-
#2700 by OnlyMe on 12 Nov, 2016 18:59
-
Welcome to the forum !
Decided to finally register after having followed along for the last about 90 pages.
Noticing a few people wondering why #3 is so unlikely. Aside from free energy/perpetual motion issues, which are significant by themself. Any drive that can produce constant acceleration for constant input power, regardless of relative movement, must be inherently an FTL capable drive, since it would not be constrained by the speed of light given sufficient time to accelerate. Even an Alcubierre drive seems like it wouldn't achieve constant acceleration for constant input power. It seems like there's slim evidence that the drive is acting as a warp/Alcubierre drive, and thus seems little reason to state that it would be.
Although, I do wonder a bit about what the principles of COE and COM have to say if it's not the drive itself that is moving (or being affected by it), but the space around it (not that I'm expecting that to be the case). Again, not saying it is the case, but seems like the "push-pull" actions of EMdrive bear some similarities to those that might be expected by an Alcubierre style drive. Though seems like there's pretty much nil evidence to say it is, at least that's been confirmed. Seems like this could be tested by placing some accelerometers very close to, but not touching, the drive and see if there any effect. (I wouldn't consider this paragraph as speculation, but rather simple theoretical musings)
I am not sure an accelerometer to be the best way for very small thrusts. EagleWork used an interferometer to mesure a possible distorsion of spacetime, and arrived to a positive repeatable result. But still needs to be confirmed by other experiments.
I don't remember the details of the EW interferometer tests, but I don't remember them having been done in high quality vacuum.
The concern I would have involving all such tests/measurements is that the speed of light even through the air inside a frustum at normal atmospheric pressure.., or even SeeShell's quartz rods is not the universal constant of c, the speed of light in vacuum. With that in mind before any such test/measuremeant can be considered a valid measurement of any change in tidal gravity.., (the observable described as Spacoetime).., you would need to prove that the interaction between the air or quartz rod and the resonating EM field does not in and of itself affect the speed of light through those mediums.
I am not an expert where microwaves and dielectrics are concerned, but I believe that some in these discussions who seem to be have referred to both the air inside the frustum and quartz as dielectrics. To one of those more knowledgeable than I on the issue of dielectrics and MWs, would exposure to the resonant MW field inside a frustum change the dielectric properties of the medium? If so the speed of light might be different through the medium inside the frustum, independent of any possible affects there might be to any changes to Spacetime.., or the tidal gravity gradiant, if any.
-
#2701 by nukus on 12 Nov, 2016 21:27
-
Welcome to the forum !
Decided to finally register after having followed along for the last about 90 pages.
Noticing a few people wondering why #3 is so unlikely. Aside from free energy/perpetual motion issues, which are significant by themself. Any drive that can produce constant acceleration for constant input power, regardless of relative movement, must be inherently an FTL capable drive, since it would not be constrained by the speed of light given sufficient time to accelerate. Even an Alcubierre drive seems like it wouldn't achieve constant acceleration for constant input power. It seems like there's slim evidence that the drive is acting as a warp/Alcubierre drive, and thus seems little reason to state that it would be.
Although, I do wonder a bit about what the principles of COE and COM have to say if it's not the drive itself that is moving (or being affected by it), but the space around it (not that I'm expecting that to be the case). Again, not saying it is the case, but seems like the "push-pull" actions of EMdrive bear some similarities to those that might be expected by an Alcubierre style drive. Though seems like there's pretty much nil evidence to say it is, at least that's been confirmed. Seems like this could be tested by placing some accelerometers very close to, but not touching, the drive and see if there any effect. (I wouldn't consider this paragraph as speculation, but rather simple theoretical musings)
I am not sure an accelerometer to be the best way for very small thrusts. EagleWork used an interferometer to mesure a possible distorsion of spacetime, and arrived to a positive repeatable result. But still needs to be confirmed by other experiments.
I don't remember the details of the EW interferometer tests, but I don't remember them having been done in high quality vacuum.
The concern I would have involving all such tests/measurements is that the speed of light even through the air inside a frustum at normal atmospheric pressure.., or even SeeShell's quartz rods is not the universal constant of c, the speed of light in vacuum. With that in mind before any such test/measuremeant can be considered a valid measurement of any change in tidal gravity.., (the observable described as Spacoetime).., you would need to prove that the interaction between the air or quartz rod and the resonating EM field does not in and of itself affect the speed of light through those mediums.
I am not an expert where microwaves and dielectrics are concerned, but I believe that some in these discussions who seem to be have referred to both the air inside the frustum and quartz as dielectrics. To one of those more knowledgeable than I on the issue of dielectrics and MWs, would exposure to the resonant MW field inside a frustum change the dielectric properties of the medium? If so the speed of light might be different through the medium inside the frustum, independent of any possible affects there might be to any changes to Spacetime.., or the tidal gravity gradiant, if any.
Yes, the EW interferometer tests is the "pretty much nil evidence" I was referring to.
As for the accelerometer to measure trust, probably not ideal. However, it would seem that if it's affecting spacetime it should be measurable as a change in local acceleration. Though it would probably need to be rather accurate (perhaps 2-4 orders of magnitude higher than the generated acceleration), which seems like it would be difficult to isolate enough to achieve. I recall my old Naga Razer mouse (http://www.razerzone.com/gaming-mice/razer-naga would light up when it "moved", and when set to max precision/resolution (about 1/8200th of an inch) was easily lighting up simply from detecting vibrations of someone walking nearby (as far as I could tell). -
#2702 by dustinthewind on 13 Nov, 2016 01:36
-
I think a clover leaf antenna may have a very similar symmetry to the loop antenna. I'll make a sketch showing the current patterns I suspect to exist. Actually I later found this web page which better addresses this here: http://www.antenna-theory.com/antennas/cloverleaf.php It would seem the radiation null is a bit different from a loop antenna which is interesting. I wonder if it could accidentally excite transverse magnetic modes with the tilted petals. This may be desirable if you want a flexible antenna but may not lock out undesired modes. Edit: I think it can get a larger radius than a loop antenna. Image from webpage
monomorphic has done several different design simulations in FEKO already.Maybe someone ought to try a double helix antenna design. Nature sure likes it for chemical manipulation.
