...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 ?
...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 ?
This is a very perceptive comment Dr.Rodal!
Maybe there is a missing negative/positive sign in todd's formula somewhere??
I am not sure about but it could explain this issue. Time to double check this?
Whenever the talk of thrust direction pops up, I always get confused by which direction the poster is saying the drive would move in. I've attached a simple diagram I hope can clarify for myself and others on which direction the drive is expected to move.
The drive starts in the middle at t
0. When the drive is turned on (and assuming there is any thrust), which position does it end up in? At
1 or Bt
1?
Back to the peanut gallery.
Whenever the talk of thrust direction pops up, I always get confused by which direction the poster is saying the drive would move in. I've attached a simple diagram I hope can clarify for myself and others on which direction the drive is expected to move.
The drive starts in the middle at t0. When the drive is turned on (and assuming there is any thrust), which position does it end up in? At1 or Bt1?
Back to the peanut gallery.
for NASA Eagleworks in mode shapes TM212 and TE012, with the HDPE insert at the small end,
it moves from position to to position At1 other mode shapes, with other positions of the dielectric involve movement in different directions,
but most NASA tests have been in TM212 with the HDPE insert at the small end, which moves from position t
o to position At
1
...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 ?
It says right on the slide;
0.0015 W dissipated in the HDPE
59.9985 W dissipated by the copper
So where was the most power dissipated? In the HDPE or on the copper at the big end?
The thermal scans also showed that most of the heat was generated at the big end.
I rest my case.
...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 ?
It says right on the slide;
0.0015 W dissipated in the HDPE
59.9985 W dissipated by the copper
So where was the most power dissipated? In the HDPE or on the copper at the big end?
The thermal scans also showed that most of the heat was generated at the big end.
I rest my case.
"I rest my case"?
I asked what dissipation you were considering in your theory. I guess you are considering the dissipation in the copper skin, in its skin depth. And not just inside the frustum cavity...
It says 59.9985 W dissipated by the copper in the
entire copper truncated cone, not just at the big end.
.....
Next we have to show the distribution of the power dissipated throughout the frustum
which shows that indeed the dissipation in the copper is mostly at the big end, and that overwhelms the dissipation in the dielectric
now you can go and rest 
CONCLUSION: When Todd writes about "dissipation" , Todd is mainly discussing dissipation in the skin depth of the copper cavity
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.
Remember your posts back to
Thread 2 one year an a half ago, about whether or not Shawyer's "Flight Thruster" had flat or spherical end plates? We didn't have many pictures of this particular EmDrive back then: first,
this one on Shawyer's website showing flat end flanges, and more importantly
this big one published by
International Business Times 30 April 2015 and in subsequent articles, in which you saw the possibility of spherically shaped ends. But in the recent Shawyer interview video, the Flight Thruster he shows has flat ends.
However it is worth noting there are at least
two Flight Thrusters: a preliminary prototype (the one we see in the video you linked to, Shawyer even specifically says
"This is an early example of a Flight Thruster") and the Flight Thruster that has been delivered to Boeing (Boeing kept its own licensed test article in 2010).
...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 ?
It says right on the slide;
0.0015 W dissipated in the HDPE
59.9985 W dissipated by the copper
So where was the most power dissipated? In the HDPE or on the copper at the big end?
The thermal scans also showed that most of the heat was generated at the big end.
I rest my case.
So I conclude that your statement that
Neoprene gave bad results because of "overdamping" is not justifiedRather, if one uses Neoprene at the small end, then the dissipation will be:
100*0.0015 W dissipated in the Neoprene = 0.15 W
59.9985 W dissipated by the copper
Neoprene being 0.25 % of the one in the copper still insignificant compared to the dissipation in the Copper
How can Neoprene make the system overdamped? when it only changes it by 0.25% 
Don't rest !
...
Maybe it wasn't "over-damped" but it was just too much damping for the 30W of available input power. If they had increased input power to 60W as was used in the slide above, it might have provided some thrust results to compare to, but at 30W it was enough damping to "collapse" the resonance. Without resonance, nothing is expected to happen.
A dielectric would have a significant effect on a Superconducting EM Drive... it will probably screw it up...
That explains why Cannae is now using a dielectric with the copper Cannae drives but it is not using a dielectric with the Superconducting Cannae drives !
...Here are the equations of my theory with both the frequency and the decay time, expressed as variables of the "r" coordinate, distance from the apex of the cone. Hopefully (@meems) the connection to gravity is apparent now? It didn't really change the result, except the factor of 1/2 is gone now. I don't see where I made an error, but hopefully, at most it's a factor of 2.
Todd
Edit 2: Note, space-time metric line element ONLY applies inside the frustum.
Edit: Heck, why not write out a conformally flat space-time metric line element in terms of Q for the EM Drive, now that I have K in terms of Q...
"Welcome to The Q Continuum!"
