,000m/s
Distance: 10,000km
Question: Calc EmDrive input power and duration to cause a 1,000m/sec velocity change that hits zero when arriving to dock with the trans Mars space station.
Unless I missed it you left out critical information...
The question is unanswerable, where you are including specific time/duration, without including where in their orbits the earth and mars are. The distance for a path between the earth and mars is not constant over time.
The basic data you did provide (acceleration) should allow the trip to take place over a far greater variation in launch times/dates than currently considered realistic.
What missing information?
The EmDrive based IXS Clarke is docking with a trans Mars space station. Its velocity relative to that space station is 1,000m/s. The ship's EmDrives can accelerate/decelerate the Clarke at a max 1m/s/s or some lower value.
The Clarke's fridge is broken and the beer is hot. There is cold beer on the space station. Enough reason to dock?
-
#1226 by meberbs on 05 Oct, 2016 05:14
-
First, you are again providing no evidence to back up you statements. Making baseless assertions, or assertions backed by "trust me, I heard its true" does nothing useful.I updated my pdf file (Woodward_update2.pdf; link in this post: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1589319#msg1589319). I hope it helps. The add-on is at the end of section III. Thanks.
Woodward's Mach Effect thruster does work and produces thrust. Paul March has built versions of Woodward's Mach Effect thrusters and measured thrust in his home workshop and at EW. Paul shared data with me of his personal best results of around 6mN of thrust.
The Woodward Mach Effect, like the EmDrive Shawyer Effect is there. It is real.
Second, Tellmeagain's paper is refuting the really terrible logic in Woodward's paper. This does not have any relation to any experimental results, or the actual Mach effect theory. That paper, while referring to METs, does not bring up any of the real reasons why METs are not propellantless thrusters and instead pretends that they are propellantless.Question for the theory guys, assuming the EmDrive does generate a constant force for a constant input of power.
Assumptions:
IXS Clarke location: 1/2 way between Earth & Mars.
Velocity change reason: Docking with trans Mars space station.
Ship mass: 100,000kg
EmDrive max Force: 100,000N
Specific Force: 10N/kW
Max EmDrive input Power: 10,000kW
Max Acceleration: 1m/s/s (~0.1g)
Velocity change needed to dock with trans Mars space station: 1,000m/s
Distance: 10,000km
Question: Calc EmDrive input power and duration to cause a 1,000m/sec velocity change that hits zero when arriving to dock with the trans Mars space station.
Unless I missed it you left out critical information...
The question is unanswerable, where you are including specific time/duration, without including where in their orbits the earth and mars are. The distance for a path between the earth and mars is not constant over time.
The basic data you did provide (acceleration) should allow the trip to take place over a far greater variation in launch times/dates than currently considered realistic.
What missing information?
The IXS Clarke is docking with a trans Mars space station. Its velocity relative to that space station is 1,000m/s. The ship's EmDrives can accelerate/decelerate the Clarke at a max 1m/s/s or some lower value.
The Clarke's fridge is broken and the beer is hot. There is cold beer on the space station. Enough reason to dock?
Actually you gave more information than necessary, and OnlyMe was probably thrown off trying to figure out what you meant by "halfway between Earth and Mars" since that is not a well defined location (I was thrown off at first also).
Here is what I think you meant to ask:
Ship mass: 100,000kg
EmDrive max Force: 100,000N
Specific Force: 10N/kW
DeltaV required = 1000 m/s
How much energy and what duration of thrust is needed? (You had already provided power)
Answer:
1000 seconds, 10e10 J (10 GJ) of electrical energy consumed
Additional information: Final kinetic energy of ship in its original rest frame is 50 GJ.
Conclusion: Such a device must be extracting energy from something else as it operates. If you claim that such a device conserves energy, please explain where this energy comes from. -
#1227 by OnlyMe on 05 Oct, 2016 05:32
-
First, you are again providing no evidence to back up you statements. Making baseless assertions, or assertions backed by "trust me, I heard its true" does nothing useful.I updated my pdf file (Woodward_update2.pdf; link in this post: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1589319#msg1589319). I hope it helps. The add-on is at the end of section III. Thanks.