Yes, but how does it behaves when used as a radiator inside a cavity? All publications and calculations I have seen are in free space. Anybody wants to do simulations?
Peter
One of the better ones was the clover leaf in Roger Shawyer's new design. It preformed extremely well. It's like the one I suggested you look at from ebay for a few dollars.
Shell
-
#2703 by meberbs on 13 Nov, 2016 01:50
-
I honestly don't even know what you are talking about any more in this post.
P = F * v. As the velocity increases, the power (rate of energy added to the object) also increases, so it is constant force, but not constant power. As you say, energy comes from distance covered, and since it covers more distance per time as it is moving faster it also gets more kinetic energy per time (converted from potential energy) as its velocity increases.Oh joy, here we go again!
My thoughts exactly! And yet if you take the system "device + objects it's pushing against" and write the CoE/CoM equations, it becomes obvious that as the relative velocity increases, the same acceleration (dV over dT) would require more energy. I'm not sure why this may not be obvious to some people, but writing down the simple newtonian equations usually helps. If there is another hypothetical way to write these equations without requiring dE (required energy to accelerate by dV) to grow with V, please provide an example.
One example where it doesn't is this. Imagine a uniform expansive gravitational field that our ship was falling through. Assume that field was of infinite extent. Our ship would maintain its acceleration indefinitely. The means it imparts energy is based on distance covered (work) not speed or time. Perhaps the EmDrive create such a local field that it falls through. CoM and CoE are always conserved for all situations and observers.
Yet again, your "example" of constant force/power is not one. Please work these through yourself a little more carefully before posting.
As I stated many times before, P=F*v is the mechanical power the system has and is not to be confused with the input electrical power we were discussing in earlier discussions. In this discussion, I was not discussing anything about input electrical power to an EmDrive. Of course even if the EmDrive electrical power was constant for a constant acceleration, the mechanical power would be velocity dependent and thus observer dependent. My question to you is this, two different observers at different velocities see different powers of the ship. Which is the real power?
You gave an example where there is no electrical power at all, claiming that this does not require increasing energy for increasing velocity (per what the previous post had requested). I showed that you were wrong.
Now you bring up electrical power again, when it has no relevance to the situation. You asked me a question about "different powers of the ship" but I have no idea what this means. Here are some guesses, please let me know which is right so we can be sure we are talking about the same thing:
- 2 people observe the ship has different kinetic energy in different frames
- 2 people see a ship accelerating at constant rate and see its kinetic energy increase in different rates in different frames
- other (please describe)
I have a different response for each of these. The general point you seem to be missing is that conservation of energy does not care what form energy is in, just that it is conserved (within a frame). Some forms of energy are frame independent. When these are converted into a frame dependent form of energy (kinetic) it always involves getting multiple things moving (as conservation of momentum requires anyway). For simplicity say that frame-independent potential energy is converted into kinetic energy in 2 objects A and B. A and B can have different starting values of kinetic energy in different frames. All frames will agree on the delta velocity of each of the objects. They will disagree on the distribution of the added energy between A and B. Some will find that the kinetic energy of A decreases, with that lost energy and the added energy both being added to B. Some will see the exact reverse of that. All frames will agree, however, that if you sum the kinetic energy of A and B before and after the potential energy was added you find the total kinetic energy changes by exactly the amount of potential energy converted into kinetic energy (and any waste such as heat is energy that is again frame-independent).
I worked through the details of this in a previous post, although I was using a specific example of a plane propelling itself by accelerating air that flows past it, the same math applies to the general case described above. -
#2704 by Gilbertdrive on 13 Nov, 2016 07:22
-
You are both righ
I don't remember the details of the EW interferometer tests, but I don't remember them having been done in high quality vacuum.
The concern I would have involving all such tests/measurements is that the speed of light even through the air inside a frustum at normal atmospheric pressure.., or even SeeShell's quartz rods is not the universal constant of c, the speed of light in vacuum. With that in mind before any such test/measuremeant can be considered a valid measurement of any change in tidal gravity.., (the observable described as Spacoetime).., you would need to prove that the interaction between the air or quartz rod and the resonating EM field does not in and of itself affect the speed of light through those mediums.
I am not an expert where microwaves and dielectrics are concerned, but I believe that some in these discussions who seem to be have referred to both the air inside the frustum and quartz as dielectrics. To one of those more knowledgeable than I on the issue of dielectrics and MWs, would exposure to the resonant MW field inside a frustum change the dielectric properties of the medium? If so the speed of light might be different through the medium inside the frustum, independent of any possible affects there might be to any changes to Spacetime.., or the tidal gravity gradiant, if any.
Yes, the EW interferometer tests is the "pretty much nil evidence" I was referring to.
As for the accelerometer to measure trust, probably not ideal. However, it would seem that if it's affecting spacetime it should be measurable as a change in local acceleration. Though it would probably need to be rather accurate (perhaps 2-4 orders of magnitude higher than the generated acceleration), which seems like it would be difficult to isolate enough to achieve. I recall my old Naga Razer mouse (http://www.razerzone.com/gaming-mice/razer-naga would light up when it "moved", and when set to max precision/resolution (about 1/8200th of an inch) was easily lighting up simply from detecting vibrations of someone walking nearby (as far as I could tell).
