-
#1520
by
rq3
on 12 Oct, 2016 20:02
-
I doubt the small end plate curve is a parabola.
If you follow this you get a curve that is not a perfect radius:
"This geometry is ensured by calculating the value of the machining radius CG of the curve FAH for any angle represented by GCA. This calculation is carried out by a numerical analysis in which the machining radius CG is iterated for steps in the angle GCA until the path length DG is equal to the outer and axial path lengths EF, BA and JH."
I agree. This plots out to be a long winded "patentese" description of a parabolic surface with an additional reverse parabolic surface to correct for the antenna not being at the focus of the primary reflector. As I said earlier, a catadioptric
reflector designed to correct for phase distortion in the "optical" (microwave) system.
Apparently, if you stand in a funnel shaped room with a large steel plate behind you and fire a machine gun at a small parabolic sponge in front of you, the entire room will move forward as the bullets bounce off the sponge and then richochet off the plate. And the entire room will STILL move in the SAME direction if you turn around and fire at the steel plate first, so the richochet then bounces off the parabolic sponge.
-
#1521
by
Bob012345
on 12 Oct, 2016 20:06
-
You are just repeating what I explained and adding a 'Nope' at the start. I got the concept from rocket experts quoted on Wikipedia so you can go argue with them.
What I said is still exactly true.
OK, so how is the "upper stage" argument relevant? No matter how you twist it, you're not getting more kinetic energy than the total chemical energy burnt, you're getting less. The amount of chemical energy it took for the 1st stage to accelerate this propellant is enormous. The upper stage is in a sense "stealing" from that already accelerated propellant (it's not if you change the ref frame to one co-moving with the upper stage at the moment of separation). You need to accelerate something first before you can start "stealing" kinetic energy from it.
Because an EmDrive should act like you had one stage after another after another and so on and the enhanced kinetic energy of the upper stage wrt the original starting frame of the rocket would build upon itself with each 'burn'. So it kind of illustrates that point even though each stage does not violate CoE.
I think those debating the point would assume that an EmDrive would always be energetically tied to the original starting frame and never gain a kinetic energy beyond the total amount of energy that was put into it such that Ein = 0.5 M V^2. Correct?
-
#1522
by
TheTraveller
on 12 Oct, 2016 20:08
-
I find the explanation that in fact EMDrive doesn't work a lot more plausible, but to each his own.
Well it does work as you will soon see when the EW paper is released. So not believing is not a simple fix way out.
OK, let me try to rephrase... I find the explanation that "the apparent thrust observed in the tests that have been conducted so far is attributed to some natural error factor that has not yet been taken into account properly" a lot more plausible.
There are no unaccounted errors in the EW vac tests The identified errors are VERY low. Time to stop grasping at straws and deal with the reality the EmDrive works.
BTW have you read Roger's two very detailed engineering reports? If not you should as you will after the EW paper is out.
It is time to start reading what Roger has published as a start to understand the reality of the EmDrive.
-
#1523
by
WarpTech
on 12 Oct, 2016 20:15
-
Let the mud fly! 
EM DRIVE THEORY - GRAVITY IN A CAN (1st Draft, comments welcome!)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308948407_EM_DRIVE_THEORY_-_GRAVITY_IN_A_CAN
References:
AN ENGINEERING MODEL OF QUANTUM GRAVITY (SLIDES)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308891927_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY_SLIDES
AN ENGINEERING MODEL OF QUANTUM GRAVITY
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY
We need to update the Wiki.
Thanks,
Todd
Todd,
Very interesting. Is your thrust equation basically the same as Shawyer? It looks very close. Also, this gravity you generate carries the momentum and preserves the CoE in all frames as we have been debating, correct?
It's basically the same as @Notsosureofit's Hypothesis, except I took a different approach to derive it, using power loss as a means of generating a gradient.
