-
#2040 by meems on 26 Oct, 2016 17:41
-
These readings support my electron sequence capture of light energy theory ( see here ). The electrons at the big end are low energy enough that they are able to hand over KE to the plate, hence a drop in E field. While at the small end they are too high energy, and just bounce off the plate, retaining all their energy.
This asymmetry in electron to plate transfer of energy gives thrust. -
#2041 by WarpTech on 26 Oct, 2016 17:49
-
...
NASA found best results with PTFE and HDPE dielectrics at the small end, which increases tan delta (dissipation) at the small end, hence lower Qs at the small end
1/v ~ -(1/w*L)*ln(Qb/Qs)
But this would argue for materials having much larger dissipation losses than HDPE or PTFE be better ?
I thought that they tried materials with more dissipation and they found worse results, not better. But have to check...to be sure
Also this prescription runs contrary to Shawyer, who maintains that it is better not to use any dielectrics (which were involved in his initial patents) because they decrease Q at one end and he thinks that's bad...
I am working my way through this data. I will let you all know what I find out.
The equation above can be viewed in two ways. Qb is very small, or Qs is very large. The acceleration "g" depends on the log of this ratio. There are a lot of ways to get the same ratio, so we need to remember the other half of the thrust equation is the equivalent "mass" of the stored energy, and m ~ Q.
T = -m*g ~ -P/v, with 1/v as above.
Like gravity, we only need a relatively small gradient in the potential to get a decent acceleration. Ideally, we want a small acceleration and a large mass, so higher Qs will dominate if we want to move larger masses.
Regarding the NASA test at TM010 mode from 2014. Everything seems to work as I would expect when adding dielectric disks.
1. With no dielectric insert in the frustum, it accelerates toward the small end at +58.2 uN. This I’ll take as a given based on the experimental data. As such, I expect there to be more dissipation at the big end.
2. Next, when they added the PE disk to the small end, the thrust was nullified. So adding more dissipation at the small end reversed the gradient as it should, and the thrust reversed direction, to -7.7 uN toward the big end.
3. Next, when they added the PTFE to the big end, the thrust toward the small end improved, to +138.4 uN as it should per my theory.
So the data in these experiments is in agreement with what my theory would predict. If the dissipation at one end is increased, the thrust is increased toward the other end.
Note: By "thrust" I mean the direction the frustum is moving.
Todd
-
#2042 by Rodal on 26 Oct, 2016 17:57
-
...
Regarding the NASA test at TM010 mode from 2014. Everything seems to work as I would expect when adding dielectric disks.
1. With no dielectric insert in the frustum, it accelerates toward the small end at +58.2 uN. This I’ll take as a given based on the experimental data. As such, I expect there to be more dissipation at the big end.
2. Next, when they added the PE disk to the small end, the thrust was nullified. So adding more dissipation at the small end reversed the gradient as it should, and the thrust reversed direction, to -7.7 uN toward the big end.
3. Next, when they added the PTFE to the big end, the thrust toward the small end improved, to +138.4 uN as it should per my theory.
So the data in these experiments is in agreement with what my theory would predict. If the dissipation at one end is increased, the thrust is increased toward the other end.
Note: By "thrust" I mean the direction the frustum is moving.
Todd
Concerning more dissipation, what happens with your theoretical prediction when you run Neoprene as a polymer insert instead of PTFE or HDPE in NASA's truncated cone?
dielectric tan delta
Polychloroprene {"Neoprene"): 0.03400 @ 3 GHz
PTFE ("Teflon") 0.00028 @ 3 GHz
HDPE 0.00031 @ 3 GHz
Neoprene has a tan delta more than 100 times greater than the one for HDPE and PTFE
NASA Eagleworks run Neoprene instead of HDPE and PTFE and got very bad force results, this argues against dielectric dissipation, as the dissipation with Neoprene is 100 times greater.
And what distinguishes polymer dielectrics like HDPE and PTFE is that they have very small dielectric dissipation in comparison with other polymers.
There are other reasons (for example electrostriction) that could make HDPE and PTFE work. While dissipation, in light of these data does not seem to be one of them...