I agree for the non conclusive tests, because of non hard vacuum.
But, since an interferometer is something very precise, if a new test has to be done, an interferometer test in hard vacuum IMHO is the best candidate.
The idea of accelerometer would be still usefull for DIY test in the air. Even if I am not sure that a positive result could prove anything. But what is the minimal acceleration detected by an affordable accelerometer ? -
#2705 by Gilbertdrive on 13 Nov, 2016 07:29
-
I don't see how any photon would give more than it's own momentum before to vanish.It can be done with standard physics if you include asymmetrical damping and losses.
I disagree. With standard physics, Asymetrical damping and losses in the frustrum considered as a closed system can't give him more momentum than a perfect collimated photon rocket would do. Standard physics complies with CoM, and this clearly violates CoM when you consider the entire device (and not only try to look at the photons inside)
Regarding MiHsC. As I understand it. Inside the empty cavity, before you apply any RF input, there is already an EM Zero Point Field (ZPF) This field is not symmetrical due to the asymmetry of the cavity. Just as in the Casimir effect, the modes which are allowed inside the cavity are not symmetrical due to the taper, resulting in a gradient in the available power of the ZPF. This gradient in the available power defines a non-inertial reference frame. An inertial frame being defined as one where; the power absorbed = power radiated by a test particle in the ZPF, is symmetrical. All forces sum to 0.
If you could get this result using correctly standard physics formulas, it would means that standard physics are inconsistent, and that we can demonstrate using standard physics laws that 1=2.
Thanks very much for the explanation about MiHsC.
You are ignoring the effective potential energy difference, between an empty frustum, and one that is filled with a very high energy density. In a well sealed frustum, this potential can only be lost through dissipation. The potential energy is the amount of work that can be given up to the frustum, as it is dissipated. Dissipation is a very slow process. The equivalent "velocity" of the loss of energy (exhaust) is many times slower than c. So the resulting differential force is greater than a photon rocket.
The effective potential is equivalent to a gravitational potential and therefore this process is equivalent to gravitational assist. Inside, there is an acceleration vector, a non-inertial reference frame that acts on the stored energy. That's all that is required.
This is not new physics, it is a new application of physics, applying Newtonian Gravity, (i.e., the gradient of a potential to a damping factor) in a way that is not naturally familiar to us. There is no CoM violation in this scenario, just as there is no CoM issue with a rock falling toward the earth. The energy inside moves left and "evaporates", so the frustum moves right to conserve momentum. The force pushing the frustum to the right is the same force that is pushing the stored energy to the left, where it can be quickly dissipated as heat.
I say left and right because big end to small end can also be the opposite, depending on the symmetry of the mode.
With MiHsC, the photon get more momentum when it is going in one direction than the other, because of the minimal acceleration law. This momentum is a form of gift from the rest of the universe, and if the photon bounces 1 millions times before to vanish, it receive 1 million times this gift.
With standard physics, the total momentum that a photon can give is it's own initial momentum. Assuming flat local spacetime, and system not gravity interacting with others. -
#2706 by nukus on 13 Nov, 2016 10:53
-
You are both righ
I don't remember the details of the EW interferometer tests, but I don't remember them having been done in high quality vacuum.
The concern I would have involving all such tests/measurements is that the speed of light even through the air inside a frustum at normal atmospheric pressure.., or even SeeShell's quartz rods is not the universal constant of c, the speed of light in vacuum. With that in mind before any such test/measuremeant can be considered a valid measurement of any change in tidal gravity.., (the observable described as Spacoetime).., you would need to prove that the interaction between the air or quartz rod and the resonating EM field does not in and of itself affect the speed of light through those mediums.
I am not an expert where microwaves and dielectrics are concerned, but I believe that some in these discussions who seem to be have referred to both the air inside the frustum and quartz as dielectrics. To one of those more knowledgeable than I on the issue of dielectrics and MWs, would exposure to the resonant MW field inside a frustum change the dielectric properties of the medium? If so the speed of light might be different through the medium inside the frustum, independent of any possible affects there might be to any changes to Spacetime.., or the tidal gravity gradiant, if any.
Yes, the EW interferometer tests is the "pretty much nil evidence" I was referring to.
As for the accelerometer to measure trust, probably not ideal. However, it would seem that if it's affecting spacetime it should be measurable as a change in local acceleration. Though it would probably need to be rather accurate (perhaps 2-4 orders of magnitude higher than the generated acceleration), which seems like it would be difficult to isolate enough to achieve. I recall my old Naga Razer mouse (http://www.razerzone.com/gaming-mice/razer-naga would light up when it "moved", and when set to max precision/resolution (about 1/8200th of an inch) was easily lighting up simply from detecting vibrations of someone walking nearby (as far as I could tell).
I agree for the non conclusive tests, because of non hard vacuum.
But, since an interferometer is something very precise, if a new test has to be done, an interferometer test in hard vacuum IMHO is the best candidate.
The idea of accelerometer would be still useful for DIY test in the air. Even if I am not sure that a positive result could prove anything. But what is the minimal acceleration detected by an affordable accelerometer ?
