-
#1360 by wicoe on 10 Oct, 2016 19:58
-
It's not bizarre at all. Don't forget that the constant power is applied in the ship's frame where the velocity is always zero with respect to the instantaneous rest frame of concern. There is never an energy problem unless you wrongly and incoherently mix frames and demand the invariant input energy in the ship equals the kinetic energy in the observers frame which some here are doing.
You cannot use ship's frame for CoE calculations since it's not inertial. If you do that, you're the one who "wrongly and incorrectly mixes frames" since an accelerating frame is constantly jumping from one inertial frame to another. If you pick a single inertial reference frame (i.e. external observer), you're not mixing anything, and CoE *must* hold true. -
#1361 by Bob012345 on 10 Oct, 2016 20:07
-
It's not bizarre at all. Don't forget that the constant power is applied in the ship's frame where the velocity is always zero with respect to the instantaneous rest frame of concern. There is never an energy problem unless you wrongly and incoherently mix frames and demand the invariant input energy in the ship equals the kinetic energy in the observers frame which some here are doing.
You cannot use ship's frame for CoE calculations since it's not inertial. If you do that, you're the one who "wrongly and incorrectly mixes frames" since an accelerating frame is constantly jumping from one inertial frame to another. If you pick a single inertial reference frame (i.e. external observer), you're not mixing anything, and CoE *must* hold true.
The concept is of an instantaneous rest frame co-moving with the non-intertial ship frame every instant. That rest frame is not accelerating. The force is produced in the ship frame and is invariant. A self accelerating object is not the same problem as an object accelerating in a fixed frame from a fixed force in that frame, a point which I seem to not be getting across very well.
The problem I fear is that some debating with me are doing just what you say, one fixed frame. That's not the problem I am discussing at all. -
#1362 by Gilbertdrive on 10 Oct, 2016 20:19
-
It's not bizarre at all. Don't forget that the constant power is applied in the ship's frame where the velocity is always zero with respect to the instantaneous rest frame of concern. There is never an energy problem unless you wrongly and incoherently mix frames and demand the invariant input energy in the ship equals the kinetic energy in the observers frame which some here are doing.
You cannot use ship's frame for CoE calculations since it's not inertial. If you do that, you're the one who "wrongly and incorrectly mixes frames" since an accelerating frame is constantly jumping from one inertial frame to another. If you pick a single inertial reference frame (i.e. external observer), you're not mixing anything, and CoE *must* hold true.
The concept is of an instantaneous rest frame co-moving with the non-intertial ship frame every instant. That rest frame is not accelerating. The force is produced in the ship frame and is invariant. A self accelerating object is not the same problem as an object accelerating in a fixed frame from a fixed force in that frame, a point which I seem to not be getting across very well.
The problem I fear is that some debating with me are doing just what you say, one fixed frame. That's not the problem I am discussing at all.
To be clear on the context (Dr Rodal insisted on the fact that discussions about CoE are futile without precise context) Can you confirm that you consider the Emdrive as a system isolated from the rest of the universe, not stealing energy to fields, quantuum vacuum, gravity, rindler Horizon, etc ? -
#1363 by Bob012345 on 10 Oct, 2016 20:21
-
Bob012345, I think you are are missing some important details about what is being said about CoE and why Woodward's paper is very wrong. First from a previous post, you asked:
...
You said you are a physics major, but you clearly have forgotten some of the basic physics relevant to this discussion. P = F*v is literally one form of the definition of power in classical mechanics, so yes, that is true as long as you include all relevant energy.
Finally, are you saying that the power delivered to the device from a rocket's chemical fuel or an EmDrive' electrical energy is always exactly equal to F*V?
(Note: I have an engineering degree, which came with a physics heavy curriculum)
There is no problem with constant force, there is a problem with trying to claim that the power required to generate that force is constant. Every text on classical mechanics shows as I stated above, the power to apply constant force is P=F*v. After this it is trivially obvious that the power required to apply a constant force must increase with time."Critics" say if Professor Woodward provides some input energy to the spaceship with MET, and the spaceship ends up with much higher output energy, this violates CoE.
That's what they say. They don't say one can't have a constant force acting as long as you want. That's basic mechanics. They worry about how much energy it takes to generate that force. I've never seen that worry expressed in any text on classical mechanics.
(emphasis mine)He says for each of the 10 intervals, in each of the 10 different frames, he provides 1/10 of the input energy, and end up with much lower output energy for each interval in each different frame, each does not violate CoE.
Yes. He says you can define the proper interval up to the point where the energies are equal.I say if he sums up the ten 1/10 input energy he ends up with the same input energy; but if he sum up the 10 much lower output energy for each interval and each frame, the summation, no more than the total input energy, does not match the total output energy, so his treatment is wrong.
I think you are missing something here. Woodward is merely stating that in each interval, the total input energy must equal the kinetic energy as seen from a frame where the acceleration started from rest. He's basically saying one can always find such an interval for a given energy input and force. He's saying that's all that matters and his critics are simply wrong about CoE. Of course when you add up the effect of the frames the overall kinetic energy builds exponentially while the energy input grows only linearly. But Woodward correctly points out that this is not unique to MET's but is a property built into Classical mechanics for any constant force. It doesn't typically come up since problems usually involve an outside constant force applied in the observer frame and not a force generated in and by the accelerating ship.