Woodward's Mach Effect thruster does work and produces thrust. Paul March has built versions of Woodward's Mach Effect thrusters and measured thrust in his home workshop and at EW. Paul shared data with me of his personal best results of around 6mN of thrust.
The Woodward Mach Effect, like the EmDrive Shawyer Effect is there. It is real.
Second, Tellmeagain's paper is refuting the really terrible logic in Woodward's paper. This does not have any relation to any experimental results, or the actual Mach effect theory. That paper, while referring to METs, does not bring up any of the real reasons why METs are not propellantless thrusters and instead pretends that they are propellantless.Question for the theory guys, assuming the EmDrive does generate a constant force for a constant input of power.
Assumptions:
IXS Clarke location: 1/2 way between Earth & Mars.
Velocity change reason: Docking with trans Mars space station.
Ship mass: 100,000kg
EmDrive max Force: 100,000N
Specific Force: 10N/kW
Max EmDrive input Power: 10,000kW
Max Acceleration: 1m/s/s (~0.1g)
Velocity change needed to dock with trans Mars space station: 1,000m/s
Distance: 10,000km
Question: Calc EmDrive input power and duration to cause a 1,000m/sec velocity change that hits zero when arriving to dock with the trans Mars space station.
Unless I missed it you left out critical information...
The question is unanswerable, where you are including specific time/duration, without including where in their orbits the earth and mars are. The distance for a path between the earth and mars is not constant over time.
The basic data you did provide (acceleration) should allow the trip to take place over a far greater variation in launch times/dates than currently considered realistic.
What missing information?
The IXS Clarke is docking with a trans Mars space station. Its velocity relative to that space station is 1,000m/s. The ship's EmDrives can accelerate/decelerate the Clarke at a max 1m/s/s or some lower value.
The Clarke's fridge is broken and the beer is hot. There is cold beer on the space station. Enough reason to dock?
Actually you gave more information than necessary, and OnlyMe was probably thrown off trying to figure out what you meant by "halfway between Earth and Mars" since that is not a well defined location (I was thrown off at first also).
Here is what I think you meant to ask:
Ship mass: 100,000kg
EmDrive max Force: 100,000N
Specific Force: 10N/kW
DeltaV required = 1000 m/s
How much energy and what duration of thrust is needed? (You had already provided power)
Answer:
1000 seconds, 10e10 J (10 GJ) of electrical energy consumed
Additional information: Final kinetic energy of ship in its original rest frame is 50 GJ.
Conclusion: Such a device must be extracting energy from something else as it operates. If you claim that such a device conserves energy, please explain where this energy comes from.
Got it! When TT included Max force and power and half way between.... (too much information)....., I guess I stopped thinking! And did not read the question carefully. -
#1228 by TheTraveller on 05 Oct, 2016 06:14
-
Actually you gave more information than necessary, and OnlyMe was probably thrown off trying to figure out what you meant by "halfway between Earth and Mars" since that is not a well defined location (I was thrown off at first also).
Here is what I think you meant to ask:
Ship mass: 100,000kg
EmDrive max Force: 100,000N
Specific Force: 10N/kW
DeltaV required = 1000 m/s
How much energy and what duration of thrust is needed? (You had already provided power)
Answer:
1000 seconds, 10e10 J (10 GJ) of electrical energy consumed
Additional information: Final kinetic energy of ship in its original rest frame is 50 GJ.
Conclusion: Such a device must be extracting energy from something else as it operates. If you claim that such a device conserves energy, please explain where this energy comes from.
There is no original rest frame. The ship has matched velocity to dock or land or orbit many times. In LEO, in LMO, at the trans Mars space station, on many asteroids and smaller low gravity well moons and around many gas giant moons that have too large a gravity well for the Clarke's 0.1g drives to climb out of and need an orbit established.
