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.
In the hover example, the EmDrive would be pulling very slightly on the Earth, so the center of mass of the system "EmDrive + Earth" would accelerate, albeit very slowly. This is where all the energy would go (the Earth is heavy).
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.
In the hover example, the EmDrive would be pulling very slightly on the Earth, so the center of mass of the system "EmDrive + Earth" would accelerate, albeit very slowly. This is where all the energy would go (the Earth is heavy).
Only to get to the height of 1 meter then, like an object on a table, no energy is expended against gravity. Of course, energy is expended to maintain the EmDrive. That gets expended in whatever form the "propellant" is and as waste heat in my view just as in a Space-X hovering rocket.
...How about I just re-write your result using the definition of skin depth... then the equation makes a lot more sense to me. Q increases as "resistivity" decreases, but the relationship to frequency and permeability would seem to suggest a small frustum with high permeability.
Consider these equations at constant frequency and constant dimensions. What two variables do we have left to play with, in terms of materials?
Again, "To continue this discussion both of us must stop writing Q ~ and instead write Q = , detailing what precise expression, in terms of what variables, we are talking about"
in your response, you continue to write Q~. You need to write Q= referring to something specific and precise 
to be able to have a discussion.
EDIT: Basically, this is the issue, I realize that one has to be explicit as to what is the Q= expression also in your dQ/dr
because there are many ways to write Q~ that lead to completely different expressions depending on what multiplying factors one is referring to 
Like this? It's non-linear.
Thinking more about your theory, please comment on whether (and if not, why not) your theory is effectively nullified by the test results of Zeller and Kraft, at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, who performed experiments with a cylindrical cavity having a HDPE dielectric (
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kurtwadezeller ) (NSF member Zellerium
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=47993 ). The cylindrical metal cavity was symmetric, but the HDPE was placed asymmetrically in the cylindrical cavity. Their conclusion was that there was
no thrust. This experiment by Zeller and Kraft is a falsification of a hypothesis that thrust is generated simply by the HDPE (whether by electrostriction or other means), when asymmetrically placed in a cylindrical cavity.
Their experiments at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, showing no thrust when using HDPE dielectric asymmetrically placed in a cylindrical cavity, can be seen in the attachments on
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kurtwadezeller under "Researcher" section on Kurt Zeller's LinkedIn profile.
A theory explaining thrust of the EM Drive based on HDPE dielectric would need to also explain Zeller's experiments showing no thrust.
A rare scam-zoological sighting: Maxwell's Demon...
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/10/argonne-researchers-posit-way-to.html
The state of the field of 2nd law challenges has advanced greatly in the last few years. The following amounts to a working contradiction of Duncan's Paradox, designed to prove 2nd law violations cannot occur, but amounts to a macro scale Maxwell Demon. The process invented by Daniel Sheehan at San Diego is called Epicatalysis and Duncan's Paradox was designed to show Epicatalysis can't work as a 2nd law violator but the data shows it can. Recent evidence shows small scale room temperature effects as well.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-014-9781-5https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicatalysishttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan%27s_ParadoxThis process is experimental macro scale chemical systems not theoretical nanoscale quantum systems as in the paper referenced. The work is peer reviewed and published but the physics community is as yet pretty silent on the issue. I think they are in wait and see mode. It's quite a shock.
Relevance to space flight: any system that can recycle waste heat into high grade energy would be useful in space applications.
Relevance to EmDrive: if you're worried about momentum conservation, heck, not even the Second Law is sacred anymore! So you can relax.
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.
In the hover example, the EmDrive would be pulling very slightly on the Earth, so the center of mass of the system "EmDrive + Earth" would accelerate, albeit very slowly. This is where all the energy would go (the Earth is heavy).
Yet the same vehicle, if placed in deep space and switched on would accelerate the 1,000kg vehicle at 1g. Some would claim this violates CofE. So why no CofE violation when the same vehicle hovers 1 meter above the Earth?
Special rules for special cases?
Looks like the Parajet Skycar is a few years behind schedule and still a ways away from being a production product. The most recent "production" version was unveiled for 2014, and I haven't yet found any news about it since then.
All here wish him good luck with that, but until there is some resilient data offered to the public to agree or reject it in a scientific way, there is no way that we will BELIEVE what you say about.
Same unit could propel a drone. A VERY SILENT DRONE. Gilo supplies petrol engines for drones and also supplies engines for human rated jet packs.
Believe the SkyCar needs 350kg thrust or say 350Wrf fed into the EmDrive. Plus some LN2 boiloff cooling.