No, he is the one that is wrong about CoE, and very blatantly.
First, he is adding energy across reference frames, which doesn't make sense as you have pointed out before, but you seem to think it is fine when Woodward does it.
Second, finding a single interval where things ad up doesn't change the fact that physics still has to work in between.
Third, "overall kinetic energy builds exponentially while the energy input grows only linearly. But Woodward correctly points out that this is not unique to MET's but is a property built into Classical mechanics for any constant force." is wrong on 2 counts:
-the overally kinetic energy grows quadratically, not exponentially, I assume this is a typo.
-energy input doesn't grow linearly in classical mechanics. There is no such thing as a constant force/power ratio by definition in classical mechanics. The introduction of a device that does directly contradicts classical mechanics.The critics have to show how the ship frame knows what it's velocity is and what mechanism is invoked by nature to reduce the force and thus acceleration to comply with the critics view of CoE. If that's been done please point me to it. I don't think it has. At least you are consistent in you belief that because of CoE, the device would not work at all in any frame under any circumstance. But then your problem is to justify why won't work at least as well as radiation pressure.
You keep asking for the critics to explain the mechanism by which the device could work when the whole point is that a device cannot work as described, or it is a source of free energy. It is up to the person claiming the device works to propose a way that it could obey conservation of energy.
How many times do I have to explain that it is the energy stored in the observer frame in the battery, so it is not confusing frames?You seems to believe if he sums up the ten 1/10 input energy he ends up with the same input energy, and the final output energy is much higher than my summation, indeed, is equal to the critics' calculation. It seems you defeat Professor Woodward's treatment and agree with the "critics".
There might be some confusion because of the example you gave of the cannon. In that example, the whole problem was already assumed to be within the bounds of Woodward's condition. In other words, the total input energy does equal the total kinetic energy. Breaking up that problem into steps is not necessary but I did it only to illustrate that it can be done. Yet you seemed to object how I did that which had nothing to do with MET's or EmDrives but just simply mechanics. Each frame is faster than the previous and when you take that into account it all ads up. Woodward says when the input energy is less than the kinetic energy, consider an interval where they are equal. It's just a way of looking at the problem.
In general, equating energy input in the ships frame with kinetic energy in the observers frame is confusing frames in my view.
What Woodward does changing references frames every time that energy goes overunity in the last part of his paper is badly confusing frames. Also, just to be sure, energy conservation is broken completely, not just after a certain amount of time. Energy disappearing into nothing is also a problem, and that is what happens as soon as you turn the device on, unless it can be explained where that energy goes (and you can't just say losses, you have to be specific)
And one final time, since this is the point you seem to be missing in this last post: Constant force is not a problem at all in classical mechanics. Constant power providing a constant force is where things break. Woodward's entire paper is trying to show that a device can generate constant force using constant power, but this is simply and completely inconsistent with classical mechanics. (Special relativity tweaks the definition of energy, which in turn tweaks the definition of power, so a constant force/power ratio becomes allowed, but it is strictly limited to a ratio of 1/c, or lower with inefficiencies.)
You and Tellmeagain say Woodward's paper is wrong. I haven't seen a poll as to what the majority of folks here think but that would be interesting. I think you are grossly misunderstanding Woodward point and you simply can't see it.
I understand what F*v is. I call it the mechanical power and my classical mechanics book says it's the "power delivered by the force" but you think it's the power necessary to create the force. It's frame dependent. Different frames see different power delivered by the same force which is a clue that it shouldn't be confused as the power necessary to generate that invariant force which is not frame dependent at all. I've brought this up before myself. It is directly derived from Newton's Second Law. It's simply the rate of change of kinetic energy in any frame of reference. This is why it's different for different observers. But when integrated, F*v equals the change in kinetic energy in all frames. That's why the Work-Energy Theorem works.
If I provide an external force to an object in a fixed frame starting from rest, then the minimum energy it takes to accelerate that object does correspond to the kinetic energy which does correspond to integrating F*v. Woodward states this as does Shawyer. If I push the object all the way to Alpha-Centauri I have to put in all the energy equal to the total kinetic energy it gains by acceleration and looses by deceleration in that fixed frame. Nature does this within the approximation of a uniform gravitational field or the force on an electron in a uniform electric field. But this is not the situation we were discussing. We were discussing a fundamentally different situation where the force is generated and applied within a non-inertial accelerating reference frame like a rocket.
You asserted it's impossible to provide a fixed force at a constant power in any frame. Consider the rocket. In a test stand a rocket motor certainly can provide a static thrust at a fixed power. No denying that. And it can do the same in space, provide a fixed force or thrust at a fixed power. I didn't say the acceleration is constant, but the force. You can deny that again if you like but it's a simply fact. The thrust is fixed by the fuel consumption rate and the exhaust velocity ignoring a minor pressure term. The power of the rocket engine can be expressed as the thrust times the exhaust velocity u is its F*u. The rocket velocity v first starts at zero in some frame then approaches, then surpasses u in that fixed observer frame. Yet we know rockets can gain more velocity than the exhaust velocity so F*v can be greater than F*u!
