-
#1660 by Bob012345 on 14 Oct, 2016 18:03
-
EmDrive works.
Roger's theory works.
Accept it.
Get over it.
Move on.
There is nothing "to get over", simply because I'm not against it...
Words and claims are cheap these days, but show us that it works...and I'll gladly embrace it.
You still don't get it do you?
A lot of people inhere are NOT against the EMdrive. They just don't want to jump the gun, based upon inconclusive "evidence" or what might "possibly be a valid signal".
The reason why we/I keep discussing it inhere is because there is that intriguing possibility that it might indeed work.
But...Skepticism is an absolute requirement for scientific rigor. period.
You may not like it, but it is a very needed obstacle on your path, to ensure that you're going in the right direction...
If it wasn't for my obvious lack of knowledge on electronics, I would have started building myself more then a year ago. Just to satisfy my curiosity, because I do find it a very intriguing concept. But as often warned inhere, if you're not knowing what you're doing , it is better not to start a DIY build...And that's exactly why I didn't...
so really, all I want is to see a working setup that has addressed all of the previous remarks and Roger/you/or any other DIY will get all the thumbs up he/she deserves from me...
When people continuously claim that all the evidence to date is and must be fatally flawed as they keep dreaming up new reasons, they go beyond mere skepticism to being skeptimentalists.
Take a look at the Wiki site ' RF resonant cavities'. It's filled with skeptical remarks. The same remarks repeated four of five times for emphasis. It's totally biased against the EmDrive concept. I hope some experts here will correct many of the misleading statements on the site. -
#1661 by Bob012345 on 14 Oct, 2016 18:50
-
EmDrive exclusive: Roger Shawyer confirms MoD and DoD interested in controversial space propulsion tech
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-exclusive-roger-shawyer-confirms-mod-dod-interested-controversial-space-propulsion-tech-1586392
Uncut interview:
JV with Gilo Industries confirmef.
Shawyer again mentions the Chinese data. Some people claim that data has been retracted. Can someone tell me the real story? Thanks.
P.S. Does anyone know what level of thrust Shawyer has attained with Gen2 devices? -
#1662 by Star One on 14 Oct, 2016 18:50
-
The extended interview was interesting to watch. The one thing I would comment on is no matter where you stand on the EM drive there is no need for the personal abuse that he alluded to receiving.
-
#1663 by WarpTech on 14 Oct, 2016 19:28
-
Shawyer again mentions the Chinese data. Some people claim that data has been retracted. Can someone tell me the real story? Thanks.
P.S. Does anyone know what level of thrust Shawyer has attained with Gen2 devices?
That's what was said. The paper is available out there, "IF" you can read Chinese. I have not seen an English translated version.
-
#1664 by Rodal on 14 Oct, 2016 19:41
-
...
I attach the last paper by Prof. Juan Yang, so that you can make up your own mind.
Shawyer again mentions the Chinese data. Some people claim that data has been retracted. Can someone tell me the real story? Thanks.
Bio:
http://hangtian.nwpu.edu.cn/info/1549/7982.htm
Notice that her research on Shawyer's EM Drive is no longer featured among her "Selected Publications" in her official University webpage.
Instead, her research on the conventional, classic Microwave Plasma Thruster, that uses a propellant for thrust, is now featured as among her "Selected Publications".
[Bold and color added for emphasis]QuoteAbstract：In order to explore the thrust performance of microwave thruster，the thrust produced by micro⁃
wave thruster system was measured with three-wire torsion pendulum thrust measurement system and the mea⁃
surement uncertainty was also studied，thereby judging the credibility of the experimental measurements. The re⁃
sults show that three-wire torsion pendulum thrust measurement system can measure thrust not less than 3mN un⁃
der the existing experimental conditions with the relative uncertainty of 14% . Within the measuring range of
three-wire torsion pendulum thrust measurement system，the independent microwave thruster propulsion device
did not detect significant thrust. Measurement results fluctuate within ± 0.7mN range under the conditions 230W
microwave power output，and the relative uncertainty is greater than 80%.
