-
#2300 by kaublezw on 02 Nov, 2016 14:43
-
One more time, as I posted before: you just clearly said that F1 + F2 + F3 + ma = 0I am speaking in terms of classical theory which Shawyer claims his theory is consistent with. If you read my other posts you would see that I acknowledge the possibility of mechanisms outside classical physics that would provide an actual unbalanced force.
There are no unbalanced forces involved.
All that is happening is a new effect, well new to some, that causes momentum transfer from the declining momentum in the EmWave as it grows longer inside the cavity due to declining cavity diameter to the frustum.
Big end plate axial radiation pressure toward the big end
-
( Side Wall axial radiation pressure toward the small end
+
Small end plate axial radiation pressure toward the small end
+
Accelerative Reaction force toward the small end )
=
0.
What unbalanced Force?
According to Newtonian mechanics, F1 + F2 + F3 = ma. There is a fundamental difference in these equations that is an unresolvable contradiction. m*a is not a force, it is the result of an unbalanced force.
In this video at 8:50 he explains that the force against the sidewall is zero because the travelling wave is always traveling parallel to the sidewall. He shows a picture of a waveguide with convex and concave end plates which illustrates this point, but I don't understand why his demonstrator drives don't follow this design. (Every emdrive photo I've seen has flat endplates.) -
#2301 by dustinthewind on 02 Nov, 2016 14:56
-
P.S. I find it rather rude that you continue ignoring my questions, and in case you forgot rudeness is not allowed on this forum.
I have repeatedly explained the direction and the characteristics of the 2 forces that a EmDrive generates and can be measured. The forces are real and many have measured them.
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.Quote from: DustinthewindYes this above #2. Please be specific about #2. This force can't be #1 so it can't be the frustum accelerating in the same direction as the force from #1. It should be in the opposite direction. Why do you think this force is in the opposite direction as #1 and what is the force acting on. Please clarify this by describing what your are observing that makes you come to this conclusion. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1605614#msg1605614
Yes these forces and their characterists are not what most here have ever experienced, yet they are real.
Claiming all the forces must balance out is just not correct as the experimental data has shown since 2002.
I do truly hope that when you read the EW vac peer review paper in Dec 2016, you will start to accept these very strange force and their strange characterists are real and then spend time trying to work out why they are happening, instead of repeatedly claiming all the forces balance out and denying the experimental evidence.
Experimental data shows that Thrust force #1 can be measured on a virtually non moving scale or torsion pendulum, yet it can NOT support acceleration in the direction of the Thrust force vector (small to big).
Likewise experimental data shows the equal but opposite Reaction force will not produce any indication on a scale but will accelerate the EmDrive and associated mass.
The difference is when the EmDrive is setting on a scale it can't move so there are no internal Doppler shifts occurring.
When it is free to move as on a rotary test rig, and it starts moving, and there are internal Doppler shifts.
So yes the forces that an EmDrive generates are VERY strange, yet they are real and have been measured.
What you are trying to say here is very different from what I expected however let me try and clarify this. It appears when you put the cavity on a scale and turn it on, that you claim a force is acting on the scale in the direction from small end to big end of the cavity.
However, when put the cavity on an arm, free to accelerate, the cavity will accelerate in the direction from big end to small.
This isn't making sense to me at the moment. I will have to think if there is a way to resolve this issue.
@ kaublezw: regardless of the statement there is a force on the side walls.
Also the Doppler-shift of light inside the cavity doesn't appear to have been directly observed with instruments yet but is speculated to be there. -
#2302 by TheTraveller on 02 Nov, 2016 15:00
-
Ok onto another subject that has been experimentally verified.
Thrust force vector swapping 180 deg when a dielectric in added at the small end of a tapered cavity in TE012 mode.
Yup you heard that right.
