-
#1760 by meberbs on 18 Oct, 2016 05:29
-
Per Rodal's recent suggestion, I want to make clear that the contents of this post specifically deal only with up to special relativity, and not general relativity, because I am discussing Shawyer's claims. (And a mention of Woodward's paper where he tries to justify the Mach effect without general relativity)
It seems like you don't understand what the terms you are using mean. The fact that light propagates at c in every frame is why you can't define a unique frame that it propagates relative to. A unique frame that it propagates relative to is exactly what the concept of the ether is. Unless you are thinking of a "rest frame" for the light, but that doesn't really make sense (any calculations in that frame involve dividing by 0) and it wouldn't be unique anyway since there are an infinite number of different directions for the frame to be moving in.To me, EM waves occupy a unique frame thus the cavity is always open wrt radiation. Shawyer is probably correct but even if not, they way they use it to undermine the EmDrive rather than look into it is disheartening
The entire motivation for special relativity is that EM waves don't have a special frame. Experiments showing that the ether didn't exist is the original evidence for special relativity (although it was originally motivated theoretically by the apparent frame independence in Maxwell's equations.)
There is zero chance that Shawyer's claims are correct within special relativity. When he makes these claims he immediately discredits himself. What is unfortunate is Shawyer's insistence on repeating claims that to experienced physicists are equivalent to 1+1 = 3. When presented with such a claim, it is completely reasonable to not look into it further.
The fact that light propagates at c as observed in every frame defines a unique frame in my view for light and that has nothing to do with the concept of ether.And exactly how are you so absolutely sure about Shawyer's claims having zero chance of being correct since no one knows exactly how the device works in the first place?
His claims are directly contradictory with each other and with simple physics. For example, as I have been trying to explain to TheTraveller recently, his claims include that a force applied pushing an object to the left will cause it to move to the right. There is a whole list of issues with his claims, you don't even get to that point without first ignoring that some of the claims blatantly break conservation of momentum, while Shawyer claims momentum is conserved and that no new physics is needed.Experienced physicists sometimes are too quick to reject new ideas that don't immediately fit into their comfortable paradigms.
That may be true in some cases, but it is not inappropriate when you look at how bad Shawyer's claims are in this case.
Previously, you had made a post on the CoE discussion, that captures most of the essence of the issue of CoE:...
The biggest problem with Shawyer's claims is that he claims that no new physics is required to explain the emDrive, but to have the properties he claims you would have to have some sort of "propellant" everywhere that you can somehow borrow energy and momentum from like you said.
I agree but when you look at the terms, both the gain in kinetic energy of the ship and the loss in kinetic energy of the propellant can dwarf the chemical energy. In the case of an EmDrive or MET device, I believe the ship borrows from the "propellant" even though we don't know what that exactly is. We do know the momentum of the "propellant" is the same as gained by the ship. And the ship borrows from that so the total energy input is whatever the EmDrive needed to make a constant force over a certain time period yet the kinetic energy gain of the ship as well as the loss of the "propellant" are huge in comparison. There is no violation of CoM or CoE. The apparent violation is comparing the total electrical input to the device with the ships final kinetic energy while ignoring the loss of "propellant" kinetic energy during the trip. To me, it's just like a magic rocket that never runs out of fuel and yet the mass remains constant.
This is also the problem with Woodward's paper that we were discussing. While the Mach effect uses general relativity and has a way out, Woodward was trying to instead tries to argue that energy could be conserved without this. (The original argument he was trying to argue against only applies if it is a complete propellantless system with no external energy source, and he does not appeal to or account for the existence of propellant in his calculations) -
#1761 by chongma on 18 Oct, 2016 08:02
-
in Roger Shawyer's recent interview he said the EmDrive was inspired by a mechanical gyroscope. If it is an electromagnetic gyroscope then could the thrust be caused by gyro precession (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeyDf4ooPdo)?
-
#1762 by Flyby on 18 Oct, 2016 09:06
-
A gyroscope has nothing to do with an EM drive or even a Mach effect....
It is confusing that Roger Shawyer brought that up in his narrative.
Totally unrelated , except that it simply proceeded his research on RF cavities...
It's like sneezing at the same moment when lightning strikes : it has the appearance of being related but in fact, there is no relation...
-
#1763 by Gilbertdrive on 18 Oct, 2016 10:36
-
Conscious of the speculative nature of this post, one response out of politeness. Please PM me for further chat if required.