No clue if I'm going in the right direction, but here are some links to what seem to be very accurate accelerometers, but not sure if they are suitable for the purpose as they seem more vibration related. However, they are typically piezoelectric sensors and that's a fair bit out of my expertise.
http://www.pcb.com/TestMeasurement/Accelerometers/HiSensitivity
http://www.mmf.de/characteristics.htm#sensitivity (seems to tell how they function)
http://www.sensorsmag.com/sensors/acceleration-vibration/simple-steps-selecting-right-accelerometer-1557
http://www.ni.com/white-paper/3807/en/
Given the skills required for building an EM drive, I would imagine using one of these accelerometers wouldn't be impractical from a skills standpoint. However, I don't have the electronics background to say if using them is practical from a precision standpoint. Though it seems like they wouldn't be able to be used as I had intended, since they have to be mounted to something.
Price wise, looks like they are in the hundreds of dollars range from about $150 to about $1000 depending on what you get and I can't say what would be needed for this purpose (someone want to chime in with the calculations/formula(s) for this?). -
#2707 by WarpTech on 13 Nov, 2016 15:49
-
I don't see how any photon would give more than it's own momentum before to vanish.It can be done with standard physics if you include asymmetrical damping and losses.
I disagree. With standard physics, Asymetrical damping and losses in the frustrum considered as a closed system can't give him more momentum than a perfect collimated photon rocket would do. Standard physics complies with CoM, and this clearly violates CoM when you consider the entire device (and not only try to look at the photons inside)
Regarding MiHsC. As I understand it. Inside the empty cavity, before you apply any RF input, there is already an EM Zero Point Field (ZPF) This field is not symmetrical due to the asymmetry of the cavity. Just as in the Casimir effect, the modes which are allowed inside the cavity are not symmetrical due to the taper, resulting in a gradient in the available power of the ZPF. This gradient in the available power defines a non-inertial reference frame. An inertial frame being defined as one where; the power absorbed = power radiated by a test particle in the ZPF, is symmetrical. All forces sum to 0.
If you could get this result using correctly standard physics formulas, it would means that standard physics are inconsistent, and that we can demonstrate using standard physics laws that 1=2.
Thanks very much for the explanation about MiHsC.
You are ignoring the effective potential energy difference, between an empty frustum, and one that is filled with a very high energy density. In a well sealed frustum, this potential can only be lost through dissipation. The potential energy is the amount of work that can be given up to the frustum, as it is dissipated. Dissipation is a very slow process. The equivalent "velocity" of the loss of energy (exhaust) is many times slower than c. So the resulting differential force is greater than a photon rocket.
The effective potential is equivalent to a gravitational potential and therefore this process is equivalent to gravitational assist. Inside, there is an acceleration vector, a non-inertial reference frame that acts on the stored energy. That's all that is required.
This is not new physics, it is a new application of physics, applying Newtonian Gravity, (i.e., the gradient of a potential to a damping factor) in a way that is not naturally familiar to us. There is no CoM violation in this scenario, just as there is no CoM issue with a rock falling toward the earth. The energy inside moves left and "evaporates", so the frustum moves right to conserve momentum. The force pushing the frustum to the right is the same force that is pushing the stored energy to the left, where it can be quickly dissipated as heat.
I say left and right because big end to small end can also be the opposite, depending on the symmetry of the mode.
With MiHsC, the photon get more momentum when it is going in one direction than the other, because of the minimal acceleration law. This momentum is a form of gift from the rest of the universe, and if the photon bounces 1 millions times before to vanish, it receive 1 million times this gift.
With standard physics, the total momentum that a photon can give is it's own initial momentum. Assuming flat local spacetime, and system not gravity interacting with others.
"Assuming flat local spacetime" is the issue. Damping = Gravity, the effective potential creates an accelerated reference frame equivalent to gravity, per Einstein's Equivalence Principle. The frustum falls along this gradient vector. If there is an acceleration vector, (and you use an geometric interpretation), space-time is not flat. Only the relative potential energy between the position of the frustum and the position of the field mass inside it, as dictated by this acceleration vector, is relevant. Not the momentum of individual photons.
-
#2708 by TheTraveller on 13 Nov, 2016 16:06
-
When an EmDrive is not acceleration you can use short Rf pulses to measure the 5x cavity fill time TC and the 5x cavity decay time.
It is my understanding that if you do that measurement when the EmDrive accelerates due to the short Rf pulses, the 5x cavity fill time and 5x cavity decay time are shorter than if not accelerating.
The shorter fill and decay times suggest a lower cavity Q during acceleration due to cavity energy being used to do work on mass to cause acceleration.
Doing this measurement allows the energy lost to the cavity during acceleration to be calculated as against energy needed to cause the acceleration.
It is my understand Roger has done these studies and found the energy lost from the cavity during acceleration matches that required to do the measured acceleration.
Just a bit of background information that any theory needs to represent. -
#2709 by Gilbertdrive on 13 Nov, 2016 16:35
-
You are right. The spacetime is not flat around an accelerating frustrum. Anyway, if it is far enough from distant masses, it means that it becomes asymptotically flat with the distance to the Emdrive, and in that case, with standard physics, the result is the same.Quote from: WarpTech
I don't see how any photon would give more than it's own momentum before to vanish.
You are ignoring the effective potential energy difference, between an empty frustum, and one that is filled with a very high energy density. In a well sealed frustum, this potential can only be lost through dissipation. The potential energy is the amount of work that can be given up to the frustum, as it is dissipated. Dissipation is a very slow process. The equivalent "velocity" of the loss of energy (exhaust) is many times slower than c. So the resulting differential force is greater than a photon rocket.
The effective potential is equivalent to a gravitational potential and therefore this process is equivalent to gravitational assist. Inside, there is an acceleration vector, a non-inertial reference frame that acts on the stored energy. That's all that is required.