As per the attachment on the left is the guide wavelength that is generated without a dielectric at the small end. Note the 1/2 guide wave that is at the bottom half of the cavity is much shorter than the 1/2 guide wavelength that is at the small end of the cavity. Experimental data with a scale or torsion pendulum has shown the existence of a Thrust force small to big.
But when a dielectric is placed at the small end, the larger and smaller 1/2 guide waves swap 180 deg as does the measured Thrust force.
Here we have another set of data that can be used to try to understand what is generating the Thrust force that can be measured on a scale or torsion pendulum.
We know the direction of the Thrust force from the EW cavity experiments with the dielectric at the small end as Big to Small as in the attachment. I can't share the non dielectric experimental data yet, which confirms other experimental data that a dielectric is NOT needed to generate the Thrust force in an EmDrive, but I can share the Thrust vector does indeed shift 180 deg from Big to Small to Small to Big
What this helps us to understand is the generation of the Thrust force and the direction of that force seems to be related to which ends of the cavity the longer 1/2 guide wave and shorter 1/2 guide wave occupies.
If anyone out there can explain this real Thrust force vector shift by other than Roger's theory, please share it.
-
#2303 by TheTraveller on 02 Nov, 2016 15:05
-
What you are trying to say here is very different from what I expected however let me try and clarify this. It appears when you put the cavity on a scale and turn it on, that you claim a force is acting on the scale in the direction from small end to big end of the cavity.
However, when put the cavity on an arm, free to accelerate, the cavity will accelerate in the direction from big end to small.
This isn't making sense to me at the moment. I will have to think if there is a way to resolve this issue.
@ kaublezw: regardless of the statement there is a force on the side walls.
Yes there are forces on the side walls.
Yes the acceleration direction is opposite to that of the Thrust force generated on a scale.
Roger reported on this and measured it in his Demonstrator Static tests as attached which had a measured vector Small to Big. He also commented in his various papers that when the Demonstrator EmDrive was placed on the rotary test rig, it accelerated Big to Small.
-
#2304 by dustinthewind on 02 Nov, 2016 16:05
-
The most important thing I think we could do would be to eliminate probable errors from observation. Some issues would be thermal convection of air, thermal expansion, and magnetic field interaction. For all we know some of these observations are from us observing these sources of error.
Maybe a test of a cavity with battery mounted in a vacuum ferro-magnetic canister on a pendulum arm. The pendulum arm with cavity also inside a larger fero-magnetic box, such that magnetic fields outside are separated from ones inside. The battery eliminates thermal expansion of cables providing power.
Find the resonant frequency of the pendulum arm and set the cavity to pulse at that resonant frequency to reach maximum osculation.
This would give a freely accelerating EM drive supposedly.
Stop the arm from moving and the measure the flexing of the arm, possibly using an interferometer. This gives a non-accelerating EM drive. This way we aren't changing the measuring device from a scale to an arm. The device remains instead on the arm of the pendulum. -
#2305 by Bob012345 on 02 Nov, 2016 16:19
-
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?
My answer is that we don't know. There are several possible evolutions for the motion over time, following different theories. Without being exhaustive, here are a few of the possible solutions. I start the most pessimist, and go to the most exotic solution.
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.
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.
In fact, it would work like a man on a skateboard with a winch and a harpoon navigating on the roads. When he want to accelerate in a direction, he harpoon a car, than he can use his winch to go closer to the car.
If the car is not moving relatively to the road, he moves only by using the winch, and in that case the Kinetic energy gained is limited to P/V in the road reference frame. At the opposite, if the car is going in the right direction, the man on the skateboard can get speed (and Kinetic energy in the road reference frame for free)
If the drive works like that, the possibilities depends on the distance of the corpses that can be used, and their effectives positions. It would be like navigating on the sea with a sail boat. The speed depends on the winds. Their forces, and their directions. A sail boat can't just go in straight line at constant speed from it's departure to it's destination. CoE satisfied
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
If this quasilocal center of mass could be used like a reference frame for this new kind of aether, globally, it would not moves much compared with the near masses. Probably Only a few hundreds of kilometers per second for our earth.