This idea there is some original reference frame is just nuts and matters NOT for the calculations needed to match orbit or docking / landing requirements. It is all driven by the needed Dv and if the EmDrives on the IXS Clarke can produce the required acceleration / Dv. -
#1229 by meberbs on 05 Oct, 2016 06:40
-
You have really stopped making any sense here. What does docking or landing have to do with picking an inertial reference frame to do calculations in? This is really basic physics that things are calculated from an inertial reference frame, otherwise how do you even measure what the initial or final velocity is. (You can use non-inertial frames, but only by being careful to include the extra terms, like centrifugal force and Coriolis force for rotating frames, but that gets annoying to deal with.)Actually you gave more information than necessary, and OnlyMe was probably thrown off trying to figure out what you meant by "halfway between Earth and Mars" since that is not a well defined location (I was thrown off at first also).
Here is what I think you meant to ask:
Ship mass: 100,000kg
EmDrive max Force: 100,000N
Specific Force: 10N/kW
DeltaV required = 1000 m/s
How much energy and what duration of thrust is needed? (You had already provided power)
Answer:
1000 seconds, 10e10 J (10 GJ) of electrical energy consumed
Additional information: Final kinetic energy of ship in its original rest frame is 50 GJ.
Conclusion: Such a device must be extracting energy from something else as it operates. If you claim that such a device conserves energy, please explain where this energy comes from.
There is no original rest frame. The ship has matched velocity to dock or land or orbit many times. In LEO, in LMO, at the trans Mars space station, on many asteroids and smaller low gravity well moons and around many gas giant moons that have too large a gravity well for the Clarke's 0.1g drives to climb out of and need an orbit established.
This idea there is some original reference frame is just nuts and matters NOT for the calculations needed to match orbit or docking / landing requirements. It is all driven by the needed Dv and if the EmDrives on the IXS Clarke can produce the required acceleration / Dv.
There is nothing special about the initial rest frame, you can pick the final frame, one half way in between, or one moving in a different direction entirely. Energy needs to be conserved in all of them, because nothing is special about any of them. -
#1230 by TheTraveller on 05 Oct, 2016 07:16
-
You have really stopped making any sense here. What does docking or landing have to do with picking an inertial reference frame to do calculations in? This is really basic physics that things are calculated from an inertial reference frame, otherwise how do you even measure what the initial or final velocity is. (You can use non-inertial frames, but only by being careful to include the extra terms, like centrifugal force and Coriolis force for rotating frames, but that gets annoying to deal with.)
There is nothing special about the initial rest frame, you can pick the final frame, one half way in between, or one moving in a different direction entirely. Energy needs to be conserved in all of them, because nothing is special about any of them.
There is only one reference frame of interest to the crew of the ISX Clarke and that is the ship. Outside that they need to know the distance and velocity relative to their next destination so the needed Dv can be calculated and the necessary energy applied to the ship's EmDrives to achieve the necessary Dv to arrive at zero relative velocity to the next destination. -
#1231 by Flyby on 05 Oct, 2016 07:52
-
Again, TT, I'm not downplaying any of the obtained results, but where do you get that Lorentz result from? Is there a similar test been done, but oriented towards quantifying the Lorentz forces? or is it a theoretical calculation?
Folks here need to understand EW measured ~100uN at 100W and Dave measured 18.4mN of force at 850W raw (forward power was not measured) or 184x more force using 8x, probably much less, more power. While thermal and Lorentz may influence 100uN of force measurement, those forces do not scale up 184x.
It is my understanding that EW will show their measurement uncertainty, from ALL forces, in the vac test paper is WELL below the thrust force they measured.
What I would point out is when Dave built a frustum that was a good fit to a well built and polished SPR style all Cu frustum, he observed 18.4mN of force from a maggie powered frustum with flat ends. More like the 16mN force Roger measured with his Experimental EmDrive, which also was maggie powered and had flat end plates.
And what about the linear expansion of the copper wiring? has that been taken care of?
using a linear expansion calculator gives me: 10meters of copper wire, going from 20°C to 40°C expands 3.3mm. I can imagine that creates a lot of stress on a hyper sensitive balance...