I believe you confuse the power that generates the force F*u with the power of the force on the rocket, F*v. When you observe the rocket from a fixed frame of reference, the mechanical power grows as F*v while the engine power is fixed at F*u. But the frame the engine is working in is not that fixed frame you observe in so you cannot equate them!
I mentioned the photon rocket in the past as a example of fixed power providing fixed force and was told I was wrong. Now you admit that's correct for light at the end of your post. But 1/c is not the best one can do. Simple beam propulsion gives 2/c. The new NASA data gives 300/c equivalence if it stands up to scrutiny. It's equivalent to simple photon recycling with has already been proven to work.
To me, it's so very simple and straightforward. In any instantaneous rest frame of the device, where the force is always actually applied, the velocity is zero. Thus, the MET or EmDrive device can apply a force without violation of CoE. Woodward, Shawyer, Fetta and their supporters are correct and those who are building devices in this group are doing a good thing.
-
#1364 by Bob012345 on 10 Oct, 2016 20:31
-
It's not bizarre at all. Don't forget that the constant power is applied in the ship's frame where the velocity is always zero with respect to the instantaneous rest frame of concern. There is never an energy problem unless you wrongly and incoherently mix frames and demand the invariant input energy in the ship equals the kinetic energy in the observers frame which some here are doing.
You cannot use ship's frame for CoE calculations since it's not inertial. If you do that, you're the one who "wrongly and incorrectly mixes frames" since an accelerating frame is constantly jumping from one inertial frame to another. If you pick a single inertial reference frame (i.e. external observer), you're not mixing anything, and CoE *must* hold true.
The concept is of an instantaneous rest frame co-moving with the non-intertial ship frame every instant. That rest frame is not accelerating. The force is produced in the ship frame and is invariant. A self accelerating object is not the same problem as an object accelerating in a fixed frame from a fixed force in that frame, a point which I seem to not be getting across very well.
The problem I fear is that some debating with me are doing just what you say, one fixed frame. That's not the problem I am discussing at all.
To be clear on the context (Dr Rodal insisted on the fact that discussions about CoE are futile without precise context) Can you confirm that you consider the Emdrive as a system isolated from the rest of the universe, not stealing energy to fields, quantuum vacuum, gravity, rindler Horizon, etc ?
What precisely does an isolated system mean? It would still conserve momentum correct?
If the device generates a fixed force using electrical power, by whatever means, I think by definition if it conserves momentum it conserves energy. -
#1365 by Gilbertdrive on 10 Oct, 2016 20:39
-
To be clear on the context (Dr Rodal insisted on the fact that discussions about CoE are futile without precise context) Can you confirm that you consider the Emdrive as a system isolated from the rest of the universe, not stealing energy to fields, quantuum vacuum, gravity, rindler Horizon, etc ?
How can I say how it works? I think if it works, momentum is conserved and by whatever means momentum is conserved,there is some form of 'exhaust' that the device 'borrows' kinetic energy from depending in the frame you observe it in. The exhaust could be an interaction with the universe as a whole or something else. But I don't appeal to a specific theory such as a quantum vacuum. We don't even need to know the precise mechanism why to calculate the dynamics.
I think by definition if it conserves momentum it conserves energy.
Sorry if I was not clear enough. You do not need to choice a precise theory. But you need to say if you consider the Emdrive as an isolated system, or a stealing energy system. A discussion about CoE has no sense without an hypothesis about that. -
#1366 by as58 on 10 Oct, 2016 20:42
-
You and Tellmeagain say Woodward's paper is wrong. I haven't seen a poll as to what the majority of folks here think but that would be interesting. I think you are grossly misunderstanding Woodward point and you simply can't see it.
I understand what F*v is. I call it the mechanical power and my classical mechanics book says it's the "power delivered by the force" but you think it's the power necessary to create the force. It's frame dependent. Different frames see different power delivered by the same force which is a clue that it shouldn't be confused as the power necessary to generate that invariant force which is not frame dependent at all. I've brought this up before myself. It is directly derived from Newton's Second Law. It's simply the rate of change of kinetic energy in any frame of reference. This is why it's different for different observers. But when integrated, F*v equals the change in kinetic energy in all frames. That's why the Work-Energy Theorem works.
If I provide an external force to an object in a fixed frame starting from rest, then the minimum energy it takes to accelerate that object does correspond to the kinetic energy which does correspond to integrating F*v. Woodward states this as does Shawyer. If I push the object all the way to Alpha-Centauri I have to put in all the energy equal to the total kinetic energy it gains by acceleration and looses by deceleration in that fixed frame. Nature does this within the approximation of a uniform gravitational field or the force on an electron in a uniform electric field. But this is not the situation we were discussing. We were discussing a fundamentally different situation where the force is generated and applied within a non-inertial accelerating reference frame like a rocket.
