-
#2260 by X_RaY on 01 Nov, 2016 21:06
-
Mode is TE013 (instead of TE012) . The rest of your conclusion is excellent.
Oh man, I have got a hard time to understand what do you try to explain with this sketch!
Maybe the EMdrive works, who knows. What I can understand is there are forces for sure, for example the poynting vectors field, heat driven displacement currents, force caused of emitted ir-photons into the sourrounding environment, magnetic forces or even maybe some friction against dark matter like someone has suggested during the last days.
What kind of forces do you speak of?
WarpTech offers his ideas very well, so it's obvious of what he is talking about.
Sorry I (and maybe some other) don't know what kind of forces you are talking about and where it may comes from.
The Poynting vectors visually look like they add up to net zero in your TE012 picture... assuming your modeling is similar enough as a set of statistically meaningful positive result experiments, that eliminates assymetric Poynting vectors from the list of possibilities.
Might be Captain Obvious here, but why not just state the obvious to be sure...
-
#2261 by InterestedEngineer on 01 Nov, 2016 21:53
-
8
Mode is TE013 (instead of TE012) . The rest of your conclusion is excellent.
Oh man, I have got a hard time to understand what do you try to explain with this sketch!
Maybe the EMdrive works, who knows. What I can understand is there are forces for sure, for example the poynting vectors field, heat driven displacement currents, force caused of emitted ir-photons into the sourrounding environment, magnetic forces or even maybe some friction against dark matter like someone has suggested during the last days.
What kind of forces do you speak of?
WarpTech offers his ideas very well, so it's obvious of what he is talking about.
Sorry I (and maybe some other) don't know what kind of forces you are talking about and where it may comes from.
The Poynting vectors visually look like they add up to net zero in your TE012 picture... assuming your modeling is similar enough as a set of statistically meaningful positive result experiments, that eliminates assymetric Poynting vectors from the list of possibilities.
Might be Captain Obvious here, but why not just state the obvious to be sure...
Ugh, my old eyeballs. You could guess my age by my refusal to wear reading glasses. Please don't.
I do notice that there is some slight bending of the Poynting vectors where they are close to the frustum. So my visualization involves a lot of rounding and I may be missing a small difference. Have you numerically integrated the Poynting vectors to see what happens? -
#2262 by InterestedEngineer on 01 Nov, 2016 22:16
-
GilbertDrive, thanks so much for summarizing the groups of hypothesis in one place. My comments:
1 : Emdrive works only by thermals, or by any terrestrial artifact. The probe shall give no thrust as soon as it is in space, and the thrust shall stay to zero all the time. CoE satisfied.
I think a big item here is some sort of force pushing on connecting cables. I recall in high current devices in my past that you can bend hunks of metal with sufficient current passing. We're talking 100s of newtons level of forces for a pulse of 150 Joules over about 10mS. It wouldn't take much current to get 10mN. Until we get more unattached experimental results this needs to be seriously considered as a possible hypothesis.2 : Emdrive works by directing gravity of big masses. In fact, directing the frustrum towards a planet or a star gives the possibility to pull the ship as if there was an invisible cable. It would be a distant gravity assist. In that case, the thrust shall not be constant, but shall not automatically decrease. It will depends of the mass, the distance, and the Kinetic energy of the planet or the star it is directed.
All gravity as far as we know is isotropic. If gravity were involved there'd be a very large force attracted to the local gravity field, viz. the Earth, or you'd have to invent a whole new physics to make gravity anisotropic.3 : Emdrive works because it is pushing against an uknown type of aether. The space being like a road, with a local prefered reference frame. It does not means that it is absolute. For example, it may be the Quasilocal Center-of-Mass for Teleparallel Gravity
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0403101
I will have to absorb the article to understand this, but again I trot out the isotropic gravity argument.
4 : The emdrive is a way of stealing energy beyond the Rindler horizon, or in the entire universe, for example by modifying inertia. Depending on how it works, it may be possible to get constant acceleration for constant imput power, and exceding P/V, in the limit of the quantity of energy that can be stolen, by this mean, in the universe.
5 : The emdrive works because MiHsC applies. It is another way of stealing energy. Constant thrust for constant imput power seems to be a consequence. CoE satisfied, energy stolen elsewhere (even If I did not understood clearly how and where)
Those two seem like a single item. It remains to add to these theories the essential property of all currently positive experiments: A resonant frequency where the photons are near the size of the frustum.