-
#1665 by Gilbertdrive on 14 Oct, 2016 19:44
-
Maybe you could explain why you think the third stage out performs the earlier stages? Remember, the math and our models should describe what we observe to be real. They are not the reason things are the way we observe them to be.
You did not understand what was the apparent paradox we were debating.
It was not about the upper stage performing better than the booster. We all know that the gravity losses are smaller for the upper stage. Not much because of escaping the gravity well (200km does not change much the gravity field compared to the earth surface) but because of the high horizontal speed of the rocket. When the horizontal speed of the rocket is 0, there is a gravity loss of 1G. When the horizontal speed of the rocket is half the orbital speed, the gravity loss is only 0,5G.
The paradox was :
It is well known that the upper stage of a rocket can gain more energy [in form of Kinetic Energy] that the total chemical energy content of the upper stage.
The problem was not that the upper stage performed better than the booster, it was that it seemed to perform overunity. It was a totally different problem that the one you understood.
And it was, since the begining, a paradox exprimed in terms of Kinetic energy. Kinetic energy was the subject of the paradox. That is why it can not be solved without using Kinetic Energy.
This is pretty off topic. How does the third stage of a rocket relate to the emdrive? CoE? I think not. We are unsure if its even an open or a closed system. Debating those things is fine, but not a conventional rocket. The is not NEW PHYSICS. One post, sure.... 3 pages of it? Knock it off please.
I agree with you on the fact that we should not be debating of that. The problem is that OnlyMe and I disagree on what says standard physics.
First Pr Frobnicat showed a CoE problem if the Emdrive was considered as isolated. More recently Merebs, Wicoe, others and I have made explanations for these who did not understood that point.
But, the example of the classical upper stage was given to us, presented as the proof that our statements on CoE and Kinetic Energy were false.
That is why we had to explain why there was no CoE problem with the upper stage apparent paradox, and that the case was totally different of an isolated emdrive.
This debate has taken too much place, and I apologize for having participated to that.
I suggest that if some want to continue debating, we create a topic on that precise point.
May I create it on in General discussion ? I can not logically create in in "New Physics"
Is is possible that a Mod deplace last relevant messages in this new topic ? (In some forums it is possible)
-
#1666 by Rodal on 14 Oct, 2016 19:53
-
...
I don't understand why would you need to apologize or move to another section. The debate you, OnlyMe and others (involved in this very interesting discussion) have engaged in is more pertinent to the subject matter <<Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications >> than many other posts. Your discussion is related to space flight, while several other discussions in this thread have not even been about space flight.
This debate has taken too much place, and I apologize for having participated to that.
I suggest that if some want to continue debating, we create a topic on that precise point.
May I create it on in General discussion ? I can not logically create in in "New Physics"
Is is possible that a Mod deplace last relevant messages in this new topic ? (In some forums it is possible) -
#1667 by Star One on 14 Oct, 2016 20:04
-
This seems most applicable to this thread.Quote
chrislintott – Verified account @chrislintott
Now, @NeilTurok : 'For theory there is nothing better than complete crisis. We are on the brink of overthrowing much of physics'
https://mobile.twitter.com/chrislintott/status/786962615255855104
It was in reference to this talk.
https://www.ras.org.uk/component/gem/?id=454 -
#1668 by Gilbertdrive on 14 Oct, 2016 20:13
-
I don't understand why would you need to apologize or move to another section. The debate you, OnlyMe and others (involved in this very interesting discussion) have engaged in is more pertinent to the subject matter <<Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications >> than many other posts. Your discussion is related to space flight, while several other discussions in this thread have not even been about space flight.