Even if it is speculative, It is fully in the topic of this thread, so I think that PM is not needed.QuoteQuote
If the mass density of the vacuum is near constant, the net gravitational force in any direction is nearly nil, at least compared to the force from the vacuum on one side.Quote1. The vacuum is not immutable
Why not ? I love theories.
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.
But I am not sure I have understood all the implications of this theory. For example, I do not see the link between 3 and 4. The fact that the mass density is uniform should not justify that there is no gravity effect. (The vacuum catastrophe)
In fact, thinking about this later, the only way the vacuum gets to be self gravitating and nearly uniform is if it produces a repulsive force, at least on itself. Otherwise it would agglomerate like ordinary matter. Quite interesting in the context of the cosmological constant/dark energy. From the point of view of this idea, it doesn't matter what the sign of the force is.
Well. Now I think that I understand the point. The heterogeneous repartition of the QV would make the dark matter, and the dark energy, and when the repartition is homogeneous, there is no particular effect, gravity or repulsive force cancels out.
When reading again the 9 points, I see it was clear, but I did not understood it correctly at the moment.Quote
It doesn't matter about how the Emdrive works, but it matters much about CoE.Quote
Don't think it really matters. If the EMDrive persuades a massive vacuum to move, and transfers momentum to it, the job is done. It doesn't really matter whether it takes micro-seconds or millenia for the vacuum to stop moving (since uniform motion through the vacuum is not detectable). (I'm voting for micro-seconds, because I think the metric stresses induced at the edge of the 'wake', as well as repulsive gravity, will soon even things out.)
Also, I am not sure than 3 and 6 are compatible. If any non uniformity of the quantuum vacuum dissipates quickly, it would be logical that the dark momentum also dissipates quickly.
It may conduce to an infinite generation of energy if Quantum Vacuum auto-restores. It depends on how this auto-restoration works.
If we compare the Quantum vacuum to the sea, when a propeller is used to accelerate a ship, the momentum of the generated currents is not kept a long time, but it means that the entire sea gained a very little momentum. Would it be the same here ? does the entire quantuum vacuum got a very little dark momentum ?
I think that it is important about a theory to know if it breaks CoM or CoE in our 3D+time universe. I do not tell that it is a nullification argument, but that the consequences of any theory about CoE and CoM needs to be clear.
Now that I hope having at least a little understood this theory, what would make the local mass-density heterogenous ?
-
#1764 by TheTraveller on 18 Oct, 2016 13:47
-
That did not answer either question that I asked.Alternatively, I would appreciate it if you could reply to the simple questions I asked at the end of this post. You may have missed it since the thread has been moving rapidly recently.
Your description of how the momentum changes is not correct.
I'll try this one more time.
In a waveguide, guide wavelength is increased and momentum / radiation pressure is reduced.
This increase in guide wavelength is partly driven by waveguide diameter.
As diameter decreases, guide wavelength increases and momentum / radiation pressure decreases.
Neither effect is linear with wave guide diameter change as attached.
I set up a mechanical system that has balls of different momentum hitting each of 2 plates in opposite directions, which imitates the behavior you and Shawyer claim photons have in an emDrive.
No one claims that the difference is linear with diameter, and that point is irrelevant. I have a device in the middle that can change the momentum to any value you want. The only thing I specified was that the momentum of the ones hitting the small end is less than those hitting the large end, which matches what you and Shawyer claim.
Your device is nonsensical fiction.
I have posted a graph of guide wavelength and radiation pressure change from the big end to the small end. That graph explains what happens and why the side wall forces do not cancel out the end plate radiation pressure difference. -
#1765 by RotoSequence on 18 Oct, 2016 13:51
-
What impact does the smaller, secondary helical antenna in Shawyer's patent have on the resonance of the superconducting cavity (part 20)? I presume it's some sort of tuning antenna, but I'd imagine it complicates the cavity's behavior a great deal.
-
#1766 by Tellmeagain on 18 Oct, 2016 14:08
-
What impact does the smaller, secondary helical antenna in Shawyer's patent have on the resonance of the superconducting cavity (part 20)? I presume it's some sort of tuning antenna, but I'd imagine it complicates the cavity's behavior a great deal.