6 : The emdrive works because it harvest energy from a degradable Quantum Vacuum. It steals energy to the Quantuum Vacuum.
6a) It can also give constant thrust for constant imput power, but degrade for long term the Quantum vacuum, as we do with the Oil under the ground. CoE satisfied.
6b) The Quantum Vacuum regenerates quickly without stealing energy to something else. So, the Quantum Vacuum can give energy from nowhere, or from outside of our 3D+time universe. In that case CoE is broken from the viewpoint of our universe. But if our 3D+time universe is a part of a 4D+time universe, CoE may still apply in this bigger universe.
Same comment: Why is it important that the waves in the frustum resonate?
7)We live in a simulated universe (the creators of the simulation merit the name of gods) and the calculus are made with a limited precision. The emdrive is a way of using the approximations in a way that violates the general laws.
Again same comment: Why is it important that the waves in the frustum resonate?
For all the above: What are OTHER implications of the theory that we could measure more simply/cheaply?
What measurements should the experimenters be making to attempt to falsify these hypothesis?
Say what you want about MiHsC, at least the creator has outlined a number of predictions and proposed experiments to falsify MiHsC.
-
#2263 by dustinthewind on 02 Nov, 2016 00:20
-
Forces x 3 Equal Zero
This is work in progress. Have sent it to Roger for his comments, so comments here most welcome.
What I know is we are dealing with 2 real and measurable forces with unique characteristics that are not generated nor react in any matter we are experienced with. So that tells me there is a new way to generate the 2 forces created by an EmDrive that is outside what we expect.
There's no net force if you use bouncing balls instead of photons. (at least I hope that's obvious). Try doing the integration across slanted surface (either analytically or numerically, but be careful of rounding errors if numerically).
However, what changes when you get standing waves? There's no data showing the system works without standing waves, so until you show standing waves I don't think your model is complete.
You could get standing waves acoustically using air. Would that generate a net force? If not, why not? Something unique about photons that's not shown in your diagram?
I hate replying to myself, but I thought about a simple way to explain the intricacies of working in two+ dimensions on complicated shapes.
Imagine I have a circle with balls (or photons) bouncing around inside it. Eventually, no matter the initial direction and location of the ball, the ball bounces around a full circle, canceling out any momentum imparted on the circle. If I were to analyze only one bounce however (as in your diagram), I would come to the conclusion that there was a net momentum imparted on the circle, but I would be incorrect. The analysis of any two+ dimensional bouncing ball system is not complete until you integrate the momentum changes over all the bounces of the ball, taking into account the x and y components of momentum transfer with each bounce.
A frustum, triangle, square, etc. is no different. The internal angles add up to 360 degrees, just like a circle. Eventually the ball (or small photon, or ...) bounces in all directions equally, imparting no net momentum on the frustum. The more complex the shape, the harder this is to prove analytically of course, but that just gives people the incentive to make as complicated shape as possible in order to make it impossible to prove analytically... if you attempt to model the complex shape numerically you have to be extremely careful about rounding errors, as the Paul Kocyla is likely to discover.
I believe I can also model the idea that there's a preference side for the ball being absorbed using the same circular model. In this model the hypothesis is that the absorption side causes a momentum transfer. For example if I put an absorbing substance on one side of the circle (or a small patch) and the instantaneous input energy = instantaneous absorbed energy, then it's no different than if I had a photon (or a tennis ball) rocket. If instantaneous input energy != instantaneous absorbed energy, then internal energy would continue to increase to infinity, which is clearly not happening by anyone's measurements. The systems clearly reach an equilibrium of input energy and absorption. (by absorption, I really mean, turn photons into heat)
I don't think you can describe the behavior of the frustum with a simple mechanical model. A suitable model needs to likely include the idea that the photons are about the size of the frustum (i.e. standing waves), that (likely) standing acoustic waves won't reproduce the same phenomena because of something different about photons. There might be more than these minimum requirements. More importantly than this thought experiment, the current physical evidence supports these minimum requirements of a model.
