EmDrive Forces (dual)
What may have been overlooked is Roger's theory predicts the generation of 2 forces in the EmDrive:
1)
Thrust force with a vector small to big that is the product of the radiation pressure differential, which includes axial side wall forces. This force can be measured via a scale and does not need the EmDrive to move. Well not move very much. This Thrust force was measured in both the Experimental and Demonstrator EmDrives as detailed in the 2 results reports Roger released. Also released were independent reviews of the Thrust forces that were measured. Reports attached.
2)
Reaction force that provides acceleration, has a vector big to small and is the equal but opposite force to the Thrust force. This force can only be measured via free acceleration of the EmDrive.
Both of these forces can be and have been measured but not at the same time.
I know of no theory that describes the generation of both experimentally measured forces other than Roger's.
Something to consider for both testing and theory consideration.
Red arrows and text are my add.
I will believe it on the day when the data have been released and confirmed by an independent laboratory.
So to be clear, you will believe what the EW peer review paper's experimental data says or will you reject it and demand a higher confirmation?
Here's a nasty thought, only because it puts a huge burden on experimenters and hasn't been controlled for in any experiment I am aware of. One field that CAN somewhat freely transmit from the constraints of the Emdrive frustrum to the "outside world" is the magnetic field. The extensive discussions regarding TE and TM mode shapes may be illustrative, or not?
What if the propagating field within the frustum, alternatively expanding and collapsing, extending and retracting, was generating a "jellyfish" like magnetic field which interacts with the surrounding (earth's) field? Thrust results would be hugely dependant upon the internal frustum mode, the orientation of the frustum to the earth, and the phase of the selected mode. Phase reversal would result in thrust reversal, like the inversion of speech in a single side-band radio when the local oscillator is on the "wrong" side of the DC product. IF this is possible, the Emdrive would be a useful space drive, IF it were immersed in a magnetic field. The weaker the external field, the less effective the thrust.
There would be multiple "anti-Crazy Eddy" points during an Emdrive voyage, where the local magnetic field was nullified due to interaction between external fields. The hypothetical Emdrive "pilot" would have to constantly correct the thrust vector to optimize for the external field environment.
The reason that this effect may be observable with a microwave frustum rather than, say, a conical solenoid, is that the frustum allows control of mode (TE, TM, phase). Optical wavelengths and solenoids do not (easily), so the "effect" hasn't been observed. Just an odd thought.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the earths magnetic field has already been eliminated in most experiments.
If so, I haven't seen the results. Several experimenters have oriented their Emdrive at various angles to the local magnetic field, and obtained varying "thrust" results. As far as I know, no experimenter has built the necessarily large Helmholts coils to NULLIFY the external magnetic field in the volume that the Emdrive is occupying. This would be a required experiment to prove that the Emdrive is NOT interacting with any external magnetic fields. All we know at this point is that it does, but not how or why, nor if the interaction is responsible for the "thrust". Such an interaction would not necessarily be a bad thing, but it certainly hasn't been objectively quantified.
I suppose that waiting for the construction of an Emdrive that actually produces unequivocal thrust would be a first step, before complicating the issue further than it is.
EmDrives have produced thrust since 2002. No waiting required. Done deal.
Please read Roger's Experimental EmDrive report and the independent reviewer's comments in regard to local magnetic fields.
The orientation with respect to the Earth’s magnetic field was shown to have no influence on the thrust measured.
For my testing I also tried various orientations to the local magnetic field and in 3 different locations. No measurable effect. So no need for Helmholts coils as easy to reorient the test rig to the local magnetic field.
I will believe it on the day when the data have been released and confirmed by an independent laboratory.
So to be clear, you will believe what the EW peer review paper's experimental data says or will you reject it and demand a higher confirmation?
Although I'm not X-ray, I'll take the opportunity to say that I'll take Eagleworks' paper as confirmation that EM Drives do something of great interest. I'm particularly eager to learn what they've observed regarding scaling these machines, in order to increase their output. Unless the Eagleworks paper already contains it, I will need to see additional work and evidence to believe EM Drives can achieve a thrust-to-weight ratio greater than one.