According to TheTraveller, this two antenna kind of design is bad, compared to the one antenna design. -
#1767 by RotoSequence on 18 Oct, 2016 14:09
-
What impact does the smaller, secondary helical antenna in Shawyer's patent have on the resonance of the superconducting cavity (part 20)? I presume it's some sort of tuning antenna, but I'd imagine it complicates the cavity's behavior a great deal.
According to TheTraveller, this two antenna kind of design is bad, compared to the one antenna design.
This is why that particular element in the patent stands out to me. Engineering compromise? Red herring? -
#1768 by SeeShells on 18 Oct, 2016 14:18
-
Hi Guys,What impact does the smaller, secondary helical antenna in Shawyer's patent have on the resonance of the superconducting cavity (part 20)? I presume it's some sort of tuning antenna, but I'd imagine it complicates the cavity's behavior a great deal.
According to TheTraveller, this two antenna kind of design is bad, compared to the one antenna design.
It's in his paper. It's a counter wound helical that's used for a probe antenna.
Shell
Added: Beat up the Shawyer theory all you want but as a builder some of his designing is genius at getting the highest energies into a cavity we've seen.
-
#1769 by RotoSequence on 18 Oct, 2016 14:19
-
Hi Guys,What impact does the smaller, secondary helical antenna in Shawyer's patent have on the resonance of the superconducting cavity (part 20)? I presume it's some sort of tuning antenna, but I'd imagine it complicates the cavity's behavior a great deal.
According to TheTraveller, this two antenna kind of design is bad, compared to the one antenna design.
It's in his paper. It's a counter wound helical that's used for a probe antenna.
Shell
Not sure how I missed that. Thanks, Seashells! -
#1770 by SeeShells on 18 Oct, 2016 14:30
-
no problemo.
Hi Guys,What impact does the smaller, secondary helical antenna in Shawyer's patent have on the resonance of the superconducting cavity (part 20)? I presume it's some sort of tuning antenna, but I'd imagine it complicates the cavity's behavior a great deal.
According to TheTraveller, this two antenna kind of design is bad, compared to the one antenna design.
It's in his paper. It's a counter wound helical that's used for a probe antenna.
Shell
Not sure how I missed that. Thanks, Seashells!
Here is the kick in the pants, it could also be used to provide a counter EM pulse into the cavity to flip from a TE mode to a TM mode that would pulse the high energy E field. If this was the case then this pulsed jerk operation would also support the Woodward Effect, notsosureofit's and Todd's.
We need to think wider and not just one theory of operation, as operational data testing is starting to cast a wider net pulling many theories.
My Best To You,
Shell -
#1771 by Rodal on 18 Oct, 2016 14:51
-
...Here is the kick in the pants, it could also be used to provide a counter EM pulse into the cavity to flip from a TE mode to a TM mode that would pulse the high energy E field. If this was the case then this pulsed jerk operation would also support the Woodward Effect, notsosureofit's and Todd's....
Thank you for your excellent answer regarding the explanation for the helical probe antenna.
But, not clear how you think that Todd's (WarpTech) theory fits there.
The excerpt you quoted from Shawyer argues for energy being stored in the electromagnetically resonant cavity due to the quality factor of resonance Q, and Shawyer repeats in his patent that the thrust is proportional to Q.
This dependence on Q is in agreement between the following three theories (*):
*Shawyer
*McCulloch
*Notsosureofit
but in disagreement with Todd's latest theory (**), that instead shows Thrust (T) dependence on (1/Q)dQ/dr
Also not clear how you think that Woodward's theory fits there, concerning Q, as I recall Jim Woodward saying during the Estes conference that one way to discriminate for the Woodward effect explanation would be based on superconductivity and the effect of the skin depth.
It appears that Woodward's theory, as Todd's theory would give a thrust dependence that may not be proportional to Q...
I am making this point to be able to discriminate between theories, and clarify their differences, vis a vis experimental data...
Not all theories are in agreement with each other as to the effect of Q on thrust.