You asserted it's impossible to provide a fixed force at a constant power in any frame. Consider the rocket. In a test stand a rocket motor certainly can provide a static thrust at a fixed power. No denying that. And it can do the same in space, provide a fixed force or thrust at a fixed power. I didn't say the acceleration is constant, but the force. You can deny that again if you like but it's a simply fact. The thrust is fixed by the fuel consumption rate and the exhaust velocity ignoring a minor pressure term. The power of the rocket engine can be expressed as the thrust times the exhaust velocity u is its F*u. The rocket velocity v first starts at zero in some frame then approaches, then surpasses u in that fixed observer frame. Yet we know rockets can gain more velocity than the exhaust velocity so F*v can be greater than F*u!
I believe you confuse the power that generates the force F*u with the power of the force on the rocket, F*v. When you observe the rocket from a fixed frame of reference, the mechanical power grows as F*v while the engine power is fixed at F*u. But the frame the engine is working in is not that fixed frame you observe in so you cannot equate them!
I mentioned the photon rocket in the past as a example of fixed power providing fixed force and was told I was wrong. Now you admit that's correct for light at the end of your post. But 1/c is not the best one can do. Simple beam propulsion gives 2/c. The new NASA data gives 300/c equivalence if it stands up to scrutiny. It's equivalent to simple photon recycling with has already been proven to work.
To me, it's so very simple and straightforward. In any instantaneous rest frame of the device, where the force is always actually applied, the velocity is zero. Thus, the MET or EmDrive device can apply a force without violation of CoE. Woodward, Shawyer, Fetta and their supporters are correct and those who are building devices in this group are doing a good thing.
I truly don't understand. For my (and probably many other's) benefit, can you answer the following question? Suppose EMDrive can provide thrust/power of 10^6/c and it is powered by a battery with energy content of 1 GJ. If the spacecraft (EMDrive+power supply) weighs 1000 kg, how fast will it be travelling after the battery is empty in the (inertial) frame where it starts at rest? -
#1367 by wicoe on 10 Oct, 2016 20:47
-
If the device generates a fixed force using electrical power, by whatever means, I think by definition if it conserves momentum it conserves energy.
If I understand 3rd NL correctly, *any* force is always bi-directional, i.e. if you generate a fixed force using electrical power, you're exerting the same (but opposite in direction) force on the device generating this power. You cannot get a force from "a field" without exerting an opposite force on the source of this field. Any field is just a mediator between objects. Also, when doing CoM and CoE calculations, you need to take into account the entire system, i.e. including the power or "field" generating device/object. If EmDrive is "pushing" against something, you will inevitably see CoE broken *unless* you take that "something" into account as well. So I believe trying to reason that the EmDrive can have constant acceleration for constant power w/o breaking CoE (and without knowing what it pushes against) is futile. -
#1368 by mk65 on 10 Oct, 2016 20:52
-
Please allow me to point you to:
Has anyone built or proposed building a RF resonator using a higher frequency solid state source like a automotive radar Tx module? ( 77 GHz Transceiver, NXP Semiconductor PN MR2001-77) Power consumption is only 2.7 watts. Dimension and mass is small. It could be packaged on a custom PCB very precisely, & output measurement with integrated MEMS strain/force sensors for all non constrained axis. This lend itself to using very precise test & measurement equipment.
https://hackaday.io/project/5596-em-drive and
https://hackaday.io/project/10166-flying-an-emdrive -
#1369 by Gilbertdrive on 10 Oct, 2016 22:09
-
What precisely does an isolated system mean? It would still conserve momentum correct?
If the device generates a fixed force using electrical power, by whatever means, I think by definition if it conserves momentum it conserves energy.
In physical science (but not thermodynamics) an isolated system is a physical system so far removed from other systems that it does not interact with them.
If the Emdrive works as an isolated system, it does not need anything to interact with. And of course, it violates CoE, and CoM.
If the Emdrive does not work as an isolated system, there is no possible discussion about CoE without having at least hypothesis of how it interacts.
For example, if it is stealing Energy from ZPF, it can accelerate as much as you wish, even with no electrical power needed, you just need to tell that the Kinetic Energy gained in a given referential comes from the ZPF.
At the opposite, if the Emdrive is a way of pushing the ship away from the earth, pushing distantly as a car pushes on the road, your acceleration has to decrease with the speed relatively to the earth to still verify CoE.
You can not discuss CoE without making hypothesis. Isolated/non isolated. And if non Isolated is chosen, the way is is non isolated has much importance also. -
#1370 by dustinthewind on 10 Oct, 2016 22:19
-
According to the model, size scales linearly with frequency, but thrust only scales with increased power. IMO, a smaller device will have a more difficult time keeping cool and staying asymmetrical. My thoughts are toward larger devices running at MHz, so they can get higher power input and have the surface area to dissipate the heat.
Thrust also scales with Q as Dave discovered.
Lower freq means larger frustum, which also gives high Q, higher specific force and more surface area to radiate heat. Of course in space, with good thermal design, the frustum may be passively cooled to ~7K without needing cryo fluids.
How do you explain the "Q Conundrum". If the Q was infinite, meaning no RF energy was dissipated inside the fustrum where would the energy come from to create thrust? In all cases when energy is removed from a cavity the Q is reduced. What is it about the EM-Drive that makes this not the case? Isn't it another example where CoE is violated? Has anyone collected data from a functioning EM-Drive that shows this relation between Q and thrust?