Thanks very much for your support. It is true that the "upper stage apparent paradox" is about space flight, but classical space flight, not an exclusive space flight application for the Emdrive. That is why I can understand the reaction of bmcgaffey20. -
#1669 by Gilbertdrive on 14 Oct, 2016 20:50
-
Well, it's friday morning, I swear nothing stronger than tea has passed my lips for more than 24 hours, and yet still I think it's about time to provoke some weekend fun, with a hypothesis 'du jour'.
1. The vacuum is not immutable
2. It is like a frictionless fluid which has both a local mass density and velocity field
3. Its mass density is almost entirely uniform, because non-uniformity dissipates very quickly
4. Consequently the net gravitational effect of the vacuum on any object is almost entirely nil, and the mass of the vacuum is undetectable in the lab.
5. The EMdrive works by transferring momentum to the vacuum, creating a 'flow' of massive vacuum.
6. However, the vacuum is special: we cannot detect motion through the vacuum. Once it is moving, it has 'dark momentum' - actually I quite like that name. 'dark momentum' is inherent in 'dark matter' after all...
7. Similarly, variations in the local mass-density of the vacuum on astronomical scales might account for 'dark matter'.
8. The EMdrive is propellant-less much like an Ocean Liner: it finds its reaction mass in its path. It is indeed not a rocket.
9. Gradients in the local velocity field of the vacuum caused by the EMdrive might cause local gravitational effects, which would be expected to dissipate quickly, much like the wake of a ship. However, a ship is not limited in its thrust to power ratio by the energy to momentum ratio of the waves which dissipate its wake. Nature takes as long as it needs to do that.
Anyway: I know this is not an 'explanation' of the EMdrive or Dark Matter, but it does have explanatory power and more than a hint of Occam's razor about it. When we look for dark matter and find nothing, the answer is obvious if slightly tautologous - 'nothing' has mass....
I guess now is when I'm told about the glaring mistake...
Without considering the entire theory (I already made comments on 2 points earlier today) it gives me the desire to consider the idea that energy could be taken from ZPF, if form of Kinetic energy. Of course, I assume that it is new physics.
It is also about CoE. Yes, again.
If the Emdrive is working by interacting with ZPF, CoE should be considered taking into account the total ZPF energy, and the drive. I suppose I can speak of the total ZPF energy before the Rindler horizon. When the Emdrive gets more Kinetic energy that is spent electric energy, the total ZPF energy should decrease so that CoE is verified.
But, how could this decrease translate ?
The exemple of ZPF decrease that we know is the casimir effect. The ZPF between 2 mirrors is degraded. But as soon as the 2 mirrors are taken apart, it is again intact, and the energy that has been gained when the 2 mirrors have been made close (the work of the casimir force) has to be spent again.
If it is the same with ZPF with the emdrive, how could the ZPF stay degraded, so the energy stolen can be kept ?
If the ZPF return to it's normal state after the Emdrive has crossed it, I see at least 2 solutions.
1 : The energy is taken back to the drive, and it does not work as intended.
2 : The ZPF energy is restored by something outside our visible universe, and therefore it is a source of energy from our point of view. (Stealing energy to more dimensions)
There is a comparison that I like. Maybe our 3 dimensional universe (plus time) is a part of a 4 dimensional universe (plus time)
It would be like a sheet in the wind.
From the viewpoint of a 2 dimentional creature living on the sheet, the wind passing threw the sheed seems like our Quantuum Vacuum.
These 2 dimentional creatures can see molecules of O2 or N2 that appear, and disappear. They can do a theory of Quantum vacuum.
If they find a way of stealing energy to the O2 and N2 molecules during the small time it is here, it is realy energy gained for their sheet universe. It would really violate CoE in the sheet universe, but not in the real 3D universe.