I'm not saying that you're wrong , TT. Who knows.. you might even be right...
But you're doing yourself a disservice by jumping over the obstacles and going straight for the "EMdrive effect". You , yourself, are creating a perception that casts a doubt on the validity of your own data, especially among scientifically trained people in here.
What I'm missing is a well organized list of possible causes for the anomaly and a checklist that runs that list down, in order to eliminate them.
From what I can read, that is exactly what Seeshell is doing (hence why it takes so long), so I'm really looking forward for her collected data. And that is also what I expect to see on Paul March's/Dr White's peer review paper. -
#1232 by TheTraveller on 05 Oct, 2016 10:22
-
Again, TT, I'm not downplaying any of the obtained results, but where do you get that Lorentz result from? Is there a similar test been done, but oriented towards quantifying the Lorentz forces? or is it a theoretical calculation?
Folks here need to understand EW measured ~100uN at 100W and Dave measured 18.4mN of force at 850W raw (forward power was not measured) or 184x more force using 8x, probably much less, more power. While thermal and Lorentz may influence 100uN of force measurement, those forces do not scale up 184x.
It is my understanding that EW will show their measurement uncertainty, from ALL forces, in the vac test paper is WELL below the thrust force they measured.
What I would point out is when Dave built a frustum that was a good fit to a well built and polished SPR style all Cu frustum, he observed 18.4mN of force from a maggie powered frustum with flat ends. More like the 16mN force Roger measured with his Experimental EmDrive, which also was maggie powered and had flat end plates.
And what about the linear expansion of the copper wiring? has that been taken care of?
using a linear expansion calculator gives me: 10meters of copper wire, going from 20°C to 40°C expands 3.3mm. I can imagine that creates a lot of stress on a hyper sensitive balance...
I'm not saying that you're wrong , TT. Who knows.. you might even be right...
But you're doing yourself a disservice by jumping over the obstacles and going straight for the "EMdrive effect". You , yourself, are creating a perception that casts a doubt on the validity of your own data, especially among scientifically trained people in here.
What I'm missing is a well organized list of possible causes for the anomaly and a checklist that runs that list down, in order to eliminate them.
From what I can read, that is exactly what Seeshell is doing (hence why it takes so long), so I'm really looking forward for her collected data. And that is also what I expect to see on Paul March's/Dr White's peer review paper.
I know what the results are for many EmDrive builds. I have seen force generation in my experiments that closely match those of others. My tests involved an EmDrive sitting on a digital scale generating downward force, so thermal is out. Only connection to the EmDrive was via flexible coax at right angle to main axis, as then neither Lorentz nor cable expansion could generate 8mN of downward force. EMC shield between EmDrive & scale. Inverting the EmDrive caused similar weight decrease as increase. Full power Rf on periods were 5-8 seconds. Force generation was immediate as the freq was earlier adjusted to lowest reflected at a few watts versus 95W forward during force tests. -
#1233 by Tellmeagain on 05 Oct, 2016 11:18
-
Again, TT, I'm not downplaying any of the obtained results, but where do you get that Lorentz result from? Is there a similar test been done, but oriented towards quantifying the Lorentz forces? or is it a theoretical calculation?
Folks here need to understand EW measured ~100uN at 100W and Dave measured 18.4mN of force at 850W raw (forward power was not measured) or 184x more force using 8x, probably much less, more power. While thermal and Lorentz may influence 100uN of force measurement, those forces do not scale up 184x.
It is my understanding that EW will show their measurement uncertainty, from ALL forces, in the vac test paper is WELL below the thrust force they measured.
What I would point out is when Dave built a frustum that was a good fit to a well built and polished SPR style all Cu frustum, he observed 18.4mN of force from a maggie powered frustum with flat ends. More like the 16mN force Roger measured with his Experimental EmDrive, which also was maggie powered and had flat end plates.
