-
#2100
by
TheTraveller
on 27 Oct, 2016 15:04
-
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.
AFAIW he was working on an issue having to do with sat station keeping. I suspect there was a dielectric in the waveguide and that sparked the "Light Bulb" moment as all his early work was dielectric focused.
-
#2101
by
Rodal
on 27 Oct, 2016 15:09
-
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.
AFAIW he was working on an issue having to do with sat station keeping. I suspect there was a dielectric in the waveguide and that sparked the "Light Bulb" moment as all his early work was dielectric focused.
Yes, that's interesting, as Shawyer's first patent for the EM Drive featured a
cylindrical cavity (the typical shape of microwave cavities in spacecraft) with a dielectric asymmetrically placed in the cavity. They did not deal with a truncated conical cavity. So it seems like his initial idea when he left Matra Marconi was to produce an asymmetry with a dielectric and not geometrically. His truncated conical cavity patents came out many years later, long after he had left Matra Marconi and was already on his own.
-
#2102
by
TheTraveller
on 27 Oct, 2016 15:09
-
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.
Care to explain how it is possible to measure the Thrust force that is generated small to big and measurable on a scale and then to measure the Reaction force that is generated big to small on a rotary test rig or on a torsion pendulum?
There is a momentum gradient created due to the taper. Putting on end plates allows the internal energy to be Q * Power instead of just Power.
What happens at the small end is the EmWave momentum is reduced and that causes the lower radiation pressure at the small end.
-
#2103
by
meberbs
on 27 Oct, 2016 15:24
-
Care to explain how it is possible to measure the Thrust force that is generated small to big and measurable on a scale and then to measure the Reaction force that is generated big to small on a rotary test rig or on a torsion pendulum?
Care to answer
this post before you continue claiming that a push to the left can make something move to the right?
The type of results you describe, if consistent with independent experiments (they aren't), would be evidence against the EMDrive.
-
#2104
by
TheTraveller
on 27 Oct, 2016 15:34
-
Care to explain how it is possible to measure the Thrust force that is generated small to big and measurable on a scale and then to measure the Reaction force that is generated big to small on a rotary test rig or on a torsion pendulum?
Care to answer this post before you continue claiming that a push to the left can make something move to the right?
The type of results you describe, if consistent with independent experiments (they aren't), would be evidence against the EMDrive.
I follow the data. Theory be damned. TWO equal but opposite forces are generated and have been measured.
What Roger's theory suggests, matches what I and others have seen and measured.
It is just a jump to the LEFT and a step to the RIGHT:
-
#2105
by
PNeilson
on 27 Oct, 2016 15:54
-
Why all the assertions that the cavity is closed?
Simple physics shows a solar neutrino flux of 7 x 10^10 neutrinos / cm^2 / second. I cannot quickly find a number for the cosmic neutrino flux.
Accepted modern physics shows that neutrinos have mass. The Nobel has been awarded for the discovery of neutrino oscillation leading to the conclusion that neutrinos have mass.
Experiments are underway to pin down the masses of the different neutrino types with results due in the next few years.
Some estimates are as high as 1.5 eV for neutrino mass.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0812.4552v2.pdfThe vacuum is hardly empty with neutrino mass passing through the cavity constantly.
Can the EM field in the cavity couple to the mass passing through the cavity? Who knows.
However, asserting that the cavity is closed is simply wrong.
-
#2106
by
Rodal
on 27 Oct, 2016 16:05
-
Why all the assertions that the cavity is closed?
Simple physics shows a solar neutrino flux of 7 x 10^10 neutrinos / cm^2 / second. I cannot quickly find a number for the cosmic neutrino flux.
Accepted modern physics shows that neutrinos have mass. The Nobel has been awarded for the discovery of neutrino oscillation leading to the conclusion that neutrinos have mass.
Experiments are underway to pin down the masses of the different neutrino types with results due in the next few years.
Some estimates are as high as 1.5 eV for neutrino mass. https://arxiv.org/pdf/0812.4552v2.pdf
The vacuum is hardly empty with neutrino mass passing through the cavity constantly.