In fact, space would be like the water of a river. It is easier to go in the direction of the current.
In that case, the Emship performance should depends it's direction, and the thrust should be limited to P/V in the local space referential. But the thrust can be superior to P/V in the right direction, in an earth referential, as the energy is stolen to the current.. CoE satisfied.
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)
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.
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.
Gilbertdrive, thanks for the thoughtful answer!
I'm inclined to think in terms of 4 or 5. I'm highly skeptical of the so-called quantum vacuum. If we live in a simulation they are probably malicious, making Shawyer get big numbers and NASA get small numbers.
There is also the Finnish concept that the EmDrive creates and releases some new form of photon pairs that pass out of the cavity and carry an enhanced momentum. In that case it's created locally and not with some interaction with the universe. I realize that some or perhaps most will persist in thinking that anything that creates more momentum than light does from pure energy will violate CoE until a probe is sent to Alpha Centauri and is shown to 'violate' CoE as it's commonly held because it's radio signal shows it's moving faster than its electrical power can account for in the earth frame.
-
#2306 by InterestedEngineer on 02 Nov, 2016 16:53
-
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 ?
By isotropic I mean gravity works equally in all directions. There's no polarity or directionality to mass's effect on spacetime. . So if you create something in a cavity that were to pull or push on gravity, it would pull/push on Earth the most since the Earth has the largest local mass. i.e. in an experiment the largest force would always be up or down, never sideways.
Also if you are generating some sort of gravity effect the gravity equation is pretty harsh. Try solving for m2 when m1 is 1kg, r is 1 meter and F=1N. The amount of mass needed to generate 1 newton sideways would cause a weight on the earth's surface of megatons, either crushing or blowing up your test apparatus, depending on whether you want to think about mass equivalent per newton caused by gravity or the energy required...
I think we can rule out gravity-related causes. Most of you probably did but I saw some mention of it recently. -
#2307 by InterestedEngineer on 02 Nov, 2016 16:56
-
So if there's a redshift after every bounce, won't the frequency drop below that of resonance? The photons will become too large to fit in the frustum.
According to conventional physics, what should happen at that point? Where does the energy go? -
#2308 by Gilbertdrive on 02 Nov, 2016 17:02
-
... 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".
My list, from the begining, was a list of possible theories, that all needed new physics except the theory 1, and I kept the most exotic for the end.
These different theories are probably incompatible. If one is true, most of the others should be false.
I never told that I was defendig the theory of the "Emdrive working by rounding off exploit". But I maintain it is not yet proven false.
For example, if we want simulate a simple mini universe, constitued of only 3 identical atoms, with only one force, the gravity, we can't, even with the best computers, make a simulation of this without rounding off. All the complex simulations that we do nowdays are full of rounding off.
So, it is not a priori impossible that our universe uses rounding off. Of course, we can say if we want that this rounding off is by definition a part of the simulation rules. -
#2309 by Bob012345 on 02 Nov, 2016 17:07
-
This EM Drive topic has been incredibly well behaved (from what I can tell, lack of mod reports, etc.) over recent months, but I'll just remind members that there's clearly opposing camps on this subject. So remember, keep it civil (which I believe you all are) and avoid the trap of having to repeat yourself too many times, especially with the attachments *cough* TheTraveller,
Make your case and follow up questions, but understand some people are convinced this works and some people are convinced it doesn't...but as with all threads on here, 99.9 percent of the "views" are from people not actually posting (guests, people reading, etc.) So you're mainly aiming to convince them, not people posting the opposing view.
As you were
I wish some would stop using phrases such as "You clearly still don't understand .....". It demeaning. -
#2310 by Gilbertdrive on 02 Nov, 2016 17:22
-
By isotropic I mean gravity works equally in all directions. There's no polarity or directionality to mass's effect on spacetime. . So if you create something in a cavity that were to pull or push on gravity, it would pull/push on Earth the most since the Earth has the largest local mass. i.e. in an experiment the largest force would always be up or down, never sideways.