--------------------
(*) In this sense, nothing has changed since I showed this comparison between theories, formally, here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1474347#msg1474347
(**)
Please notice that if Q is a power function of r, there is no power of r that will give (1/Q)dQ/dr larger than 1
Even if Q is an exponential function of r:
Q= Exp[r]
Then dQ/dr=Exp[r]
=Q
Hence if Q= Exp[r]
(1/Q) dQ/dr =1
Therefore, Q would need to have an extremely high nonlinear dependence on r, much higher than a power, and higher than purely exponential to be able to get (1/Q) dQ/dr =Q. Since there is no apparent reason why a cone would give such a phenomenally nonlinear dependence on Q, one concludes, that Todd is correct that his equations likely point to a dependence on Q that maybe flat (for Q=Exp[r]) to inverse to Q (for Q a power function of r). At the extreme, if Q is linearly dependent on r, then (1/Q) dQ/dr =1/Q. So, the likely dependence on Q for Todd's thrust expression can be between flat, independent of Q (for Q=Exp[r]) to inversely proportional to Q (like 1/Q).
-
#1772 by meberbs on 18 Oct, 2016 15:07
-
The device I described is very simple to build (you can just throw the balls by hand). And it allows you to replicate the forces caused by differential radiation pressure as described by the graph that you posted.
That did not answer either question that I asked.Alternatively, I would appreciate it if you could reply to the simple questions I asked at the end of this post. You may have missed it since the thread has been moving rapidly recently.
Your description of how the momentum changes is not correct.
I'll try this one more time.
In a waveguide, guide wavelength is increased and momentum / radiation pressure is reduced.
This increase in guide wavelength is partly driven by waveguide diameter.
As diameter decreases, guide wavelength increases and momentum / radiation pressure decreases.
Neither effect is linear with wave guide diameter change as attached.
I set up a mechanical system that has balls of different momentum hitting each of 2 plates in opposite directions, which imitates the behavior you and Shawyer claim photons have in an emDrive.
No one claims that the difference is linear with diameter, and that point is irrelevant. I have a device in the middle that can change the momentum to any value you want. The only thing I specified was that the momentum of the ones hitting the small end is less than those hitting the large end, which matches what you and Shawyer claim.
Your device is nonsensical fiction.
I have posted a graph of guide wavelength and radiation pressure change from the big end to the small end. That graph explains what happens and why the side wall forces do not cancel out the end plate radiation pressure difference.
Your continued refusal to answer the simple questions I asked, to me indicates that you realize that the answer would demonstrate the inconsistency of Shawyer's claims. Instead you seem to be trying to find a flaw in the incredibly simple setup, and not finding one, you just refer to it as "nonsensical fiction".
All you are doing here is hurting your own credibility, because how can you measure a force if you don't even know what direction something moves when a force is applied? Unfortunately claims like Shawyer's that you support also drag down the credibility of anyone researching the emDrive. The best thing you could do for emDrive research (other than a continually accelerating rotating demo like you have promised) is to admit that Shawyer's claims are seriously flawed. -
#1773 by SeeShells on 18 Oct, 2016 15:30
-
Thank you Dr. Rodal for your brilliant inputs, you have cleared up many things over this last year in my builds and testing and helped shape my test bed. You could say you helped build this Conundrum of Maxwell....Here is the kick in the pants, it could also be used to provide a counter EM pulse into the cavity to flip from a TE mode to a TM mode that would pulse the high energy E field. If this was the case then this pulsed jerk operation would also support the Woodward Effect, notsosureofit's and Todd's....
Thank you for your excellent answer regarding the explanation for the helical probe antenna.
But, not clear how you think that Todd's (WarpTech) theory fits there.
The excerpt you quoted from Shawyer argues for energy being stored in the electromagnetically resonant cavity due to the quality factor of resonance Q, and Shawyer repeats in his patent that the thrust is proportional to Q.
This dependence on Q is in agreement between the following three theories (*):
*Shawyer
*McCulloch
*Notsosureofit
but in disagreement with Todd's latest theory, that instead shows Thrust (T) dependence on (1/Q)dQ/dr
Also not clear how you think that Woodward's theory fits there, concerning Q, as I recall Jim Woodward saying during the Estes conference that one way to discriminate for the Woodward effect explanation would be based on superconductivity and the effect of the skin depth.
It appears that Woodward's theory, as Todd's theory would give a thrust dependence that may not be proportional to Q...
I am making this point to be able to discriminate between theories, and clarify their differences, vis a vis experimental data...
Not all theories are in agreement with each other as to the effect of Q on thrust.
