-
#2080 by RotoSequence on 27 Oct, 2016 13:47
-
>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?!
With all due respect to Warp and Rodal, who no doubt know far more than I about many things, gravity, due to the infinitesimal value of the gravitation constant / coupling constant G, is irrelevant. Its about unbalanced EM radiation pressure as a consequence of a slow traveling wave in a dispersive, dissipative waveguide that exhibits negative inertial resistance.
I have discussed this in past posts, nobody listens. Folks would rather chat about gravity, new particles and new physics than looking at the same 'ol physics we've had for decades. Probably in no small part because Shawyer's work is incomplete, and he's probably keeping trade secrets.
But what he has written, and his equations, are worth a good, hard look.
Known physics has been given its due diligence. If EM Drive works, it is because of new physics, full stop. The accepted body of known physics cannot explain it.
I sincerely hope no one listens to any statement that they should stop thinking about their theories on the grounds of their new ideas being an affront to the established order of physics, rather than on their individual merits. -
#2081 by Rodal on 27 Oct, 2016 13:47
-
>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?!
With all due respect to Warp and Rodal, who no doubt know far more than I about many things, gravity, due to the infinitesimal value of the gravitation constant / coupling constant G, is irrelevant. Its about unbalanced EM radiation pressure as a consequence of a slow traveling wave in a dispersive, dissipative waveguide that exhibits negative inertial resistance.
I have discussed this in past posts, nobody listens. Folks would rather chat about gravity, new particles and new physics than looking at the same 'ol physics we've had for decades. Probably in no small part because Shawyer's work is incomplete, and he's probably keeping trade secrets.
But what he has written, and his equations, are worth a good, hard look.
1) Please properly and mathematically address Conservation of Momentum and Conservation of Energy arguments.
Any theory that considers the EM Drive experimental clams must address these conservation principles.
2) No theory solely based on Special Relativity and Maxwell's equations can explain self-acceleration of the EM Drive as a closed cavity, closed system as proposed by Shawyer. See Noether's theorem.
Gravitation is one of the few external fields that can penetrate the closed copper cavity, and escape the conservation of momentum and conservation of energy arguments. Thus it is natural, and not surprising that would enter physical justifications for EM Drive experimental claims, for people seriously considering, and not ignoring, conservation principles.
3) As an example, that the size of G may be a non-sequitur, Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravitation leads to an expression for Mach effect inertial effects where G appears in the denominator, rather than the numerator. This turns your qualitative argument about the size of G, literally upside down. Also see Brans-Dicke theory of gravitation as posited by StrongGR. -
#2082 by PotomacNeuron on 27 Oct, 2016 13:54
-
>How about a gradient in radiation pressure, very analogous to the pressure gradient in a rocket nozzle?
I don't understand how that would work independently of the cavity electron plasma, they are 2 aspects of the same mechanism. The cavity electrons are hit by radiation, then these electrons knock into the big end plate. And why would there be a gradient in radiation pressure if the radiation wasn't being absorbed by electrons?
So yes, we can talk about a radiation pressure gradient, but unless you can say why this wouldn't involve the cavity electron plasma, I think its best to refer to the electrons. Results from the cavity readings show electron current is being driven into the big end plate - presumably by radiation pressure.
>Chill and be nice please.
Sure. I'm happy to leave it alone. I accept its just me, everyone else likes Warp's theory.
No, you are not alone. I selectively read posts I am interested in, mostly posts about experiments. My highest physics education is at 2nd year college level in a physics department. I ignore all posts that have terminology beyond that level. [update] I also ignore theoretical posts that are within my ability and I think are wrong.Quote> Even with these credentials I'm humiliated by the brain power and talents here.
Emdrive science is being led by experimenters like yourself SeaShells, not by the theorists. Its you that have humiliated them, not the other way round. According to Shawyer, theorists have had 60 years to master emdrive theory, instead for the most part they said it couldn't be done. Don't be quick to attribute be-dazzlement by their maths to their being smarter than you. -
#2083 by meems on 27 Oct, 2016 13:57
-
Please. I like you're reasoning. If you offend believers, you'll cause trouble and get censored and perhaps leave in a huff as others have. But feel free to message me, and we'll share some laughs.
When my email works again, that is, its broke now
Sure mwvp, I hope we can have some fruitful exchanges, from what I've red so far, we might be the leading theorists on this forum. So lets keep up the discussion. Can you point me to your own theory? -
#2084 by WarpTech on 27 Oct, 2016 13:58
-
>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?!
With all due respect to Warp and Rodal, who no doubt know far more than I about many things, gravity, due to the infinitesimal value of the gravitation constant / coupling constant G, is irrelevant. Its about unbalanced EM radiation pressure as a consequence of a slow traveling wave in a dispersive, dissipative waveguide that exhibits negative inertial resistance.