Also Shawyer argued against dissipation inside the cavity as being a good thing: he got rid of all dielectrics with the argument that they lower Q because of dissipation... -
#2043 by RotoSequence on 26 Oct, 2016 18:49
-
...
Regarding the NASA test at TM010 mode from 2014. Everything seems to work as I would expect when adding dielectric disks.
1. With no dielectric insert in the frustum, it accelerates toward the small end at +58.2 uN. This I’ll take as a given based on the experimental data. As such, I expect there to be more dissipation at the big end.
2. Next, when they added the PE disk to the small end, the thrust was nullified. So adding more dissipation at the small end reversed the gradient as it should, and the thrust reversed direction, to -7.7 uN toward the big end.
3. Next, when they added the PTFE to the big end, the thrust toward the small end improved, to +138.4 uN as it should per my theory.
So the data in these experiments is in agreement with what my theory would predict. If the dissipation at one end is increased, the thrust is increased toward the other end.
Note: By "thrust" I mean the direction the frustum is moving.
Todd
Concerning more dissipation, what happens with your theoretical prediction when you run Neoprene as a polymer insert instead of PTFE or HDPE in NASA's truncated cone?
dielectric tan delta
Polychloroprene {"Neoprene"): 0.03400 @ 3 GHz
PTFE ("Teflon") 0.00028 @ 3 GHz
HDPE 0.00031 @ 3 GHz
Neoprene has a tan delta more than 100 times greater than the one for HDPE and PTFE
NASA Eagleworks run Neoprene instead of HDPE and PTFE and got very bad force results, this argues against dielectric dissipation, as the dissipation with Neoprene is 100 times greater.
And what distinguishes polymer dielectrics like HDPE and PTFE is that they have very small dielectric dissipation in comparison with other polymers.
There are other reasons (for example electrostriction) that could make HDPE and PTFE work. While dissipation, in light of these data does not seem to be one of them...
Also Shawyer argued against dissipation inside the cavity as being a good thing: he got rid of all dielectrics with the argument that they lower Q because of dissipation...
I don't recall if this was accounted for in the original Eagleworks documentation, but can we be sure that the higher dissipation effects of Neoprene weren't offset by a detrimentally altered resonance condition? -
#2044 by X_RaY on 26 Oct, 2016 18:50
-
There are easier ways to test this "thrust caused by dissipation" theorem using defined µW absorber materials.
The problem is that the resonance brake down by even using only small pieces of it inside a cavity. (Q0 will be very low due to the dissipation at one end).
Regarding WarpTech's theory (if it works as predicted) this would generate much more thrust.
https://www.google.de/search?client=opera&q=microwave+absorber
###We discussed a similar solution in the past using ferrite inserts.### -
#2045 by Notsosureofit on 26 Oct, 2016 18:52
-
FYI: Note the resemblance of interferometers to resonant cavities...
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/a-primer-on-gravitational-wave-detectors -
#2046 by Rodal on 26 Oct, 2016 18:54
-
...I don't recall if this was accounted for in the original Eagleworks documentation, but can we be sure that the higher dissipation effects of Neoprene weren't offset by a detrimentally altered resonance condition?
No, we certainly cannot be sure of that since these results were not even documented in a publication. Just like everything in the EM Drive the experiments are at an early stage and conducted at facilities that do not have ample resources, but we can operate from the point of view that NASA was trying to get the best thrust possible, and using their instruments and analysis (e.g. vector network analyzer, COMSOL FEA analysis of S11 and S12, etc.) to verify resonance and that they selected HDPE and PTFE, and concluded that Neoprene was no good, based on those results and analysis. -
#2047 by meems on 26 Oct, 2016 18:58
-
Also Shawyer argued against dissipation inside the cavity as being a good thing:
Depends. If the electron density in the cavity is high, then they can support a steeper electric field gradient, then its ok to have higher dissipation. Sounds like Shawyer's cavity has low electron density, so he needs low dissipation end plates.
Are there any good thrusts with medium to high dissipation plates?
I note a lack of discussion of cavity gas. Different gases at different pressures may support different electron densities and alter electric field gradients. -
#2048 by Rodal on 26 Oct, 2016 19:01
-
...I note a lack of discussion of cavity gas. Different gases at different pressures may support different electron densities and alter electric field gradients.