Also if you are generating some sort of gravity effect the gravity equation is pretty harsh. Try solving for m2 when m1 is 1kg, r is 1 meter and F=1N. The amount of mass needed to generate 1 newton sideways would cause a weight on the earth's surface of megatons, either crushing or blowing up your test apparatus, depending on whether you want to think about mass equivalent per newton caused by gravity or the energy required...
I think we can rule out gravity-related causes. Most of you probably did but I saw some mention of it recently.
I understood. You have thought to a precise way of manipulating the gravity. And your conclusion about it is reasonnable. But it maybe other ways of manipulating the gravity.
I was most thinking about directing the gravity of other corpses, to use it like with gravity assist.
For example, if I direct a telescope on another planet, from my viewpoint, looking in the telescope, the planet seems to be closer. Even if the planet was emitting light in an isotropic way.
Maybe it is possible to do the same with gravity. As the telescope allows to magnify a small part of the sky, maybe a device could allows to make another planet closer for gravity. A gravity telescope. The ship does not need to gain any kg, the idea is not to emit gravity in an anisotropic way, but to collect gravity in an anisotropic way.
Of course, it needs new physics, new laws for gravity.
-
#2311 by jay343 on 02 Nov, 2016 17:27
-
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 ?
By isotropic I mean gravity works equally in all directions. There's no polarity or directionality to mass's effect on spacetime. . So if you create something in a cavity that were to pull or push on gravity, it would pull/push on Earth the most since the Earth has the largest local mass. i.e. in an experiment the largest force would always be up or down, never sideways.
Also if you are generating some sort of gravity effect the gravity equation is pretty harsh. Try solving for m2 when m1 is 1kg, r is 1 meter and F=1N. The amount of mass needed to generate 1 newton sideways would cause a weight on the earth's surface of megatons, either crushing or blowing up your test apparatus, depending on whether you want to think about mass equivalent per newton caused by gravity or the energy required...
I think we can rule out gravity-related causes. Most of you probably did but I saw some mention of it recently.
Question: Gravity waves were recently confirmed. If gravity exists as a wave, doesn't that imply that gravity wave interference patterns can be formed? If so, then gravity could possibly be formed into a beam just like a Yagi antenna does for EM radiation. Could that be happening in the frustum? -
#2312 by WarpTech on 02 Nov, 2016 19:39
-
So if there's a redshift after every bounce, won't the frequency drop below that of resonance? The photons will become too large to fit in the frustum.
According to conventional physics, what should happen at that point? Where does the energy go?
It is lost as dissipation in the copper. The equivalent of the "exhaust velocity" is the rate at which energy is absorbed by the copper. This is relatively slow process, which results in thrust greater than a photon rocket.
However, you have a preconception about gravity that is misplaced. Gravity is more than just big mass and space-time curvature. The effects of gravity can be mimicked using EM fields and Damping. For instance, if a light wave is moving away from the gravitational center of mass, it will be red shifted. The difference in the square of the frequency before and after, is the "Power loss". The ratio of the Power lost over the power stored, i.e, the natural resonant frequency of the wave, is the damping factor. So, what I've done is use this equivalence to derive a gravitational-like acceleration vector from the relative damping factor at each end of the frustum. This is much more difficult to make predictions, but it is likely the correct "theory" of how the EMDrive works, using math equivalent to GR and not SR.
-
#2313 by Rodal on 02 Nov, 2016 21:49
-
So if there's a redshift after every bounce, won't the frequency drop below that of resonance? The photons will become too large to fit in the frustum.
According to conventional physics, what should happen at that point? Where does the energy go?