Momentum is conserved because it is the inertial mass of the internal field that is attracted toward the big end of the frustum, forming a gradient. Therefore, the frustum moves the other way with the same force, conserving momentum. Dissipation allows the energy to escape so the cycle can be repeated.
-
#1524
by
Tellmeagain
on 12 Oct, 2016 20:18
-
There are no unaccounted errors in the EW vac tests The identified errors are VERY low. Time to stop grasping at straws and deal with the reality the EmDrive works.
It is quite uncertain whether there is truly no unaccounted errors. I suspect they did not count ground loop current, just like they did not last time. Of course, they moved amplifier to the flat panel (impression from a photo Paul once posted), but that did not eliminate ground loop. I am going to do some experiment preemptively to show its effect.
BTW have you read Roger's two very detailed engineering reports? If not you should as you will after the EW paper is out.
It is time to start reading what Roger has published as a start to understand the reality of the EmDrive.
-
#1525
by
TheTraveller
on 12 Oct, 2016 20:36
-
Momentum is conserved because it is the inertial mass of the internal field that is attracted toward the big end of the frustum, forming a gradient. Therefore, the frustum moves the other way with the same force, conserving momentum. Dissipation allows the energy to escape so the cycle can be repeated.
The momentum gradient is caused because the guide wavelength varies as attached. As it get longer, the momentum drops. Invert the guide wavelength increase curve (Blue) as attached to get the momentum drop curve.
As you can see it is a non linear effect. So if you modeled the axial side wall area as an annular ring around the small end plate, as viewed from the big end plate, the total of the forces against the small end would not add up to those of the big end because the momentum drops faster than the diameter of the waveguide drops.
-
#1526
by
TheTraveller
on 12 Oct, 2016 21:00
-
There are no unaccounted errors in the EW vac tests The identified errors are VERY low. Time to stop grasping at straws and deal with the reality the EmDrive works.
It is quite uncertain whether there is truly no unaccounted errors. I suspect they did not count ground loop current, just like they did not last time. Of course, they moved amplifier to the flat panel (impression from a photo Paul once posted), but that did not eliminate ground loop. I am going to do some experiment preemptively to show its effect.
BTW have you read Roger's two very detailed engineering reports? If not you should as you will after the EW paper is out.
It is time to start reading what Roger has published as a start to understand the reality of the EmDrive.
Go your hardest. Both the 4 AIAA appointed peer reviewers and the NASA Blue Ribbon panel appointed to vet the paper and the test setup gave it the thumbs up.
You still have yet to explain how Lorentz forces could generate 8mN of up and down force when the frustum was connected to the Rf amp by a single thin and flexible coax cable. Should add that no amount of pushing on the coax would cause any weight change on the 0.01g scale.
Should add that the freq was optimised for lowest reflected power at 1W, then pulsed on at 100W for 5 sec to get a force measurement. So nothing got hot.
Apologies for no photos but the Rf amp when bang and I never finished my tests, which was when I planned to take photos.
-
#1527
by
WarpTech
on 12 Oct, 2016 21:07
-
There are no unaccounted errors in the EW vac tests The identified errors are VERY low. Time to stop grasping at straws and deal with the reality the EmDrive works.
It is quite uncertain whether there is truly no unaccounted errors. I suspect they did not count ground loop current, just like they did not last time. Of course, they moved amplifier to the flat panel (impression from a photo Paul once posted), but that did not eliminate ground loop. I am going to do some experiment preemptively to show its effect.
BTW have you read Roger's two very detailed engineering reports? If not you should as you will after the EW paper is out.
It is time to start reading what Roger has published as a start to understand the reality of the EmDrive.
Go your hardest. Both the 4 AIAA appointed peer reviewers and the NASA Blue Ribbon panel appointed to vet the paper and the test setup gave it the thumbs up.
You still have yet to explain how Lorentz forces could generate 8mN of up and down force when the frustum was connected to the Rf amp by a single thin and flexible coax cable. Should add that no amount of pushing on the coax would cause any weight change on the 0.01g scale.