I have discussed this in past posts, nobody listens. Folks would rather chat about gravity, new particles and new physics than looking at the same 'ol physics we've had for decades. Probably in no small part because Shawyer's work is incomplete, and he's probably keeping trade secrets.
But what he has written, and his equations, are worth a good, hard look.
The effects of gravity on the wave functions of matter is "identical" to dispersion. They are NOT unrelated. I'm starting from Dicke's Polarizable Vacuum Lagrangian Density, from 1957. This model has been in the development since then, and I've been working on it for over 30 years. It's not something I just cooked up for the EM Drive. It has been an evolving work for decades, and not just by me.
See: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1583932#msg1583932
for a list of references, not all mine. I'm not trying to replace GR, I'm only trying to show how we can mimic the same effects within the frustum using EM, and the equations I wrote do exactly that. Similarly is how Buckingham Pi theory works, and that is how engineering is done from scratch with nothing else to go by.
-
#2085 by mwvp on 27 Oct, 2016 14:01
-
>How about a gradient in radiation pressure, very analogous to the pressure gradient in a rocket nozzle?
I don't understand how that would work independently of the cavity electron plasma, they are 2 aspects of the same mechanism. The cavity electrons are hit by radiation, then these electrons knock into the big end plate. And why would there be a gradient in radiation pressure if the radiation wasn't being absorbed by electrons?
So yes, we can talk about a radiation pressure gradient, but unless you can say why this wouldn't involve the cavity electron plasma, I think its best to refer to the electrons. Results from the cavity readings show electron current is being driven into the big end plate - presumably by radiation pressure.
Cavity electron-plasma? I'll assume you refer to the (Fermi-gas?) currents induced in a metallic waveguide. An incident EM wave induces an opposing current in the electron plasma of the waveguide (Lenz' law? Biot-Savart? Lorentz force? I forget) hence, radiation pressure.
Back to relativity, the EM wave propagating in the waveguide acts as an absolute inertial frame, which the frustrum is reacting against as the frustrum undergoes acceleration; hence negative inertial resistance. It's like a tube full of marbles; when its tipped the marbles roll and increase the tilting. No acceleration, no thrust.
The heat is from copper-losses, I^2 R loss, due to the induced currents. When I talk microwaves, I talk current and fields.
-
#2086 by mwvp on 27 Oct, 2016 14:12
-
...
1) Please properly and mathematically address...
Put-up or shut-up? Maybe I'll get around to it, and then you'll be sorry
...2) No theory solely based on Special Relativity and Maxwell's equations can explain self-acceleration of the EM Drive as a closed cavity, closed system as proposed by Shawyer. See Noether's theorem.
The cavity isn't closed. Heat is escaping, and the losses can be frequency selective, filtering the lower sideband, resulting in imbalance under acceleration.
When has any sort of dynamic analysis of an accelerated frustrum been done? How about just an accelerating horn antenna radiation pressure?Gravitation is one of the few external fields that can penetrate the closed copper cavity, and escape the conservation of momentum and conservation of energy arguments. Thus it is natural, and not surprising that would enter physical justifications for EM Drive experimental claims, for people seriously considering, and not ignoring, conservation principles.
3) As an example, that the size of G may be a non-sequitur, Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravitation leads to an expression for Mach effect inertial effects where G appears in the denominator, rather than the numerator. This turns your qualitative argument about the size of G, literally upside down. Also see Brans-Dicke theory of gravitation as posited by StrongGR.
If so, I will stand corrected, shocked and amazed, and pleased for the possibilities now afforded us
-
#2087 by Notsosureofit on 27 Oct, 2016 14:17
-
The effects of gravity on the wave functions of matter is "identical" to dispersion. They are NOT unrelated. I'm starting from Dicke's Polarizable Vacuum Lagrangian Density, from 1957. This model has been in the development since then, and I've been working on it for over 30 years. It's not something I just cooked up for the EM Drive. It has been an evolving work for decades, and not just by me.
Probably should point out that the constant speed of light, c, and the electrical impedance of the vacuum (check this rfmguy 377 ohms ?) have only been extrapolated down to wavelengths of the order of the Plank length. The speed of gravitational radiation has only been qualitatively measured at the very longest wavelengths. (I leave the implications to the reader) -
#2088 by mwvp on 27 Oct, 2016 14:18
-
...Sure mwvp, I hope we can have some fruitful exchanges, from what I've red so far, we might be the leading theorists on this forum. So lets keep up the discussion. Can you point me to your own theory?
Times running short now, but I've posted it in months past. You'll find it by searching on my name and a phrase like "negative inertial resistance", dissipative, dispersive. I've got lots of interesting references I've collected, many from very clever folks here. Such as:
arxiv 1005.5467 about dispersion, and "cavity optomechanics" that describes laser doppler cooling, and most significantly, instability. More later... -
#2089 by SeeShells on 27 Oct, 2016 14:18
-
>Chill and be nice please.