I expect with all the Roger news of recent, there is soon to be news from Gilo Industries.
In the last Shawyer video, he speaks about vertical takeoff. That needs to have a thrust equivalent to the weight of the vehicule.
Also, assuming that the emdrive performs the same in vacuum, such a car should have orbital capability. Just need to take a spacesuit...
Roger has stated in the past that he was working on a wingless and propellerless drone with a then unnamed UK aerospace company, which we now know is Gilo Industries, and that he expected to demo it in 2017.
With the 1 sec, 5x TC, cavity charge and discharge times as posted in the latest patent, the Q would be in the billions, with corresponding very high EmWave energy density that should enable more than enough momentum transfer to enable lifters to operate.
All here wish him good luck with that, but until there is some resilient data offered to the public to agree or reject, there is no way that we will BELIEVE what you say about.
Hey I just took the thrust curve in the patent and calculated the resultant cavity loaded Q and from that applied the Q to Roger's thrust equation. A Loaded Q of 3 billion seems high but accelerator cavities easily exceed that all the time and at a lot higher input power than 1kW of Rf.
Sure we await for the published data but assuming the patent thrust curves are correct and understanding EmDrive engineering, the specific force can be calculated.
No, this high Q is NOT Q
Loaded it's Q
Unloaded=Q
0!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_radio_frequency
As an example of the above parameters, a typical 9-cell SRF cavity for the International Linear Collider[5] (a.k.a. a TESLA cavity) would have G=270 Ω and Rs= 10 nΩ, giving Qo=2.7×1010.
The effective Q of the whole circuit is given by 1/Q
effective=1/Q
0+1/Q
external.
Question: What is the impedance of your external RF-source?
No, this high Q is NOT QLoaded it's QUnloaded=Q0!
This is not an accelerator cavity with a big hole in the middle so particles can be accelerated through the hole by the massive E field. The only losses are the eddy current heating and the momentum xfer to the accelerating mass.
It is loaded Q as the momentum loss from the EmWave is another loss factor to the cavity that drains stored cavity energy faster than just eddy current heating losses. The force curves published in the patent application are the result of the lost cavity energy and so they are in fact the loaded Q fill and decay time for the cavity with 5x TC being 1~ sec and 1x TC being ~0.2 sec.
From that you can calc the cavities effective loaded Q as the forces were generated.
Ql = 2 Pi Freq Tc. Assuming 2.45GHz excitement, the loaded Q is approx 3x10^9.
No, this high Q is NOT QLoaded it's QUnloaded=Q0!
This is not an accelerator cavity with a big hole in the middle so particles can be accelerated through the hole by the massive E field. The only losses are the eddy current heating and the momentum xfer to the accelerating mass.
It is loaded Q as the momentum loss from the EmWave is another loss factor to the cavity that drains stored cavity energy faster than just eddy current heating losses. The force curves published in the patent application are the result of the lost cavity energy and so they are in fact the loaded Q fill and decay time for the cavity with 5x TC being 1~ sec and 1x TC being ~0.2 sec.
From that you can calc the cavities effective loaded Q as the forces were generated.
Ql = 2 Pi Freq Tc. Assuming 2.45GHz excitement, the loaded Q is approx 3x10^9.
If you eliminate R in the resonant circuit (superconductive resonator) there is still R
s, this is the source resistance. It can't be ignored, its part of the circuit.
EDIT
I am sure we discussed this in the past. If my memory serves you has agreed with this at that time.
The antenna defines a specific coupling factor between the inner and the outer circuit. The same antenna what is used to couple the RF-energy into the cavity is able to couple the energy out, back into the source with the same effectivity. This is basic microwave 101 knowlage.
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.
In the hover example, the EmDrive would be pulling very slightly on the Earth, so the center of mass of the system "EmDrive + Earth" would accelerate, albeit very slowly. This is where all the energy would go (the Earth is heavy).
Yet the same vehicle, if placed in deep space and switched on would accelerate the 1,000kg vehicle at 1g. Some would claim this violates CofE. So why no CofE violation when the same vehicle hovers 1 meter above the Earth?
Special rules for special cases?
Because it is not gaining kinetic energy. It is merely hovering in space against gravity so the force generated by the device does no work (work meaning in the physics sense of Force times distance). If you hold out your arm, you are doing no work against gravity but you are still expending chemical energy to maintain your muscle integrity. The hovering EmDrive would be expending energy at a fixed rate (power) to maintain the force against gravity without doing work. Yet in deep space, it accelerates. When it does that it gains kinetic energy. Some then believe it eventually violates CoE. But if it can hover at all, it can accelerate in space also and it cannot "know" what it's velocity is so as to ever stop accelerating.