They were discussed in previous threads. I pointed out that early Masers were using Ammonia that emits at 24 GHz and this is the same frequency of operation as the Baby EM Drive of Aachen. More than a year after that nobody has tried different gases in EM Drives to my knowledge, particularly the Aachen group, who was testing at this 24 GHz frequency just with air inside the cavity. -
#2049 by SeeShells on 26 Oct, 2016 19:06
-
FYI: Note the resemblance of interferometers to resonant cavities...
And ever since they announced some preliminary data and testing of the White–Juday warp-field interferometer it has went quiet. I would love to hear more and as I'm sure many would as well.
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/a-primer-on-gravitational-wave-detectors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White%E2%80%93Juday_warp-field_interferometer#Interferometer_experiment_with_an_EmDrive
Best....
Shell -
#2050 by Rodal on 26 Oct, 2016 19:11
-
...I don't recall if this was accounted for in the original Eagleworks documentation, but can we be sure that the higher dissipation effects of Neoprene weren't offset by a detrimentally altered resonance condition?
No, we certainly cannot be sure of that since these results were not even documented in a publication. Just like everything in the EM Drive the experiments are at an early stage and conducted at facilities that do not have ample resources, but we can operate from the point of view that NASA was trying to get the best thrust possible, and using their instruments and analysis (e.g. vector network analyzer, COMSOL FEA analysis of S11 and S12, etc.) to verify resonance and that they selected HDPE and PTFE, and concluded that Neoprene was no good, based on those results and analysis.
My recollection (I could be wrong) is that when NASA used the much more lossy Neoprene rubber in the EW copper truncated cone in place of the HDPE or PTFE dielectric discs the TM212 resonance collapsed and they could not see a thing in regards to force generation.
The peak E-fields in the truncated cone have to-be above a certain minimum value, or these thrusters just don’t work.
(I suppose one could just crank up the power past the nominal 30W NASA had available at the time to get the required minimum E-field levels, but that was not an option at the time, - circa 2014-, but even if you would do that it does not appear to me that that would lead to a superior figure of merit, which is force/InputPower )
Much more impressive to me would be for NASA to pursue TE012 with HDPE because they were able to obtain 55 microNewton forces with only 2.6 watts with that mode shape.
Also NASA obtained the highest Q with that mode shape TE012 (instead of the lower Q with TM212).
....nope, the EM Drive data is indeed confusive... but if there is a common thread that emerges from Shawyer+NASA+Yang+Tajmar is that the higher Q the better and that TE modes are better than TM modes, and therefore one wants low dissipation, instead of high dissipation... -
#2051 by SeeShells on 26 Oct, 2016 19:18
-
One difference is that these different dielectrics with different numbers that some are comprised of chiral molecular chains ... Dr. Rodal, want to comment?...I don't recall if this was accounted for in the original Eagleworks documentation, but can we be sure that the higher dissipation effects of Neoprene weren't offset by a detrimentally altered resonance condition?
No, we certainly cannot be sure of that since these results were not even documented in a publication. Just like everything in the EM Drive the experiments are at an early stage and conducted at facilities that do not have ample resources, but we can operate from the point of view that NASA was trying to get the best thrust possible, and using their instruments and analysis (e.g. vector network analyzer, COMSOL FEA analysis of S11 and S12, etc.) to verify resonance and that they selected HDPE and PTFE, and concluded that Neoprene was no good, based on those results and analysis.
My recollection (I could be wrong) is that when NASA used the much more lossy Neoprene rubber in the EW copper truncated cone in place of the HDPE or PTFE dielectric discs the TM212 resonance collapsed and they could not see a thing in regards to force generation.
The peak E-fields in the truncated cone have to-be above a certain minimum value, or these thrusters just don’t work.
(I suppose one could just crank up the power past the nominal 30W NASA had available at the time to get the required minimum E-field levels, but that was not an option at the time, - circa 2014-, but even if you would do that it does not appear to me that that would lead to a superior figure of merit, which is force/InputPower )
Much more impressive to me would be for NASA to pursue TE012 with HDPE because they were able to obtain forces with only 2 watts with that mode shape
Shell
simple correction...