Hi InterestedEngineer. I saw you mentioned the bouncing ball analogy and I couldn't resist. I have done some work using the concept of bouncing balls in a cavity to convince myself no acceleration can happen. Part of the reason is if a ball hits one wall and the cavity has a mass and the ball has a mass then a certain % of the balls energy is transferred to the cavity. The equation for energy transfer is entirely based off an equation of their respective masses so velocity is not a factor. Upon the slowed ball hitting the now accelerated cavity wall on the other side the ball picks back up its original speed. The whole system preserves momentum and energy. Everything here is pretty standard.
There have however been experiments where a change in the energy exchanged upon the collision of a photon have been detected which equates to an apparent change in mass of the photon. Photon mass drag and the momentum of light in a medium by M Partanen, T Häyrynen, J Oksanen… We know in dielectrics the wavelength of light shortens. This shortening of the wavelength of light may be an apparent change in mass which may be of the form in this document here: page 21 Polarizable-Vacuum (PV) representation of general relativity by H. E. Puthoff . They don't show the wavelength but I pull it out of the equations here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1604399#msg1604399 . If the photon "effective" mass changes, the percentage of energy exchanged upon collision with a wall and photon changes by a method similar the equation I have in the image posted here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1494279#msg1494279 . From this I can derive a change in wavelength of light which I have done here https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1497641#msg1497641. This change in wavelength represents an energy loss of the photon from the percentage of energy lost during the collision. Photons naturally exchange very little energy but it is known that they do (solar sails for example).
We have been observing a change in wavelength in the cavity as you can see from TheTravelers post here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1604741#msg1604741 and other posts or this well made web page by Greg Egan here: http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html Search his page for "Energy, pressure and forces" and look at the cavities just above. The polarizable vacuum method (PV ) of predicting the photons as increasing in mass at the shorter wavelengths seems to correctly predict the direction of force for TheTravelers recent post above though I remain uncertain this is the case for everyone.
It is a fascinating concept that the light inside can change in wavelength. I have recently come to terms that the gradient in energy density stored in the cavity (you can look up the energy density at Greg Egan's Website) gives a spring constant to the magnetic field inside the cavity. The weaker in energy magnetic fields inside the cavity appear compressed because of their weaker spring constant, while the energy rich magnetic field appears to have its wavelength expanded because of its increased spring constant. Now parallel this to that standing waves that are counter-propagating photons (sine waves) so these photons going back and forth have their wavelengths constantly changing.
Normally the photons wouldn't lose energy but the change in mass causes them to lose more energy to one side of the cavity. This may cause an overall red-shift in the light, in the cavity, over time. This is representative of an effective transfer of energy after many reflections, which may be more effective than a laser or a solar sail at harnessing energy from photons. This may be why the Q of the cavity is so important. This red shifting of the light may not show up until the cavity accelerates if the light is not interacting with the Quantum Vacuum (similar to an accelerating photon recycling dual mirror). The red-shifting may possibly show up even if the cavity is not accelerating if the cavity is some how accelerating the QV but I am not certain.
I suspect the reason for the change in mass may be directly related to the quantum vacuum which from reading about Dr. White recently appears to parallel with his hypothesis about the Quantum Vacuum being non-degenerative or non-degradable, I think is how it was put.
With no heat loss and perfect transfer of energy, the energy lost to a photon over time should either be directly transferred to the kinetic energy of the cavity, unlike a solar sail but similar to photon recycling mirrors (yet different in that both mirrors move together) or I may be wrong on this and a percentage of energy may be lost to changing the relative velocity of the quantum vacuum.
This is my guess on the matter if it works, but I hope to see more conclusive experimental evidence before I conclude anything. I should attempt to make a prediction based on the hypothesis of the magnitude of thrust possible.
Pardon my horribly long post. Hopefully it is not confusing and clarifies what I think may be going on. -
#2264 by meberbs on 02 Nov, 2016 05:36
-
I know the question is for Meberbs, and I am not Meberbs, but I shall give my own answer for this interesting question.Basically, your just saying EmDrive can't work so why discuss it. We discuss it because that's what thus thread is set up to discuss. I'm not the only one saying it might work and if it does, you will just have to change your perspective.
I am not just saying the emDrive can't work, you keep adding things to what people are saying. For consistency with the things we know about how the universe works, there are constraints on how the emDrive could work. I gave one example of how it could work right in my last post, somehow pushing against dark matter. There are other theories that are plainly inconsistent (e.g. Shawyer's claims that the device obeys conservation of momentum, but does not push against or transfer momentum to anything else.)