I will believe it on the day when the data have been released and confirmed by an independent laboratory.
So to be clear, you will believe what the EW peer review paper's experimental data says or will you reject it and demand a higher confirmation?
Although I'm not X-ray, I'll take the opportunity to say that I'll take Eagleworks' paper as confirmation that EM Drives do something of great interest. I'm particularly eager to learn what they've observed regarding scaling these machines, in order to increase their output. Unless the Eagleworks paper already contains it, I will need to see additional work and evidence to believe EM Drives can achieve a thrust-to-weight ratio greater than one.
It is my understanding that all the EW data shows Thrust scaling with power, as with all of Roger's tests, especially the Flight Thruster test data which shows this very clearly.
It is expected that Thrust varies linear with input power as the internal EmWave stored cavity energy increases as the input power increases as does the EmWave momentum and ability to generate radiation pressure.
Q also affects EmWave stored cavity energy as higher Q generates a longer 5x TC cavity fill time and thus takes more energy to fill the cavity. Here increasing Q acts as does increasing Farad & Hehry.
As for the thrust to weight ratio, it is all about the amount of stored cavity energy that can be achieved, in which higher Q is a much better option than higher input power.
Please note the patent application thrust curves, which are also cavity Q loaded fill and discharge curves, show it takes approx 1 sec to complete 5x TC of cavity fill and then discharge. From that the cavity TC is approx 0.2 sec and from that time value the cavity loaded Q can be calculated as approx 3x10^9. From that Q value, the Thrust can be calculated as approx 1,000kg/kWrf. Not magic, just what happens if the stored cavity energy is very high from the very high Q.
My only question is the 3x10^9 loaded Q value. While accelerator cavities now achieve 10^10 or even 10^11 Q, it seems that maybe Roger has achieved 3x10^9 for his new EmDrive design and if so, the stored cavity EmWave energy and momentum would be more than capable of delivering 1,000kg/kWrf of Thrust.
The orientation with respect to the Earth’s magnetic field was shown to have no influence on the thrust measured.
For my testing I also tried various orientations to the local magnetic field and in 3 different locations. No measurable effect. So no need for Helmholts coils as easy to reorient the test rig to the local magnetic field.
Earth magnetic field may affect the test results with DC in the power supply loop and ground loop. This effect is small, for a typical experiment it is roughly on the level of or less than a hundred micro newtons. It is a problem for EW experiment which reported micro newtons, but they did not assess the orientation of the test apparatus; It is not a problem for The Traveller who reported 8mN (8000 micro newtons) or Mr. Shawyer who reported even higher newtons, who as said assessed the orientation. They may have other problems other than the Earth magnetic field.
Somebody proposed that the Earth magnetic field might interact with RF in an experiment. I do not know the mechanism so I can't comment.
Imagine dropping an object into a wavefront, say from a distant photon source. The object will start to accelerate, immediately.
Imagine dropping a cup shaped object, catching photons in its concave cavity, into a wavefront. The object will move with no immediate impact on the photon source, as in the previous example.
Now imagine a wave front appearing inside a hollow closed object. The object will move.
By setting up enough difference in group velocity between the front and back and by using a high Q cavity Roger's Emdrive shapes the wave to create sufficient thrust in the opposite direction. Creating the wave inside an object in no way changes the fact that it carries momentum.
Yet you totally ignored the 2 questions?
Are the answers too difficult to work out?
...
Actually, he answered the questions, he just ignored the emDrive working part of the setup. And there wasn't enough information to answer with the assumption the emDrive works, because the answer is dependent on your choice of theory. If you choose Shawyer's theory, then the answer is meaningless, because his theory does not allow for conservation of energy.
Meanwhile you have continued to ignore the 2 questions I asked you, which describe a system that produces equivalent forces to Shawyer's description of the emDrive. If you could answer those simple questions, it would be clear that your "reaction force" statements are nonsense.
Imagine dropping an object into a wavefront, say from a distant photon source. The object will start to accelerate, immediately.
Imagine dropping a cup shaped object, catching photons in its concave cavity, into a wavefront. The object will move with no immediate impact on the photon source, as in the previous example.
