-
#1540 by lmbfan on 13 Oct, 2016 02:37
-
I made a quick model of the new geometry. It doesn't appear to be parabolic as I was unable to get a perfect fit using my modeling program's "conic section" curve type. There are 100 evenly spaced points traced along the curved small end using short, straight segments. The points were constructed by using the direct method of creating 100 line segments of equal length passing thru a common focal point at the small end, spaced evenly along a straight line passing thru the center of the big end to the outer edge of the big end.
The dimensions are arbitrary, but should be able to be uniformly scaled to whatever dimensions are required:
Big End Radius/Diameter: 50/100
Small end Radius/Diameter: 25/50
Length of side: 50
I am able to modify any of the dimensions and re-export, if scaling is impossible or difficult. It only takes around 10-15 minutes, however, my time and access to the internet are limited. I will respond to personal messages on this forum, usually within a day.
-
#1541 by masterharper1082 on 13 Oct, 2016 02:52
-
If I'm reading this correctly and Fg1 is greater than Fg2, the diagram should be edited to show T=Q*(Fg1-Fg2). Show acceleration by a vector pointing toward the big end, and the d'Alembert force as R=-m*a. I think that may clear up a lot of confusion.
I don't get your last paragraph. Even Shwayer talks about static forces in test rigs as well as non accelerating lifting devices for cars and lifting spacecraft to GEO. I think an EmDrive is like a rocket with an inexhaustible fuel source where the mass doesn't change.That is getting a bit old. There is no energy generation. Just a few folks here may need to adjust their frame reference to the EmDrive and forget what happens in other frames.
You see, CoE means that energy must be conserved in all inertial frames, not just in one specially chosen (and not even inertial) frame. Switching to a different inertial frame and running calculations is a common method of finding mistakes.
Tell that to the EmDrive as it only obeys A = F/M.
Maybe you can explain how all the various frame KE accountants will demand the EmDrive obeys their frame's KE calculations?
The EmDrive will use energy to do work on the ship's mass to generate the desired Dv to reach and dock with a distant destination. That all the other frame KE accountants will be upset matter not to the ship.
Would seem the universe has just flipped the bird at all the various KE frame accountants and said to them. Sorry guys but your understanding is limited and needs to change.
Roger told me he collected data from the Demonstrator rotary test rig and it proved there was no CofM nor CofE violation. I did ask him to publish that data, but so far it has not happened.
I do know of one other EmDrive rotary test but again the data is not publically available. When I finally get my next build together, I will publish the CofM and CofE energy balances as collected on the continually accelerating rotary test rig.
Bottom line is:
1) EmDrive does work
2) No CofM violation as the ships gained momentum is sources from the Em Wave's momentum as yes it is red shifted as a result.
3) No CofE violation in regard to the local frame as the drive obeys A = F/M.
Oh BTW you can't hook of a EmDrive to a generator as the generator runs at a fixed RPM, IE no increase in angular velocity = no angular acceleration = no angular acceleration = no EmDrive Force generated. To generate Force the EmDrive must accelerate. A EmDrive is NOT A ROCKET MOTOR. It does not act like a rocket motor. If it can't accelerate, there is no force generated.
Static Force measurement is of the primary end plate radiation pressure derived Thrust force. The only way to measure the equal but opposite Reaction force that I know of requires the EmDrive to be able to freely accelerate.
Levitation requires acceleration of the levitated mass at 1g. So even though it may not move, to the EmDrive it is accelerating the mass at 1g.
mh -
#1542 by meberbs on 13 Oct, 2016 03:06
-
For discussion of forces, I would like to suggest that the terms thrust and reaction cause too much confusion, since they mean different things to different people in different situations. I have always found it helpful to refer to forces as "the force applied to X by Y" that way it is clear that the force is applied to X, and is the direction X will accelerate in if there are no other forces on X.
For example, using the force diagram in this post (and ignoring the caption that claims you experience a force by looking at an emDrive):
Fg1 is the force applied to the large end of the cavity by the EM fields. Fg2 is the Force applied to the small end of the cavity by the EM fields. T is the vector sum of Fg1 and Fg2, and is the net force applied to the cavity by the EM fields. R is the opposite of T and is the force applied to the EM fields by the cavity. The momentum gained by the fields due to force R does not matter in Shawyer's theory because according to him EM fields can gain and lose momentum without interacting with anything else.Let me break this down as simple as possible:
1. Force on the large end of the cavity is pointed from the small end to the large end.
2. Force on the small end of the cavity is pointed from the large end to the small end.
3. Force on the large end of the cavity is larger than on the small end.
4. Therefore, the net force on the cavity it towards the large end (assuming no sidewall force)
5. Using only F=m*a, this means the cavity moves in the direction of the large end.
Specifically which of these points is wrong? 1-3 come from Shawyer, 4 is simply addition (i.e. -7+12 = 5) with the no sidewalls force assumption from Shawyer and 5 is F=m*a.