This is not new physics, it is a new application of physics, applying Newtonian Gravity, (i.e., the gradient of a potential to a damping factor) in a way that is not naturally familiar to us. There is no CoM violation in this scenario, just as there is no CoM issue with a rock falling toward the earth. The energy inside moves left and "evaporates", so the frustum moves right to conserve momentum. The force pushing the frustum to the right is the same force that is pushing the stored energy to the left, where it can be quickly dissipated as heat.
I say left and right because big end to small end can also be the opposite, depending on the symmetry of the mode.
With MiHsC, the photon get more momentum when it is going in one direction than the other, because of the minimal acceleration law. This momentum is a form of gift from the rest of the universe, and if the photon bounces 1 millions times before to vanish, it receive 1 million times this gift.
With standard physics, the total momentum that a photon can give is it's own initial momentum. Assuming flat local spacetime, and system not gravity interacting with others.
"Assuming flat local spacetime" is the issue. Damping = Gravity, the effective potential creates an accelerated reference frame equivalent to gravity, per Einstein's Equivalence Principle. The frustum falls along this gradient vector. If there is an acceleration vector, (and you use an geometric interpretation), space-time is not flat. Only the relative potential energy between the position of the frustum and the position of the field mass inside it, as dictated by this acceleration vector, is relevant. Not the momentum of individual photons.
In fact, as it was mentionned earlier by Dr Rodal, in a curved spacetime, you can do interesting things. You can swim in space.
My interpretation is that when the space is curved by a body, any momentum stolen by "swiming in space" is stolen to this body. It is a form of gravity assist.
Theoretically, a probe that "swim in space" could be built, and work in earth orbit, by using the curve of spacetime due to the moon, the sun and the earth. It will get momentum, but this momentum is stolen to the earth and the moon. The system probe+sun+earth+moon will not get momentum.
In my interpretation, the momentum that you can gain because of the curve of spacetime that a probe does by itself is stolen to the spaceprobe itself. It needs an external curving of spacetime to work. -
#2710 by TheTraveller on 13 Nov, 2016 16:45
-
Australian IAC congress meeting:
http://www.iac2017.org
Would be an interesting place to do a live EmDrive rotary demo.
Phil -
#2711 by OnlyMe on 13 Nov, 2016 18:21
-
..... The frustum is pushing against the field inside it, and the field is pushing back against the frustum. ......
WarpTech,
The portion of your post I clipped out above, comes up in one way or another in many of your explanations... And unless at some point some sort of physical interaction with a quantum vacuum (QV).., or some Machian interaction with the mass of the universe as a whole, that either asymmetrically alters the inertia of an EmDrive or its, active or passive interaction with gravitation, how I read the literal intent of the above statement must be accurate!
While I understand your theoretical position in principle, it has been many years since the math was anything near a first language for me, so though I can work my way through it, it is not generally worth the effort. Still I find it difficult to accept that anything happening in an EmDrive is either altering its inertial profile or essentially generating a tidal gravitational variation.., or for that matter any significant interaction with the QV... Though if either or any similar case were to turn out to be the in fact mechanism, it would in my mind be the best of all outcomes... Opening up new physics and advancements in our understanding of both inertia and gravitation.
Still, the clipped (statement) and similar descriptive comments, continue to raise, for me a somewhat different more conservative mechanism, that fits with the general intent, that the frustum pushes against the field inside and the field pushes back against the frustum. And, though what data has been presented shows very small net forces, the net thrust seems to scale theoretically and in model based projections, with the input power and final field density/intensity of the resonant field inside the frustum. An asymmetrically distributed resonating EM field... This provides the first half of any attempt to explain the mechanism, resulting in thrust.
The second part that continues to raise its head in my minds eye is.., and here for simplicity let us assume the resonant MW field is being introduced from a finely tuned source and an antenna, rather than a wave guide or directly attached magnetron... continuing .., the frustum itself acts as the ground plane for the antenna and there is an electric current flowing in the walls and end plates, at the same frequency or very close to the frequency of the MW field inside the frustum. This is not just a matter of theory and model at this point, since rfmwguy posted an autopsy photo of the arching that occurred between one end plate and the frustum walls, in I believe it was his last build. Since that current originates with an interaction between the resonant MW field inside the frustum and the frustum walls, it would be an AC current at or very near the frequency of the resonant frequency, inside the frustum. Any potential difference(s) being the result of the difference in the speed of light inside the cavity and the speed of the current through the frustum walls.
Given this, could not the anomalous force be the result of an interaction between the asymmetric EM field inside the frustum and the EM field associated with the current flow in the frustum walls. This might also explain why TheTraveler's claims that force has been measured differently when the frustum is allowed to move (accelerate) or just set on a scale where it cannot. The dynamics between the two EM fields, would be different as the frustum accelerates, even considering that the interior resonant EM field should update at the speed of light, while changes in the EM field associated with the current through the frustum walls, would update or change at the velocity of the electric current through the conductive wall material.
BTW and again without getting into the math myself, I don't see that the field description you have been presenting would need much modification, other than in interpretation, to be describing an interaction between the two EM fields. You would still be looking at the force potential, as dependent on the relationship in the polarity of the two fields over time and the small difference rate that those two fields change as the frustum moves... changes in the field associated with the current in the frustum walls being dependent on and lagging any changes in the interior resonant EM field.
And yes I know.., I think I raised a question about the effect being an EM field interaction sometime last year.., and it was dismissed. And even if the mechanism were anything along the lines presented above, it would represent at least a new understanding of known physics and would not be as exciting as changes inertia or interactions with or a local creation of even a very weak tidal gravity from a concentration of energy, not directly involving an associated center of mass.