Maybe the same with quantum vacuum. Maybe it would be a real way of getting free energy from our point of view (but not free energy from the viewpoint of the real 4D+time universe)
-
#1670 by TheTraveller on 14 Oct, 2016 21:23
-
EmDrive exclusive: Roger Shawyer confirms MoD and DoD interested in controversial space propulsion tech
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-exclusive-roger-shawyer-confirms-mod-dod-interested-controversial-space-propulsion-tech-1586392
Uncut interview:
JV with Gilo Industries confirmef.
Shawyer again mentions the Chinese data. Some people claim that data has been retracted. Can someone tell me the real story? Thanks.
P.S. Does anyone know what level of thrust Shawyer has attained with Gen2 devices?
Knowing the Reaction force curve as published in the patent, the cavity loaded Q can be calculated at approx 3 billion. Applying that to Roger's force equation suggests 1,000kg/kWrf or 10,000N/kWrf which was always one of Roger's goals.
That unit, strapped to the back of a paraglider, only needs 50kg force, which may only need 50Wrf & a bit of liquid N2. 50kg of force would also propel a winged drone.
Yang's last paper is rubbish, clearly false as she states the torsion pendulum she used had a lower limit of 3mN. Garage built units have 10uN limit. My sources say she is not retired, her results were verified by 2 other Chinese labs & her work has gone dark.
You did hear Roger say Boeing verified the Flight Thruster performance data and then went dark?
The Gilo Industries JV is going to be very interesting as the EmDrive goes commercial. That JV was 1st announced here as a result of my investigation of a few rumours I received. Seems my sources, which were not Roger, were correct. Can share IBTimes learned of the JV from me, verified it with Roger and got the scoop on publishing. -
#1671 by Tellmeagain on 14 Oct, 2016 21:33
-
Knowing the Reaction force curve as published in the patent, the cavity loaded Q can be calculated at approx 3 billion. Applying that to Roger's force equation suggests 1,000kg/kWrf or 10,000N/kWrf which was always one of Roger's goals.
That unit, strapped to the back of a paraglider, only needs 50kg force, which may only need 50Wrf & a bit of liquid N2. 50kg of force would also propel a winged drone.
Yang's last paper is rubbish, clearly false as she states the torsion pendulum she used had a lower limit of 3mN. Garage built units have 10uN limit. My sources say she is not retired, her results were verified by 2 other Chinese labs & her work has gone dark.
Probably rubbish, but can't see why it is "clearly false". She had 3mN resolution because she made the bad decision to use a 3 wire rotation platform other than 1 wire balance. But it is enough to nullify her own old results which claimed hundreds of mN.
How did you know that her work has gone dark? Verified by which other two Chinese labs?QuoteYou did hear Roger say Boeing verified the Flight Thruster performance data and then went dark?
The Gilo Industries JV is going to be very interesting as the EmDrive goes commercial. That JV was 1st announced here as a result of my investigation of a few rumours I received. Seems my sources, which were not Roger, were correct. Can share IBTimes learned of the JV from me, verified it with Roger and got the scoop on publishing. -
#1672 by TheTraveller on 14 Oct, 2016 21:46
-
Knowing the Reaction force curve as published in the patent, the cavity loaded Q can be calculated at approx 3 billion. Applying that to Roger's force equation suggests 1,000kg/kWrf or 10,000N/kWrf which was always one of Roger's goals.
That unit, strapped to the back of a paraglider, only needs 50kg force, which may only need 50Wrf & a bit of liquid N2. 50kg of force would also propel a winged drone.
Yang's last paper is rubbish, clearly false as she states the torsion pendulum she used had a lower limit of 3mN. Garage built units have 10uN limit. My sources say she is not retired, her results were verified by 2 other Chinese labs & her work has gone dark.
Probably rubbish, but can't see why it is "clearly false". She had 3mN resolution because she made the bad decision to use a 3 wire rotation platform other than 1 wire balance. But it is enough to nullify her own old results which claimed hundreds of mN.
How did you know that her work has gone dark? Verified by which other two Chinese labs?QuoteYou did hear Roger say Boeing verified the Flight Thruster performance data and then went dark?