And what about the linear expansion of the copper wiring? has that been taken care of?
using a linear expansion calculator gives me: 10meters of copper wire, going from 20°C to 40°C expands 3.3mm. I can imagine that creates a lot of stress on a hyper sensitive balance...
I'm not saying that you're wrong , TT. Who knows.. you might even be right...
But you're doing yourself a disservice by jumping over the obstacles and going straight for the "EMdrive effect". You , yourself, are creating a perception that casts a doubt on the validity of your own data, especially among scientifically trained people in here.
What I'm missing is a well organized list of possible causes for the anomaly and a checklist that runs that list down, in order to eliminate them.
From what I can read, that is exactly what Seeshell is doing (hence why it takes so long), so I'm really looking forward for her collected data. And that is also what I expect to see on Paul March's/Dr White's peer review paper.
Flyby, that 100uN Lorentz force estimation is from me. I did experiment (see my arxiv paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.07752, pdf on that page) with a few Amperes(1.X amperes; actually this is the ground loop current from 6.5 Ampere DC supply current in my setting), in earth field, loop of 40cm x 10cm(typical Eagleworks kind of experiment), and the Lorentz is about a few tens of uN. So it is a rough estimation. For RFmwguys' experiment, the loop size is much smaller (because there is no ground loop, also power leads are twisted), amperes about 1/3 of that (400-500mA), the Lorentz force should be much less than 100uN. It is used here as a very safe ceiling. EW's "thrusts" are also in the same range. -
#1234 by Flyby on 05 Oct, 2016 11:38
-
Thx for the info...
Then...I do tend to side with TT (on Lorentz forces), because the Lorentz forces of 100µN are indeed considerably lower then the measured forces: 18.4mN equals 18400µN, which is 3 magnitudes bigger.
In that respect you could indeed say that they're negligible compared to the measured forces. So Lorentz forces do not account for the measured forces...
what else can be checked off ?
Buoyancy? linear expansion of power wires? thermal convection?
Problem with all these tests and test results is that they're fragmented over several posts and threads...
Not easy to get a concise overview and understand (or remember ) of what has been done so far...
added:
It might also be a good idea to keep units to the same level, to avoid confusion. Why not keep it all to µN ?
Makes it so much more obvious... -
#1235 by Tellmeagain on 05 Oct, 2016 12:09
-
Thx for the info...
Then...I do tend to side with TT then (on Lorentz forces), because the Lorentz forces of 100µN are indeed considerably lower then the measured forces: 18.4mN equals 18400µN, which is 3 magnitudes bigger.
In that respect you could indeed say that they're negligible compared to the measured forces. So Lorentz forces do not account for the measured forces...
what else can be checked off ?
Buoyancy? linear expansion of power wires? thermal convection?
Problem with all these tests and test results is that they're fragmented over several posts and threads...
Not easy to get a concise overview and understand (or remember ) of what has been done so far...
added:
It might also be a good idea to keep units to the same level, to avoid confusion. Why not keep it all to µN ?
Makes it so much more obvious...
Rfmwguy's most likely source of force is the wire thermal expansion, same as Yang and Monomorphic. I noticed that Rfmwguy once relied on the lead rigidity to horizontally balance the beam by moving the off-beam lead position. Perfect leads should be very soft, and when off-beam lead position is shifted the balance should not be affected. His setting is the opposite. When the leads expand because of electrical heating, the balance moves as a result. -
#1236 by Flyby on 05 Oct, 2016 13:03
-
That is indeed a real possibility. The engineering solution of looping the wire is a good solution to allow for a dynamic movement of a contracting/expanding wire, but it does not prevent the generation of forces due to thermal expansion.
Rfmwguy's most likely source of force is the wire thermal expansion, same as Yang and Monomorphic. I noticed that Rfmwguy once relied on the lead rigidity to horizontally balance the beam by moving the off-beam lead position. Perfect leads should be very soft, and when off-beam lead position is shifted the balance should not be affected. His setting is the opposite. When the leads expand because of electrical heating, the balance moves as a result.
The problem is caused because you always end up with an external power wire ending perpendicular to the torsion balance setup .