--------------------
(*) In this sense, nothing has changed since I showed this comparison between theories, formally, here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1474347#msg1474347
You need to consider my position, starting with NASA EagleWorks with other labs and companies combining the positive indicators of thrusts by DYIers. I too have seen a small steady state component like thrust with a simple frustum although I've also seen indications of a very high pulsed thrust levels with a multi-mode operations. This would seem to support several theories and possibly point to there is more than one thing going on within the cavity.
I don't have clearer data ... yet, it will happen.
My Best,
Shell
Let's throw this into the mix as well.QuoteThe present invention discloses electromagnetic propulsion systems and methods. The electromagnetic propulsion or thrusting systems include a multi-element capacitor, a means for charging and discharging the capacitor, a means for rotating parts of the capacitor, one or more electromagnetic coils, and a means for periodically shaping the intensity, duration and polarity of magnetic fields from the coils. In particular, these systems and methods use interactions between electromagnetic fields and rotating charged elements of capacitors to achieve thrust without expelling mass and with power requirements several orders of magnitude less than current proposed systems.
http://tinyurl.com/z6nsuwz
These as well.
http://tinyurl.com/hdeholh -
#1774 by WarpTech on 18 Oct, 2016 17:09
-
...Here is the kick in the pants, it could also be used to provide a counter EM pulse into the cavity to flip from a TE mode to a TM mode that would pulse the high energy E field. If this was the case then this pulsed jerk operation would also support the Woodward Effect, notsosureofit's and Todd's....
Thank you for your excellent answer regarding the explanation for the helical probe antenna.
But, not clear how you think that Todd's (WarpTech) theory fits there.
The excerpt you quoted from Shawyer argues for energy being stored in the electromagnetically resonant cavity due to the quality factor of resonance Q, and Shawyer repeats in his patent that the thrust is proportional to Q.
This dependence on Q is in agreement between the following three theories (*):
*Shawyer
*McCulloch
*Notsosureofit
but in disagreement with Todd's latest theory (**), that instead shows Thrust (T) dependence on (1/Q)dQ/dr
Also not clear how you think that Woodward's theory fits there, concerning Q, as I recall Jim Woodward saying during the Estes conference that one way to discriminate for the Woodward effect explanation would be based on superconductivity and the effect of the skin depth.
It appears that Woodward's theory, as Todd's theory would give a thrust dependence that may not be proportional to Q...
I am making this point to be able to discriminate between theories, and clarify their differences, vis a vis experimental data...
Not all theories are in agreement with each other as to the effect of Q on thrust.
--------------------
(*) In this sense, nothing has changed since I showed this comparison between theories, formally, here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1474347#msg1474347
(**)
Please notice that if Q is a power function of r, there is no power of r that will give (1/Q)dQ/dr larger than 1
Even if Q is an exponential function of r:
Q= Exp[r]
Then dQ/dr=Exp[r]
=Q
Hence if Q= Exp[r]
(1/Q) dQ/dr =1
Therefore, Q would need to have an extremely high nonlinear dependence on r, much higher than a power, and higher than purely exponential to be able to get (1/Q) dQ/dr =Q. Since there is no apparent reason why a cone would give such a phenomenally nonlinear dependence on Q, one concludes, that Todd is correct that his equations likely point to a dependence on Q that maybe flat (for Q=Exp[r]) to inverse to Q (for Q a power function of r). At the extreme, if Q is linearly dependent on r, then (1/Q) dQ/dr =1/Q. So, the likely dependence on Q for Todd's thrust expression can be between flat, independent of Q (for Q=Exp[r]) to inversely proportional to Q (like 1/Q).
Just to add. In the paper, I used variable frequency and in that case, what Shell said about mode shifting would be a very interesting test of that model. The reason I came up with the alternative model using the time constant tau (or Q) is for the EM Drive where the frequency mode is not changing. Per many comments, arguments, etc. the resonant mode, velocity and wavelength changes have been the bane of the EM Drive and prone to criticism. This new theory eliminated the need for those interpretations, but it does not say that mode shifting of the frequency would not work. It might!
Edit: As for Jim Woodward's model. I am still working on it but last night I derived some equations from the PV Model that are eerily similar to the mass variation equations in Jim's model, except instead of varying mass, they vary the refractive index, K, and therefore the damping factor Zeta.
-
#1775 by Bob012345 on 18 Oct, 2016 17:14
-
The device I described is very simple to build (you can just throw the balls by hand). And it allows you to replicate the forces caused by differential radiation pressure as described by the graph that you posted.