The Gilo Industries JV is going to be very interesting as the EmDrive goes commercial. That JV was 1st announced here as a result of my investigation of a few rumours I received. Seems my sources, which were not Roger, were correct. Can share IBTimes learned of the JV from me, verified it with Roger and got the scoop on publishing.
I have sources, some info I can share, some not. What I can share I share.
Yang went dark just like Boeing went dark. I believe there is an dark Indian EmDrive project as well as 6 or so commercial projects. However with the now public Gilo Industries JV, some are coming into the light. The release of the patent, the interview & the JV formation are not random acts. Roger & Gilo Industries are moving to be the 1st to open this market & hey replacing Gilo built motors on drones, paraglider & flying cars may be the easy market entry. -
#1673 by TheTraveller on 14 Oct, 2016 21:49
-
Knowing the Reaction force curve as published in the patent, the cavity loaded Q can be calculated at approx 3 billion. Applying that to Roger's force equation suggests 1,000kg/kWrf or 10,000N/kWrf which was always one of Roger's goals.
That unit, strapped to the back of a paraglider, only needs 50kg force, which may only need 50Wrf & a bit of liquid N2. 50kg of force would also propel a winged drone.
Yang's last paper is rubbish, clearly false as she states the torsion pendulum she used had a lower limit of 3mN. Garage built units have 10uN limit. My sources say she is not retired, her results were verified by 2 other Chinese labs & her work has gone dark.
Probably rubbish, but can't see why it is "clearly false". She had 3mN resolution because she made the bad decision to use a 3 wire rotation platform other than 1 wire balance. But it is enough to nullify her own old results which claimed hundreds of mN.
How did you know that her work has gone dark? Verified by which other two Chinese labs?QuoteYou did hear Roger say Boeing verified the Flight Thruster performance data and then went dark?
The Gilo Industries JV is going to be very interesting as the EmDrive goes commercial. That JV was 1st announced here as a result of my investigation of a few rumours I received. Seems my sources, which were not Roger, were correct. Can share IBTimes learned of the JV from me, verified it with Roger and got the scoop on publishing.
As an EmDrive developer & builder the Yang paper is rubbish. I sugfest deliberately rubbish to send a clear message to those that understand EmDrive engineering & capability. -
#1674 by OnlyMe on 14 Oct, 2016 22:01
-
Maybe you could explain why you think the third stage out performs the earlier stages? Remember, the math and our models should describe what we observe to be real. They are not the reason things are the way we observe them to be.
You did not understand what was the apparent paradox we were debating.
It was not about the upper stage performing better than the booster. We all know that the gravity losses are smaller for the upper stage. Not much because of escaping the gravity well (200km does not change much the gravity field compared to the earth surface) but because of the high horizontal speed of the rocket. When the horizontal speed of the rocket is 0, there is a gravity loss of 1G. When the horizontal speed of the rocket is half the orbital speed, the gravity loss is only 0,5G.
The paradox was :
It is well known that the upper stage of a rocket can gain more energy [in form of Kinetic Energy] that the total chemical energy content of the upper stage.
The problem was not that the upper stage performed better than the booster, it was that it seemed to perform overunity. It was a totally different problem that the one you understood.
And it was, since the begining, a paradox exprimed in terms of Kinetic energy. Kinetic energy was the subject of the paradox. That is why it can not be solved without using Kinetic Energy.
I have obviously been unclear about my intent. I did understand the initial issue being discussed and thought it had been resolved.
I also saw within that discussion two issues that are important to the EMDrive and generally to any propulsion system that would allow continued thrust during an interplanetary or eventually interstellar context.
The CoE and CoM issues have been around for as long as these threads and are important issues.
Everything we know about CoM and CoE as a matter of direct observation and experiment, has been from within the context of the inertial frame of reference we live in. A functional EMDrive would expand the experimental environment significantly. Both for unmanned and hopefully manned spacecraft.