You can only "nullify" those momentum forces when they run dead center through the suspending wire, but...the slightest offset will provoke a sideways momentum and ruin the setup.
That's why some time ago, I suggested the use of an electrical slip ring. To minimize friction, might be best to use copper wheels instead of brushes ? That would probably solve the issue with the thermal expansion momentum of the power wire.
-
#1237 by RotoSequence on 05 Oct, 2016 13:24
-
Thx for the info...
Then...I do tend to side with TT then (on Lorentz forces), because the Lorentz forces of 100µN are indeed considerably lower then the measured forces: 18.4mN equals 18400µN, which is 3 magnitudes bigger.
In that respect you could indeed say that they're negligible compared to the measured forces. So Lorentz forces do not account for the measured forces...
what else can be checked off ?
Buoyancy? linear expansion of power wires? thermal convection?
Problem with all these tests and test results is that they're fragmented over several posts and threads...
Not easy to get a concise overview and understand (or remember ) of what has been done so far...
added:
It might also be a good idea to keep units to the same level, to avoid confusion. Why not keep it all to µN ?
Makes it so much more obvious...
Rfmwguy's most likely source of force is the wire thermal expansion, same as Yang and Monomorphic. I noticed that Rfmwguy once relied on the lead rigidity to horizontally balance the beam by moving the off-beam lead position. Perfect leads should be very soft, and when off-beam lead position is shifted the balance should not be affected. His setting is the opposite. When the leads expand because of electrical heating, the balance moves as a result.
If this is the cause, shouldn't the measured forces be maximized alongside return power to the RF source? -
#1238 by meberbs on 05 Oct, 2016 13:55
-
As has been stated already, the ship's frame is non-inertial because it is accelerating. They probably don't want to do any calculations in that frame if they can help it. Calculating the energy can be tricky due to "ficicious" forces, see here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0803.2560.pdfYou have really stopped making any sense here. What does docking or landing have to do with picking an inertial reference frame to do calculations in? This is really basic physics that things are calculated from an inertial reference frame, otherwise how do you even measure what the initial or final velocity is. (You can use non-inertial frames, but only by being careful to include the extra terms, like centrifugal force and Coriolis force for rotating frames, but that gets annoying to deal with.)
There is nothing special about the initial rest frame, you can pick the final frame, one half way in between, or one moving in a different direction entirely. Energy needs to be conserved in all of them, because nothing is special about any of them.
There is only one reference frame of interest to the crew of the ISX Clarke and that is the ship. Outside that they need to know the distance and velocity relative to their next destination so the needed Dv can be calculated and the necessary energy applied to the ship's EmDrives to achieve the necessary Dv to arrive at zero relative velocity to the next destination.
If you are going to ignore conservation of energy, one of the most fundamental results in physics, then you how can you even trust F=m*a? -
#1239 by X_RaY on 05 Oct, 2016 16:51
-
Here is the missing results of the brady cone without HDPE- disc.
X-RaY, you are giving me only half of what I need.
In the first simulation where you have the dielectric insert. When it was fed from the small end, I think the antenna is inside the dielectric. That is why the power is so low, compared to when it was fed from the big end.
In the second simulation, you only provided the plot for the big end, not the small end. The large value is not an issue. It only means that the impedance is capacitive, or negative. This is what is expected.
I think the dielectric is going to corrupt the differential data I'm looking for. What I need to know is the reflection coefficient from each end. Then I know the impedance at each end, it implies we know the power absorbed at each end.
According to my Engineering Model of Quantum Gravity, a gradient in the absorbed power and or lost power will create a gravitoelectric field in the metal, dragging it forward. I notice that your color plot has a readout for V/m. Can it also do Watts and Vars? A color plot of Watts and Vars would also be awesome!
Thanks.
related to http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1594460#msg1594460
@Rodal
The simulations of the same frustum with HDPE and TM21 waveguide excitation (~2 GHz) coming soon.
Thanks. BTW, I have a degree in physics also.