Can the EM field in the cavity couple to the mass passing through the cavity? Who knows.
However, asserting that the cavity is closed is simply wrong.
Because Shawyer, to this date, continues insisting that the EM Drive self-acceleration can be justified
solely on the basis of Newton's laws and Special Relativity and he continues insisting that nothing else is needed. His argument runs against conservation of momentum and conservation of energy.
(See: Frobnicat, meberbs and Gilbertdrive )Then, arguments based on escaping heat as thermal radiation (in the partial vacuum of Space) (*) or other forms of photons or particles with no mass, or particles with low mass (like the neutrino) ran against the experimental claims that the force/InputPower measured in experiments is several orders of magnitude greater than the one of a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
This is what people have been struggling to explain for a long time.
(*) In experiments performed in ambient pressure (only NASA and TU Dresden have performed experiments in a partial vacuum, and they measured much smaller forces), of course one has thermal convection and several people then use thermal convection as an experimental artifact that nullifies such experiments to justify the EM Drive for Space Propulsion.
-
#2107
by
meberbs
on 27 Oct, 2016 17:07
-
Care to explain how it is possible to measure the Thrust force that is generated small to big and measurable on a scale and then to measure the Reaction force that is generated big to small on a rotary test rig or on a torsion pendulum?
Care to answer this post before you continue claiming that a push to the left can make something move to the right?
The type of results you describe, if consistent with independent experiments (they aren't), would be evidence against the EMDrive.
I follow the data. Theory be damned. TWO equal but opposite forces are generated and have been measured.
What Roger's theory suggests, matches what I and others have seen and measured.
It is just a jump to the LEFT and a step to the RIGHT:
...
Equal and opposite would imply using the same EMDrive shape driven with the same input and mode shape in different experiments and seeing the force, but in the opposite direction. I do not remember ever seeing such data including from Shawyer. I also don't know of anyone who has measured small to big motion except Shawyer, or people have determined this was an experimental error.
If you ever answered the 2 simple questions I asked, I could explain why Shawyer's theory does not predict the forces the way you claim. There is no point in my further description of why it doesn't make sense if you won't answer my questions.
-
#2108
by
aero
on 27 Oct, 2016 17:29
-
Why all the assertions that the cavity is closed?
Simple physics shows a solar neutrino flux of 7 x 10^10 neutrinos / cm^2 / second. I cannot quickly find a number for the cosmic neutrino flux.
Accepted modern physics shows that neutrinos have mass. The Nobel has been awarded for the discovery of neutrino oscillation leading to the conclusion that neutrinos have mass.
Experiments are underway to pin down the masses of the different neutrino types with results due in the next few years.
Some estimates are as high as 1.5 eV for neutrino mass. https://arxiv.org/pdf/0812.4552v2.pdf
The vacuum is hardly empty with neutrino mass passing through the cavity constantly.
Can the EM field in the cavity couple to the mass passing through the cavity? Who knows.
However, asserting that the cavity is closed is simply wrong.
Because Shawyer, to this date, continues insisting that the EM Drive self-acceleration can be justified solely on the basis of Newton's laws and Special Relativity and he continues insisting that nothing else is needed. His argument runs against conservation of momentum and conservation of energy. (See: Frobnicat, meberbs and Gilbertdrive )
Then, arguments based on escaping heat as thermal radiation (in the partial vacuum of Space) (*) or other forms of photons or particles with no mass, or particles with low mass (like the neutrino) ran against the experimental claims that the force/InputPower measured in experiments is several orders of magnitude greater than the one of a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
This is what people have been struggling to explain for a long time.
(*) In experiments performed in ambient pressure (only NASA and TU Dresden have performed experiments in a partial vacuum, and they measured much smaller forces), of course one has thermal convection and several people then use thermal convection as an experimental artifact that nullifies such experiments to justify the EM Drive for Space Propulsion.