While there are situations here on earth that kinetic energy is an important component, it is not always necessary when exploring CoM and CoE.
For a manned or unmanned spaceship moving at velocities greater than the escape velocity of any involved gravitational field, the kinetic energy of the spaceship or device would not be an issue.
The experimental environment especially of a manned spacecraft capable of traveling under power between planets and an unmanned craft potentially through interstellar space, would make it possible to directly observe and experimentally test and confirm, what we know of CoM and CoE, as well as many other fundamental aspects of physics, including theoretical predictions of both special and general relativity, under conditions currently beyond our reach.
I do believe that discussions like this one has been, about what seems mundane and settled science, opens the way for a better or perhaps just clearer understanding of the potential, that technological advancements like an EMDrive represent, to broaden the scope and our understanding of fundamental physics itself. It may even turn out that we reach a place where we can explore fundamental physics in greater depth, before we ever work out the physics of the EMDrive itself.
The only thing I would apologize for, is that I have been unable to communicate my thoughts and intent as well as I would like. -
#1675 by Bob012345 on 15 Oct, 2016 00:09
-
Knowing the Reaction force curve as published in the patent, the cavity loaded Q can be calculated at approx 3 billion. Applying that to Roger's force equation suggests 1,000kg/kWrf or 10,000N/kWrf which was always one of Roger's goals.
That unit, strapped to the back of a paraglider, only needs 50kg force, which may only need 50Wrf & a bit of liquid N2. 50kg of force would also propel a winged drone.
Yang's last paper is rubbish, clearly false as she states the torsion pendulum she used had a lower limit of 3mN. Garage built units have 10uN limit. My sources say she is not retired, her results were verified by 2 other Chinese labs & her work has gone dark.
Probably rubbish, but can't see why it is "clearly false". She had 3mN resolution because she made the bad decision to use a 3 wire rotation platform other than 1 wire balance. But it is enough to nullify her own old results which claimed hundreds of mN.
How did you know that her work has gone dark? Verified by which other two Chinese labs?QuoteYou did hear Roger say Boeing verified the Flight Thruster performance data and then went dark?
The Gilo Industries JV is going to be very interesting as the EmDrive goes commercial. That JV was 1st announced here as a result of my investigation of a few rumours I received. Seems my sources, which were not Roger, were correct. Can share IBTimes learned of the JV from me, verified it with Roger and got the scoop on publishing.
As an EmDrive developer & builder the Yang paper is rubbish. I sugfest deliberately rubbish to send a clear message to those that understand EmDrive engineering & capability.
Interesting. To what end? -
#1676 by WarpTech on 15 Oct, 2016 00:10
-
Something TT said yesterday about the "time constant" of the Q gave me an idea.
The arguments against the various theories have been;
1. Shawyer claims the wave velocity changes. This is a conjecture that is difficult to prove, and with a perfect conductor, the photon momentum bouncing between walls always SUM to zero force.
2. For Notsosureofit and myself, the argument is that the mode frequency doesn't change. It's a constant. It doesn't shift from the small end to the big end because it's a cavity mode.
3. It's not a wave guide, it's a cavity. It's not a traveling wave, so "Guide wavelength", etc. is inapplicable to a cavity.
My latest attempt still uses the variable frequency approach, but I said a few things in that paper that implied a "decay rate". Well that's where TT's comment about the "time constant" comes in;
The Damping Factor in my paper can be expressed as;
Zeta = 1/tau*w0
where w0 is the frequency and tau is the decay time "constant" (evanescent wave)
Knowing this, I can hold w0 constant. Then, when I take the gradient of Zeta, the frequency doesn't need to shift, the velocity doesn't need to change, the wavelength doesn't need to change. The only thing we need is a gradient in the decay time. A shorter decay time at the big end can provide a gradient, equivalent to that of a lower frequency.... and BINGO!