That did not answer either question that I asked.Alternatively, I would appreciate it if you could reply to the simple questions I asked at the end of this post. You may have missed it since the thread has been moving rapidly recently.
Your description of how the momentum changes is not correct.
I'll try this one more time.
In a waveguide, guide wavelength is increased and momentum / radiation pressure is reduced.
This increase in guide wavelength is partly driven by waveguide diameter.
As diameter decreases, guide wavelength increases and momentum / radiation pressure decreases.
Neither effect is linear with wave guide diameter change as attached.
I set up a mechanical system that has balls of different momentum hitting each of 2 plates in opposite directions, which imitates the behavior you and Shawyer claim photons have in an emDrive.
No one claims that the difference is linear with diameter, and that point is irrelevant. I have a device in the middle that can change the momentum to any value you want. The only thing I specified was that the momentum of the ones hitting the small end is less than those hitting the large end, which matches what you and Shawyer claim.
Your device is nonsensical fiction.
I have posted a graph of guide wavelength and radiation pressure change from the big end to the small end. That graph explains what happens and why the side wall forces do not cancel out the end plate radiation pressure difference.
Your continued refusal to answer the simple questions I asked, to me indicates that you realize that the answer would demonstrate the inconsistency of Shawyer's claims. Instead you seem to be trying to find a flaw in the incredibly simple setup, and not finding one, you just refer to it as "nonsensical fiction".
All you are doing here is hurting your own credibility, because how can you measure a force if you don't even know what direction something moves when a force is applied? Unfortunately claims like Shawyer's that you support also drag down the credibility of anyone researching the emDrive. The best thing you could do for emDrive research (other than a continually accelerating rotating demo like you have promised) is to admit that Shawyer's claims are seriously flawed.
Photons are not balls and balls are not photons or complex EM waves so your device has no bearing on Shawyer's EmDrive or theory. Maybe, like the Wright Brothers who literally flew in the face of established aeronautical science, Shawyer intuitively knows more about what he's doing than his many critics.
-
#1776 by wicoe on 18 Oct, 2016 17:33
-
Photons are not balls and balls are not photons or complex EM waves so your device has no bearing on Shawyer's EmDrive or theory. Maybe, like the Wright Brothers who literally flew in the face of established aeronautical science, Shawyer intuitively knows more about what he's doing than his many critics.
True, but he makes this distinction only when trying to justify the radiation pressure difference between plates. After that, he goes on to saying (if I understand it correctly): "you have a thrust force acting in one direction, therefore there must be a reaction force acting in the opposite direction which causes the device to accelerate" (emphasis mine). There is no mention of photons vs balls, he's saying this as if this is obvious for any mechanical system. To me this is obviously nonsense (even if we assume that the radiation pressure is different, there is a reaction force, but it is a result of the cavity acting upon the photons or their source, not upon itself! Needless to say, it cannot cause the cavity to accelerate since it originates from the cavity. You need to consider forces acting upon the cavity to see whether it accelerates or not, and in which direction it will be moving). -
#1777 by Rodal on 18 Oct, 2016 17:49
-
...
There is a fundamental, huge difference between the Wright Brothers and Shawyer's insistence on an explanation that goes against both theoretical and experimental knowledge:
Photons are not balls and balls are not photons or complex EM waves so your device has no bearing on Shawyer's EmDrive or theory. Maybe, like the Wright Brothers who literally flew in the face of established aeronautical science, Shawyer intuitively knows more about what he's doing than his many critics.
1) Lord Kelvin said that flying machines were impossible because he based his opinion on air as a perfect fluid medium devoid of viscosity. The Wright Brothers took into account fluid viscosity by performing experiments in a wind tunnel. The experimental approach by the Wright Brothers was scientific and in accord with leading fluid mechanics experts at the time (for example Prandtl, Von Mises and Von Karman).
2) In great contrast to the Wright Brothers, the explanation by Shawyer goes against all fundamental knowledge of Maxwell's equations and experimental knowledge. There is nobody at a University I know of that agrees with Shawyer's explanations. Nobody at Cambridge University. Nobody at Oxford University. Nobody at MIT, Stanford, CalTech, you name it. Martin Tajmar, at TU Dresden who conducted experiments on the EM Drive under the advice of Shawyer has painstakingly divorced himself from Shawyer's explanations.