Shawyer's own experiments therefore disprove his theory.
All forces have a "action force" and a matching equal but opposite "reaction force".
For the EmDrive, the Thrust force is the internal end plate differential "action force" (Small to Big) and the external Reaction force that accelerates the frustum is the opposite but equal "reaction force" (Big to Small).
You did not answer the question, which of steps 1 through 5 do you disagree with? As I described in the paragraphs above, what you are calling the "thrust" force is applied to the walls of the cavity, so it is the direction the drive will move. -
#1543 by WarpTech on 13 Oct, 2016 03:17
-
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.
Now you're talking! That's nearly ~50 kPa of field pressure, or 50,000 kg/m^3 of energy density. Very huge indeed!
but 
-
#1544 by SeeShells on 13 Oct, 2016 03:36
-
You can buy them on the internet, I got this one from Ebay last year.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？
Called a Helical WiFi .
Shell
-
#1545 by OnlyMe on 13 Oct, 2016 04:10
-
That end plate force differential is what Roger calls the Thrust force and with the right test setup it can be measured. However it will not accelerate a EmDrive as you can't have a one sided force and so the EmDrive moves in the opposite way as a equal but opposite Reaction force to the Thrust force.
Ok again this is outside the way we see the world but that does not mean it can't work like that.
Well, I can't help but wonder, why go with an "explanation" that really is "outside the way we see the world" as opposed to a number of alternative explanations that aren't?
So far there has been no convincing data published that confirms useable thrust from any EMDrive, let alone constant uniform acceleration from a constant power input.
Keeping that in mind none of the "explanations" presented rise above the level of theoretical speculation.
The test so far, is not whether one theory or model of operation is better than another, or which if any is more consistent with how we currently interpret what we understand to be fundamental laws of physics, it is how well does any of the models presented describe and/or predict (what many including myself) believe or hope the data will prove.
Assuming the EMDrive does work...
I cannot see any way that microwaves bouncing off the interior walls of a can.., frustum can possibly result in asymmetrical thrust... but Shawyer's and TT's calculation tools seem to work, so as a descriptive model they pass the test.
I have serious doubts that microwaves inside that same can/frustum, can create an asymmetric gravitational field that moves the can and moves with it, resulting in acceleration. But I would really like to see that be the case, because it would be perhaps the most significant discovery, of all time... A means of manipulating gravity? there are at least a couple of theoretical models that have been put forward involving gravity that also seem to past the test...
Whatever is going on, none of us will know with certainty, until someone has produced and published a functional EMDrive, demonstrating useable thrust repeatedly and in multiple labs or a practical functional device.
Frankly until someone does present a convincing function device, that can repeatedly create useable thrust, trying to figure out how it works is premature. At this point that would seem to require new physics or at least a reinterpretation of what we think of as fundamental physics.., today.
A long winded way of saying that, if the EMDrive works, we may have to reevaluate "the way we see the world" of physics. -
#1546 by WarpTech on 13 Oct, 2016 04:23
-
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.
2 Questions about TE013 mode:
Why is the energy density always highest at the small end, what time-evolutions produces this?
Why does FEKO call kA/m a "surface current"? I think it should be the Magnetic field strength, H at the surface.
If it were a surface current it would have units of kA/m2, and for any TE mode, the value should be zero, because no magnetic flux is escaping the frustum. In order to drive current around the circumference of the frustum, it requires a NET flux through the loop. There is no NET flux if the flux is toroidal AND 100% inside the loop. The TE mode almost assures there are NO Lorentz forces acting on the frustum since there is no current flowing.
(Note, this is not the case for TM modes, where the magnetic flux is circular.)
Regarding my theory: If Shawyer's new patent is correct, then I probably have it backwards in my EM Drive Theory, because I said the power is dissipated at the big end, where he made the big end superconducting and the small end out of aluminum. This implies that the dissipation is happening at the small end, not the big end. Still, as it dissipates, it's weight moves toward the big end so the frustum can move forward.
I think essentially what I need is the energy density distribution throughout the frustum. Which can be derived from these images. It's just eps0E2.
-
#1547 by OnlyMe on 13 Oct, 2016 04:36
-
That would be saying that the final kinetic energy must always be equal to the chemical energy content delivered by the fuel and no more. Is that your position?