Now imagine a wave front appearing inside a hollow closed object. The object will move.
By setting up enough difference in group velocity between the front and back and by using a high Q cavity Roger's Emdrive shapes the wave to create sufficient thrust in the opposite direction. Creating the wave inside an object in no way changes the fact that it carries momentum.
In your description, the source of the photons will have reacted backwards when they were initially emitted, so there never needs to be an impact at all on the original photon source.
Creating emWaves in a cavity with momentum transfers momentum to those waves, and when it reflects, momentum shifts to the other direction. The sum of momentum of the cavity including the photons will remain 0 by conservation of momentum, but since the photons are propagating in both directions, they will have zero net momentum at resonance. Since the system has zero net momentum, this means its center of Energy is at rest. Moving energy from 1 side of the cavity to the othercould never result in a total shift of more than a half cavity length, but the actual total for the energy levels we are discussing is negligible.
Interesting paper:
"A RESONANT-CAVITY TORQUE-OPERATED WATTMETER FOR
MICROWAVE POWER
By R. A. BAILEY, Ph.D., B.Sc, Graduate. {The paper was first received \9th October, 1954, and in revised form 2\st March, 1955. // was published as an INSTITUTION MONOGRAPH in June, 1955.)
SUMMARY
A sensitive method of microwave power measurement is described which makes use of the mechanical force exerted by the electromagnetic field on a small vane in a resonant cavity. It is shown that the force on the vane is a simple function of the Q-factor of the cavity, the power absorbed in it and the perturbation of its resonant frequency caused by the vane. The results of a comparison between an experimental wattmeter based on this principle and a water calorimeter are given, and the requirements of a practical instrument are discussed."
Follow on work referencing Cullen.
Bottom line, in a resonant cavity higher Q increases radiation pressure, just as Roger states.
Imagine dropping an object into a wavefront, say from a distant photon source. The object will start to accelerate, immediately.
Imagine dropping a cup shaped object, catching photons in its concave cavity, into a wavefront. The object will move with no immediate impact on the photon source, as in the previous example.
Now imagine a wave front appearing inside a hollow closed object. The object will move.
By setting up enough difference in group velocity between the front and back and by using a high Q cavity Roger's Emdrive shapes the wave to create sufficient thrust in the opposite direction. Creating the wave inside an object in no way changes the fact that it carries momentum.
In your description, the source of the photons will have reacted backwards when they were initially emitted, so there never needs to be an impact at all on the original photon source.
Creating emWaves in a cavity with momentum transfers momentum to those waves, and when it reflects, momentum shifts to the other direction. The sum of momentum of the cavity including the photons will remain 0 by conservation of momentum, but since the photons are propagating in both directions, they will have zero net momentum at resonance. Since the system has zero net momentum, this means its center of Energy is at rest. Moving energy from 1 side of the cavity to the othercould never result in a total shift of more than a half cavity length, but the actual total for the energy levels we are discussing is negligible.
Not correct.
The EmWave guide wavelength and momentum / radiation pressure potential vary as the diameter varies. The sum of all the forces toward the small end, including axial forces on the side walls toward the small end are not the same as the sum of all the forces on the big end.
Roger has measured this radiation pressure differential Thrust force (small to big force vector) with both the Experimental and Demonstrator EmDrives. That result was independently confirmed.
Yet you totally ignored the 2 questions?
Are the answers too difficult to work out?
...
Actually, he answered the questions, he just ignored the emDrive working part of the setup. And there wasn't enough information to answer with the assumption the emDrive works, because the answer is dependent on your choice of theory. If you choose Shawyer's theory, then the answer is meaningless, because his theory does not allow for conservation of energy.
Meanwhile you have continued to ignore the 2 questions I asked you, which describe a system that produces equivalent forces to Shawyer's description of the emDrive. If you could answer those simple questions, it would be clear that your "reaction force" statements are nonsense.
Nonsense? Now can that be as both the Thrust force and equal but opposite Reaction force has been experimentally measured and independently confirmed?