It's already been proven that with photon recycling, better than a photon rocket is possible. The EmDrive seems to offer a potential billion times improvement over a photon rocket.
And how many times do you need it explained to you that a recycling photon rocket is not constant force/power, when you account for the relative motions of the spacecraft and whatever the other mirror is attached to? Anything more efficient has some form of propellant or medium (the mirror for the recycling laser beam), which causes a relative velocity to exist that causes the force/power ratio to vary with velocity.
So, what would happen to an EmDrive in free space generating a force of say 1000N on a probe of 1000kg mass using a constant electrical power of 1KW? How would you describe the motion over time?
...
I can't provide a better answer than that one. The answer depends on how the emDrive works, and I currently have no theory as to how it does. (given the available evidence, I still find "it doesn't" to be the most likely)
If it is shown to work, I would first look for a local medium that it pushes against, quantum vacuum, dark matter, or similar, which would cause performance to be relative to the local velocity of the medium. There are other possibilities with general relativity and such, but this is what seems like it would raise the fewest other issues. -
#2265 by meberbs on 02 Nov, 2016 05:47
-
Forces x 3 Equal Zero
There are multiple issues with your diagram, but I will just focus on one, since you keep making this same mistake.
This is work in progress. Have sent it to Roger for his comments, so comments here most welcome.
What I know is we are dealing with 2 real and measurable forces with unique characteristics that are not generated nor react in any matter we are experienced with. So that tells me there is a new way to generate the 2 forces created by an EmDrive that is outside what we expect.
The forces are not balanced in your force diagram. You are effectively saying that F + ma = 0, but that is equivalent to F = - ma (note the negative sign). According to Newton's laws, F = ma. That negative sign means you have everything backwards. This is the definition of a force, so what you are saying is simply contradictory. The only way it would work is if the frustum was made out of negative mass matter, but in that case, it would fall upwards on its own.
I would appreciate it if you would actually answer the 2 questions I asked you on this topic, rather than repeating statements that pushing something to the left will magically make it move to the right. -
#2266 by Gilbertdrive on 02 Nov, 2016 06:30
-
GilbertDrive, thanks so much for summarizing the groups of hypothesis in one place.
My post is not representative of the theories being developped here. I think that all these I mentionned were already taken into account here, but some that were more developped here are not mentionned in my post. It should not be taken like a summary, but only a small sample.
Of course, the cases 2 to 7 involves new physics. The Emdrive doesn't work in standard physics.2 : Emdrive works by directing gravity of big masses. In fact, directing the frustrum towards a planet or a star gives the possibility to pull the ship as if there was an invisible cable. It would be a distant gravity assist. In that case, the thrust shall not be constant, but shall not automatically decrease. It will depends of the mass, the distance, and the Kinetic energy of the planet or the star it is directed.
All gravity as far as we know is isotropic. If gravity were involved there'd be a very large force attracted to the local gravity field, viz. the Earth, or you'd have to invent a whole new physics to make gravity anisotropic.
Also, can you be more precise when you mean that Gravity is isotropic ?
Do you means that the matter repartition in the universe is supposed to be isotropic at large scales, or do you means a property of gravity itself ?
-
#2267 by TheTraveller on 02 Nov, 2016 06:42
-
Again same comment: Why is it important that the waves in the frustum resonate?
A resonant cavities stored energy = input power * Q. Without resonance the cavity can't receive Rf energy. Resonance enables both Rf energy to enter the cavity and high Q allows the stored energy to be much greater than the input power.
Think of a cavity as a funny kind of capacitor that can only store energy at the resonant freq of the capacitor. Q is then like Farad and then the higher the Q, like the higher the Farad, the higher the stored energy inside.
It should be noted that resonance for a cavity needs some number of 1/2 guide waves to fit, end to end, inside the cavity between the physical end plates. If you measure the length of the cavity and calculate the length of a 1/2 wave external to the cavity, the 1/2 waves would not fit between the end plates. This is because inside the cavity the wavelength is longer than outside. These internal waves are called guide wave and their length varies as to the excited mode and cavity diameter. These images show the effect, where you can easily see that the guide wavelength is longer at the small end than at the large end. This altering guide wavelength vs diameter is the key to the EmDrive.