-
#2712 by Peter Lauwer on 13 Nov, 2016 18:49
-
monomorphic has done several different design simulations in FEKO already.Maybe someone ought to try a double helix antenna design. Nature sure likes it for chemical manipulation.
Yes, but how does it behaves when used as a radiator inside a cavity? All publications and calculations I have seen are in free space. Anybody wants to do simulations?
Peter
One of the better ones was the clover leaf in Roger Shawyer's new design. It preformed extremely well. It's like the one I suggested you look at from ebay for a few dollars.
Shell
I will certainly try this. Will take some time, the coming week I have to concentrate on my regular work.
Peter -
#2713 by WarpTech on 13 Nov, 2016 19:42
-
..... The frustum is pushing against the field inside it, and the field is pushing back against the frustum. ......
WarpTech,
The portion of your post I clipped out above, comes up in one way or another in many of your explanations... And unless at some point some sort of physical interaction with a quantum vacuum (QV).., or some Machian interaction with the mass of the universe as a whole, that either asymmetrically alters the inertia of an EmDrive or its, active or passive interaction with gravitation, how I read the literal intent of the above statement must be accurate!
While I understand your theoretical position in principle, it has been many years since the math was anything near a first language for me, so though I can work my way through it, it is not generally worth the effort. Still I find it difficult to accept that anything happening in an EmDrive is either altering its inertial profile or essentially generating a tidal gravitational variation.., or for that matter any significant interaction with the QV... Though if either or any similar case were to turn out to be the in fact mechanism, it would in my mind be the best of all outcomes... Opening up new physics and advancements in our understanding of both inertia and gravitation.
Still, the clipped (statement) and similar descriptive comments, continue to raise, for me a somewhat different more conservative mechanism, that fits with the general intent, that the frustum pushes against the field inside and the field pushes back against the frustum. And, though what data has been presented shows very small net forces, the net thrust seems to scale theoretically and in model based projections, with the input power and final field density/intensity of the resonant field inside the frustum. An asymmetrically distributed resonating EM field... This provides the first half of any attempt to explain the mechanism, resulting in thrust.
The second part that continues to raise its head in my minds eye is.., and here for simplicity let us assume the resonant MW field is being introduced from a finely tuned source and an antenna, rather than a wave guide or directly attached magnetron... continuing .., the frustum itself acts as the ground plane for the antenna and there is an electric current flowing in the walls and end plates, at the same frequency or very close to the frequency of the MW field inside the frustum. This is not just a matter of theory and model at this point, since rfmwguy posted an autopsy photo of the arching that occurred between one end plate and the frustum walls, in I believe it was his last build. Since that current originates with an interaction between the resonant MW field inside the frustum and the frustum walls, it would be an AC current at or very near the frequency of the resonant frequency, inside the frustum. Any potential difference(s) being the result of the difference in the speed of light inside the cavity and the speed of the current through the frustum walls.
Given this, could not the anomalous force be the result of an interaction between the asymmetric EM field inside the frustum and the EM field associated with the current flow in the frustum walls. This might also explain why TheTraveler's claims that force has been measured differently when the frustum is allowed to move (accelerate) or just set on a scale where it cannot. The dynamics between the two EM fields, would be different as the frustum accelerates, even considering that the interior resonant EM field should update at the speed of light, while changes in the EM field associated with the current through the frustum walls, would update or change at the velocity of the electric current through the conductive wall material.
BTW and again without getting into the math myself, I don't see that the field description you have been presenting would need much modification, other than in interpretation, to be describing an interaction between the two EM fields. You would still be looking at the force potential, as dependent on the relationship in the polarity of the two fields over time and the small difference rate that those two fields change as the frustum moves... changes in the field associated with the current in the frustum walls being dependent on and lagging any changes in the interior resonant EM field.
And yes I know.., I think I raised a question about the effect being an EM field interaction sometime last year.., and it was dismissed. And even if the mechanism were anything along the lines presented above, it would represent at least a new understanding of known physics and would not be as exciting as changes inertia or interactions with or a local creation of even a very weak tidal gravity from a concentration of energy, not directly involving an associated center of mass.
I think you are simply missing the fact that when "the frustum is pushing against the field inside it...", is layman's terms for there are currents flowing in the copper that prevent the field from escaping, thereby generating a balanced force between the field and the copper. If it were not a conductor, there would be no current flowing and the field would pass right trough the walls. It is the image charges and image currents in the copper that keep the field contained. My model is simply that if there is no dissipation, all forces are balanced and there is no thrust. If there is asymmetrical dissipation, it's like "leakage" from the inside to the copper to the outside as heat. That asymmetry produces the acceleration vector.
-
#2714 by flux_capacitor on 13 Nov, 2016 20:03
-
The big difference between Shawyer and McCulloch, is that fact that Shawyer claims that it works with standard physics, when McCulloch has a new theory, new physics.
But both come to the same conclusion: the photons loose inertial mass while travelling from the big end towards the small end in a tapered cavity, and gain inertial mass while travelling small to big.
McCulloch says this is caused by the Unruh waves difference between big and small ends, that changes photon momentum between the end plates. This is new physics indeed.
Shawyer says it is the guide wavelength variation that changes photon momentum due to the Doppler effect: photons going small towards big end decrease in frequency (redshift) and photons going big to small increase in frequency (blueshift) and has a consequence their inertial mass varies accordingly.
I try to understand what makes Shawyer's statement impossible. What is needed first is answering this couple of questions:
- In a converging waveguide, does the frequency of the travelling wave increase?
- In a diverging waveguide, does the frequency of the travelling wave decrease?
Or even simpler, this unique question:
Does the wavelength of an EM wave depend on the guide wavelength?
...