Again we have an EmDrive vehicle hovering 1 meter above the ground. There is no apparent acceleration or velocity change, which seems to be zero. Yet the control system is reporting 1kW of Rf forward energy is going into the hovering EmDrive. If the forward power is reduced, the vehicle drops and if increased rises. What happened to the KE? No CofE violation here, no KE gain, just a hovering stationary EmDrive 1 meter above the ground.
Isn't pre EmDrive physics strange?
Yet you totally ignored the 2 questions?
Are the answers too difficult to work out?
...
Actually, he answered the questions, he just ignored the emDrive working part of the setup. And there wasn't enough information to answer with the assumption the emDrive works, because the answer is dependent on your choice of theory. If you choose Shawyer's theory, then the answer is meaningless, because his theory does not allow for conservation of energy.
Meanwhile you have continued to ignore the 2 questions I asked you, which describe a system that produces equivalent forces to Shawyer's description of the emDrive. If you could answer those simple questions, it would be clear that your "reaction force" statements are nonsense.
Nonsense? Now can that be as both the Thrust force and equal but opposite Reaction force has been experimentally measured and independently confirmed?
Again we have an EmDrive vehicle hovering 1 meter above the ground. There is no apparent acceleration or velocity change, which seems to be zero. Yet the control system is reporting 1kW of Rf forward energy is going into the hovering EmDrive. If the forward power is reduced, the vehicle drops and if increased rises. What happened to the KE? No CofE violation here, no KE gain, just a hovering stationary EmDrive 1 meter above the ground.
Isn't pre EmDrive physics strange?
You don't seem to understand the concept of conservation of energy, but first how about you stop avoiding my questions about forces in a simple setup that exactly replicates the type and direction of forces in Shawyer's theory.
Also, independently confirmed by who? The papers he published with review (by someone who admitted to not having the right background for a full review) had several concerns about inconsistencies in the data listed by the reviewer, even though the reviewer's overall conclusion seemed positive, this seems to have come from him assuming the parts he didn't understand were correct despite the issues he recognized.
For those who understand how forces work, a confirmation of a force from the small to big end is evidence against the emDrive working, because that is in contradiction with the force direction measured by most experiments.
Yet you totally ignored the 2 questions?
Are the answers too difficult to work out?
...
Actually, he answered the questions, he just ignored the emDrive working part of the setup. And there wasn't enough information to answer with the assumption the emDrive works, because the answer is dependent on your choice of theory. If you choose Shawyer's theory, then the answer is meaningless, because his theory does not allow for conservation of energy.
Meanwhile you have continued to ignore the 2 questions I asked you, which describe a system that produces equivalent forces to Shawyer's description of the emDrive. If you could answer those simple questions, it would be clear that your "reaction force" statements are nonsense.
Nonsense? Now can that be as both the Thrust force and equal but opposite Reaction force has been experimentally measured and independently confirmed?
Again we have an EmDrive vehicle hovering 1 meter above the ground. There is no apparent acceleration or velocity change, which seems to be zero. Yet the control system is reporting 1kW of Rf forward energy is going into the hovering EmDrive. If the forward power is reduced, the vehicle drops and if increased rises. What happened to the KE? No CofE violation here, no KE gain, just a hovering stationary EmDrive 1 meter above the ground.
Isn't pre EmDrive physics strange?
You don't seem to understand the concept of conservation of energy, but first how about you stop avoiding my questions about forces in a simple setup that exactly replicates the type and direction of forces in Shawyer's theory.
Also, independently confirmed by who? The papers he published with review (by someone who admitted to not having the right background for a full review) had several concerns about inconsistencies in the data listed by the reviewer, even though the reviewer's overall conclusion seemed positive, this seems to have come from him assuming the parts he didn't understand were correct despite the issues he recognized.
For those who understand how forces work, a confirmation of a force from the small to big end is evidence against the emDrive working, because that is in contradiction with the force direction measured by most experiments.
Here you fail to understand. Probably as you have never measured EmDrive Thrust or Reaction force generation.
The Thrust force (small to big) is what most folks measure when using a scale, where the EmDrive can't accelerate.
To measure the equal but opposite Reaction force (big to small), the EmDrive needs to be free to continually accelerate.
Can't measure both forces at the same time.