-
#2052 by WarpTech on 26 Oct, 2016 21:31
-
...
Regarding the NASA test at TM010 mode from 2014. Everything seems to work as I would expect when adding dielectric disks.
1. With no dielectric insert in the frustum, it accelerates toward the small end at +58.2 uN. This I’ll take as a given based on the experimental data. As such, I expect there to be more dissipation at the big end.
2. Next, when they added the PE disk to the small end, the thrust was nullified. So adding more dissipation at the small end reversed the gradient as it should, and the thrust reversed direction, to -7.7 uN toward the big end.
3. Next, when they added the PTFE to the big end, the thrust toward the small end improved, to +138.4 uN as it should per my theory.
So the data in these experiments is in agreement with what my theory would predict. If the dissipation at one end is increased, the thrust is increased toward the other end.
Note: By "thrust" I mean the direction the frustum is moving.
Todd
Concerning more dissipation, what happens with your theoretical prediction when you run Neoprene as a polymer insert instead of PTFE or HDPE in NASA's truncated cone?
dielectric tan delta
Polychloroprene {"Neoprene"): 0.03400 @ 3 GHz
PTFE ("Teflon") 0.00028 @ 3 GHz
HDPE 0.00031 @ 3 GHz
Neoprene has a tan delta more than 100 times greater than the one for HDPE and PTFE
NASA Eagleworks run Neoprene instead of HDPE and PTFE and got very bad force results, this argues against dielectric dissipation, as the dissipation with Neoprene is 100 times greater.
And what distinguishes polymer dielectrics like HDPE and PTFE is that they have very small dielectric dissipation in comparison with other polymers.
There are other reasons (for example electrostriction) that could make HDPE and PTFE work. While dissipation, in light of these data does not seem to be one of them...
Also Shawyer argued against dissipation inside the cavity as being a good thing: he got rid of all dielectrics with the argument that they lower Q because of dissipation...
There are two parts to my thrust equation. Mass and Acceleration. The mass part is ~Q, the acceleration part ~ (1/Q)*d(log(Q))/dr.
A large mass and small acceleration, with a higher Q value, I would say has more "inertia". It can do more work with the energy stored. Just like two filters with the same resonance frequency. The one that has a low Q doesn't have much affect, but the other filter with a high Q has a great deal affect. Increasing the dissipation too much, such as with Neoprene or microwave absorbers, causes the cavity to become over-damped There is no mass to fall down the gravity well, since it won't sustain the oscillation with the given amount of input power to build up a significant amount of stored energy. My gravity model is based on the oscillator being under-damped, not over-damped, so the data fits my theory of how the EM Drive works. My theory does not account for things like electrostriction. How would electrostriction affect gravity? I do not know.
Like gravity, we want a small acceleration and large mass falling down the gravity well, in order to generate a greater change in the inertia of the frustum. Engineering something like this involves compromise, between one effect and the other.
Todd
-
#2053 by Rodal on 26 Oct, 2016 21:58
-
...
There are two parts to my thrust equation. Mass and Acceleration. The mass part is ~Q, the acceleration part ~ (1/Q)*d(log(Q))/dr.
A large mass and small acceleration, with a higher Q value, I would say has more "inertia". It can do more work with the energy stored. Just like two filters with the same resonance frequency. The one that has a low Q doesn't have much affect, but the other filter with a high Q has a great deal affect. Increasing the dissipation too much, such as with Neoprene or microwave absorbers, causes the cavity to become over-damped There is no mass to fall down the gravity well, since it won't sustain the oscillation with the given amount of input power to build up a significant amount of stored energy. My gravity model is based on the oscillator being under-damped, not over-damped, so the data fits my theory of how the EM Drive works. My theory does not account for things like electrostriction. How would electrostriction affect gravity? I do not know.
Like gravity, we want a small acceleration and large mass falling down the gravity well, in order to generate a greater change in the inertia of the frustum. Engineering something like this involves compromise, between one effect and the other.