The EM Drive works 100% due to asymmetrical power dissipation, which is what I've been saying for a very long time. I just didn't know how to model the equations. We are already seeing the effects in FEKO. The highest energy density is at the small end for TE013. If all the forces start out in balance and the field at the big end decays faster. Then, the field will constantly shift (accelerate) toward the big end to refill that space and the frustum will accelerate the other way, to conserve momentum. It's the same gravitational effect as in the paper, the same gradient in the damping factor, but completely due to power dissipation and energy density, not frequency shift.
Todd -
#1677 by oliverio on 15 Oct, 2016 00:49
-
May I pose a simple thought experiment?
What does an efficient propulsion system meant for superfluid immersion resemble?
For example, a "jet-ski" is an example of coupling between an engine and a fluid, much like a car pushes on the asphalt with its wheels and couples by friction.
Given the properties of a superfluid, how does the metaphor extend? Does providing energy to a superfluid (i.e. heat, for example) provide enough of a gradient to cause movement (w.r.t. to the superfluid's container)? Does non-uniform compression of the medium (i.e. if the superfluid were taken in one end and compressed further, instantiating a pressure gradient before release out the back-end) produce a net forward force (again w.r.t. to its container) in a superfluid, and by what is such a machine limited in theoretical efficiency? -
#1678 by aero on 15 Oct, 2016 01:15
-
Something TT said yesterday about the "time constant" of the Q gave me an idea.
The arguments against the various theories have been;
1. Shawyer claims the wave velocity changes. This is a conjecture that is difficult to prove, and with a perfect conductor, the photon momentum bouncing between walls always SUM to zero force.
2. For Notsosureofit and myself, the argument is that the mode frequency doesn't change. It's a constant. It doesn't shift from the small end to the big end because it's a cavity mode.
3. It's not a wave guide, it's a cavity. It's not a traveling wave, so "Guide wavelength", etc. is inapplicable to a cavity.
My latest attempt still uses the variable frequency approach, but I said a few things in that paper that implied a "decay rate". Well that's where TT's comment about the "time constant" comes in;
The Damping Factor in my paper can be expressed as;
Zeta = 1/tau*w0
where w0 is the frequency and tau is the decay time "constant" (evanescent wave)
Knowing this, I can hold w0 constant. Then, when I take the gradient of Zeta, the frequency doesn't need to shift, the velocity doesn't need to change, the wavelength doesn't need to change. The only thing we need is a gradient in the decay time. A shorter decay time at the big end can provide a gradient, equivalent to that of a lower frequency.... and BINGO!
The EM Drive works 100% due to asymmetrical power dissipation, which is what I've been saying for a very long time. I just didn't know how to model the equations. We are already seeing the effects in FEKO. The highest energy density is at the small end for TE013. If all the forces start out in balance and the field at the big end decays faster. Then, the field will constantly shift (accelerate) toward the big end to refill that space and the frustum will accelerate the other way, to conserve momentum. It's the same gravitational effect as in the paper, the same gradient in the damping factor, but completely due to power dissipation and energy density, not frequency shift.
Todd
Todd,
You might be interested in the attached curve which shows what meep calculates as the energy density at the drive frequency within a cavity resonating in the TE013 mode. Big end is negative, -0.4 and small end is positive. Everything is in "meep units," or natural units with distance scaled to 0.3 meters/unit. What is shown is the integral of thePoynting vectorMaxwell Stress Tensor taken over equal sized squares at each data point. I believe that to be the energy density.
aero
EDIT: Replace Poynting Vector with Maxwell Stress Tensor.
-
#1679 by Rodal on 15 Oct, 2016 02:17
-
You agree that the "integral of the Poynting vector SA= E x H...What is shown is the integral of the Poynting vector takes over equal sized squares at each data point. I believe that to be the energy density.
aero
I would agree....
over equal sized squares" is equal to the Energy density
Can you explain that?
