-
#2320 by meberbs on 03 Nov, 2016 02:20
-
If by reaction force, you mean the m*a term, then what TT is doing is flipping the sign of it as you say, which takes you from a general statement of one of the most basic physics principles to something that is utterly inconsistent with the very definition of force. This is usually what happens when you randomly flip a single minus sign in a physics equation, you get a wrong answer.
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 -
#2321 by WarpTech on 03 Nov, 2016 02:52
-
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
I don't really want to change the accepted "definitions" of Q or ζ. However, since a frustum "is" a structure with a gradient, AND the distribution of "stored" energy and "lost" energy is not a constant throughout the frustum, then we need a different terminology.
My preference is the "decay time" or the inverse "Neper frequency" because, per QED, we can treat every point inside the frustum as a harmonic oscillator, with a constant frequency, but different wave vector, phase and decay time. However, we don't have all that information, so it makes it difficult to predict anything that way without something like COMSOL.
IMO, don't mess with definitions. It's just asking for flack.
-
#2322 by ThinkerX on 03 Nov, 2016 05:08
-
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
I don't really want to change the accepted "definitions" of Q or ζ. However, since a frustum "is" a structure with a gradient, AND the distribution of "stored" energy and "lost" energy is not a constant throughout the frustum, then we need a different terminology.
My preference is the "decay time" or the inverse "Neper frequency" because, per QED, we can treat every point inside the frustum as a harmonic oscillator, with a constant frequency, but different wave vector, phase and decay time. However, we don't have all that information, so it makes it difficult to predict anything that way without something like COMSOL.
IMO, don't mess with definitions. It's just asking for flack.
Todd, I can see major, pointless confusion arising here. I suggest you define terms to avoid such during your next round of equation posting in the interest of clarity. -
#2323 by TheTraveller on 03 Nov, 2016 05:55
-
A tale of TWO very strange force, equal in force but opposite in direction.
Any theory to solve why the EmDrive works must address how these two very strange forces are generated and why their directions are what they are.
That they exist has been proven. Additional high quality test data has recently surfaced that supports the non dielectric Thrust Force direction small to big when measured in a static condition as in the left static test condition.
So guys now is the time to make your favourite theory explain the attached test data that clearly shows the TWO forces that an EmDrive can generate, Thrust & Reaction, work in opposite directions.
-
#2324 by mwvp on 03 Nov, 2016 06:41
-
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.
I'll add, since in a non-dielectric filled hollow metallic waveguide the losses are all in the copper, and since higher frequencies will tend to stay in the apex where lower frequencies the base, and there is more copper losses in the larger conductors, the dissipation is asymmetric; greater losses at lower frequency. Consequently we have a rocket nozzle that preferentially exhausts the red-shifted lower sideband, with a resultant slow traveling wave at the group velocity towards the base, IOW thrust.
The light acquires "mass" as a standing wave, proportional to Q, and is exhausted proportional to damping, with the exhaust velocity the group velocity.
A must watch: at 18:20; Nuclear rocket scientist Geoffrey Landis describes optimum exhaust velocity for a constant-power electric engine.
The frustrum is an opto-mechanical impedance matching transducer for photons, the way gears are for bikes and cars, and transformers or resonant circuits or matching networks are for RF circuits.
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.
Hmmm, where have I heard that before? No, I don't think I ever have.
Somewhere in the distant past, I recall GR being used to handle electromagnetics problems in a tech journal article.
The approach and math can be very useful but really, the forces and momentum is electromagnetic, not gravitational. The dispersion and forces on the frustrum are electromagnetic, and not due to curved space, or time, even though mathematically analogous. Its not until the last equation you invoke "G" for divergence, and the equation seems to say gravitational divergence is equivalent to electromagnetic divergence. -
#2325 by TheTraveller on 03 Nov, 2016 09:25
-
* If you push to the left/down you move to the right/up < action / reaction > *
Sorry to inform but apparently that is not what happens with an EmDrive. Yes how the EmDrive generates it's 2 forces and how they work is VERY STRANGE.
Please read Roger's static Thrust force engineering report if you do not understand what I reported as attached.