Todd
Well, that is a conceptual discussion. It remains to show numerically what magnitude of actual physical properties like tan delta will be required for your theory to show overdamping. At the moment there is no way to tell. There are many possibilities: perhaps your theory will not show overdamping even with Neoprene. Perhaps your theory will show overdamping for any polymer, with HDPE, PTFE and Neoprene, all of them. No way to tell until there is a numerical formula to calculate thrust based on actual material properties...
The theory is not yet as mature as McCulloch's, Shawyer's and Notsosureofit, who have actual design formulas to calculate thrust based on actual physical parameters. Your theory may turn out to be the real thing, or it may turn out to be identical to one or more of them...
We are witnessing the development of your theory in real time, like a reality show
(interesting to watch 
)
Regarding electrostriction and gravitation, the Mach Effect theory of Woodward and Fearn is based on the theory of gravitation of Hoyle and Narlikar, or actually just based on general relavitivity plus advanced waves, where electrostriction is used in present experiments to give a 2 omega excitation in addition to the excitation at frequency omega that can be provided by a piezoelectric effect or independently by other means. In the case of the EM Drive, one could conceive of an excitation at frequency omega of the electromagnetic fields and a separate excitation at 2 omega resulting from the electrostriction effect in the HDPE or PTFE polymer insert, or just the electrostiction in the copper material skin depth. -
#2054 by WarpTech on 26 Oct, 2016 22:36
-
...
There are two parts to my thrust equation. Mass and Acceleration. The mass part is ~Q, the acceleration part ~ (1/Q)*d(log(Q))/dr.
A large mass and small acceleration, with a higher Q value, I would say has more "inertia". It can do more work with the energy stored. Just like two filters with the same resonance frequency. The one that has a low Q doesn't have much affect, but the other filter with a high Q has a great deal affect. Increasing the dissipation too much, such as with Neoprene or microwave absorbers, causes the cavity to become over-damped There is no mass to fall down the gravity well, since it won't sustain the oscillation with the given amount of input power to build up a significant amount of stored energy. My gravity model is based on the oscillator being under-damped, not over-damped, so the data fits my theory of how the EM Drive works. My theory does not account for things like electrostriction. How would electrostriction affect gravity? I do not know.
Like gravity, we want a small acceleration and large mass falling down the gravity well, in order to generate a greater change in the inertia of the frustum. Engineering something like this involves compromise, between one effect and the other.
Todd
Well, that is a conceptual discussion. It remains to show numerically what magnitude of actual physical properties like tan delta will be required for your theory to show overdamping. At the moment there is no way to tell. There are many possibilities: perhaps your theory will not show overdamping even with Neoprene. Perhaps your theory will show overdamping for any polymer, with HDPE, PTFE and Neoprene, all of them. No way to tell until there is a numerical formula to calculate thrust based on actual material properties...
The theory is not yet as mature as McCulloch's, Shawyer's and Notsosureofit, who have actual design formulas to calculate thrust based on actual physical parameters. Your theory may turn out to be the real thing, or it may turn out to be identical to one or more of them...
We are witnessing the development of your theory in real time, like a reality show (interesting to watch )
Regarding electrostriction and gravitation, the Mach Effect theory of Woodward and Fearn is based on the theory of gravitation of Hoyle and Narlikar, or actually just based on general relavitivity plus advanced waves, where electrostriction is used in present experiments to give a 2 omega excitation in addition to the excitation at frequency omega that can be provided by a piezoelectric effect or independently by other means. In the case of the EM Drive, one could conceive of an excitation at frequency omega of the electromagnetic fields and a separate excitation at 2 omega resulting from the electrostriction effect in the HDPE or PTFE polymer insert, or just the electrostiction in the copper material skin depth.
Energy density in the EM drive oscillates at 2 omega, since it is a scalar magnitude. The E, B and S vectors oscillate at omega. So the 2 omega effect is present in the EM Drive too. The effect of energy density on matter is similar to electrostriction. It contracts as the magnitude of energy density increases, but the effect is negligible small I think.
The fact that adding the PE disk to the small end nullified the thrust, would imply that the asymmetry in dissipation of the empty frustum alone is on the same order of magnitude as the PE disk.