-
#2268 by TheTraveller on 02 Nov, 2016 07:02
-
Forces x 3 Equal Zero
There are multiple issues with your diagram, but I will just focus on one, since you keep making this same mistake.
This is work in progress. Have sent it to Roger for his comments, so comments here most welcome.
What I know is we are dealing with 2 real and measurable forces with unique characteristics that are not generated nor react in any matter we are experienced with. So that tells me there is a new way to generate the 2 forces created by an EmDrive that is outside what we expect.
The forces are not balanced in your force diagram. You are effectively saying that F + ma = 0, but that is equivalent to F = - ma (note the negative sign). According to Newton's laws, F = ma. That negative sign means you have everything backwards. This is the definition of a force, so what you are saying is simply contradictory. The only way it would work is if the frustum was made out of negative mass matter, but in that case, it would fall upwards on its own.
I would appreciate it if you would actually answer the 2 questions I asked you on this topic, rather than repeating statements that pushing something to the left will magically make it move to the right.
1) The EmDrive works.
2) It generates 2 very different force characteristics that can and have been measured.
If you can't accept that reality, there is not a lot of common ground for discussion.
Here maybe you need to start and accept the guide waves are formed inside the frustum, with a shorter wavelength than external and the guide wavelength varies as the diameter varies. If you can't even accept the microwave engineering reality, you claimed there is not phase not guide wavelength inside a frustum, then we can't even get to the 1st step in understanding the operational characteristics of a EmDrive and how those characteristics must guide us to a theory that can explain their existence.
So the 1st step in understand EmDrive engineering is understand how the guide wavelength is altered by diameter and how that diameter enforced change allows some integer number of 1/2 waves to fit, end to end, between the physical distance between the end plates.
Do you agree this is what happens? I mean it is shown on all the simulation modeling by COMSOL, FEKO and Meeps. It is where we need to start to find agreement.
-
#2269 by TheTraveller on 02 Nov, 2016 07:13
-
The theories are now in work, and many needs development before giving numerical results.
You mention everything but Roger's theory, which fits ALL the observed and measured characteristics of the 2 forces that are generated by an EmDrive.
To recap, in a properly designed non dielectric EmDrive
1) EmDrive generates a Thrust force, with a vector small to big, that doesn't cause device acceleration but can be measured on a scale or torsion pendulum. Equation F = (2 Qu Df Pwr) / c
2) EmDrive generates a equal but opposite Reaction force, vector big to small, that can't be measured on a scale or torsion pendulum but can be measured via A = F/M on a test rig that allows free acceleration to occur.
These 2 force generations are real and have been measured. So any theory must describe how these forces are generated and why the 2 very different forces have the characteristics they have.
From my experience, none of the theories you proposed can achieve the above explanation. -
#2270 by RERT on 02 Nov, 2016 08:51
-
RE: Isotropic Gravity
1. I would dispute this. A textbook gravitational wave polarised in the x-y plane produces motion in that plane as it passes in the z direction, but no motion in the z direction. That can't reasonably be described as isotropic.
2. I'm not aware of anyone testing for anomalous gravitational effects outside the frustrum. There could well be isotropic gravitational fields pushing on the frustrum and 'pushing' the other way outside. For example, if the EMDrive creates a 'virtual mass' just outside the big end, which pulls the drive towards it, but also pulls in the opposite direction some way off. That could be an isotropic force which no-one would so far have seen.
Similarly, no-one has yet reported (or tested for?) any mass-dependence on EMdrive forces, which one might expect if some kind of gravitational force was involved (a more massive test rig would appear to see more Force if it experienced the same gravitational acceleration as a lighter rig). -
#2271 by Gilbertdrive on 02 Nov, 2016 09:19
-
The theories are now in work, and many needs development before giving numerical results.
You mention everything but Roger's theory, which fits ALL the observed and measured characteristics of the 2 forces that are generated by an EmDrive.
To recap, in a properly designed non dielectric EmDrive
1) EmDrive generates a Thrust force, with a vector small to big, that doesn't cause device acceleration but can be measured on a scale or torsion pendulum. Equation F = (2 Qu Df Pwr) / c
2) EmDrive generates a equal but opposite Reaction force, vector big to small, that can't be measured on a scale or torsion pendulum but can be measured via A = F/M on a test rig that allows free acceleration to occur.