Sure. I'm happy to leave it alone. I accept its just me, everyone else likes Warp's theory.
> Even with these credentials I'm humiliated by the brain power and talents here.
Emdrive science is being led by experimenters like yourself SeaShells, not by the theorists. Its you that have humiliated them, not the other way round. According to Shawyer, theorists have had 60 years to master emdrive theory, instead for the most part they said it couldn't be done. Don't be quick to attribute be-dazzlement by their maths to their being smarter than you.
“I ask not for any crown
But that which all may win;
Nor try to conquer any world
Except the one within.”
― Louisa May Alcott...
I have this printed out and hanging on my wall.
Shell -
#2090 by Rodal on 27 Oct, 2016 14:22
-
...
This thread is about << EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications>> so let's consider the proposed EM Drive in the partial vacuum of space. Then it can be shown that the heat escapes as thermal radiation. And one can readily shown that such propulsion (by heat radiation) is much less effective than a perfectly collimated photon rocket....2) No theory solely based on Special Relativity and Maxwell's equations can explain self-acceleration of the EM Drive as a closed cavity, closed system as proposed by Shawyer. See Noether's theorem.
The cavity isn't closed. Heat is escaping, and the losses can be frequency selective, filtering the lower sideband, resulting in imbalance under acceleration.
...
But the experimental claims of EM Drive experimenters is that the force/InputPower is orders of magnitude greater than that of a perfectly collimated photon-rocket....
When has any sort of dynamic analysis of an accelerated frustrum been done? How about just an accelerating horn antenna radiation pressure?
...
It can be shown that the dynamic magnification factor can be a factor of 2 for transient problems.
That is a long way away from addressing the experimental claims of EM Drive experimenters of several orders of magnitude greater force/InputPower than a perfectly collimated photon rocket. -
#2091 by mwvp on 27 Oct, 2016 14:25
-
The effects of gravity on the wave functions of matter is "identical" to dispersion. They are NOT unrelated.
Agreed, its just the magnitude I've got a hard time accepting. Until I recently read Macken's "Only Spacetime", I wouldn't have understood what you meant by our rulers shrinking to account for the apparent Hubble expansion. Dark energy? Really? I try to keep an open mind without my brains falling out.
-
#2092 by Gilbertdrive on 27 Oct, 2016 14:28
-
> For a counter example i give you this: SMASH
>Thinking an untested theory can be a counter example to anything real
Isn't there just a slight, tingling doubt somewhere in back of your mind, or are you sure you've just circumvented a rule of science and engineering thats as old as history?
>Then Mike McCulloch's related his MiHsC dark matter theory to EmDrive.
Then Mike McCulloch's related his MiHsC dark matter theory to EmDrive.
[Then Mike McCulloch's related his MiHsC dark matter theory to EmDrive.
oh my god.
There are dozens of counter examples. I think that you confound pure enginering problems, and "new physics" problems.
In most of enginering problems, the laws of physics are not in question. Designing a 3 million spares Saturn V meant thousands or millions of enginering problems (bigs or smalls) that were resoluted. Here the approach divide and conquer is perfect.
But, when you get an experiment that violates the standard laws of physics, you have to look together the laws and the experiment. It is not about only enginering, it is about new physics and non standard enginering.
In fact, at the contrary of what you are saying, the progress of the knowledge of physical laws, were very often with several different experiments.
For example, the Copernicus revolution. It was not about just one phenomenon. It was about the movements of all knowns planets. And these movements were different for each one. the internal planets were obeying different rules than external planets. The copernicus theory, with only one rule, explained all these movements. It was not more precise than the epicycles. In fact, using circles, it was less precise, but it explained all movements by the same law.
Later, came Newton. With the law of gravity, he explained at the same time the movement of the planets around the sun, and the apple falling of the tree, that were considered like two totally different phenomenons before.
When the periodical classification of elements was made, it was also taking into account dozens of different atoms at the same time. If each atom had been considered like a separated problem, how would have been possible an atomic theory ?
In 1844, William Robert Grove postulated a relationship between mechanics, heat, light, electricity and magnetism by treating them all as manifestations of a single "force" (energy in modern terms)
Here also, very different phenomenons, linked together by a new theory !
Later, The famous E=MC^2 linked mass, and energy, that were precedently considered like separated, explaining at the same time very different things.
And in General Relativity, time, gravity, and the metric are linked ! All things that were considered like different a century ago.
So, at the opposite of what you say, explaining different things with one theory is a good thing in theoretical approach. And once the new theory is validated, it help engineers to do the work. Of course, bridges could be constructed before that gravity was discovered, and before strength of materials was theorized, but it helps to construct lighther and bigger bridges.