I reiterate - The tests done in "vacuum" were not even close to theoretical vacuum. Best we can do, but simple calculations show air particle count on the order of 10^+14 particles at the tested level of vacuum hardness. That is 1. followed by 15 zeros. Compare that to O(10^+23) particles at atmospheric pressure. If the particles within the frustum are involved in the "thrust" generation then the most we can say is, "Fewer particles, lower thrust." And if they are involved then perfectly sealed, rigid frustums are well within our ability to construct for space applications.
-
#2109
by
Bob012345
on 27 Oct, 2016 17:40
-
>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.
Since the working assumption in physics is that all forces are actually manifestations of the same force, you can't simply dismiss gravity as irrelevant to the EmDrive especially since we really don't know the proper unification equations. Maybe it's a lot simpler than the string theorists believe. Maybe the EmDrive is pointing the way.
-
#2110
by
Rodal
on 27 Oct, 2016 17:40
-
Why all the assertions that the cavity is closed?
Simple physics shows a solar neutrino flux of 7 x 10^10 neutrinos / cm^2 / second. I cannot quickly find a number for the cosmic neutrino flux.
Accepted modern physics shows that neutrinos have mass. The Nobel has been awarded for the discovery of neutrino oscillation leading to the conclusion that neutrinos have mass.
Experiments are underway to pin down the masses of the different neutrino types with results due in the next few years.
Some estimates are as high as 1.5 eV for neutrino mass. https://arxiv.org/pdf/0812.4552v2.pdf
The vacuum is hardly empty with neutrino mass passing through the cavity constantly.
Can the EM field in the cavity couple to the mass passing through the cavity? Who knows.
However, asserting that the cavity is closed is simply wrong.
Because Shawyer, to this date, continues insisting that the EM Drive self-acceleration can be justified solely on the basis of Newton's laws and Special Relativity and he continues insisting that nothing else is needed. His argument runs against conservation of momentum and conservation of energy. (See: Frobnicat, meberbs and Gilbertdrive )
Then, arguments based on escaping heat as thermal radiation (in the partial vacuum of Space) (*) or other forms of photons or particles with no mass, or particles with low mass (like the neutrino) ran against the experimental claims that the force/InputPower measured in experiments is several orders of magnitude greater than the one of a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
This is what people have been struggling to explain for a long time.
(*) In experiments performed in ambient pressure (only NASA and TU Dresden have performed experiments in a partial vacuum, and they measured much smaller forces), of course one has thermal convection and several people then use thermal convection as an experimental artifact that nullifies such experiments to justify the EM Drive for Space Propulsion.
I reiterate - The tests done in "vacuum" were not even close to theoretical vacuum. Best we can do, but simple calculations show air particle count on the order of 10^+14 particles at the tested level of vacuum hardness. That is 1. followed by 15 zeros. Compare that to O(10^+23) particles at atmospheric pressure. If the particles within the frustum are involved in the "thrust" generation then the most we can say is, "Fewer particles, lower thrust." And if they are involved then perfectly sealed, rigid frustums are well within our ability to construct for space applications.
I don't understand your argument. Is it related to something I discussed? :
1) I carefully stated "partial vacuum" and not "vacuum". "Vacuum" and "close to theoretical vacuum" are your words.
2) The arguments I posted have to do with the effect of
external thermal convection on the measured forces.
Are you positing that TU Dresden and NASA forces measured in partial vacuum are due to thermal convection from the particle count of air particles in their vacuum chambers, and thus are you arguing that they are experimental artifacts due to external thermal convection? Or, are you proposing that such
external thermal convection based on those few air particles in Space can be used for Space Propulsion ?
Or are you proposing that
internal forces from thermal convection or any other form of
internal force can result in self-acceleration and propulsion and not contravene conservation of momentum, without expelling any propellant and without interacting with any exterior field ?
Or did you mean yet another effect?
-
#2111
by
wicoe
on 27 Oct, 2016 18:05
-
I have a question regarding the gravity-based explanations (WarpTech, Rodal/Woodward)... would it be correct to assume that, according to these explanations, the (Em)drive is pushing against the mass distribution in the universe (probably affecting nearby celestial bodies more than the distant ones)? If correct, wouldn't it follow that the center of mass of the system (Em)drive + all celestial bodies inside a sphere of a certain radius is not moving (for a sufficiently large radius)? I.e., the drive is accelerating in one direction, but the objects it's pushing against are accelerating in the other direction (very very slowly), so the center of mass is at rest and CoM is observed. If this assumption is not correct for a particular gravity-based theory, how is CoM accounted for in that theory?