If my equations above are correct, then for a mode like TE012 or TE013, Shawyer is "almost" right. If my association of Q with the vacuum refractive index K, of the PV Model is justified, then where the Q is higher, the radial speed of light will be slower and the momentum of that light will be greater. "b" is for the big end, "s" is for the small end, and using the PV Model of General Relativity, we get a velocity gradient.
c/K
s < c/K
b < c
or
c/Q
s < c/Q
b < c
Since, ds = 0 for light, the coordinate velocity of light will be; dr/dt = c/Q(r)
p*sqrt(Q
s) > p*sqrt(Q
b)
Roger has the right idea, but the wrong mathematics. (Assuming mine is right that is.)
>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
I like it. I'm a bit fond of poems myself.
To that which may of end exist.
So soon in time, will be as mist.
The light of might being the mind.
Running ahead we seek to find.
Hidden treasures, buried for fun.
Seeking not our own prize jewel crown.
Rather, we not leave with a frown.
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?
1 - That's a misquote. I wrote "not even close to theoretical vacuum."
2 - I am not arguing that measured forces in tests performed in chambers under partial vacuum are due to thermal convection. I would suspect, but will not run the math for proof, that the partial vacuum provides sufficiently reduced thermal convection to effectively eliminate is as a measurement artifact.
Yet another effect. Dr. White has proposed a theory allowing momentum to escape the cavity via the quantum vacuum. I
DO NOT propose that air particles carry momentum from inside to outside the cavity, either directly or via the QV. I do state that the possibility of air particles within the cavity acting as an enabler has not been looked at and that is due to such statements that forces measured in vacuum tests are much reduced hence the implication is that the total effect must be thermal convection. Thermal convection can not be ignored, that does not mean that ALL effects from air particles are thermal.
I guess that carefully constructed tests with a sealed cavity (both pressurized and evacuated) performed within a vacuum chamber might indicate by comparison whether or not the air particles within the frustum participate in the thrust effect.
...
Yet another effect. Dr. White has proposed a theory allowing momentum to escape the cavity via the quantum vacuum. I DO NOT propose that air particles carry momentum from inside to outside the cavity, either directly or via the QV. I do state that the possibility of air particles within the cavity acting as an enabler has not been looked at and that is due to such statements that forces measured in vacuum tests are much reduced hence the implication is that the total effect must be thermal convection. Thermal convection can not be ignored, that does not mean that ALL effects from air particles are thermal.
I guess that carefully constructed tests with a sealed cavity (both pressurized and evacuated) performed within a vacuum chamber might indicate by comparison whether or not the air particles within the frustum participate in the thrust effect.
That's not such a bad idea. The refractive index of air does vary wrt temperature, pressure and density. Regardless if the air is escaping or not, a pressure or density gradient inside could/should enhance the effect "IF" the density varies in the same way as the Q.
“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
I like it. I'm a bit fond of poems myself.
To that which may of end exist.
So soon in time, will be as mist.
The light of might being the mind.
Running ahead we seek to find.
Hidden treasures, buried for fun.
Seeking not our own prize jewel crown.
Rather, we not leave with a frown.
So my wife drops by to kiss my bald spot on her way to bed, sees me reading, and says "What are they doing?'
I answer: "Exchanging poetry."
You folks, all, are the best! Every day, one of the greatest pleasures I have is to come here and read, and gain smidgens of understanding. Keep it up.
'Shopped & Cropped Koycla EmDrive in Dresden
...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 ?
It says right on the slide;
0.0015 W dissipated in the HDPE
59.9985 W dissipated by the copper
So where was the most power dissipated? In the HDPE or on the copper at the big end?
The thermal scans also showed that most of the heat was generated at the big end.
I rest my case.
"I rest my case"?
I asked what dissipation you were considering in your theory. I guess you are considering the dissipation in the copper skin, in its skin depth. And not just inside the frustum cavity...
It says 59.9985 W dissipated by the copper in the entire copper truncated cone, not just at the big end.
.....
Next we have to show the distribution of the power dissipated throughout the frustum
which shows that indeed the dissipation in the copper is mostly at the big end, and that overwhelms the dissipation in the dielectric
now you can go and rest
CONCLUSION: When Todd writes about "dissipation" , Todd is mainly discussing dissipation in the skin depth of the copper cavity
The confusing thing is that, however EW reported zero thrust without dielectric
We need to be open about use of the dielectrics being a key ingredient in creating thrusts, open to the idea that maybe it's not the key. Although there is a some evidence that EW saw it, it's not what I've seen in some of the DYIers and even mine.
What is on my schedule is to look at my KS-series drive in the TE013 mode to see if it's possibly other or a combination of reasons. One contender is how far past a cutoff distance does the frustum need to be to show thrusts without dielectrics and map out the plate distance profiles in incremental steps to map out the thrust changes, I can do this with my quartz tuning rod.
Shell
...
CONCLUSION: When Todd writes about "dissipation" , Todd is mainly discussing dissipation in the skin depth of the copper cavity
The confusing thing is that, however EW reported zero thrust without dielectric
That would imply that adding the dielectric reduced the power lost at the small end. The HDPE had lower losses than the copper in this setup. Which does not surprise me considering FR4 copper board is not a very good heat sink.