To repeat. The Demonstrator EmDrive was placed Small end Down on a scale. It produced a Reduction in the weight recorded on the scale. It was then reversed, placed Small end Up on the same scale and produced an Increase in the weight recorded on the scale. To me that suggests the generated static force direction, as measured by the weight changes from the scale measurements, was Small to Big.
Then it was mounted on a free to move rotary test rig and it accelerated the attached 100kg mass Big to Small or CCW as in the video: http://www.emdrive.com/fullDMtest188.mpg
To me this suggests the generated Dynamic / accelerative force direction on the rotary test rig was Big to Small and the generated Static force direction on the scale test rig was Small to Big.
As to theory of coupling to some external momentum dump, how can that explain the TWO very strange and different direction Static and Dynamic forces that an EmDrive generates and can be measured?
-
#2326 by kenny008 on 03 Nov, 2016 11:00
-
* If you push to the left/down you move to the right/up < action / reaction > *
Sorry to inform but apparently that is not what happens with an EmDrive. Yes how the EmDrive generates it's 2 forces and how they work is VERY STRANGE.
Please read Roger's static Thrust force engineering report if you do not understand what I reported as attached.
To repeat. The Demonstrator EmDrive was placed Small end Down on a scale. It produced a Reduction in the weight recorded on the scale. It was then reversed, placed Small end Up on the same scale and produced an Increase in the weight recorded on the scale. To me that suggests the generated static force direction, as measured by the weight changes from the scale measurements, was Small to Big.
Then it was mounted on a free to move rotary test rig and it accelerated the attached 100kg mass Big to Small or CCW as in the video: http://www.emdrive.com/fullDMtest188.mpg
To me this suggests the generated Dynamic / accelerative force direction on the rotary test rig was Big to Small and the generated Static force direction on the scale test rig was Small to Big.
As to theory of coupling to some external momentum dump, how can that explain the TWO very strange and different direction Static and Dynamic forces that an EmDrive generates and can be measured?
If this was any experiment other than an EMDrive experiment, this would be evidence that there was a problem with the test setup. When the forces you measure are inconsistent using different measurement techniques / conditions, this indicates that at least one of those setups has a problem.
I'm not sure why, for an EmDrive experiment, we assume that "how they work is VERY STRANGE." Isn't it much more likely (Occam's Razor) that the experiments need refinement? By allowing ourselves to explain away unusual results with new, very strange forces, we are missing the opportunity to fine-tune our experiments and possibly find truly new and exciting data.
I'm on the fence as to whether this device works or not. I'd like to believe those with the capabilities beyond my own are continuing to dig for the answers. But I think we need to have realistic experiments, verifiable by others (scientific method, right?), to ensure we aren't chasing down rabbit holes.
Just an observation from someone without the full scientific background of many on this forum, but a good feel for what makes sense. -
#2327 by TheTraveller on 03 Nov, 2016 11:07
-
* If you push to the left/down you move to the right/up < action / reaction > *
Sorry to inform but apparently that is not what happens with an EmDrive. Yes how the EmDrive generates it's 2 forces and how they work is VERY STRANGE.
Please read Roger's static Thrust force engineering report if you do not understand what I reported as attached.
To repeat. The Demonstrator EmDrive was placed Small end Down on a scale. It produced a Reduction in the weight recorded on the scale. It was then reversed, placed Small end Up on the same scale and produced an Increase in the weight recorded on the scale. To me that suggests the generated static force direction, as measured by the weight changes from the scale measurements, was Small to Big.
Then it was mounted on a free to move rotary test rig and it accelerated the attached 100kg mass Big to Small or CCW as in the video: http://www.emdrive.com/fullDMtest188.mpg
To me this suggests the generated Dynamic / accelerative force direction on the rotary test rig was Big to Small and the generated Static force direction on the scale test rig was Small to Big.
As to theory of coupling to some external momentum dump, how can that explain the TWO very strange and different direction Static and Dynamic forces that an EmDrive generates and can be measured?
Here is the issue.
Many theories try to explain the Reaction / Acceleration force (big to small) as a reaction against some external momentum dump.