Actually, less: the final kinetic energy of the rocket equals the chemical energy delivered by the fuel burnt less the total kinetic energy gained by the propellant, and less the energy lost as waste heat.
Totally exact.
Bob012345, you can try to give a counter example
It is well known that the upper stage of a rocket can gain more energy that the total energy content of its fuel.
That's because the fuel already has kinetic energy, often far greater than the chemical energy of the fuel. This is a known fact rocket engineers use.
Can you explain how any kinetic energy of the fuel changes how the fuel combusts?
As a rocket moves out of the gravity well of the earth, there is less gravitational resistance to acceleration. The location with respect to the earth's center of mass (gravity) is far more significant than any kinetic energy associated with acceleration. -
#1548 by Bob Woods on 13 Oct, 2016 04:42
-
-
#1549 by oyzw on 13 Oct, 2016 05:19
-
Thank you very much, now my thrust platform has been finished, solid source and signal source is ready
You can buy them on the internet, I got this one from Ebay last year.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？
Called a Helical WiFi .
Shell -
#1550 by Chrochne on 13 Oct, 2016 07:15
-
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.
Now you're talking! That's nearly ~50 kPa of field pressure, or 50,000 kg/m^3 of energy density. Very huge indeed! but
How much thrust can be generated with such device? It is fascinating that by changing the geometry you can get so much higher results....It is almost scary and unbelivable even for the core believers in the EmDrive. Still, I am enthusiast, but I need to see it too before really believe. Lets hope 2017 will deliver. -
#1551 by TheTraveller on 13 Oct, 2016 09:09
-
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.
What I see is where the antenna enters the frustum is good as there are no eddy currents being cut in the dead centre of the curved end plate and the antenna is symmetrically coupling to the internal EmWaves.
Existing way is to couple into the centre of one of the mode lobes via an antenna inserted through the side wall.
Nicely done. -
#1552 by TheTraveller on 13 Oct, 2016 10:13
-
Here is a plot of TE013 Guide Wavelength change versus Radiation Pressure (EmWave momentum) of the commercial EmDrive thrusters I'm building. Resolution is approx 65k points along the central axis of the frustum. The integral of the guide wavelength gives 3 x 1/2 effective guide waves from big to small end plate at 2.45GHz, which very closely matches the FEKO resonance of 2.43GHz in TE013.
As you can see neither plot is linear, which means that if you took the integral of the axial radiation pressure forces toward the small end, they would not equal the radiation pressure against the big end where the radiation pressure is constant over the entire surface area. Which shows the side wall forces cancel out argument is not valid as that argument assumes equal radiation pressure at all points, which is not the case.
There is nothing new here. All this has been in the text books and published papers for 65 years.
-
#1553 by TheTraveller on 13 Oct, 2016 12:21
-
To explain a bit more about the Differential Radiation Pressure generated Thrust vector (small to big) and how it can be measured to confirm it actually exists, we need only read Roger's Demonstrator EmDrive technical report which details how he measured the Thrust force.
Attached are the Force thrust vectors as measured in the scale based test results and the actual weight change that was measured in each of the force vector directions.
Also attached is the technical report for those who wish to read up on how the tests were conducted.
To measure the accelerative Reaction force that is equal but opposite to the Thrust force requires the EmDrive to be tested on a rotary test rig as was done on 2006, which showed the accelerative Reaction force was in the opposite direction to the Thrust force and of the same level of force as shown in line 5 of the results in the summary attachment.
For DIYers doing force measurements using spring based systems (scales, torsion pendulums, etc), it would seem that what has been measured is the Thrust force and not the accelerative Reaction force.
What this data shows is the EmDrive does work as Roger's theory claims, generating a Thrust force (small to big) from the differential of the radiation pressure due to EmWave momentum change as the frustum diameter varies that can be measured.
Plus the opposite but equal accelerative Reaction force can be measure by using a rotary test rig.
So the test results show there is a small to big Thrust force vector generated which follows the change in frustum diameter and there is an equal but opposite accelerative Reaction force generated that can be used to achieve propollentless but not energy less acceleration.
Should add that you can measure both forces but not at the same time.
Those that desire to develop alternative explanations as to why the Thrust force is generated, need to factor in that the value of the Thrust force follows end plate diameter change vs EmWave momentum change vs excitation mode vs excitation freq vs frustum Qu vs frustum Rf power.
So far there is only one theory that fits all those variables together and that is Roger's theory.
