-
#1600 by pforand on 13 Oct, 2016 17:04
-
Total n00b here... No idea what i'm talking about...
Could the EMDrive be interfering with the Higgs field? Wouldn't that change the weigth of the drive somehow? Maybe even result some trust if the weigth is changed ?
Thanks for not flamming me!
-
#1601 by Bob012345 on 13 Oct, 2016 17:08
-
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.QuoteBTW 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.
I hope you don't make the mistake of assuming anything you find in your setup must be what happened to theirs. -
#1602 by bmcgaffey20 on 13 Oct, 2016 17:11
-
Total n00b here... No idea what i'm talking about...
Could the EMDrive be interfering with the Higgs field? Wouldn't that change the weigth of the drive somehow? Maybe even result some trust if the weigth is changed ?
Thanks for not flamming me!
Probably not. The weight of the drive is probably changing, but because there is energy density changing as per E=MC^2. What I am more interested in, is how the fluctuating mass is affecting the field of gravity that is influencing the device due to the fluctuating mass. -
#1603 by Bob012345 on 13 Oct, 2016 17:16
-
I don't know what the results are so of course they aren't included in any statements I make.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?
Have you pre-decided that they are completely noise and error free unambiguous results?
No but I'm not someone who apriori thinks the EmDrive can't work based on fundamental physics. Someone who does will always assume experimental errors until they change their mind. -
#1604 by TheTraveller on 13 Oct, 2016 17:21
-
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.QuoteBTW 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.
I hope you don't make the mistake of assuming anything you find in your setup must be what happened to theirs.
I know what my test setup measured. There was no conflict with what Roger's test setups measured. EW's test setup is very complex as the EmDrive they built was not as per Roger and had very low output that needed a lot of work done on the test setup to reduce the noise to lift the signal up to be significant.
My test setup was very KISS as that is how I design. There are no ground loops not thermal influences as the test pulses were very short, around 5 sec. Adjustment of best freq was done at 1W or less and nothing even got warm. There was no measurable EMI in the scale as it recorded no weight change when the EmDrive was, externally to the scale, supported a very small distance above but not touching it.
Simple and KISS test system that measured ~+-8mN of weight change at ~95W forward power.
-
#1605 by Bob012345 on 13 Oct, 2016 17:25
-
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.
It doesn't. Fuel combustion is invariant. The fuels mass just has kinetic energy by virtue of its velocity wrt some observer. Forget gravity wells when thinking about this. Think deep space. -
#1606 by tchernik on 13 Oct, 2016 17:33
-
X-rays and gamma have wavelengths on the order of nanometers and picometers. Low order resonant cavities for hard x-rays and gamma rays would be the size of atoms or smaller.
We could conceivably construct Infrared emdrives 2000nm in length, but that would require MEMS and/or nanotech.
Yep. The often cited microwaves, due to their wavelength and required resonant cavity dimensions, seem to be the most low tech friendly way to test and exploit the effect. You can go down in size by increasing the frequency/reducing the wavelength, but then you start hitting power/thermal issues due to the smaller cavity size (less mass, quicker heating, stronger need of dissipation), while you still are in the microwave regime.
Problems an infrared MEMS version of this would probably also hit very soon, requiring some other complications like active, efficient cooling. But a MEMS version of this may still be interesting for micro-thrusters in satellites, once the effect has been tested and validated. -
#1607 by Gilbertdrive on 13 Oct, 2016 17:41
-
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.
It doesn't. Fuel combustion is invariant. The fuels mass just has kinetic energy by virtue of its velocity wrt some observer. Forget gravity wells when thinking about this. Think deep space.
It is a question of language. We can also tell that it is because the fuel combusts in the combustion chamber that it gets some velocity
But, yes, it is not the fact that the fuel combusts that is important. What is important is the fact that the fuel gets a velocity. -
#1608 by Bob012345 on 13 Oct, 2016 18:50
-
Total n00b here... No idea what i'm talking about...
Could the EMDrive be interfering with the Higgs field? Wouldn't that change the weigth of the drive somehow? Maybe even result some trust if the weigth is changed ?
Thanks for not flamming me!