Should add that the freq was optimised for lowest reflected power at 1W, then pulsed on at 100W for 5 sec to get a force measurement. So nothing got hot.
Apologies for no photos but the Rf amp when bang and I never finished my tests, which was when I planned to take photos.
The copper PCB EMI shield is only a shield if it's grounded. Otherwise, it's an antenna, with the currents and charge densities thereof. Was it grounded?
-
#1528
by
Tellmeagain
on 12 Oct, 2016 21:16
-
There are no unaccounted errors in the EW vac tests The identified errors are VERY low. Time to stop grasping at straws and deal with the reality the EmDrive works.
It is quite uncertain whether there is truly no unaccounted errors. I suspect they did not count ground loop current, just like they did not last time. Of course, they moved amplifier to the flat panel (impression from a photo Paul once posted), but that did not eliminate ground loop. I am going to do some experiment preemptively to show its effect.
BTW have you read Roger's two very detailed engineering reports? If not you should as you will after the EW paper is out.
It is time to start reading what Roger has published as a start to understand the reality of the EmDrive.
Go your hardest. Both the 4 AIAA appointed peer reviewers and the NASA Blue Ribbon panel appointed to vet the paper and the test setup gave it the thumbs up.
You still have yet to explain how Lorentz forces could generate 8mN of up and down force when the frustum was connected to the Rf amp by a single thin and flexible coax cable. Should add that no amount of pushing on the coax would cause any weight change on the 0.01g scale.
Should add that the freq was optimised for lowest reflected power at 1W, then pulsed on at 100W for 5 sec to get a force measurement. So nothing got hot.
Apologies for no photos but the Rf amp when bang and I never finished my tests, which was when I planned to take photos.
EW's results are likely in the uN's, not 8mN, so please do not mix the two different experiments.
I myself have been peer reviewer, and I have published peer reviewed papers. So I know that peer reviewers can miss things. I am curious about whether the NASA Blue Ribbon panel spotted the ground loop problem in EW's 2014 paper. Based on Paul March's post, I infer that they did not.
I am reluctant to comment on your 8mN experiment.
-
#1529
by
rq3
on 12 Oct, 2016 21:18
-
There are no unaccounted errors in the EW vac tests The identified errors are VERY low. Time to stop grasping at straws and deal with the reality the EmDrive works.
It is quite uncertain whether there is truly no unaccounted errors. I suspect they did not count ground loop current, just like they did not last time. Of course, they moved amplifier to the flat panel (impression from a photo Paul once posted), but that did not eliminate ground loop. I am going to do some experiment preemptively to show its effect.
BTW have you read Roger's two very detailed engineering reports? If not you should as you will after the EW paper is out.
It is time to start reading what Roger has published as a start to understand the reality of the EmDrive.
Go your hardest. Both the 4 AIAA appointed peer reviewers and the NASA Blue Ribbon panel appointed to vet the paper and the test setup gave it the thumbs up.
You still have yet to explain how Lorentz forces could generate 8mN of up and down force when the frustum was connected to the Rf amp by a single thin and flexible coax cable. Should add that no amount of pushing on the coax would cause any weight change on the 0.01g scale.
Should add that the freq was optimised for lowest reflected power at 1W, then pulsed on at 100W for 5 sec to get a force measurement. So nothing got hot.
Apologies for no photos but the Rf amp when bang and I never finished my tests, which was when I planned to take photos.
The copper PCB EMI shield is only a shield if it's grounded. Otherwise, it's an antenna, with the currents and charge densities thereof. Was it grounded?
Let alone RF grounded, with ground points << than wavelength (like the holes in a microwave oven window screen, as an example). You can have great DC grounding, yet have tremendous RF currents at the same time, and on the same board, circuit, shield, whatever. The devil is in the details.
-
#1530
by
TheTraveller
on 12 Oct, 2016 21:24
-
EW's results are likely in the uN's, not 8mN, so please do not mix the two different experiments.