I would like to see data collected about Q and its effect. One would probably need to measure Q and then do test runs. later cavity corrosion may reduce Q for later runs.
Good question, "If the Q was infinite, meaning no RF energy was dissipated inside the fustrum where would the energy come from to create thrust?" If there were thrust the energy would have to come from the currents and the light in the cavity. I've read before superconductors can maintain a current for an extremely long time as if they have no resistance. SMES work this way and are Superconductive Magnetic Energy Storage I believe is what it stands for. I think they store a magnetic field inside a toroid, in the form of stress, and when power is needed they can be drained and the magnetic field dies down. So something has to drain its power for the power to be lost.
1) If it is thermal loss, as in WarpTech's hypothesis, then I don't see how a 100% superconductor frustum could possibly give the needed thrust. Unless that thermal loss is asymmetric.
2) If the thrust comes from direct energy (currents and light) to frustum with nothing in between then I see problems with momentum conservation as well as explaining how the light changes in mass.
3) If the thrust comes from currents and light coupling with the vacuum via a change in index of the vacuum via some unknown relativistic effect, with a back reaction on the vacuum via the change in index, then I can see how an infinite Q cavity could still provide thrust. Energy would be being lost to accelerating the vacuum. Light inside should be red-shifted by accelerating the vacuum via the change in mass effect, and the cavity should experience and equal and opposite reaction. One would observe what appears to be a cavity with a lower Q than it should have by classical effects. If one put it in a thermal bath and measured power in compared to the heat found in the water, there should be missing heat being carried off by the vacuum.
How the cavity could possibly be modifying the index of the vacuum may be because of the energy density near the narrow end, which may some how increase the coupling of the light in its vicinity with the vacuum by excitation of the vacuum (there by changing the local index.) I am unsure of this.
Previous experiments have shown a greater impulse of light off a mirror inside water than air. See URL Photon mass drag and the momentum of light in a medium by Mikko Partanen,1 Teppo H¨ayrynen,1,2 Jani Oksanen,1 and Jukka Tulkki1 Water has a larger index of refraction, which to me indicates an apparent change in the mass of light inside water. A back reaction was detected on the water when the light entered, so there was a back reaction on the water. It isn't a big leap to compare the water to the the polarizable vacuum theory by Puthoff, where the index of the vacuum can also change, which changes the local mass of objects. (The vacuum coupling with local matter or light coupling with the vacuum.)
Other experiments have shown the vacuum is seething with what appears to be electrons and positrons that boil out of the vacuum when excited with large enough electric fields so one can surmise there is something there to be interacted with. See this link: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1591517#msg1591517
Another paper that suggest something unusual about the vacuum.
DOES THE QUANTUM VACUUM FALL NEAR THE EARTH? by Tom Ostoma, Mike TrushykQuote"This resolves the problems and paradoxes of accelerated motion introduced in Mach’s principle, by suggesting that the acceleration of the charged virtual particles of the quantum vacuum (with respect to a mass) serves as Newton’s universal reference"
Also: What are the Hidden Quantum Processes In Einstein's Weak Principle of Equivalence? Tom Ostoma, Mike TrushykQuoteEMQG is manifestly compatible with Cellular Automata (CA) theory (ref. 2 and 4), and is also based on a new theory of inertia (ref. 5) proposed by R. Haisch, A. Rueda, and H. Puthoff (which we modified and called Quantum Inertia, QI). QI states that classical Newtonian Inertia is a property of matter due to the strictly local electrical force interactions contributed by each of the (electrically charged) elementary particles of the mass with the surrounding (electrically charged) virtual particles (virtual masseons) of the quantum vacuum
-
#1371 by Gilbertdrive on 10 Oct, 2016 22:29
-
the "power delivered by the force" but you think it's the power necessary to create the force. It's frame dependent. Different frames see different power delivered by the same force which is a clue that it shouldn't be confused as the power necessary to generate that invariant force which is not frame dependent at all
Different frames see the same total power, if you consider the whole interacting system. I.E. if you consider the propellant expelled as making part of the system. You have to do that, since the ship is not isolated from the propellant. Ship+propellant can be an isolated system, and so you can consider Ship+propellant.
Considering Ship+propellant, the power delivered by the force to take into account is the sum of power delivered by the force on the ship, and the power delivered by the force on the propellant. The increase of this sum is limited by the energy spent.
Of course your rocket can get more Kinetic Energy increase in the earth referential that it spent chemical Energy, because it steals Kinetic Energy it to the propellant. It was already explained several times by others. The faster your ship, the most Kinetic Energy it steals to the propellant. That works because the ship is not isolated from the propellant
But if you consider the sum of Kinetic Energy of the ship, and the Kinetic Energy of the propellant, and that ship+propellant is isolated from other systems, this sum never increases more than the Chemical energy spent.
-
#1372 by TheTraveller on 10 Oct, 2016 23:22
-
Latest information from Roger Shawyer:
An interview with the International Business Times is scheduled for release next week-end. It is very much a background story.