Please see General-Relativity author Notsosureofit's hypothesis:
http://emdrive.wiki/@notsosureofit_Hypothesis
The proposition that dispersion caused by an accelerating frame of reference implied an accelerating frame of reference caused by a dispersive cavity resonator. (to 1st order using massless, perfectly conducting cavity)
Graph: example of the force of each mode vs frequency for m = 0 to 10, n = 1 to 5, p = 1 to 3 from the table referenced above.
The three curves represent p=1, p=2 and p=3, where p is the longitudinal wave-pattern mode shape number in the longitudinal direction, for modes TMmnp and TEmnp.
In this case Rs = 0.0794 m, Rb = 0.1397 m, L = 0.2286 m (the dimensions of the truncated cone cavity tested at NASA Eagleworks as reported by Brady et.al.) and Power*QualityFactor = 2*10^6 watts.
For constant geometrical dimensions, and constant quality factor and input power, the asymptotic behavior of thrust is inversely proportional to the cube of the frequency and proportional to the square of X.
Thanks Dr Rodal, I think too the notsosureofit hypothesis is a very good one, especially as it was established in the early days of these threads and is still one of the most accurate theories predicting the measured reaction force of frustums tested up to now.
But it is only one of the best hypotheses among others. My question rather refered to the reality or not of momentum or effective inertial mass variation of photons in a waveguide. Cullen has showed long ago (in 1952) the radiation pressure, measured on a plate placed inside a waveguide, is dependent on the waveguide diameter. More precisely, when the waveguide has a smaller diameter, the wavelength shortens and radiation pressure decreases on the plate, and when the waveguide has a bigger diameter, the wavelength lengthens and radiation pressure is greater on the same plate. I don't think this data has been refuted.
However this study has been quickly dismissed in case of the EmDrive, because Cullen only experimented with open cylindrical waveguides, whereas the EmDrive as a frustum is a tapered truncated cone closed resonant cavity.
It is true that a major difference between an open waveguide and a closed resonant cavity, that has been flagged before here, is in a waveguide there are only travelling waves, whereas in a resonant cavity there are standing waves.
But in the frustum, especially with spherical end plates and a narrow bandwidth RF power source, besides a standing wave there are also travelling waves (from short RF pulses provided by a clean RF power) which travel back and forth between the two reflectors until the EM energy decays completely. To which point a second RF pulse can be generated and the cycle starts over, and so forth. Considering only the short ringing time of those travelling RF pulses inside the frustum, it appears they can be assimilated to the travelling waves studied previously in open waveguides, and the difference previously pointed out becomes not so clearly evident.
Finally, the EM waves studied by Cullen were travelling in straight cylindrical waveguides, whereas the EM pulses travelling back and forth in the EmDrive are guided in a tapered conical wall of continuously varying diameter. That being said, I don't understand why the approximation saying the EmDrive can be considered as a succession of many cylindrical waveguides, shorter and shorter one after the others, should be wrong. I insist "as a first approximation", not intended to calculate precisely anything happening inside the frustum, except qualitatively the effect of a varying guide wavelength on EM waves and their carried momentum.
Now just consider these hypotheses:
1) the EM wave momentum can vary.
2) the EM waves can exchange momentum with the frustum (the EM waves lose momentum while travelling back and forth, in favor of the momentum gained by the frustum).
3) the EM waves decay, and an external energy supply is required to maintain the thrust force. -
#2715 by M.LeBel on 14 Nov, 2016 04:50
-
..... The frustum is pushing against the field inside it, and the field is pushing back against the frustum. ......
WarpTech,
The portion of your .......... creation of even a very weak tidal gravity from a concentration of energy, not directly involving an associated center of mass.
Physics studies how the universe appears to works from our point of view. But, in order to understand how the universe really works by itself, one has to leave this point of view. There are many theories being thrown around here and when the understanding is missing we just pull another equation of physics. At this moment, physics is a blindfold we use as a substitute for thinking. So, let’s think for a moment.
What is gravity? Bill Unruh tells us the following from GR.
“..... A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is
that gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster far from the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity, affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually caused by time’s flowing unequably from place to place...” [Time, Gravity, and Quantum Mechanics” W. G. Unruh, arXiv:gr-qc/9312027v2 17 Dec 1993]
Not a word on space. “Space” is just our way to throw a metric grid over the process of gravity. This metric is only there on a “need to know” basis for us. The universe doesn’t need to know any equation or metric in order to work.
My research suggests that out there, there is only one type of stuff, an explosive type of process we call “time” and everything is made of it in different structures.
Time has a variable property, that of having a rate of evolution that varies.(Unruh’s “flowing unequably). Now, a wave is usually a travelling variation of the variable of the medium. Then, the EM wave is a travelling wave of variation in the rate of evolution of the time process. (Luminiferous .... all the way to carrying light. This would raise questions about the very rational behind even attempting an M&M type experiment).
This time process comes with quantum fluctuations of energy 1/2h√. [ “Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations” arXiv:quant-ph/0105053v2 19 Jun 2001 ] These fluctuations are values above (+) and below (-) the local rate of the time process. These values are not just maths; they are actual structures. A radio antenna would couple electrically these + and - 1/2h√ fluctuations to produce the full h quantum of action, an EM waves, spread over √. All that we say that exists is made of combinations of these quantum fluctuations. So, on one hand we have the time process and/and on the other we have everything else made of combinations of the quantum fluctuations of the time process.
Let’s recap. The cavity, the microwaves and us are all made of quantum fluctuations combinations. Remember that these fluctuations are very short lived. Somehow they obviously can outlive the self life given by the uncertainty principle by being in combinations. Gravity on the other hand is a differential in the rate of evolution of the time process.