-
#2112
by
Rodal
on 27 Oct, 2016 18:09
-
I have a question regarding the gravity-based explanations (WarpTech, Rodal/Woodward)... would it be correct to assume that, according to these explanations, the (Em)drive is pushing against the mass distribution in the universe (probably affecting nearby celestial bodies more than the distant ones)? If correct, wouldn't it follow that the center of mass of the system (Em)drive + all celestial bodies inside a sphere of a certain radius is not moving (for a sufficiently large radius)? I.e., the drive is accelerating in one direction, but the objects it's pushing against are accelerating in the other direction (very very slowly), so the center of mass is at rest and CoM is observed. If this assumption is not correct for a particular gravity-based theory, how is CoM accounted for in that theory?
Yes, this is essentially correct, for Woodward's hypothesis
as I understand it:
<<would it be correct to assume that, according to these explanations, the (Em)drive is pushing against the mass distribution in the universe (probably affecting nearby celestial bodies more than the distant ones)? >>
instead of "pushing against the mass distribution in the universe " I would rather state that the inertial mass is affected, and the inertial mass is given by interaction with all distant objects according to the Mach Effect, Hoyle Narlikar, etc.
-
#2113
by
wicoe
on 27 Oct, 2016 18:53
-
I have a question regarding the gravity-based explanations (WarpTech, Rodal/Woodward)... would it be correct to assume that, according to these explanations, the (Em)drive is pushing against the mass distribution in the universe (probably affecting nearby celestial bodies more than the distant ones)? If correct, wouldn't it follow that the center of mass of the system (Em)drive + all celestial bodies inside a sphere of a certain radius is not moving (for a sufficiently large radius)? I.e., the drive is accelerating in one direction, but the objects it's pushing against are accelerating in the other direction (very very slowly), so the center of mass is at rest and CoM is observed. If this assumption is not correct for a particular gravity-based theory, how is CoM accounted for in that theory?
Yes, this is essentially correct, for Woodward's hypothesis as I understand it:
<<would it be correct to assume that, according to these explanations, the (Em)drive is pushing against the mass distribution in the universe (probably affecting nearby celestial bodies more than the distant ones)? >>
instead of "pushing against the mass distribution in the universe " I would rather state that the inertial mass is affected, and the inertial mass is given by interaction with all distant objects according to the Mach Effect, Hoyle Narlikar, etc.
But the distant objects are also affected (pushed back) as a result of this interaction, correct? Even though this effect is extremely small due to the larger masses.
-
#2114
by
InterestedEngineer
on 27 Oct, 2016 19:08
-
It's been really interesting reading all these hypothesis to explain the currently unexplained.
However, what I see missing are experiment suggestions along the lines of "If my hypothesis is correct, we should see A" and "If my hypothesis is correct we should NOT see Y".
If you've read your Popper, the second item is the most important experiment to run: "If my hypothesis is correct then we should NOT see Y", where Y is either mathematically calculable or at least reasonably sound conclusion from the hypothesis.
As a specific example, some of the hypothesis are talking about the location of the center of energy being important - i.e. near one side of the frustum. If I understand this correctly, these hypothesis would be falsified if anyone saw a good experiment where the observed (or at least simulated) center of energy was in the middle and thrust was generated. From pictures I've seen on this forum that would for example be the T012 mode in a vacuum. If thrust was generated in an otherwise valid experiment, then those hypothesis are falsified, and we can move on to others.
Another example: if the gravity coupling hypothesis is correct, what you should NOT see? Gravity bends light, so you should NOT see a lack of effect on an interferometry measurement in a location calculated by the hypothesis.