Ok fair enough.
But now to explain the non accelerative Thrust force (small to big) that has a different direction?
Do we accept there are TWO momentum dumps, one that works for the Accelerative / Reaction force and then another that works for the 180 deg different Static Thrust force?
I don't think so.
Phil -
#2328 by WarpTech on 03 Nov, 2016 12:47
-
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.
Hmmm, where have I heard that before? No, I don't think I ever have.
Somewhere in the distant past, I recall GR being used to handle electromagnetics problems in a tech journal article.
The approach and math can be very useful but really, the forces and momentum is electromagnetic, not gravitational. The dispersion and forces on the frustrum are electromagnetic, and not due to curved space, or time, even though mathematically analogous. Its not until the last equation you invoke "G" for divergence, and the equation seems to say gravitational divergence is equivalent to electromagnetic divergence.
Not quite the case. The damping factor has two components, the frequency and the decay time, or Neper frequency. If we have a constant mode frequency, then the only variable left is the decay time. So yes actually, there is a gradient in the decay "time" within the frustum. The only difference between this and gravity is the frequency and bandwidth over which it acts. In Gravity, relative damping acts on the resonant frequency of sub-atomic and atomic particles that are the harmonic oscillators that make up matter and fields, and are driven by the ZPF. Where in the EM Drive, damping acts on the frequency of the resonant mode of the frustum, driven by the MW input source. Same exact phenomenon, two different interpretations due to the nature of the resonances. That's really the only difference!
Of course, in my model gravity is going to be an "expected" property of the Standard Model of particle physics, once this phenomenon is fully understood by the main stream, and they drop the interpretation that space-time is curved. It is "conformally flat" in my model.
-
#2329 by TheTraveller on 03 Nov, 2016 13:23
-
@TheTraveller:
I think I have to correct myself
- In the entire report the direction of movement or trust vector is from smal to large end plate. In both the Vertical-thrust-tests as in the Horizontal-thrust-tests.
- In the video you linked is the direction of movement or trust vector flipped and from large to small end plate. And this was a Dynamic-test-rig ( Rotation ).
Its not the same divice, so there must be something fundamentaly different.
My question is where is the full test report for the new device?
It is the same device, the Demonstrator EmDrive.
What is different in the rotary test rig is the device is free to accelerate Big to Small and generate internal Doppler shifts. Against the scale it can't move and no internal Doppler shifts are generated.
The EmDrive generates TWO very different forces that are not like anything we have ever experienced before. But the forces are real, can and have been measured. -
#2330 by meberbs on 03 Nov, 2016 13:39
-
If they are the same device, driven with the same input, then the only consistent conclusion that can be drawn is that at least one of the forces was due to a flaw in the experimental setup. That graph of the forces on the scale you showed has artifacts (such as very different turn on times) that caused the reviewer to question the validity of the results, which is further evidence for it being an experimental error.@TheTraveller:
I think I have to correct myself
- In the entire report the direction of movement or trust vector is from smal to large end plate. In both the Vertical-thrust-tests as in the Horizontal-thrust-tests.
- In the video you linked is the direction of movement or trust vector flipped and from large to small end plate. And this was a Dynamic-test-rig ( Rotation ).
Its not the same divice, so there must be something fundamentaly different.
My question is where is the full test report for the new device?
It is the same device, the Demonstrator EmDrive.
What is different in the rotary test rig is the device is free to accelerate Big to Small and generate internal Doppler shifts. Against the scale it can't move and no internal Doppler shifts are generated.
The EmDrive generates TWO very different forces that are not like anything we have ever experienced before. But the forces are real, can and have been measured. -
#2331 by PotomacNeuron on 03 Nov, 2016 13:51
-
If they are the same device, driven with the same input, then the only consistent conclusion that can be drawn is that at least one of the forces was due to a flaw in the experimental setup. That graph of the forces on the scale you showed has artifacts (such as very different turn on times) that caused the reviewer to question the validity of the results, which is further evidence for it being an experimental error.