I wouldn't know but logically, if gravity is being simply manipulated in an RF cavity, that suggests the concept of the Higgs field is unnecessary and thus the Standard Model is wrong. -
#1609 by Fan Boi on 13 Oct, 2016 19:05
-
We could conceivably construct Infrared emdrives 2000nm in length, but that would require MEMS and/or nanotech.
That made me think of having "sheets" of tiny EM drives created using something like current IC manufacturing processes (or larger, like motherboard manufacturing etc). Maybe even tiny 3-gimbles on each one to change the thrust direction at will. Plus you could stack them on top of each other, heat removal dependent of course. -
#1610 by X_RaY on 13 Oct, 2016 19:06
-
1.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.
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
2.
http://www.ittc.ku.edu/~jstiles/220/handouts/Surface%20Current%20Density.pdf
-
#1611 by OnlyMe on 13 Oct, 2016 19:08
-
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.
It doesn't. Fuel combustion is invariant. The fuels mass just has kinetic energy by virtue of its velocity wrt some observer. Forget gravity wells when thinking about this. Think deep space.
That was kind of my point! Any kinetic energy of the fuel in the launch/observer's frame has nothing to do with the rocket's performance. The combustion rate and resulting combustion related kinetic energy of combustion do. The efficiency of the rocket would drop off as the rockets acceleration begins to exceed the combustion rate. Other than that once the rocket is in deep space or has attained an escape velocity for any relevant gravity, kinetic energy in any frame becomes a fictitious value.
The argument is reminiscent of any number of old special relativity paradox puzzles... Second and third stages of rockets perform better not because of any kinetic energy relative to their initial rest frame, but because as they move toward or at some point out of orbit there is a decreasing resistance from gravity.
Most of these discussions are dealing with uncharted physics. What we know of the fundamental laws, with certainty.., meaning that have been experimentally observed.., has been from a preferred inertial frame the of the lab or earth. It seems there may be potential in the EMDrive to move beyond those limitations, at which time a great deal of reevaluation and rethinking of many long held beliefs will be in order.
But first we need a functional EMDrive. Not just a lot of hand waving.
-
#1612 by Bob012345 on 13 Oct, 2016 19:54
-
Roger always said refer to GR to explain the device...
Shawyer has always claimed that all that is required is Special Relativity (not General Relativity) and , Maxwell's equations, and Newton's third law. He is on videotape saying this. If you disagree, please show a reference where Shawyer ever invokes General Relativity. Thanks
E=MC^2 and also M=E/C^2. The charged cavity has mass and we are exploiting the charging and discharging and more specifically the direction of the artificially produced gravitational field??? The higher the Q, the more energy content of the charged cavity... if so then the project scales
Brilliant man, one of my hero's but I disagree on a couple of details. Flying cars are a bad dream. Sure you could do it but why let the average driver who can barely manage 2D manage 3D? Just not a good idea even with computer auto-pilots. We simply cannot allow multi-ton vehicles buzzing over our rooftops all the time now matter how silent or safe they purport to be. Forget the absurd Jetson scenario. Not going to happen. Unmanned UAV for commercial and military applications and professionally piloted vehicles of course are fine. Then, I seriously doubt large scale space based solar power stations are the long term answer not with new energy concepts coming on line that will make that a boondoggle and which will power and cool the EmDrive much more efficiently than hydrogen fuel cells. But I understand he has to rationalize his technology with as many applications as possible. -
#1613 by Gilbertdrive on 13 Oct, 2016 20:41
-
That was kind of my point! Any kinetic energy of the fuel in the launch/observer's frame has nothing to do with the rocket's performance. The combustion rate and resulting combustion related kinetic energy of combustion do. The efficiency of the rocket would drop off as the rockets acceleration begins to exceed the combustion rate. Other than that once the rocket is in deep space or has attained an escape velocity for any relevant gravity, kinetic energy in any frame becomes a fictitious value.
Forgive me, it maybe because English is not my native language, but I do not understand clearly what you means.
Of course, if the rocket is escaping from the earth, we have to take into account the gravity losses, but I do not see why kinetic energy in any frame would becomes fictitious.
IMHO, the "upper stage paradox" is perfectly solved by the formula of Wicoe.
We can take into account the earth gravity well by adding a term.