Typically balance beams with a scale on one end only measure the Thrust force as they do not allow the EmDrive to accelerate. Sitting an EmDrive on a scale also measures the Thrust force.
Torsion pendulums do allow some limited initial acceleration but eventually the acceleration stops as does the generation of any continual Reaction force. While they can measure some of the Reaction force, as they don't allow continual free acceleration, the Reaction force indicated is well less than the true value.
This has never been made clear before. I'm trying to set the record straight as to how to measure the 2 forces a EmDrive can operate.
As for CofE, I follow the data, theory be damned.
Now about the hovering EmDrive and the apparent non violation of CofE as nothing is gaining velocity or acceleration vs the reference frame of the Earth?
The independent reviewer was selected by the UK MOD, who was assisting the Crown, in evaluating the results Roger has achieved using the Crown's funds. Seems the reviews came up to scratch as following the Experimental EmDrive review, Roger received more funds to build the Demonstrator EmDrive and following that positive review, he received further funds to build the Rotary test rig. I do expect a test report and review on the dynamic tests and the rotary test rig will one day see the light of day as Roger did receive all the funds.
Here you fail to understand. Probably as you have never measured EmDrive Thrust or Reaction force generation.
The Thrust force (small to big) is what most folks measure when using a scale, where the EmDrive can't accelerate.
To measure the equal but opposite Reaction force (big to small), the EmDrive needs to be free to continually accelerate.
Can't measure both forces at the same time.
Typically balance beams with a scale on one end only measure the Thrust force as they do not allow the EmDrive to accelerate. Sitting an EmDrive on a scale also measures the Thrust force.
Torsion pendulums do allow some limited initial acceleration but eventually the acceleration stops as does the generation of any continual Reaction force. While they can measure some of the Reaction force, as they don't allow continual free acceleration, the Reaction force indicated is well less than the true value.
This has never been made clear before. I'm trying to set the record straight as to how to measure the 2 forces a EmDrive can operate.
As for CofE, I follow the data, theory be damned.
Please go back and answer my questions.
Here is a link to the post if you lost it. This simple example is a best way I can explain to you that you are claiming something will move to the right when pushed to the left, and your post simply does not make sense to people who know what a force is.
Here you fail to understand. Probably as you have never measured EmDrive Thrust or Reaction force generation.
The Thrust force (small to big) is what most folks measure when using a scale, where the EmDrive can't accelerate.
To measure the equal but opposite Reaction force (big to small), the EmDrive needs to be free to continually accelerate.
Can't measure both forces at the same time.
Typically balance beams with a scale on one end only measure the Thrust force as they do not allow the EmDrive to accelerate. Sitting an EmDrive on a scale also measures the Thrust force.
Torsion pendulums do allow some limited initial acceleration but eventually the acceleration stops as does the generation of any continual Reaction force. While they can measure some of the Reaction force, as they don't allow continual free acceleration, the Reaction force indicated is well less than the true value.
This has never been made clear before. I'm trying to set the record straight as to how to measure the 2 forces a EmDrive can operate.
As for CofE, I follow the data, theory be damned.
Please go back and answer my questions. Here is a link to the post if you lost it. This simple example is a best way I can explain to you that you are claiming something will move to the right when pushed to the left, and your post simply does not make sense to people who know what a force is.
Yet that is what the experimental results show. Which means Roger has discovered a new way to transfer momentum from EmWave to frustum that is outside conventional understanding simply because it has never been observed before. BTW don't all forces have 2 components? A action force and an equal but opposite reaction force? Well here the action force is the Thrust force (produced by the differential radiation pressure, which includes the side walls) and the reaction force is the Reaction force. Simple. Yes? What is the problem?
Momentum is conserved as frustum gained momentum is sources via EmWave lost momentum. So CofM is OK. Just a new way to tap into EmWave momentum. No free momentum.
Look at it this way, if the Thrust force could cause cavity acceleration, the cavity would move big end 1st, but it doesn't and moves small end 1st due to the equal but opposite Reaction external force to the radiation pressure differential internal Thrust force.
Here is another way to look at it.
External Reaction force + internal big end to small end radiation pressure force, including side walls = internal small end to big end radiation pressure force. So the forces balance and the cavity accelerates small end 1st.