These 2 force generations are real and have been measured. So any theory must describe how these forces are generated and why the 2 very different forces have the characteristics they have.
From my experience, none of the theories you proposed can achieve the above explanation.
You are right. I have chosen to mention many theories but not the one of Shawyer, because, as it is formulated by Shawyer, it is math inconsistent. Anyway, that don't means that it's prediction are false.
I had thought to add a 8 Shawyer theory is correct because maths are inconsistent, and the deceptive god prevents us from realizing it.
Anyway, the fact that Shawyer is inconsistent does not means that all it's results are false.
I also note that, with Shawyer actual theory, the maximum thrust can go as high as Q multiplied by the thrust of a photon drive. With a Q of one billion, it can give the thrust of around one billion photon rockets for the same energy.
So, it is like if the photons gave momentum by bouncing at one side, and no momentum at bouncing at the other side. Maybe it is true for a physical reason belonging to new physics, but it is not true with classical equations that he is using.
MiHsC also give numerical predictions for the thrust of the Emdrive. Shawyer's theory is not alone... -
#2272 by TheTraveller on 02 Nov, 2016 09:39
-
The theories are now in work, and many needs development before giving numerical results.
You mention everything but Roger's theory, which fits ALL the observed and measured characteristics of the 2 forces that are generated by an EmDrive.
To recap, in a properly designed non dielectric EmDrive
1) EmDrive generates a Thrust force, with a vector small to big, that doesn't cause device acceleration but can be measured on a scale or torsion pendulum. Equation F = (2 Qu Df Pwr) / c
2) EmDrive generates a equal but opposite Reaction force, vector big to small, that can't be measured on a scale or torsion pendulum but can be measured via A = F/M on a test rig that allows free acceleration to occur.
These 2 force generations are real and have been measured. So any theory must describe how these forces are generated and why the 2 very different forces have the characteristics they have.
From my experience, none of the theories you proposed can achieve the above explanation.
You are right. I have chosen to mention many theories but not the one of Shawyer, because, as it is formulated by Shawyer, it is math inconsistent. Anyway, that don't means that it's prediction are false.
I had thought to add a 8 Shawyer theory is correct because maths are inconsistent, and the deceptive god prevents us from realizing it.
Anyway, the fact that Shawyer is inconsistent does not means that all it's results are false.
I also note that, with Shawyer actual theory, the maximum thrust can go as high as Q multiplied by the thrust of a photon drive. With a Q of one billion, it can give the thrust of around one billion photon rockets for the same energy.
So, it is like if the photons gave momentum by bouncing at one side, and no momentum at bouncing at the other side. Maybe it is true for a physical reason belonging to new physics, but it is not true with classical equations that he is using.
MiHsC also give numerical predictions for the thrust of the Emdrive. Shawyer's theory is not alone...
Cavity stored energy = Q * power. Accelerator guys knows it works like that. Not much different to capacitor stored energy increasing as Farad increases. So you need to work from the stored energy value and not the Rf power input.
What Roger says is the Thrust force, vector small to big, = Big end axial radiation pressure based on total cavity energy - (side wall axial radiation pressure based on total cavity energy + small end axial radiation pressure based on total cavity energy) with radiation pressure adjusted for increasing guide wavelength as the cavity diameter reduces.
Basically Thrust force = (2 Qu Df Pwr) / c.
.... Df adjusts for the ratio of the big end to small end radiation pressure difference. The Df equation effect is not linear and is attached.
.... 2 is for absorption and reradiation momentum xfer.
.... Qu adjusts the input Pwr to be the value of the stored energy in the cavity after a 5X TC energy charge. TC increases as Q increases.
You need to understand the effect is driven by the increasing guide wavelength, which reduces EmWave momentum and radiation pressure, as the cavity diameter reduces.
The attached plots the guide wavelength change vs diameter change vs EmWave momentum/radiation pressure in my new spherical end plate cavity. Clearly the change in the guide wavelength and the momentum/radiation pressure is not a linear function with diameter change.
The plots are based on existing microwave engineering equations that have existed for 65 years.
Bottom line is the EmDrive does generate those 2 seemingly crazy forces, forces that have been measured and their characteristics are as described.
So any theory put forward has to describe the generation of BOTH forces and why they have the seemingly crazy characteristics they have.