Many things in Shawyer explanation can be shown to be fundamentally wrong, foremost among this the fact that Shawyer persists, to this date, to claim that there is no radiation pressure on the conical side walls. To state, like Shawyer does that there is no radiation pressure on the conical side walls of an electromagnetically resonant truncated conical cavity goes against everything we know from Maxwell's equations. It goes against experimental facts. It goes against calculations from Finite Difference, Finite Element and Boundary Element numerical solutions (FEKO, Meep, COMSOL, etc.) all unequivocally showing that there is radiation pressure on the conical side walls. The complete opposite of the Wright Brothers, who took an experimental approach in conformity with leading knowledge at the time: incorporating the effect of viscosity, and vorticity, from a wind tunnel, to design their wings and propeller. The Wright Brothers concentrated their efforts in preventing flow separation from their wings.
Shawyer, instead of taking a scientific approach followed by leading universities, ignores such theory, experiments, and numerical analysis (FEKO, COMSOL, Meep) and instead of incorporating new aspects of Physics (like gravitation, or Quantum Mechanics, you name it), insists to this date that thrust of the EM Drive can be solely explained purely on the basis of Newton's 3rd law, Maxwell's equations and frame-independent Special Relativity.
Shawyer may be a really great microwave engineer, but his insistence on his explanation has not served his EM Drive well. The EM Drive would have suffered less resistance if he would have dropped the obviously wrong aspects of his explanation (for example that there is no radiation pressure on the side walls) a long time ago and would have concentrated instead in improving the EM Drive engineering and saying "hey it seems to work, but I am not 100% sure why" and would have solicited the advice of leading scientists and engineers on what may be the reason why it may produce a force (if it does produce a force).
Most successful inventors (Wright Brothers, Edison, Ford...) did not become successful by championing wrong theories. They became successful instead by making their inventions a practical reality. There is still time for Shawyer to do this: to drop the wrong aspects of his theory and to focus, concentrate instead in making his device a practical engineering device for space propulsion.
-
#1778 by Bob012345 on 18 Oct, 2016 18:08
-
And you can’t have evanescent waves in a superconductor, right? So maybe that helps explain Shaywer’s superconducting end plate?
No there is a evanescent part of a wave function acting on a superconductive wall.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_penetration_depth
You're correct and that may not be a bad thing. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jpclett.6b00119
Where some of my current reading and research is going looking into the drive's ability to decay and extract the build up of energy. Using the energy that exists from the build of a high Q TE013 cavity and then forcibly decaying that energy into decaying evanescent wave actions.
In simple terms I'm thinking of the EMDrive or even the Cannea device as a photon momentum and force extractor using evanescent decaying waves. Evanescent waves that extract forces at levels greater than the standard photon rocket or light sails. The key I believe is evanescent waves which are virtual photons carrying extraordinary momentum and force that that transfer the force and momentum to the EMDrive and then vanish. So it's just not the reflected energy transfer of a bouncing photon and re-transmission of a lower shifted frequency photon, it consists of all the vector functions and extraordinary forces of the photon in a evanescent wave.
Contributions to the mass of a system[edit]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Contributions_to_the_mass_of_a_system
See also: Mass in special relativity and General relativity
The energy of a system that emits a photon is decreased by the energy {\displaystyle E} E of the photon as measured in the rest frame of the emitting system, which may result in a reduction in mass in the amount {\displaystyle {E}/{c^{2}}} {E}/{c^2}. Similarly, the mass of a system that absorbs a photon is increased by a corresponding amount. As an application, the energy balance of nuclear reactions involving photons is commonly written in terms of the masses of the nuclei involved, and terms of the form {\displaystyle {E}/{c^{2}}} {E}/{c^2} for the gamma photons (and for other relevant energies, such as the recoil energy of nuclei).[99]
This concept is applied in key predictions of quantum electrodynamics (QED, see above). In that theory, the mass of electrons (or, more generally, leptons) is modified by including the mass contributions of virtual photons, in a technique known as renormalization. Such "radiative corrections" contribute to a number of predictions of QED, such as the magnetic dipole moment of leptons, the Lamb shift, and the hyperfine structure of bound lepton pairs, such as muonium and positronium.[100]
Since photons contribute to the stress–energy tensor, they exert a gravitational attraction on other objects, according to the theory of general relativity. Conversely, photons are themselves affected by gravity; their normally straight trajectories may be bent by warped spacetime, as in gravitational lensing, and their frequencies may be lowered by moving to a higher gravitational potential, as in the Pound–Rebka experiment. However, these effects are not specific to photons; exactly the same effects would be predicted for classical electromagnetic waves.[101]
Current reads....