I would love to see a virtuous cycle here between experimenters and theorists. Theorists propose a hypothesis and show what consequences one should NOT see in an experiment, and the experimenters run the experiments and report the observations, allowing us to quickly weed out incorrect hypothesis. Keeping in mind some experiments are more expensive than others of course. I suspect we already have enough data to falsify some of the hypothesis already.
So, what should NOT happen if your hypothesis is correct?
-
#2115
by
Rodal
on 27 Oct, 2016 19:11
-
I have a question regarding the gravity-based explanations (WarpTech, Rodal/Woodward)... would it be correct to assume that, according to these explanations, the (Em)drive is pushing against the mass distribution in the universe (probably affecting nearby celestial bodies more than the distant ones)? If correct, wouldn't it follow that the center of mass of the system (Em)drive + all celestial bodies inside a sphere of a certain radius is not moving (for a sufficiently large radius)? I.e., the drive is accelerating in one direction, but the objects it's pushing against are accelerating in the other direction (very very slowly), so the center of mass is at rest and CoM is observed. If this assumption is not correct for a particular gravity-based theory, how is CoM accounted for in that theory?
Yes, this is essentially correct, for Woodward's hypothesis as I understand it:
<<would it be correct to assume that, according to these explanations, the (Em)drive is pushing against the mass distribution in the universe (probably affecting nearby celestial bodies more than the distant ones)? >>
instead of "pushing against the mass distribution in the universe " I would rather state that the inertial mass is affected, and the inertial mass is given by interaction with all distant objects according to the Mach Effect, Hoyle Narlikar, etc.
But the distant objects are also affected (pushed back) as a result of this interaction, correct? Even though this effect is extremely small due to the larger masses.
Yes, that's essentially correct, but according to my understanding of Woodward's hypothesis this would be better stated as that the other massive objects inertia is affected. It is the inertia that first changes, and acceleration is a result of the change in inertia, in order to conserve momentum.
-
#2116
by
Rodal
on 27 Oct, 2016 19:15
-
It's been really interesting reading all these hypothesis to explain the currently unexplained.
However, what I see missing are experiment suggestions along the lines of "If my hypothesis is correct, we should see A" and "If my hypothesis is correct we should NOT see Y".
If you've read your Popper, the second item is the most important experiment to run: "If my hypothesis is correct then we should NOT see Y", where Y is either mathematically calculable or at least reasonably sound conclusion from the hypothesis.
As a specific example, some of the hypothesis are talking about the location of the center of energy being important - i.e. near one side of the frustum. If I understand this correctly, these hypothesis would be falsified if anyone saw a good experiment where the observed (or at least simulated) center of energy was in the middle and thrust was generated. From pictures I've seen on this forum that would for example be the T012 mode in a vacuum. If thrust was generated in an otherwise valid experiment, then those hypothesis are falsified, and we can move on to others.
Another example: if the gravity coupling hypothesis is correct, what you should NOT see? Gravity bends light, so you should NOT see a lack of effect on an interferometry measurement in a location calculated by the hypothesis.
I would love to see a virtuous cycle here between experimenters and theorists. Theorists propose a hypothesis and show what consequences one should NOT see in an experiment, and the experimenters run the experiments and report the observations, allowing us to quickly weed out incorrect hypothesis. Keeping in mind some experiments are more expensive than others of course. I suspect we already have enough data to falsify some of the hypothesis already.
So, what should NOT happen if your hypothesis is correct?
The logic of what you propose is correct, but the question is what is the
numerical effect of this.
For example, the location of the maximum energy density in TE012 is likely not to be exactly in the middle. It is near the middle.
So qualitatively, the test should be whether TE011 and TE013 result in greater thrust/InputForce than TE012. By how much, is a numerical issue...
And the problem with the tests and falsification is that the measured forces are extremely small and there are experimental artifacts (thermal convection at ambient pressure for example) that are demonstrably larger.
-
#2117
by
WarpTech
on 27 Oct, 2016 19:22
-
It's been really interesting reading all these hypothesis to explain the currently unexplained.
However, what I see missing are experiment suggestions along the lines of "If my hypothesis is correct, we should see A" and "If my hypothesis is correct we should NOT see Y".