-
#2273 by Gilbertdrive on 02 Nov, 2016 10:23
-
4 : The emdrive is a way of stealing energy beyond the Rindler horizon, or in the entire universe, for example by modifying inertia. Depending on how it works, it may be possible to get constant acceleration for constant imput power, and exceding P/V, in the limit of the quantity of energy that can be stolen, by this mean, in the universe.
5 : The emdrive works because MiHsC applies. It is another way of stealing energy. Constant thrust for constant imput power seems to be a consequence. CoE satisfied, energy stolen elsewhere (even If I did not understood clearly how and where)
Those two seem like a single item. It remains to add to these theories the essential property of all currently positive experiments: A resonant frequency where the photons are near the size of the frustum.
If I have correctly understood MiHsc, what is still one of my favorite theories, there is a big difference between 4 and 5. With MiHsc, the closed frustrum is working like a rindler horizon for the photons inside. So everything outside the frustrum is already beyond the event horizon.
With my 4 it was about our usual Rindler horizon. It makes a huge difference between using an event horizon of a few centimeters, and a few billion light years.
So, the energy stolen in MiHsc could be situated in our visible universe, what is already beyond the frustrum horizon. If I misunderstood MiHSC any explanation is welcome.
And as it was very well written by The Traveller, the resonnance it important because of the multiplying Q factor. If there is a resonnance with a Q of 1 billion instead of 1, in most of the theories that I mentionned, the effect is multiplied by one billion.
For example, for my theory number 7. If the 2 leaves of a clover are used for one complete exchange : 2 sold-1bought-1bought) it can give a benefit of 1 cent to the child.
If the leaves are destroyed just after, it is not much.
But, if the same leaves can be used 1 billion times, the child can get 10 million dollars.
That would be the same with photons. If for each round trip a photon steal a small momentum or/and energy to anything[aether, dark matter, distant masses] the more times you can use the same photon, the more thrust you got. That is why the resonnance is usefull. Without resonnance you have nothing mesurable.
In some theories of pushing against something that would means photon redshifting. As for photon recycling. This doesn't help to keep resonnance... -
#2274 by TheTraveller on 02 Nov, 2016 10:53
-
That would be the same with photons. If for each round trip a photon steal a small momentum or/and energy to anything[aether, dark matter, distant masses] the more times you can use the same photon, the more thrust you got. That is why the resonnance is usefull. Without resonnance you have nothing mesurable.
In some theories of pushing against something that would means photon redshifting. As for photon recycling. This doesn't help to keep resonnance...
At each end plate reflection, some small part of the total momentum of the EmWave / photon is transferred to the end plate. Upon re radiation, the emitted photon again transfers momentum to the end plate, has less momentum and thus the reradiated photon is red shifted to that which was absorbed to reflect the lower momentum. Thus over time, the cavity stored energy is both continually red shifted to reflect lost momentum and the total value is reduced from wall eddy current heating.
In very high Q cavities, Roger actually excites with a freq slightly above resonance so the averaged guide wavelength is as close to resonance as possible as the guide wavelength drops, due to momentum loss, during the lifetime of the resonant cavity energy.
Trick little beasts, these cavities and their characteristics. -
#2275 by JohnFornaro on 02 Nov, 2016 12:01
-
... Imagine a game with your child. ...
The thing being... the universe doesn't "round off", therefore this analogy doesn't hold. -
#2276 by kaublezw on 02 Nov, 2016 12:27
-
Put me in the category of skeptic because that's my nature.
But I'm also desperately wanting EmDrive to be what Shawyer claims it is...because of course think of the fantastic ramifications! Although, I find it hard to believe that I can walk under a hovering space plane with a second generation emdrive producing tons of thrust and not feel any force pushing down on me.
It seems like most everybody agrees that Shawyer's explanation of why EmDrive works is wrong. Here is a link to his paper http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf. I've read it, and at first glance it appears logical and consistent. I cannot find any mathematical mistakes or contractions. (I have an EE degree, but it's been years since I've practiced.)
Has anybody written a paper that very simply explains where in Shawyer's theory paper he makes a mistake? Where is he wrong in his math. Or where is he wrong in his assumptions on what his equations represent in reality? -
#2277 by dustinthewind on 02 Nov, 2016 12:33
-
Forces x 3 Equal Zero
There are multiple issues with your diagram, but I will just focus on one, since you keep making this same mistake.