The question then is, what is the emDrive doing? How does playing with quantum fluctuations affect the rate of the time process. Gravity (or inertia) is a time rate differential. Is the cavity creating/building a time rate differential by:
a) slicing and sorting microwaves into their original + and – 1/2h√ quantum fluctuations?
b) using the various microwave EM modes E and H fields to sort out and collect/aggregate quantum fluctuations already present, moving apart the + and – 1/2h√ fluctuations?
Both a) and b) would require to have these sorted fluctuations to be in some form of combination in order to increase their self life.. Polarization in a field format might do it.
Food for thought.....
Of course, my original idea was to use a rotating bottle brush type (radial) electric field to sort out and separate quantum fluctuations. I bought a small wood lathe and mounted on it a cylindrical 270uf (measured 258uf) electrolytic capacitor charged at 180v (about 4 joules) and rotating at about 4000 rpm....rig shielded .... mirror suspended from ceiling with fishing lines and laser beam spot 20 feet away... = no joy on the beam!
A rotating radial electric field normally induce an axial magnetic field.... which is just your polarized field of quantum fluctuation as mentioned above.... This is where I thought that some of the emdrive microwaves modes may produce a much faster electric field rotation speed than my wood lathe can...A very fast rotating polarization of the microwave in the emdrive might do the job.
Again, food for thought...
-
#2716 by OnlyMe on 14 Nov, 2016 04:50
-
....
I think you are simply missing the fact that when "the frustum is pushing against the field inside it...", is layman's terms for there are currents flowing in the copper that prevent the field from escaping, thereby generating a balanced force between the field and the copper. If it were not a conductor, there would be no current flowing and the field would pass right trough the walls. It is the image charges and image currents in the copper that keep the field contained. My model is simply that if there is no dissipation, all forces are balanced and there is no thrust. If there is asymmetrical dissipation, it's like "leakage" from the inside to the copper to the outside as heat. That asymmetry produces the acceleration vector.
....
I clipped my earlier comments from the post for brevity. I tend to run on enough all on my own...
I understand what you are saying about your model. Frankly, the way you have presented it is a large part of why I said I like the way you think... I also have said I would prefer that your model or another that involves any manipulation of the inertial profile or gravitational interaction of a frustum with the "Spacetime" outside of it (or even a localized change inside), would be the best or most exciting discoveries in my life time.
I quoted that isolated phrase, from your post, not as a direct description of your model, but because it reminds me of the way, the two EM fields I attempted to describe might interact..... Which could be in at least two ways that might have some polarized effect. And should be testable. I did not mean to imply any literal interpretation of the phrase or be making any direct comment(s) about your model.
Sometime last year a discussion occurred that involved the Lentz law and dropping a magnet through a copper pipe. Interesting stuff, but I believe it was put to bed and I was not attempting to suggest that as a mechanism here, though the asymmetry of the resonant field inside the frustum could be argued as creating similar and not quite equal dynamics... another discussion that I don't believe would bear fruit.
What I was attempting to describe is that it could be as simple as the fact that the asymmetric design of the frustum, which results in an asymmetric distribution of the resonant EM field inside the frustum, is dynamically, as far as the physical frustum is concerned, a magnetic/electromagnetic field moving inside the frustum. That alone is nothing, but when you add that there is a current generated in the frustum walls, by the presence of the Resonant EM field, (which has been proven by the arching seen in rfmwguy's last build), you wind up with two EM fields. One broadcast into the frustum and the other generated by the current in the frustum walls. If they were out of phase for any reason there would be a push or pull between the two fields.
Since it is highly unlikely that the smaller field due to the current in the walls could actually move or displace the EM field inside the frustum, the push or pull would be felt by the frustum.., EmDrive as a whole.... OR
Even if no significant EM field were generated by the current in the frustum walls, the fact that the current in the frustum walls is the result of an interaction with a (2.4 GHz) EM field, would mean the current itself would be a (2.4 GHz) AC current. At that point again if for any reason the current in the walls were out of phase with the field inside the frustum, there would be a push/pull between the two.... And once again, if the EM field inside the frustum were greater than the potential associated with the current in the walls, the push/pull would wind up as momentum transferred to the EmDrive as a whole.
I am not suggesting this is a Lenz law sort of interaction/effect. The frustum itself should be acting as the ground plane for the broadcast antenna and at the same time since it encloses the broadcast EM field, a receiver antenna of sorts. Part of the initial EM field energy is disipated as heat, and part through the frustum itself acting as a combination ground plane and receiver antenna... And then some part as an anomalous thrust generated by a polarized interaction between the current running through the frustum and the EM field inside the frustum.., a transfer of momentum, measured as thrust, being the result of the asymmetric dynamics and polarization of the EM field(s) and ground plane current.
-
#2717 by SeeShells on 14 Nov, 2016 06:27
-
#2718 by mboeller on 14 Nov, 2016 08:36
-
according to some researchers you don't need dark matter or any different gravity law to explain the rotation of galaxies, you just have to use the Einstein equations "correctly":
https://arxiv.org/abs/1101.3224
https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.07491
this discussion goes on since more than 10 years. -
#2719 by Peter Lauwer on 14 Nov, 2016 09:01
-
according to some researchers you don't need dark matter or any different gravity law to explain the rotation of galaxies, you just have to use the Einstein equations "correctly":
https://arxiv.org/abs/1101.3224
https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.07491
this discussion goes on since more than 10 years.
And there's the theory of Mike McCulloch (MiHsC), in which even predictions about the EMDrive are made. See, e.g., http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.nl/2014/01/mihsc-101.html