If you've read your Popper, the second item is the most important experiment to run: "If my hypothesis is correct then we should NOT see Y", where Y is either mathematically calculable or at least reasonably sound conclusion from the hypothesis.
As a specific example, some of the hypothesis are talking about the location of the center of energy being important - i.e. near one side of the frustum. If I understand this correctly, these hypothesis would be falsified if anyone saw a good experiment where the observed (or at least simulated) center of energy was in the middle and thrust was generated. From pictures I've seen on this forum that would for example be the T012 mode in a vacuum. If thrust was generated in an otherwise valid experiment, then those hypothesis are falsified, and we can move on to others.
Another example: if the gravity coupling hypothesis is correct, what you should NOT see? Gravity bends light, so you should NOT see a lack of effect on an interferometry measurement in a location calculated by the hypothesis.
I would love to see a virtuous cycle here between experimenters and theorists. Theorists propose a hypothesis and show what consequences one should NOT see in an experiment, and the experimenters run the experiments and report the observations, allowing us to quickly weed out incorrect hypothesis. Keeping in mind some experiments are more expensive than others of course. I suspect we already have enough data to falsify some of the hypothesis already.
So, what should NOT happen if your hypothesis is correct?
It should not accelerate in the direction in which the dissipation is "higher". It should accelerate in the direction in which the dissipation is "lower".
It is not the position of the energy that is relevant, it is the gradient from high to low. If the the energy stored by the Q is at the small end, and there is higher dissipation at the big end, it should not accelerate with the big end leading.
All the data I have examined to date, fit the model. More so after last night's revealing post.
-
#2118
by
Rodal
on 27 Oct, 2016 19:27
-
...It should not accelerate in the direction in which the dissipation is "higher". It should accelerate in the direction in which the dissipation is "lower"....
For NASA, the dielectric (HDPE or PTFE) are located at the small end, and the truncated cone accelerates in the direction from the big end to the small end, in that case for for mode shapes TM212 and TE012.
So for NASA, it is accelerating in the direction
towards where the tan delta dissipation is higher (internal dissipation in the polymer) instead of accelerating towards where the dissipation is lower.
What type of "dissipation" are you discussing ?
-
#2119
by
InterestedEngineer
on 27 Oct, 2016 19:29
-
It's been really interesting reading all these hypothesis to explain the currently unexplained.
However, what I see missing are experiment suggestions along the lines of "If my hypothesis is correct, we should see A" and "If my hypothesis is correct we should NOT see Y".
If you've read your Popper, the second item is the most important experiment to run: "If my hypothesis is correct then we should NOT see Y", where Y is either mathematically calculable or at least reasonably sound conclusion from the hypothesis.
As a specific example, some of the hypothesis are talking about the location of the center of energy being important - i.e. near one side of the frustum. If I understand this correctly, these hypothesis would be falsified if anyone saw a good experiment where the observed (or at least simulated) center of energy was in the middle and thrust was generated. From pictures I've seen on this forum that would for example be the T012 mode in a vacuum. If thrust was generated in an otherwise valid experiment, then those hypothesis are falsified, and we can move on to others.
..snip...
The logic of what you propose is correct, but the question is what is the numerical effect of this.
For example, the location of the maximum energy density in TE012 is likely not to be exactly in the middle. It is near the middle.
So qualitatively, the test should be whether TE011 and TE012 result in greater thrust/InputForce than TE012. By how much, is a numerical issue...
And the problem with the tests and falsification is that the measured forces are extremely small and there are experimental artifacts (thermal convection at ambient pressure for example) that are demonstrably larger.
Absolutely should be numerical. I was simplifying to Boolean logic for purposes of illustration, but really in this case it would read "The force generated for constant input energy would be proportional to the distance of the center of energy from the ends of the frustum". (it's a bit convoluted to turn this into a NOT statement admittedly)
On your other point about the currently large measurement error, I did specify "cheaply", but missed "accurately". I understand we are not there yet. I'm looking at my budget right now for those with gofundme type of accounts...