It is lost as dissipation in the copper. The equivalent of the "exhaust velocity" is the rate at which energy is absorbed by the copper. This is relatively slow process, which results in thrust greater than a photon rocket.
However, you have a preconception about gravity that is misplaced. Gravity is more than just big mass and space-time curvature. The effects of gravity can be mimicked using EM fields and Damping. For instance, if a light wave is moving away from the gravitational center of mass, it will be red shifted. The difference in the square of the frequency before and after, is the "Power loss". The ratio of the Power lost over the power stored, i.e, the natural resonant frequency of the wave, is the damping factor. So, what I've done is use this equivalence to derive a gravitational-like acceleration vector from the relative damping factor at each end of the frustum. This is much more difficult to make predictions, but it is likely the correct "theory" of how the EMDrive works, using math equivalent to GR and not SR.
Todd,
I have been wondering, if we call Q the quality factor for the whole cavity, what should be the proper relationship between ζ and Q ?
should it be Q = [Integral of 1/(2ζ) over internal volume dV]/[Integral of dV]
Assuming that all the dissipation occurs over a surface, with equal skin depth d throughout
Q = [Integral of 1/(2ζ) over internal surface dS]*d/([Integral over dS]*d)
= [Integral of 1/(2ζ)over internal surface dS]/InternalSurface -
#2314 by Bob012345 on 02 Nov, 2016 22:21
-
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 ?
By isotropic I mean gravity works equally in all directions. There's no polarity or directionality to mass's effect on spacetime. . So if you create something in a cavity that were to pull or push on gravity, it would pull/push on Earth the most since the Earth has the largest local mass. i.e. in an experiment the largest force would always be up or down, never sideways.
Also if you are generating some sort of gravity effect the gravity equation is pretty harsh. Try solving for m2 when m1 is 1kg, r is 1 meter and F=1N. The amount of mass needed to generate 1 newton sideways would cause a weight on the earth's surface of megatons, either crushing or blowing up your test apparatus, depending on whether you want to think about mass equivalent per newton caused by gravity or the energy required...
I think we can rule out gravity-related causes. Most of you probably did but I saw some mention of it recently.
Question: Gravity waves were recently confirmed. If gravity exists as a wave, doesn't that imply that gravity wave interference patterns can be formed? If so, then gravity could possibly be formed into a beam just like a Yagi antenna does for EM radiation. Could that be happening in the frustum?
I'd say something they interpreted as gravity waves was seen but it's indirect evidence and requires, shall we say, rather large objects....
-
#2315 by RotoSequence on 02 Nov, 2016 23:13
-
Question: Gravity waves were recently confirmed. If gravity exists as a wave, doesn't that imply that gravity wave interference patterns can be formed? If so, then gravity could possibly be formed into a beam just like a Yagi antenna does for EM radiation. Could that be happening in the frustum?
I wouldn't be inclined to speculate too much about what may or may not be happening inside the frustum and how it might relate to phenomena that require the most sensitive interferometers ever made to detect; that's a lot of orders of magnitude of difference! -
#2316 by mikegem on 03 Nov, 2016 00:09
-
Question: Gravity waves were recently confirmed. If gravity exists as a wave, doesn't that imply that gravity wave interference patterns can be formed? If so, then gravity could possibly be formed into a beam just like a Yagi antenna does for EM radiation. Could that be happening in the frustum?
I wouldn't be inclined to speculate too much about what may or may not be happening inside the frustum and how it might relate to phenomena that require the most sensitive interferometers ever made to detect; that's a lot of orders of magnitude of difference!
Well, true about the need for our most sensitive interferometers - but the event was ~ 1.4B light years off [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_observation_of_gravitational_waves]. That's a big distance attenuation factor, even for a peak radiated power of ~10^49W.