For a more technical update look out for his latest patent GB2537119, which is due to be published on Wednesday 12 Oct.
Enjoy the reads.
-
#1373 by VIY on 11 Oct, 2016 00:39
-
[
I truly don't understand. For my (and probably many other's) benefit, can you answer the following question? Suppose EMDrive can provide thrust/power of 10^6/c and it is powered by a battery with energy content of 1 GJ. If the spacecraft (EMDrive+power supply) weighs 1000 kg, how fast will it be travelling after the battery is empty in the (inertial) frame where it starts at rest?
This question as stated makes no sense. The speed is not defined by the spent energy, but by the COM. You have to specify the speed of the reaction mass and calculate the speed of the rocket so that the overall mass center remains fixed. -
#1374 by WarpTech on 11 Oct, 2016 01:57
-
Is there any way to combine your theory(equations) with http://emdrive.wiki/@notsosureofit_Hypothesis ??Quote from: WarpTech...
Todd, there seems to be an issue regarding strong different energy density from big end to the other with such a design, at least for TE011. Using higher modes like TE012 or TE013 (or higher) the difference is much stronger as you can see if you take a look to my avatar pic.
And yes, doing it for a fixed 100W RF input would be best, since then I can estimate the gain in the cavity for a given input power.
This difference is even smaller when the frustum is flatter .
You can read the approx value for each region using the scale attached to the single field pics.
All other conditions like frequency, mode and so on is equal to http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1596982#msg1596982
Thanks for this! It's interesting none the less. @Rodal said that TM modes are easier to acquire, so maybe try a few of those. There is no magic sauce. The equation simply tells us that frequency is in the denominator. So the higher the frequency, the lower the thrust for a given set of dimensions. TE-011 is the lowest frequency mode, but other than a variable in the equation, there is nothing in my model that would predict the performance of each mode shape.
The mode shape/ field pattern should be considered because its essential for the energy density in the different regions of a truncated conical cavity with conductive walls.
OK to consider the energy density is more complicated than using this approximation formulas but it seems reasonable to involve this physical fact.
Technically, @Notsosureofit's formula for thrust and my own are not that much different. He has;
X2m,n / f3 which will be ~ 1/Xm,n
..same as mine. He also has 1/L which is the same as mine. So I don't see how there's any difference in the way the mode shapes are treated. My method implies that as the thrust performance improves, the relative losses increase. If that's true, then the loaded Q of the cavity will go down due to the higher losses. So the simulation showing not as much intensity in the flat frustum as compared with TE-013 in the longer frustum, does not imply that the performance is worse and not better. The field strength may be lower because there are higher losses and more thrust. We won't know until we test one. I have hope anyway.
-
#1375 by meberbs on 11 Oct, 2016 02:54
-
This question was asked as part of a discussion where some involved are considering the EMDrive as a porpellantless thruster with no reaction mass. Otherwise I would agree with you. Bob012345's answer to this would be enlightening relative to how he views the emDrive, since in one post he will make statements that indicate he understands how CoE works, and in the next he defends a paper that is blatantly wrong.I truly don't understand. For my (and probably many other's) benefit, can you answer the following question? Suppose EMDrive can provide thrust/power of 10^6/c and it is powered by a battery with energy content of 1 GJ. If the spacecraft (EMDrive+power supply) weighs 1000 kg, how fast will it be travelling after the battery is empty in the (inertial) frame where it starts at rest?
This question as stated makes no sense. The speed is not defined by the spent energy, but by the COM. You have to specify the speed of the reaction mass and calculate the speed of the rocket so that the overall mass center remains fixed.
Bob012345, I could respond to your recent post, but I already responded to most of those points and you did not seem to understand what I said. Please answer as58's question, this might help resolve this discussion.
I will say this:I'm sorry to have to say this but Tellmeagain's paper did not successfully deal with Woodward's paper in my opinion. I found errors and felt the conclusion was unduly harsh towards Woodward and his distinguished career.
I have not found errors in Tellmeagain's paper, and the only things I have seen from you involve you not understanding what is being discussed.
I do not know of a way to state "Woodward's paper is completely wrong with many major errors" that is not harsh. I would ask why you call Woodward's career distinguished, but it does not matter if his career was Einstein's, Fermi's, and Hawking's all rolled up into one; that paper would still be wrong. -
#1376 by WarpTech on 11 Oct, 2016 03:15
-
I would like to see data collected about Q and its effect. One would probably need to measure Q and then do test runs. later cavity corrosion may reduce Q for later runs.
Good question, "If the Q was infinite, meaning no RF energy was dissipated inside the fustrum where would the energy come from to create thrust?" If there were thrust the energy would have to come from the currents and the light in the cavity. I've read before superconductors can maintain a current for an extremely long time as if they have no resistance. SMES work this way and are Superconductive Magnetic Energy Storage I believe is what it stands for. I think they store a magnetic field inside a toroid, in the form of stress, and when power is needed they can be drained and the magnetic field dies down. So something has to drain its power for the power to be lost.
1) If it is thermal loss, as in WarpTech's hypothesis, then I don't see how a 100% superconductor frustum could possibly give the needed thrust. Unless that thermal loss is asymmetric.