I formally challenge the EM drive to a race. CID on one torsion balance and the EM on another and you can only use 12V @ 3 amps. Lets see which one makes a rotation first.
Sincerely,
Harry Sprain
...Regarding Evanescent waves, my question is if such waves can have huge momentum why haven't physicists discussed using them for space drives?
It is simple to show that there cannot be any evanescent waves transmitted through the copper cavity thickness (which is much, much larger than the skin depth) of the EM Drives being tested, to the outside of the EM Drive, because they are supposed to be close cavities made of conductive metal with a thickness much larger than the skin depth (unless the EM Drive has gaps or holes in the cavity, in which case they would no longer be a closed cavity, and then they should be designed to enhance this, which is opposite to what Shawyer and others have proposed). Thus any evanescent waves are confined to the interior of a closed EM Drive cavity, and cannot result in self-acceleration of the cavity by themselves, due to conservation of momentum. Just like any other type of internal wave (for example, propagating waves or standing waves) cannot result in self-acceleration of an EM Drive by themselves. Rather, an interaction with an external field is necessary to explain any such acceleration. That's why McCulloch resorts to Unruh waves, White to a degradable vacuum, Notsosureofit to General Relativity, etc.
Please notice that several references on evanescent wave coupling appearing on NSF threads deal instead with frustrated total reflection (FTIR), where a third medium with a higher refractive index than a low-index second medium is placed within less than several wavelengths distance from the interface between the first medium and the second medium. This process is called "frustrated" total internal reflection (FTIR) and is analogous to quantum tunneling. The transmission coefficient for FTIR is highly sensitive to the spacing between the third medium and the second medium (the function is approximately exponential until the gap is almost closed), so this effect has often been used to modulate optical transmission and reflection with a large dynamic range.
Thanks. Actually, I meant the question as broader than just involving EmDrive cavities. If such waves can allegedly carry large momentum, can they be generated and used to produce momentum from electrical energy to drive spacecraft irrespective of specifics? Thanks.
If the EM Drive works it has to be pushing of off something like a field and transferring momentum to/from that field. Maybe it is a Machian-like field where it pushes off the whole universe. To me the EM Drive is like putting a battery powered fan inside of a sealed cardboard box and when powered on the box moves. It just can't be that way unless it is touching something "outside" of the box, even if that something isn't obvious or known.
I also think that many keep discussing the theories as to how the EM Drive might work as a means to determine IF it works. That isn't correct. It either works or it doesn't. It either moves in free space without expelling propellant or it doesn't. If it does work it will be the greatest invention of all time in my opinion. It won't just revolutionize space travel, it will revolutionize everything in our lives.
P.S. I read this thread first thing every morning, the suspense is almost too much to take. The YouTube video we are all waiting for has yet to be posted...
I formally challenge the EM drive to a race. CID on one torsion balance and the EM on another and you can only use 12V @ 3 amps. Lets see which one makes a rotation first.
....
Sincerely,
Harry Sprain
to have any relevance whatsoever to the subject of this thread (
space flight applications) the contest should be performed in a
vacuum chamber under at least 10^(-6) Torr, and the drives should be powered by a
battery , self-integrated in the same body being accelerated.
No power cords allowed, as:
*Prof. Juan Yang defenestrated all her prior tests by performing tests with a battery showing that in her previous tests the power cords suffered thermal expansion as a result of getting hot, which produced the anomalous force artifact. Yang reported
no thrust when taking into account the relative error of her experiments.
*Samsonov is the only "citizen-scientist" that to this date has reported EM Drive tests performed with a battery.
Samsonov reported
no thrust when taking into account the relative error of his experiments.
...How about I just re-write your result using the definition of skin depth... then the equation makes a lot more sense to me. Q increases as "resistivity" decreases, but the relationship to frequency and permeability would seem to suggest a small frustum with high permeability.
Consider these equations at constant frequency and constant dimensions. What two variables do we have left to play with, in terms of materials?
Again, "To continue this discussion both of us must stop writing Q ~ and instead write Q = , detailing what precise expression, in terms of what variables, we are talking about"
in your response, you continue to write Q~. You need to write Q= referring to something specific and precise to be able to have a discussion.