Enhancement of Resonant Energy Transfer Due to Evanescent-wave from the Metal
Amrit Poudel,1 Xin Chen,2 and Mark A. Ratner1
1601.04338v1.pdf
My Very Best,
Shell
I'm trying to understand what you were meaning concerning evanescent waves. Were you suggesting a decaying magnetic field outside the device? In simple classical terms, could a decaying or any magnetic field outside the device also interact with currents on the device to provide a net force on the device? And could such a field be created by the device yet also become sufficiently detached such as to be considered a free field in space the device could interact with? In other words, could you have your cake and eat it too?
-
#1779 by Bob012345 on 18 Oct, 2016 18:19
-
...
There is a fundamental, huge difference between the Wright Brothers and Shawyer's insistence on an explanation that goes against both theoretical and experimental knowledge:
Photons are not balls and balls are not photons or complex EM waves so your device has no bearing on Shawyer's EmDrive or theory. Maybe, like the Wright Brothers who literally flew in the face of established aeronautical science, Shawyer intuitively knows more about what he's doing than his many critics.
1) Lord Kelvin said that flying machines were impossible because he based his opinion on air as a perfect fluid medium devoid of viscosity. The Wright Brothers took into account fluid viscosity by performing experiments in a wind tunnel. The experimental approach by the Wright Brothers was scientific and in accord with leading fluid mechanics experts at the time (for example Prandtl, Von Mises and Von Karman).
2) In great contrast to the Wright Brothers, the explanation by Shawyer goes against all fundamental knowledge of Maxwell's equations and experimental knowledge. There is nobody at a University I know of that agrees with Shawyer's explanations. Nobody at Cambridge University. Nobody at Oxford University. Nobody at MIT, Stanford, CalTech, you name it. Martin Tajmar, at TU Dresden who conducted experiments on the EM Drive under the advice of Shawyer has painstakingly divorced himself from Shawyer's explanations.
Many things in Shawyer explanation can be shown to be fundamentally wrong, foremost among this the fact that Shawyer persists, to this date, to claim that there is no radiation pressure on the conical side walls. To state, like Shawyer does that there is no radiation pressure on the conical side walls of an electromagnetically resonant truncated conical cavity going against everything we know from Maxwell's equations. It goes against experimental facts. It goes against calculations from Finite Difference, Finite Element and Boundary Element numerical solutions (FEKO, Meep, COMSOL, etc.) all unequivocally showing that there is radiation pressure on the conical side walls. The complete opposite of the Wright Brothers, who took an experimental approach in conformity with leading knowledge at the time: incorporating the effect of viscosity, and vorticity, from a wind tunnel, to design their wings and propeller. The Wright Brothers concentrated their efforts in preventing flow separation from their wings.
Shawyer, instead of taking a scientific approach followed by leading universities, ignores such theory, experiments, and numerical analysis (FEKO, COMSOL, Meep) and instead of incorporating new aspects of Physics (like gravitation, or Quantum Mechanics, you name it), insists to this date that thrust of the EM Drive can be solely explained purely on the basis of Newton's 3rd law, Maxwell's equations and frame-independent Special Relativity.
Shawyer may be a good microwave engineer, but his insistence on his explanation has not served his EM Drive well. The EM Drive would have suffered less resistance if he would have dropped the obviously wrong aspects of his explanation (for example that there is no radiation pressure on the side walls) a long time ago and would have concentrated instead in improving the EM Drive engineering and saying "hey it seems to work, but I am not sure why" and would have solicited the advice of leading scientists and engineers on what may be the reason why may produce a force (if it does produce a force).
Since you are the senior scientist here I'll not pursue this avenue further but a few minor points. If he listened to the academics, he would have long ago given up the concept. But I have to say, if other academics really can't disagree with Shawyer without discounting the whole idea, that's really their fundamental problem. The Wright Brothers figured out that the best aeronautical data at the time was deeply flawed so they build a wind tunnel to experiment with designs. The academics at the time were mistaken. I highly recommend David McCullough's book 'The Wright Brothers'.