I myself have been peer reviewer, and I have published peer reviewed papers. So I know that peer reviewers can miss things. I am curious about whether the NASA Blue Ribbon panel spotted the ground loop problem in EW's 2014 paper. Based on Paul March's post, I infer that they did not.
I am reluctant to comment on your 8mN experiment.
The Blue Ribbon panel were post the 2014 paper. From info from Paul, there was some but not significant impact on the 2014 results from your comments.
BTW in my setup it was easy to orient the coax to be aligned with the 4 points of the magnetic compass and to redo the experiment in 3 different locations. Nothing had any significant effect.
Still wanting to understand how a Lorentz force could be generated from that setup. If none then that is good info that I designed a good test setup and will us it again when my 4 new frustums and 2 new Rf amps arrive.
-
#1531
by
TheTraveller
on 12 Oct, 2016 21:33
-
Tried to ground it to the static ground on the work bench. Made no observable difference.
Any fields leaking from the frustum would induce eddy currents, which would turn the Em energy into heat energy, in the Cu layer which was many times thicker than the skin depth at 2.45GHz. Plus this was a double sided PCB so there were two insulated layers of Cu for any Em fields to get through.
Have you actually tried to operate a Cu frustum next to a digital scale and observed the effects with and without a dual layer Cu shield?
-
#1532
by
Monomorphic
on 13 Oct, 2016 00:40
-
Found very strong TE013 in the new Bell geometry with circularizing antenna. All components are composed of a perfect conductor. Need to work on making just the large end a perfect conductor and the rest silver plated. FEKO's modeling abilities are limited, so I am using geometry imported from another app, which complicates things.
-
#1533
by
SeeShells
on 13 Oct, 2016 01:18
-
Found very strong TE013 in the new Bell geometry with circularizing antenna. All components are composed of a perfect conductor. Need to work on making just the large end a perfect conductor and the rest silver plated. FEKO's modeling abilities are limited, so I am using geometry imported from another app, which complicates things.
The instantaneous magnitude X,Y,Z E-Field of 75,000 Kv/m is
huge Monomorphic compared to ~175Kv/m on other simulations, by a factor of 428.57 times! Do I see this right?
Very nice work!
My Best,
Shell
PS: Wondering if this design should be tested with the laser White–Juday warp-field interferometer, just saying.
-
#1534
by
SeeShells
on 13 Oct, 2016 01:26
-
Interesting presentation I'm watching @
Published on Sep 22, 2016
An in-depth survey of the various technologies for spaceship propulsion, both from those we can expect to see in a few years and those at the edge of theoretical science. We'll break them down to basics and familiarize ourselves with the concepts.
Note: I made a rather large math error about the Force per Power the EmDrive exerts at 32:10, initial tentative results for thrust are a good deal higher than I calculated compared to a flashlight.
-
#1535
by
Monomorphic
on 13 Oct, 2016 01:51
-
The instantaneous magnitude X,Y,Z E-Field of 75,000 Kv/m is huge Monomorphic compared to ~175Kv/m on other simulations, by a factor of 428.57 times! Do I see this right?
You are seeing it correctly. It's the highest e-field strength i've seen since i've been modeling - even for the perfect electric conductors.
-
#1536
by
otlski
on 13 Oct, 2016 01:58
-
There are no unaccounted errors in the EW vac tests The identified errors are VERY low. Time to stop grasping at straws and deal with the reality the EmDrive works.
It is quite uncertain whether there is truly no unaccounted errors. I suspect they did not count ground loop current, just like they did not last time. Of course, they moved amplifier to the flat panel (impression from a photo Paul once posted), but that did not eliminate ground loop. I am going to do some experiment preemptively to show its effect.
BTW have you read Roger's two very detailed engineering reports? If not you should as you will after the EW paper is out.
It is time to start reading what Roger has published as a start to understand the reality of the EmDrive.