EDIT: Basically, this is the issue, I realize that one has to be explicit as to what is the Q= expression also in your dQ/dr
because there are many ways to write Q~ that lead to completely different expressions depending on what multiplying factors one is referring to
Like this? It's non-linear.
Thinking more about your theory, please comment on whether (and if not, why not) your theory is effectively nullified by the test results of Zeller and Kraft, at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, who performed experiments with a cylindrical cavity having a HDPE dielectric ( https://www.linkedin.com/in/kurtwadezeller ) (NSF member Zellerium https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=47993 ). The cylindrical metal cavity was symmetric, but the HDPE was placed asymmetrically in the cylindrical cavity. Their conclusion was that there was no thrust. This experiment by Zeller and Kraft is a falsification of a hypothesis that thrust is generated simply by the HDPE (whether by electrostriction or other means), when asymmetrically placed in a cylindrical cavity.
Their experiments at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, showing no thrust when using HDPE dielectric asymmetrically placed in a cylindrical cavity, can be seen in the attachments on https://www.linkedin.com/in/kurtwadezeller under "Researcher" section on Kurt Zeller's LinkedIn profile.
A theory explaining thrust of the EM Drive based on HDPE dielectric would need to also explain Zeller's experiments showing no thrust.
I just read the paper on the cylindrical cavity with HDPE dielectric, and the results were "inconclusive", not "null". They did measure thrust, but the results were in either direction.
Primarily, it seems they excited a TM mode of the cylinder. The TM mode concentrates the E field on the end plates and the H field on the side walls. The E field does not cause nearly as much (if any) power dissipation. It is the H field can cause power dissipation, and dissipation on the side walls of a cylinder will have a symmetrical effect. In order to have power dissipation, the material must have some conductivity. The resistivity of HDPE is too high, so there is very little power dissipation there. Instead, I think it's practically invisible to the MW's.
If they construct a cylinder where one end is copper and the other end is steel, they might see a different result.
,,,I just read the paper on the cylindrical cavity with HDPE dielectric, and the results were "inconclusive", not "null". They did measure thrust, but the results were in either direction. ...
Argumentative.
Zellerium himself reported his own experiments here:
http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Resultsand he reported them very clearly as
zero thrust.
As documented at NSF in several of his posts, Zellerium reported this at
http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results after much thought and deliberation.
I formally challenge the EM drive to a race. CID on one torsion balance and the EM on another and you can only use 12V @ 3 amps. Lets see which one makes a rotation first.
....
Sincerely,
Harry Sprain
to have any relevance whatsoever to the subject of this thread (space flight applications) the contest should be performed in a vacuum chamber under at least 10^(-6) Torr, and the drives should be powered by a battery , self-integrated in the same body being accelerated.
No power cords allowed, as:
*Prof. Juan Yang defenestrated all her prior tests by performing tests with a battery showing that in her previous tests the power cords suffered thermal expansion as a result of getting hot, which produced the anomalous force artifact. Yang reported no thrust when taking into account the relative error of her experiments.
*Samsonov is the only "citizen-scientist" that to this date has reported EM Drive tests performed with a battery.
Samsonov reported no thrust when taking into account the relative error of his experiments.
Are you suggesting that all reported results without internal batteries are spurious effects, Shawyer, Fetta, everyone building devices here?
I formally challenge the EM drive to a race. CID on one torsion balance and the EM on another and you can only use 12V @ 3 amps. Lets see which one makes a rotation first.
....
Sincerely,
Harry Sprain
to have any relevance whatsoever to the subject of this thread (space flight applications) the contest should be performed in a vacuum chamber under at least 10^(-6) Torr, and the drives should be powered by a battery , self-integrated in the same body being accelerated.
No power cords allowed, as:
*Prof. Juan Yang defenestrated all her prior tests by performing tests with a battery showing that in her previous tests the power cords suffered thermal expansion as a result of getting hot, which produced the anomalous force artifact. Yang reported no thrust when taking into account the relative error of her experiments.
*Samsonov is the only "citizen-scientist" that to this date has reported EM Drive tests performed with a battery.
Samsonov reported no thrust when taking into account the relative error of his experiments.
Yes, for example the magnets are not fixed straight, but all at different angles. This could produce an effect against the surrounding air (kind of fluid) and propel it in a way a ventilator would do.
On the other hand the applied force works in both directions and should be canceled out. hmm
Nevertheless slightly differences in the builded setup could produce thrust due to different air resistivity against the sourrounded structure.
to be able to have a discussion. 