2) If the thrust comes from direct energy (currents and light) to frustum with nothing in between then I see problems with momentum conservation as well as explaining how the light changes in mass.
3) If the thrust comes from currents and light coupling with the vacuum via a change in index of the vacuum via some unknown relativistic effect, with a back reaction on the vacuum via the change in index, then I can see how an infinite Q cavity could still provide thrust. Energy would be being lost to accelerating the vacuum. Light inside should be red-shifted by accelerating the vacuum via the change in mass effect, and the cavity should experience and equal and opposite reaction. One would observe what appears to be a cavity with a lower Q than it should have by classical effects. If one put it in a thermal bath and measured power in compared to the heat found in the water, there should be missing heat being carried off by the vacuum.
How the cavity could possibly be modifying the index of the vacuum may be because of the energy density near the narrow end, which may some how increase the coupling of the light in its vicinity with the vacuum by excitation of the vacuum (there by changing the local index.) I am unsure of this.
Previous experiments have shown a greater impulse of light off a mirror inside water than air. See URL Photon mass drag and the momentum of light in a medium by Mikko Partanen,1 Teppo H¨ayrynen,1,2 Jani Oksanen,1 and Jukka Tulkki1 Water has a larger index of refraction, which to me indicates an apparent change in the mass of light inside water. A back reaction was detected on the water when the light entered, so there was a back reaction on the water. It isn't a big leap to compare the water to the the polarizable vacuum theory by Puthoff, where the index of the vacuum can also change, which changes the local mass of objects. (The vacuum coupling with local matter or light coupling with the vacuum.)
Other experiments have shown the vacuum is seething with what appears to be electrons and positrons that boil out of the vacuum when excited with large enough electric fields so one can surmise there is something there to be interacted with. See this link: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1591517#msg1591517
Another paper that suggest something unusual about the vacuum.
DOES THE QUANTUM VACUUM FALL NEAR THE EARTH? by Tom Ostoma, Mike TrushykQuote"This resolves the problems and paradoxes of accelerated motion introduced in Mach’s principle, by suggesting that the acceleration of the charged virtual particles of the quantum vacuum (with respect to a mass) serves as Newton’s universal reference"
Also: What are the Hidden Quantum Processes In Einstein's Weak Principle of Equivalence? Tom Ostoma, Mike TrushykQuoteEMQG is manifestly compatible with Cellular Automata (CA) theory (ref. 2 and 4), and is also based on a new theory of inertia (ref. 5) proposed by R. Haisch, A. Rueda, and H. Puthoff (which we modified and called Quantum Inertia, QI). QI states that classical Newtonian Inertia is a property of matter due to the strictly local electrical force interactions contributed by each of the (electrically charged) elementary particles of the mass with the surrounding (electrically charged) virtual particles (virtual masseons) of the quantum vacuum
Nice reference post! You make a lot of very good points.
Regarding points 1) and 3) above. The model is only considering the Vacuum Electromagnetic ZPF, not the Dirac ZPF or the Quark/Gluon field. However, all of them may be applicable in certain regions of interest, the physics that results in gravity is the same.
The point is, inside the frustum is an EM field, in addition to the EM ZPF. How can you say that "one" is defined as the Quantum Vacuum and the other is not? The EM field stored inside the frustum is more part of the vacuum than it is part of the frustum. The frustum has the currents and charge densities, but the field belongs to the vacuum side of the equations.
If you pour some water out of a pitcher and it falls on bare ground. We can say the Earth is also falling towards the water. This is how we consider conservation of momentum and energy. We say the water had potential energy above the surface of the Earth and that energy was lost when it fell, and converted to kinetic energy. Eventually, all the water is absorbed by the ground.
In my EM Drive Theory, the "empty" frustum has a CM, the field inside changes the CM. If more power is being dissipated at the big end, the field inside accelerates toward the big end. The frustum falls the other way until all the energy is dissipated at the big end.
If this were a change in the refractive index, how would you tell them apart?
Power = h*(f2s - f2b) Depicts a frequency shift due to refractive index.
Power = h*f2s(1 - Z2) Depicts a power loss due to an impedance Z.
I was criticized over on reddit, a place I rarely visit, because what I did is based on "similarity". This is absolutely true! If the Math equations are the same, then the behavior is the same. If the physics can be described by those equations and is indistinguishable from what is measured, then it's a perfectly good description of what's going on. Space-time curvature, Variable refractive index (VSL), Variable impedance or Variable damping, are ALL the same thing. They are just different interpretations of the same physics, using a simplified set of variables that are applicable to the problem at hand.
Todd
-
#1377 by dustinthewind on 11 Oct, 2016 04:08
-
...
Nice reference post! You make a lot of very good points.
Regarding points 1) and 3) above. The model is only considering the Vacuum Electromagnetic ZPF, not the Dirac ZPF or the Quark/Gluon field. However, all of them may be applicable in certain regions of interest, the physics that results in gravity is the same.
The point is, inside the frustum is an EM field, in addition to the EM ZPF. How can you say that "one" is defined as the Quantum Vacuum and the other is not? The EM field stored inside the frustum is more part of the vacuum than it is part of the frustum. The frustum has the currents and charge densities, but the field belongs to the vacuum side of the equations.