Heating of cables can cause such slow ramps of forces. When he flipped his test bed, it is likely those cables were arranged differently. He reached his conclusions too soon. Overturning known science with this experiment is unlikely. -
#2332 by TheTraveller on 03 Nov, 2016 13:51
-
If they are the same device, driven with the same input, then the only consistent conclusion that can be drawn is that at least one of the forces was due to a flaw in the experimental setup. That graph of the forces on the scale you showed has artifacts (such as very different turn on times) that caused the reviewer to question the validity of the results, which is further evidence for it being an experimental error.@TheTraveller:
I think I have to correct myself
- In the entire report the direction of movement or trust vector is from smal to large end plate. In both the Vertical-thrust-tests as in the Horizontal-thrust-tests.
- In the video you linked is the direction of movement or trust vector flipped and from large to small end plate. And this was a Dynamic-test-rig ( Rotation ).
Its not the same divice, so there must be something fundamentaly different.
My question is where is the full test report for the new device?
It is the same device, the Demonstrator EmDrive.
What is different in the rotary test rig is the device is free to accelerate Big to Small and generate internal Doppler shifts. Against the scale it can't move and no internal Doppler shifts are generated.
The EmDrive generates TWO very different forces that are not like anything we have ever experienced before. But the forces are real, can and have been measured.
Or the results are correct and you can't explain them?
BTW I have other experimental data that shows a TE102 non dielectric cavity generates a Thrust force (small to big) when tested on a basically non moving torsion pendulum (fancy scale). Put a dielectric at the small end, which swaps which end has the smaller and longer 1/2 guide waves and the Thrust force reverses Big to Small.
It is time to stop declaring any experimental data that disagrees with your world view as bad data.
-
#2333 by RERT on 03 Nov, 2016 13:53
-
Quote
Gravity waves produced by natural phenomena are one thing, but what if it is possible to produce high frequency gravity waves?
I can't see how microwave-frequency changes in Energy density in a frustrum can do anything else but induce microwave frequency changes in the gravitational field, which seem bound to radiate away. Scale is another matter.
Egan's resonant cavity analysis (http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html) gives roughly milli-Joules per kW for the total energy stored in a cavity. So in round numbers 10^-3 Joules for a DIY experiment, about 3*10^-20 Kg of mass-energy. Gravity from that is going to be tough to spot, even if the density changes were all in phase (which they aren't). -
#2334 by TheTraveller on 03 Nov, 2016 13:56
-
If they are the same device, driven with the same input, then the only consistent conclusion that can be drawn is that at least one of the forces was due to a flaw in the experimental setup. That graph of the forces on the scale you showed has artifacts (such as very different turn on times) that caused the reviewer to question the validity of the results, which is further evidence for it being an experimental error.
Heating of cables can cause such slow ramps of forces. When he flipped his test bed, it is likely those cables were arranged differently. He reached his conclusions too soon. Overturning known science with this experiment is far reaching.
There is no overturning of known science. The effect of a reducing cavity diameter reducing EmWave momentum/radiation pressure has been known since 1950. This is just an old effect that Roger discovered and used to create the EmDrive.
BTW have you actually read the Demonstrator EmDrive test report and seen the test setup?
There are more EmDrive experiments that show the Thrust force in a non dielectric cavity, on a scale / torsion pendulum, and has a direction Small to Big. -
#2335 by RotoSequence on 03 Nov, 2016 14:04
-
If they are the same device, driven with the same input, then the only consistent conclusion that can be drawn is that at least one of the forces was due to a flaw in the experimental setup. That graph of the forces on the scale you showed has artifacts (such as very different turn on times) that caused the reviewer to question the validity of the results, which is further evidence for it being an experimental error.
Heating of cables can cause such slow ramps of forces. When he flipped his test bed, it is likely those cables were arranged differently. He reached his conclusions too soon. Overturning known science with this experiment is far reaching.
There is no overturning of known science. The effect of a reducing cavity diameter reducing EmWave momentum/radiation pressure has been known since 1950. This is just an old effect that Roger discovered and used to create the EmDrive.
BTW have you actually read the Demonstrator EmDrive test report and seen the test setup?
There are more EmDrive experiments that show the Thrust force in a non dielectric cavity, on a scale / torsion pendulum, and has a direction Small to Big.