This is work in progress. Have sent it to Roger for his comments, so comments here most welcome.
What I know is we are dealing with 2 real and measurable forces with unique characteristics that are not generated nor react in any matter we are experienced with. So that tells me there is a new way to generate the 2 forces created by an EmDrive that is outside what we expect.
The forces are not balanced in your force diagram. You are effectively saying that F + ma = 0, but that is equivalent to F = - ma (note the negative sign). According to Newton's laws, F = ma. That negative sign means you have everything backwards. This is the definition of a force, so what you are saying is simply contradictory. The only way it would work is if the frustum was made out of negative mass matter, but in that case, it would fall upwards on its own.
I would appreciate it if you would actually answer the 2 questions I asked you on this topic, rather than repeating statements that pushing something to the left will magically make it move to the right.
1) The EmDrive works.
2) It generates 2 very different force characteristics that can and have been measured.
If you can't accept that reality, there is not a lot of common ground for discussion.
Here maybe you need to start and accept the guide waves are formed inside the frustum, with a shorter wavelength than external and the guide wavelength varies as the diameter varies. If you can't even accept the microwave engineering reality, you claimed there is not phase not guide wavelength inside a frustum, then we can't even get to the 1st step in understanding the operational characteristics of a EmDrive and how those characteristics must guide us to a theory that can explain their existence.
So the 1st step in understand EmDrive engineering is understand how the guide wavelength is altered by diameter and how that diameter enforced change allows some integer number of 1/2 waves to fit, end to end, between the physical distance between the end plates.
Do you agree this is what happens? I mean it is shown on all the simulation modeling by COMSOL, FEKO and Meeps. It is where we need to start to find agreement.
A problem here is that you are not being specific about the 2nd observation. I don't believe any of us have observed, what ever this is. How are you measuring it? What are you observing? I am sure we would like to observe what ever it is that is being observed ourselves.
1) A force is on the frustum. - OK, we understand the concept to observe this.
2) Some other force is acting on something else... -> what is that something else? The light? Some thing other than light is carrying momentum away what drags on other near by objects? How is it being observed? When the frustum accelerates is the light depleting in energy at a larger rate?
From your last post https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1605596#msg1605596 I would speculate you are transmitting at a shorter wavelength than is needed for resonance and while freely accelerating it hits better resonance this way than while standing still. This suggests you may be observing a bandwidth of frequencies upon acceleration. But how would this be the equal and opposite force? Is it because the light appears in a sense to be, being slowed down (well, losing energy may be the better choice of words) and losing energy or red-shifted but only when the cavity is freely accelerating? -
#2278 by Gilbertdrive on 02 Nov, 2016 12:40
-
... Imagine a game with your child. ...
The thing being... the universe doesn't "round off", therefore this analogy doesn't hold.
How can we know it ?
If we are in simulated world, it may have approximations. it was the principle of the theory number 7. If the universe has an infinite precision, and no approximation at all, of course the theory 7 doesn't work.
I should have mentionned in my post that the theories 2 to 7 all needed new physics. It was so evident in my mind that I did no mention it. None of them could work with standard physics. -
#2279 by JohnFornaro on 02 Nov, 2016 12:59
-
... Imagine a game with your child. ...
The thing being... the universe doesn't "round off", therefore this analogy doesn't hold.
How can we know it ?
If we are in simulated world, it may have approximations. it was the principle of the theory number 7. If the universe has an infinite precision, and no approximation at all, of course the theory 7 doesn't work.
I should have mentioned in my post that the theories 2 to 7 all needed new physics. It was so evident in my mind that I did no mention it. None of them could work with standard physics.
Simulated world?
Unfortunately, now you are moving the goalposts, by saying "How can we know it?"
If EM drive should work, it will be because of the rules of this universe, regardless of the metaphysical question of how we can know something in general.
Even if this universe should turn out to be a simulated one, the simulation includes those rules which govern EM drive. Those rules do not include "rounding off".
So, the energy stolen in MiHsc could be situated in our visible universe, what is already beyond the frustrum horizon. If I misunderstood MiHSC any explanation is welcome.
But I'm also desperately wanting EmDrive to be what Shawyer claims it is...because of course think of the fantastic ramifications! Although, I find it hard to believe that I can walk under a hovering space plane with a second generation emdrive producing tons of thrust and not feel any force pushing down on me.