Consider a hypothetical typical flying car, of mass, say 1,000 kg, equipped with a 5th generation Shawyer EmDrive with a thrust to weight ratio of 1.
This drive is turned on and the gently floating car is given a good push up until it rises at constant velocity above the Earth all the way to Geosynchronous orbit. By my back of the envelope calculations, it will gain a potential energy of about 50,000,000,000 Joules, or 14,000 kilowatt hours which is also about the energy contained in 165 Tesla model S car battery packs. (Of course, at 544 kg each, those battery packs would add 90 metric tons to the flying car).
Unfortunately, as you can see, there's no way for this car to make it to orbit without adding external energy (such as solar power), magical new energy storage devices that are extraordinarily dense, or straight up violating conservation of energy.
My coffee mug, or CofDrive, as I have just named it, also exerts a constant force against the coaster where it rests, powered only by steaming hot caffeinated beverage. Its figure of merit shows a constant force for each handle on the mug! This force is real, and can be absolutely consistently and repeatedly measured by a simple scale in all laboratories. Sadly, it isn't very useful for space flight, because it doesn't do any useful work (which is the integral of the force over the distance it applies) because there is a non-moving table in the way.
I hope the EmDrive, which similarly appears to exert a constant force per input power, can be more useful for space travel than my CofDrive, but clearly, a force in the laboratory is not nearly enough to conclude that.
Some parties subscribe to the following logic: Physics cannot explain the force of the EmDrive. The EmDrive provably shows repeatable force. Therefore, Physics is proved Wrong. Therefore the EmDrive is exempted from the rules of that provably false Cult of Physics, such as Conservation of Momentum, Conservation of Energy, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and any other now falsified crazy ideas from those old deluded crackpots such as Newton, Einstein, Maxwell or Carnot.
To me, that's painfully naive and frankly, not very helpful. I suggest not extrapolating micro-Newton forces from a non-accelerating EmDdrive in a laboratory all the way to flying cars until someone has at least tested the EmDrive's ability to do work as well as provide thrust. They are NOT THE SAME.
Consider a EmDrive powered vehicle, with a pilot and a few passengers plus some cargo hovering 1 meter above the ground.
Mass: 1,000kg including LN2 cooling and Lithium Ion battery power supply.
Specific Force of EmDrive: 1,000kg/kWrf.
EmDrive Rf input power: 1kW forward power.
Downward gravity force: 1,000kg.
Upward EmDrive lifting force: 1,000kg.
Nothing is moving, no relative acceleration, no relative velocity change. Just the 1,000kg vehicle hovering 1 meter above the ground
Where is the 1kW of Rf going?
Now take that same example, remove the 1g downward gravity force and answer the same question.
Something is conserving the momentum change producing the force. That something, whether Mach effects or something else is carrying away energy. Of course some is lost as heat too.
Consider a EmDrive powered vehicle, with a pilot and a few passengers plus some cargo hovering 1 meter above the ground.
Mass: 1,000kg including LN2 cooling and Lithium Ion battery power supply.
Specific Force of EmDrive: 1,000kg/kWrf.
EmDrive Rf input power: 1kW forward power.
Downward gravity force: 1,000kg.
Upward EmDrive lifting force: 1,000kg.
Nothing is moving, no relative acceleration, no relative velocity change. Just the 1,000kg vehicle hovering 1 meter above the ground
Where is the 1kW of Rf going?
Now take that same example, remove the 1g downward gravity force and answer the same question.
Something is conserving the momentum change producing the force. That something, whether Mach effects or something else is carrying away energy. Of course some is lost as heat too.
Take the exact same vehicle, put it in deep space and turn on the EmDrive, which immediately accelerates the 1,000kg mass at 1g for as long as the power is on. Same vehicle that hovered 1 meter above the ground on Earth as long as the power was on.
In the Earth example some may say there is no CofE violation as the EmDrive never moved or accelerated. Yet that exact same vehicle, switched on in deep space is accused of violating CofE.
What I say is there is another chapter to be written in the book of physics that defines EmDrive acceleration as clearly the existing rules do not apply as the above example clearly illustrates.