If it's all as definitive as you say, surely you can readily create and demonstrate your own, third party replication and prove the scaling factors rather than relying exclusively on Shawyer's own material? -
#2336 by meberbs on 03 Nov, 2016 14:07
-
Putting a dielectric at one end is the type of change where it is no longer the same device, and multiple theories are possible to show why that could change the force direction. Your torsion balance result contradicts the torsion balance results of everyone else, so this is not good news for the emDrive. If it was driven in a different mode shape than the experiments everyone has data for, then there is still room for a mode-shape dependent explanation.
If they are the same device, driven with the same input, then the only consistent conclusion that can be drawn is that at least one of the forces was due to a flaw in the experimental setup. That graph of the forces on the scale you showed has artifacts (such as very different turn on times) that caused the reviewer to question the validity of the results, which is further evidence for it being an experimental error.@TheTraveller:
I think I have to correct myself
- In the entire report the direction of movement or trust vector is from smal to large end plate. In both the Vertical-thrust-tests as in the Horizontal-thrust-tests.
- In the video you linked is the direction of movement or trust vector flipped and from large to small end plate. And this was a Dynamic-test-rig ( Rotation ).
Its not the same divice, so there must be something fundamentaly different.
My question is where is the full test report for the new device?
It is the same device, the Demonstrator EmDrive.
What is different in the rotary test rig is the device is free to accelerate Big to Small and generate internal Doppler shifts. Against the scale it can't move and no internal Doppler shifts are generated.
The EmDrive generates TWO very different forces that are not like anything we have ever experienced before. But the forces are real, can and have been measured.
Or the results are correct and you can't explain them?
BTW I have other experimental data that shows a TE102 non dielectric cavity generates a Thrust force (small to big) when tested on a basically non moving torsion pendulum (fancy scale). Put a dielectric at the small end, which swaps which end has the smaller and longer 1/2 guide waves and the Thrust force reverses Big to Small.
It is time to stop declaring any experimental data that disagrees with your world view as bad data.
"It is time to stop declaring any experimental data that disagrees with your world view as bad data." - This is what you have done with all null results.There is no overturning of known science. ...
Except for the fact that you are claiming behavior inconsistent with the definition of force, which overturns ALL science. -
#2337 by TheTraveller on 03 Nov, 2016 14:09
-
Except for the fact that you are claiming behavior inconsistent with the definition of force, which overturns ALL science.
Believe what you wish.
It will not change the reality of the EmDrive.
Cheers. -
#2338 by RotoSequence on 03 Nov, 2016 14:14
-
Except for the fact that you are claiming behavior inconsistent with the definition of force, which overturns ALL science.
Believe what you wish.
It will not change the reality of the EmDrive.
Cheers.
It still sounds too good to be true. The absence of third party proof of Shawyer's lofty claims of drive scaling and performance characteristics does not help. Your own, prior statements of upcoming replications that remain to take place and have no timeline or schedule to follow haven't helped, either.
I need more than Shawyer's assurances to take it as fact.
-
#2339 by Rodal on 03 Nov, 2016 14:29
-
...
I don't really want to change the accepted "definitions" of Q or ζ. However, since a frustum "is" a structure with a gradient, AND the distribution of "stored" energy and "lost" energy is not a constant throughout the frustum, then we need a different terminology.
My preference is the "decay time" or the inverse "Neper frequency" because, per QED, we can treat every point inside the frustum as a harmonic oscillator, with a constant frequency, but different wave vector, phase and decay time. However, we don't have all that information, so it makes it difficult to predict anything that way without something like COMSOL.
IMO, don't mess with definitions. It's just asking for flack.
The great polymath John von Neumann famously told Claude Shannon at MIT to use "entropy" as the name for his new uncertainty function:Quote from: John von NeumannYou should call it entropy, for two reasons. In the first place your uncertainty function has been used in statistical mechanics under that name, so it already has a name. In the second place, and more important, no one really knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage.
in Reflections : Scientific Essays of Eugene P. Wigner (1967), p. 261
I need more than Shawyer's assurances to take it as fact.