"The increase of kinetic energy of a rocket (or the upper stage, which is still a rocket) equals the chemical energy delivered by its own fuel burnt less the total kinetic energy gained (has to be read as "lost" if negative) by the propellant, less the energy lost as waste heat, and less the gravity losses if it is initially in a gravity well" -
#1614 by WarpTech on 13 Oct, 2016 20:46
-
Total n00b here... No idea what i'm talking about...
Could the EMDrive be interfering with the Higgs field? Wouldn't that change the weigth of the drive somehow? Maybe even result some trust if the weigth is changed ?
Thanks for not flamming me!
I wouldn't know but logically, if gravity is being simply manipulated in an RF cavity, that suggests the concept of the Higgs field is unnecessary and thus the Standard Model is wrong.
More accurately I think, the Higgs field is a necessary part of the Standard Model. A scalar field is what is required. It is the interpretation of what the Higgs field "is" that might be wrong, but it's existence is fairly certain.
-
#1615 by Gilbertdrive on 13 Oct, 2016 20:58
-
Roger always said refer to GR to explain the device...
Shawyer has always claimed that all that is required is Special Relativity (not General Relativity) and , Maxwell's equations, and Newton's third law. He is on videotape saying this. If you disagree, please show a reference where Shawyer ever invokes General Relativity. Thanks
E=MC^2 and also M=E/C^2. The charged cavity has mass and we are exploiting the charging and discharging and more specifically the direction of the artificially produced gravitational field??? The higher the Q, the more energy content of the charged cavity... if so then the project scales
Brilliant man, one of my hero's but I disagree on a couple of details. Flying cars are a bad dream. Sure you could do it but why let the average driver who can barely manage 2D manage 3D? Just not a good idea even with computer auto-pilots. We simply cannot allow multi-ton vehicles buzzing over our rooftops all the time now matter how silent or safe they purport to be. Forget the absurd Jetson scenario. Not going to happen. Unmanned UAV for commercial and military applications and professionally piloted vehicles of course are fine. Then, I seriously doubt large scale space based solar power stations are the long term answer not with new energy concepts coming on line that will make that a boondoggle and which will power and cool the EmDrive much more efficiently than hydrogen fuel cells. But I understand he has to rationalize his technology with as many applications as possible.
I also do not beleive that Shawyer will give us flying cars in 2017.
Launching a cubesat to convince satellite builders that the Emdrive works would cost only 20 000 or 30 000 dollars to Shawyer, and he never managed that. How believe that he will bring to us in a short delay an Emdrive thousands of time more performant that needed in space ? Except if he dicovered that the Emdrive was not working in space, but working only near the ground.
But I am also not convinced by your arguments. Even if it is forbidden to fly over roofs at a low altitude, having 2 or 3 layers of cars on classical roads could be an advantage. Autopilot should be far more easy to manage for a flying car, because there is no pets running in the sky, no flying children, no flying bicycles, no flying flowerpots. You just have to take into account paragliders, planes, etc, other flying devices, and their density is very low, and they are very easy to detect and locate by radar.
You just have to manage the lift off. if vertical lift off is possible it is very simple. You just have to verify that there is no branches up your car.
If the system is reliable, we can not tell a priori that it is not usefull.
In the worst case, supposing it is very expensive, it could at least be used by Police, or ambulance. -
#1616 by WarpTech on 13 Oct, 2016 21:16
-
1.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.
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
2.
http://www.ittc.ku.edu/~jstiles/220/handouts/Surface%20Current%20Density.pdf
See below...
How does one "measure" the wavelength in each of these Modes? From where to where?
Where would you say the center of mass of the field is located in each of these modes?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3pho5edqu7qbcmr/Screen%20Shot%202016-10-13%20at%202.13.31%20PM.png?dl=0
Thanks!
-
#1617 by TheTraveller on 13 Oct, 2016 21:16
-
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
The Egan analysis is a work of fiction that does not recognise the guide wavelength alters as the frustum diameter alters and worse still that the EmWave momemtum alters as the guide wavelength alters.
-
#1618 by TheTraveller on 13 Oct, 2016 21:25
-
I also do not beleive that Shawyer will give us flying cars in 2017.
What about a propellerless / jetless winged drone? -
#1619 by Gilbertdrive on 13 Oct, 2016 21:29
-
I also do not beleive that Shawyer will give us flying cars in 2017.
What about a propellerless / jetless winged drone?
What order of magnitude for the weight of the jetless winged drone ? What order of thrust ?