Go your hardest. Both the 4 AIAA appointed peer reviewers and the NASA Blue Ribbon panel appointed to vet the paper and the test setup gave it the thumbs up.
You still have yet to explain how Lorentz forces could generate 8mN of up and down force when the frustum was connected to the Rf amp by a single thin and flexible coax cable. Should add that no amount of pushing on the coax would cause any weight change on the 0.01g scale.
Should add that the freq was optimised for lowest reflected power at 1W, then pulsed on at 100W for 5 sec to get a force measurement. So nothing got hot.
Apologies for no photos but the Rf amp when bang and I never finished my tests, which was when I planned to take photos.
Given your scale is 3000g X 0.01g you have a 300,000:1 dynamic range assuming one count of noise. That kind of dynamic range strongly suggests that your scale is a force restoration device which consists of a voice coil actuator and a strong permanent magnet as a major part of the mechanism. This means that it is strongly influenced by stray EM fields usually resulting in false readings; even steady state false readings. The best way to mitigate is to provide separation by spacing your EM drive up on a light weight tall spacer.
-
#1537
by
SeeShells
on 13 Oct, 2016 02:03
-
The instantaneous magnitude X,Y,Z E-Field of 75,000 Kv/m is huge Monomorphic compared to ~175Kv/m on other simulations, by a factor of 428.57 times! Do I see this right?
You are seeing it correctly. It's the highest e-field strength i've seen since i've been modeling - even for the perfect electric conductors.
Aero and I did a "Ice Cream Cone" simulation but because of modeling limits with meep we never did a helical antenna or even a loop. Plus the endplates are reversed from Shawyer's. Although I think it's still a good idea.
Shell
-
#1538
by
oyzw
on 13 Oct, 2016 02:29
-
Found very strong TE013 in the new Bell geometry with circularizing antenna. All components are composed of a perfect conductor. Need to work on making just the large end a perfect conductor and the rest silver plated. FEKO's modeling abilities are limited, so I am using geometry imported from another app, which complicates things.
Hello !Can you tell me the shape of this antenna？
-
#1539
by
meberbs
on 13 Oct, 2016 02:34
-
Again you refuse to accept the experimental data.
What experimental data am I ignoring? There have been no conclusive results shared.
Inside a waveguide, EmWave momentum varies as the guide wavelength varies as Cullen proved in 1950. As diameter reduces, guide wavelength increases and momentum decreases. In a resonant cavity end plate radiation pressure increases as Q and power increase. In a frustum a momentum gradient is established being highest at the big end and smallest at the small end. This gradient generates an internal force toward the big end. The frustum moves toward the small end as a balancing reaction force.
First, Cullen did not work with waveguides that vary diameter, and it is not trivial to extend that work, especially since the emDrive is a tapered cavity, not a cylindrical waveguide. You have repeatedly failed to even provide a physical definition of guide wavelength for this case when asked.
Second, assuming that the momentum in the fields does change along the length, this would have to happen due to interactions with the side walls. These forces on the sidewalls balance the difference in forces on the end plates. There obviously are forces on the sidewalls, because otherwise, you wouldn't need them to contain the radiation between the plates. Ignoring the sidewall forces and saying the momentum in the fields magically changes with no interactions breaks conservation of momentum by definition.
Third, even ignoring the balancing force on the sidewalls, you then said that there would be a force towards the big end. This is the force the EM fields exert on the end plate, and is the "correct" result if you blindly apply Cullen's equations and ignore the sidewall forces. This means that the drive should move towards the big end because that is the direction of the force applied to it. The "reaction" statement you made makes no sense. Based on that statement, then if I push an object to the left, then I would expect it to react by moving to the right, and that is not how things work. All I am doing here is applying F=M*a, but you seem to want F = - M*a.
Have you pre-decided that the NASA results upcoming in December are not real evidence?
I don't know what the results are so of course they aren't included in any statements I make.
Have you pre-decided that they are completely noise and error free unambiguous results?