The overdamping condition may simply be due to not enough driving power. Neoprene might work well if the input source were driving it at 1000W, or 10,000W. I agree and I wish I had the know how to do material science and make predictions based on this. I think the only way to really test it would be to drive up the input power until we have the same amount of stored energy in the cavity, (the same mass) for each different dissipation factor or dielectric insert. Otherwise, both halves of my equation are varying. We need to keep mass constant or acceleration constant, to determine the behavior of each, per my equations and that's not easy.
-
#2055 by Rodal on 26 Oct, 2016 23:02
-
...Energy density in the EM drive oscillates at 2 omega, since it is a scalar magnitude. The E, B and S vectors oscillate at omega. So the 2 omega effect is present in the EM Drive too. The effect of energy density on matter is similar to electrostriction. It contracts as the magnitude of energy density increases, but the effect is negligible small I think....
Yes, the energy density, and the Maxwell stress, and the Poynting vector are all oscillating at 2 omega where omega is the frequency of the electromagnetic fields. The E field at omega produces an electrostrictive strain (and hence an elastic stress) on the HDPE or the PTFE also at frequency 2 omega.
Both the electromagnetic forces (Maxwell stress and Poynting vector) and the electrostrictive forces are all acting at the same frequency 2 omega.
The electrostrictive force is out of phase with the electromagnetic force (due to tan delta) a very small amount (delta), which does give a small effect
Tan delta
PTFE ("Teflon") 0.00028 @ 3 GHz
HDPE 0.00031 @ 3 GHz
So delta is only 0.016 degrees (1/62 of a degree), 0.018% of 90 degrees -
#2056 by meems on 26 Oct, 2016 23:53
-
>Like gravity, we want a small acceleration and large mass falling down the gravity well
I've been reading the posts between Warp and Rodal. And this sentence sums it for me. Its a mystery.
What the heck has gravity got to do with emdrive?!
A large mass falling down a gravity well? emdrive?!
You discuss several of the fields in the cavity, but to what effect, you never seem to go anywhere with it. How do you propose the activity in the cavity is resulting in thrust? -
#2057 by Rodal on 27 Oct, 2016 00:03
-
Since there are new members asking questions about the EM Drive, this may be a good time to reproduce again Notsosureofit's immortal poem about the EM Drive:
A FABLE FOR SOME OTHER TIME
Chapter 1.
In a quiet inertial frame between galaxies far, far away, Turtle and Rabbit (T&R Space Movers, LLC)
were floating in their space transport, "Firebug", a refurbished shipping container carrying recycled
bricks from the remains of (the now sunken) New York City.
Rabbit said, "Turtle, I want to to aim my Hubble telescope (bought cheap at the NASA bankrupcy
auction) at that pretty star over there. What say I throw some bricks from one corner of the
ship to get this thing rotating into position."
"Not so fast", said Turtle. (her favorite expression) "If you do that, you'll have to throw more
bricks in the opposite direction when you want it to stop. Besides, I don't want you to
throwing our cargo overboard whenever you feel like it."
"Then how else can I point my telescope ?" said Rabbit.
"Well, I have this little gadget...." said Turtle.
"That's your antique disk drive" said Rabbit, "How is that supposed to help me turn the ship?"
Turtle settled in for a bit, "I can use this thing to store energy in a spinning disk. It
doesn't lose very much and I can always input a certain amount of power to overcome those losses
and maintain a given angular frequency and by extension, a given angular momentum."
"Huh ?" said Rabbit, "I'm an oscillator guy, myself. You know, back and forth, fast!"
"Ok, ok" said Turtle, "Think of the atoms in the spinning disk as undergoing oscillation in each
of two dimensions, x and y, at the same frequency and 90 degrees apart in phase. Forget about z
and t for the moment."
Rabbit thinks for a moment and says, "Mmmm, well I guess the energy stored would be proportional to the amount
of power you have to be putting in times the Q of the oscillator."
"Right!" said Turtle, " And the amount of stored energy determines the rate at which the ship
will rotate in the opposite direction to the disk. When you stop the disk, you stop the ship.