Emdrive is not only an enginering problem, it is a new physics problem. You can not solve a new physics problem without speaking of physical laws. It is logically impossible. We are not speaking of building a new bridge, we are speaking of a device that violates standard physics. Any attempt to explain how the emdrive works needs at least a new law or a modified law. One experiment, one law. It is the minimum here. If you don't like the idea of modifying gravity, what physical law would you modify ?
Once again, I have no personal opinion about the precise Todd Theory, what is still in the earlier stages of developpement, but IMHO gravity is a good candidate. -
#2093 by TheTraveller on 27 Oct, 2016 14:31
-
Nice video of the Flight Thruster which shows the "Tuning Port":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUX8EWxmS3k&feature=youtu.be&t=553
Seems to be very light, so it is probably Aluminum based. -
#2094 by mwvp on 27 Oct, 2016 14:42
-
It just occurred to me, perhaps Shawyer got a "that's odd!" moment when he noticed a satellite undergoing anomalous acceleration when both a thruster AND targeting radar, feeding a horn antenna, were both on at once?
Perhaps there are birds already up such a test could be run on? But it would need to have an appropriate horn antenna. -
#2095 by Notsosureofit on 27 Oct, 2016 14:45
-
It just occurred to me, perhaps Shawyer got a "that's odd!" moment when he noticed a satellite undergoing anomalous acceleration when both a thruster AND targeting radar, feeding a horn antenna, were both on at once?
Perhaps there are birds already up such a test could be run on? But it would need to have an appropriate horn antenna.
There certainly were birds up there in the past, but used for atmospheric to near orbit measurements. -
#2096 by meems on 27 Oct, 2016 14:47
-
Back to relativity, the EM wave propagating in the waveguide acts as an absolute inertial frame, which the frustrum is reacting against as the frustrum undergoes acceleration; hence negative inertial resistance. It's like a tube full of marbles; when its tipped the marbles roll and increase the tilting. No acceleration, no thrust.
I get logic that the tapering waveguide slows the light down, and that the frustum could feel a 'spooky' reaction force because lightspeed is supposed to be c in its reference frame.
But for that I don't see why there needs to be a cavity, or resonance, or one wavelength. Why not just shoot miscellaneous photons down an open ended tapering waveguide, each of which slows down, each of which spookily pulls the waveguide due to need to preserve lightspeed of the photons in its reference frame? -
#2097 by Notsosureofit on 27 Oct, 2016 14:57
-
arxiv 1005.5467 about dispersion, and "cavity optomechanics" that describes laser doppler cooling, and most significantly, instability.
An excellent reference, particularly chapter 6 in reference to Todd's work. -
#2098 by TheTraveller on 27 Oct, 2016 15:00
-
Back to relativity, the EM wave propagating in the waveguide acts as an absolute inertial frame, which the frustrum is reacting against as the frustrum undergoes acceleration; hence negative inertial resistance. It's like a tube full of marbles; when its tipped the marbles roll and increase the tilting. No acceleration, no thrust.
I get logic that the tapering waveguide slows the light down, and that the frustum could feel a 'spooky' reaction force because lightspeed is supposed to be c in its reference frame.
But for that I don't see why there needs to be a cavity, or resonance, or one wavelength. Why not just shoot miscellaneous photons down an open ended tapering waveguide, each of which slows down, each of which spookily pulls the waveguide due to need to preserve lightspeed of the photons in its reference frame?
EmWave cavity energy is based on Q * power. What you suggested is just power as no resonance to build Q. So would probably work but at very low efficiency. -
#2099 by WarpTech on 27 Oct, 2016 15:00
-
Back to relativity, the EM wave propagating in the waveguide acts as an absolute inertial frame, which the frustrum is reacting against as the frustrum undergoes acceleration; hence negative inertial resistance. It's like a tube full of marbles; when its tipped the marbles roll and increase the tilting. No acceleration, no thrust.
I get logic that the tapering waveguide slows the light down, and that the frustum could feel a 'spooky' reaction force because lightspeed is supposed to be c in its reference frame.
But for that I don't see why there needs to be a cavity, or resonance, or one wavelength. Why not just shoot miscellaneous photons down an open ended tapering waveguide, each of which slows down, each of which spookily pulls the waveguide due to need to preserve lightspeed of the photons in its reference frame?
Because it's not the shape that does it. It's the "relative" amount of energy that is stored there. The Q at the small end is higher than the Q at the big end, "equivalent to" there being a higher refractive index, "K", such that c/Kb < c/Ks < c
where b is "big end" and s is "small end".
So sending one photon at a time down a tapered wave guide isn't going to do it. Having a resonant cavity that concentrates stored energy asymmetrically will.