-
#1554 by PNeilson on 13 Oct, 2016 12:53
-
I have not read any comments on what I see as a notable part of Shawyer's Patent Application. It seems that there is a cycling of the frequency and cavity length. With a use of 2 cavities cycling 180 degrees out of phase to keep the thrust constant.
Shell talks about seeing a jerk in the thrust in her data. I would interpret this jerk as some kind of resonance point in the coupling of the cavity field to the quantum / space time background (whatever this background really is).
That begs the question, is the cycling in the patent application a method of tuning the cavity and frequency to maximize coupling, hence maximizing acceleration?
-
#1555 by Tellmeagain on 13 Oct, 2016 13:17
-
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.
Now you're talking! That's nearly ~50 kPa of field pressure, or 50,000 kg/m^3 of energy density. Very huge indeed! but
How much thrust can be generated with such device? It is fascinating that by changing the geometry you can get so much higher results....It is almost scary and unbelivable even for the core believers in the EmDrive. Still, I am enthusiast, but I need to see it too before really believe. Lets hope 2017 will deliver.
I typed dry air breakdown voltage in google and I get this:
"This phenomenon, which is called dielectric breakdown, occurs in air at an electric field strength of about Emax = 3 × 10^6 V/m."
-
#1556 by Monomorphic on 13 Oct, 2016 13:17
-
The e-field strength for this new Bell geometry and circularizing antenna is off the charts. I'm now at 250,000 kV/m.
-
#1557 by Monomorphic on 13 Oct, 2016 13:22
-
I made a quick model of the new geometry. It doesn't appear to be parabolic as I was unable to get a perfect fit using my modeling program's "conic section" curve type.
I used the term parabola to distinguish it from a perfect spherical radius. The actual shape is what I would call a "revolved curve" - which is really 3d modeling parlance. -
#1558 by meberbs on 13 Oct, 2016 13:25
-
To explain a bit more about the Differential Radiation Pressure generated Thrust vector (small to big) and how it can be measured to confirm it actually exists, we need only read Roger's Demonstrator EmDrive technical report which details how he measured the Thrust force.
So many words, yet none of them mean what you seem to think. Everything you are saying is equivalent to saying that pushing an object to the left will make it move to the right. This is the opposite of F=M*a.
...Here is a plot of TE013 Guide Wavelength change versus Radiation Pressure (EmWave momentum) of the commercial EmDrive thrusters I'm building. Resolution is approx 65k points along the central axis of the frustum. The integral of the guide wavelength gives 3 x 1/2 effective guide waves from big to small end plate at 2.45GHz, which very closely matches the FEKO resonance of 2.43GHz in TE013.
What does non-linearity have anything to do with it?
As you can see neither plot is linear, which means that if you took the integral of the axial radiation pressure forces toward the small end, they would not equal the radiation pressure against the big end where the radiation pressure is constant over the entire surface area. Which shows the side wall forces cancel out argument is not valid as that argument assumes equal radiation pressure at all points, which is not the case.
There is nothing new here. All this has been in the text books and published papers for 65 years.
Fundametal theorem of calculus, if you assume the momentum change in the EM wave is caused by interactions with the sidewalls, and integrate this change over the length of the cavity:
∫0L dp/dz dz = p(L) - p(0)
In other words, The momentum transferred to the sidewalls is exactly equal to the change in momentum of the wave. It does not need to be linear with length, it can literally be any smooth function (i.e. not blow up to infinity mid way)
This argument from you is so fundamentally wrong I do not understand how you can possibly think it makes sense. -
#1559 by TheTraveller on 13 Oct, 2016 13:35
-
I have not read any comments on what I see as a notable part of Shawyer's Patent Application. It seems that there is a cycling of the frequency and cavity length. With a use of 2 cavities cycling 180 degrees out of phase to keep the thrust constant.
Shell talks about seeing a jerk in the thrust in her data. I would interpret this jerk as some kind of resonance point in the coupling of the cavity field to the quantum / space time background (whatever this background really is).
That begs the question, is the cycling in the patent application a method of tuning the cavity and frequency to maximize coupling, hence maximizing acceleration?
Roger has discussed using multiple phased cavities in his last few papers, showing how to pulse then and generate thrust as the declining cavity energy is reflected back and forth while losing EmWave momentum to gained cavity momentum and delivering an accelerative Reaction force.
Before he needed 8 cavities to make this work. Now he has done it using 2 cavities. BTW to get a 1 sec cavity TC requires a HUGH Q as the cavity TC = Qu / (2 Pi Freq). Like a Qu of 15,400,000,000!!!
but 