You've changed your frame of reference to the "fixed" stars, all due to the Conservation of
Angular Momentum."
"Oh goody!" says Rabbit, "Now I can get a good look at that star."
Chapter 2.
Bye n' bye, as Turtle was trying to listen to her favorite recording, "A Window in Time", (Sergei
Rachmaninoff performs his solo piano works)
she could not help but notice that Rabbit was
becoming increasingly frustrated over at his telescope.
"What seems to be the matter this time?", she asked.
"It's this star! It's too red! I really didn't want to ask, but can I throw some bricks out
the back and shorten those stellar wavelengths a bit?"
Turtle hated to repeat herself, "No! We've been over this. I don't want you wasting our bricks!"
"But I really want to be able to see more of that star." said Rabbit, "Isn't there anything else
I could do ?"
"Well, I have this little gadget...." said Turtle.
"Oh no, not this time." said Rabbit, "Your little trick with the disk worked to rotate the ship,
and frustratingly slow at that, but I need to make it move! You know, the whole displacement,
velocity, acceleration bit."
"Calm down." said Turtle, "It really isn't that much different. You already know that
acceleration is just a rotation that includes t as one of the two axes."
"But, but ...." stammered Rabbit.
"And, you already know that if we make an oscillator in those two dimensions we can store an
amount of energy proportional to power times Q."
"Yeah, but ...." continued Rabbit.
"And, you already know that the ship will continue to accelerate as long as we maintain that
stored energy in the oscillator." said Turtle.
"Now just a carrot pickin' minute here." said Rabbit, "That's just an old tin flowerpot from the
trash, a fryin' pan lid and parts from the cooker in the galley! It doesn't even have a disk!"
Turtle smiled, "We don't need the disk. We can use the standing electro-magnetic waves and the
charged particles in the walls as the pair of oscillators for the two axes."
"How's that again ?" said Rabbit "Don't we need that 90 degree phase shift as well?"
"Why do you think that's a flower pot rather than one of those big cans of veggies you're so
fond of ? The electrons and photons are doing a little dance together, so all we need to do is
get them a bit behind or ahead. We don't have to have exactly 90 degrees, but that would be
best"
"You really believe this will work ?" said Rabbit.
"I think it will." said Turtle, putting on her best smile, "but I'm not so sure of it."
-
#2058 by WarpTech on 27 Oct, 2016 00:23
-
>Like gravity, we want a small acceleration and large mass falling down the gravity well
I've been reading the posts between Warp and Rodal. And this sentence sums it for me. Its a mystery.
What the heck has gravity got to do with emdrive?!
A large mass falling down a gravity well? emdrive?!
You discuss several of the fields in the cavity, but to what effect, you never seem to go anywhere with it. How do you propose the activity in the cavity is resulting in thrust?
Actually, you have to read my work to understand it.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1596708#msg1596708
The only difference between what was written then and what we are discussing now, is that in the Damping Factor, I am now proposing a gradient in the decay time of the stored energy rather than a gradient in the frequency, since per Maxwell's equations, the mode frequency is a constant throughout the cavity. I'm working on the re-write for journal publication, which will streamline this whole presentation.
-
#2059 by rfmwguy on 27 Oct, 2016 01:05
-
Perhaps mode frequency is a key parameter. Will test this out next year. Displacement forces died out when my magnetron failed to approach resonance. U might want to keep this option open just in case...>Like gravity, we want a small acceleration and large mass falling down the gravity well
I've been reading the posts between Warp and Rodal. And this sentence sums it for me. Its a mystery.
What the heck has gravity got to do with emdrive?!
A large mass falling down a gravity well? emdrive?!
You discuss several of the fields in the cavity, but to what effect, you never seem to go anywhere with it. How do you propose the activity in the cavity is resulting in thrust?
Actually, you have to read my work to understand it.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1596708#msg1596708
The only difference between what was written then and what we are discussing now, is that in the Damping Factor, I am now proposing a gradient in the decay time of the stored energy rather than a gradient in the frequency, since per Maxwell's equations, the mode frequency is a constant throughout the cavity. I'm working on the re-write for journal publication, which will streamline this whole presentation.
(interesting to watch 
)