If you pour some water out of a pitcher and it falls on bare ground. We can say the Earth is also falling towards the water. This is how we consider conservation of momentum and energy. We say the water had potential energy above the surface of the Earth and that energy was lost when it fell, and converted to kinetic energy. Eventually, all the water is absorbed by the ground.
In my EM Drive Theory, the "empty" frustum has a CM, the field inside changes the CM. If more power is being dissipated at the big end, the field inside accelerates toward the big end. The frustum falls the other way until all the energy is dissipated at the big end.
If this were a change in the refractive index, how would you tell them apart?
Power = h*(f2s - f2b) Depicts a frequency shift due to refractive index.
Power = h*f2s(1 - Z2) Depicts a power loss due to an impedance Z.
I was criticized over on reddit, a place I rarely visit, because what I did is based on "similarity". This is absolutely true! If the Math equations are the same, then the behavior is the same. If the physics can be described by those equations and is indistinguishable from what is measured, then it's a perfectly good description of what's going on. Space-time curvature, Variable refractive index (VSL), Variable impedance or Variable damping, are ALL the same thing. They are just different interpretations of the same physics, using a simplified set of variables that are applicable to the problem at hand.
Todd
Thanks. So what your saying is that you think that it is the heat loss that is causing the variation of the index of the vacuum in the cavity which would make concept 3) not operate efficiently in a 100% superconducting cavity 1) and make both concepts be joined?
Or are we talking that the thermal gradient is the energy being lost via the accelerating vacuum instead. -
#1378 by WarpTech on 11 Oct, 2016 05:11
-
...
Nice reference post! You make a lot of very good points.
Regarding points 1) and 3) above. The model is only considering the Vacuum Electromagnetic ZPF, not the Dirac ZPF or the Quark/Gluon field. However, all of them may be applicable in certain regions of interest, the physics that results in gravity is the same.
The point is, inside the frustum is an EM field, in addition to the EM ZPF. How can you say that "one" is defined as the Quantum Vacuum and the other is not? The EM field stored inside the frustum is more part of the vacuum than it is part of the frustum. The frustum has the currents and charge densities, but the field belongs to the vacuum side of the equations.
If you pour some water out of a pitcher and it falls on bare ground. We can say the Earth is also falling towards the water. This is how we consider conservation of momentum and energy. We say the water had potential energy above the surface of the Earth and that energy was lost when it fell, and converted to kinetic energy. Eventually, all the water is absorbed by the ground.
In my EM Drive Theory, the "empty" frustum has a CM, the field inside changes the CM. If more power is being dissipated at the big end, the field inside accelerates toward the big end. The frustum falls the other way until all the energy is dissipated at the big end.
If this were a change in the refractive index, how would you tell them apart?
Power = h*(f2s - f2b) Depicts a frequency shift due to refractive index.
Power = h*f2s(1 - Z2) Depicts a power loss due to an impedance Z.
I was criticized over on reddit, a place I rarely visit, because what I did is based on "similarity". This is absolutely true! If the Math equations are the same, then the behavior is the same. If the physics can be described by those equations and is indistinguishable from what is measured, then it's a perfectly good description of what's going on. Space-time curvature, Variable refractive index (VSL), Variable impedance or Variable damping, are ALL the same thing. They are just different interpretations of the same physics, using a simplified set of variables that are applicable to the problem at hand.
Todd
Thanks. So what your saying is that you think that it is the heat loss that is causing the variation of the index of the vacuum in the cavity which would make concept 3) not operate efficiently in a 100% superconducting cavity 1) and make both concepts be joined?
Well, "heat loss" could be "any" loss of power from the field that encourages the CM of the field to propagate toward the big end. Another possibility could be mode shifting. Who knows? It could be energy dropping from TE-013, to TE-012, to TE-011 as it decays. That could also be considered a loss of power that would propagate the CM toward the rear.
I just had a thought! If the frustum is continuously charged with MW's such that the input and the losses are balanced at equilibrium, then the CM of the field should be stable. If that happens, then the CM of the frustum is not going to move either. To have thrust and not violate CoM, we need the CM of the field inside falling toward the rear, so that the CM of the copper will fall forward. If this conjecture holds, then the frustum should be pulsed. Charged to it's maximum capacity and then allowed to discharge.
Didn't some of rfmwguy's results show the thrust peaking after the RF was shut off? This needs to be correlated with a port reading of what is going on inside after the RF is shut off.
-
#1379 by TheTraveller on 11 Oct, 2016 08:33
-
To have thrust and not violate CoM, we need the CM of the field inside falling toward the rear, so that the CM of the copper will fall forward. If this conjecture holds, then the frustum should be pulsed. Charged to it's maximum capacity and then allowed to discharge.
You mean pulsed and allowed to decay for 5x cavity TC like this? Pulse time is ~20% of 1 cavity TC. Decay time is ~25x the pulse time.
As far as I know, the middle image is a real measurement. Note the over and under shoots on the total power and force curves. BTW forward power during the pulse would look like the force curve, which is why it ramps up like it does, following the forward power ramp up.