Given much closer proximity, if something odd is happening to gravity in the frustum (I have no position on this), it might be instrumentally accessible. -
#2317 by jay343 on 03 Nov, 2016 01:04
-
Question: Gravity waves were recently confirmed. If gravity exists as a wave, doesn't that imply that gravity wave interference patterns can be formed? If so, then gravity could possibly be formed into a beam just like a Yagi antenna does for EM radiation. Could that be happening in the frustum?
I wouldn't be inclined to speculate too much about what may or may not be happening inside the frustum and how it might relate to phenomena that require the most sensitive interferometers ever made to detect; that's a lot of orders of magnitude of difference!
Well, true about the need for our most sensitive interferometers - but the event was ~ 1.4B light years off [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_observation_of_gravitational_waves]. That's a big distance attenuation factor, even for a peak radiated power of ~10^49W.
Given much closer proximity, if something odd is happening to gravity in the frustum (I have no position on this), it might be instrumentally accessible.
Cavendish's experiment measured a force of 1.74×10-7 N, which is 0.174 micro Newtons, right? That was the natural "isotropic" force of gravity between the large and small lead balls in his experiment. The small lead balls are roughly the same mass as a typical EMDrive frustum, so forces in the same order of magnitude as the Cavendish experiment should be expected. If the energy and shape of the frustum somehow modulates the natural gravitational field in or around the frustum, it would take very little deviation from the natural shape to produce very anomalous results.
Gravity waves produced by natural phenomena are one thing, but what if it is possible to produce high frequency gravity waves? -
#2318 by ThinkerX on 03 Nov, 2016 01:55
-
The most important thing I think we could do would be to eliminate probable errors from observation. Some issues would be thermal convection of air, thermal expansion, and magnetic field interaction. For all we know some of these observations are from us observing these sources of error.
Maybe a test of a cavity with battery mounted in a vacuum ferro-magnetic canister on a pendulum arm. The pendulum arm with cavity also inside a larger fero-magnetic box, such that magnetic fields outside are separated from ones inside. The battery eliminates thermal expansion of cables providing power.
Find the resonant frequency of the pendulum arm and set the cavity to pulse at that resonant frequency to reach maximum osculation.
This would give a freely accelerating EM drive supposedly.
Stop the arm from moving and the measure the flexing of the arm, possibly using an interferometer. This gives a non-accelerating EM drive. This way we aren't changing the measuring device from a scale to an arm. The device remains instead on the arm of the pendulum.
My memory might be a bit hazy, but...
Problems of this sort - at least with regard to the Eagleworks setup (back when Paul March still visited with tidbits) were exhaustively gone over back in threads 2-3. At least two regular posters here made extensive mathematical analysis's of these issues and concluded that while such forces were present, they were not enough, in and of themselves, to account for the 'anomalous force.' (by orders of magnitude, though my recollection here is especially hazy.) This applies, of course only to EW's tests as of about a year ago, maybe a bit later. -
#2319 by masterharper1082 on 03 Nov, 2016 02:06
-
How is this not an an expression of d'Alembert's Principle, where he's got the direction of the "reaction force" inverted?
One more time, as I posted before: you just clearly said that F1 + F2 + F3 + ma = 0I am speaking in terms of classical theory which Shawyer claims his theory is consistent with. If you read my other posts you would see that I acknowledge the possibility of mechanisms outside classical physics that would provide an actual unbalanced force.
There are no unbalanced forces involved.
All that is happening is a new effect, well new to some, that causes momentum transfer from the declining momentum in the EmWave as it grows longer inside the cavity due to declining cavity diameter to the frustum.
Big end plate axial radiation pressure toward the big end
-
( Side Wall axial radiation pressure toward the small end
+
Small end plate axial radiation pressure toward the small end
+
Accelerative Reaction force toward the small end )
=
0.
What unbalanced Force?
According to Newtonian mechanics, F1 + F2 + F3 = ma. There is a fundamental difference in these equations that is an unresolvable contradiction. m*a is not a force, it is the result of an unbalanced force.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Alembert%27s_principle?wprov=sfla1
mh
