-
#2740 by TheTraveller on 15 Nov, 2016 07:53
-
There is a strong possibility that:
1) Roger's Radiation pressure theory is correct.
2) Dr. Woodward's Mach Effect theory is correct and is not related to the above.
3) Dr. White's QV thruster theory is correct and it is not related to the above.
So just maybe there is not ONE RING that controls ALL the others? -
#2741 by flux_capacitor on 15 Nov, 2016 09:52
-
There is a strong possibility that:
1) Roger's Radiation pressure theory is correct.
2) Dr. Woodward's Mach Effect theory is correct and is not related to the above.
3) Dr. White's QV thruster theory is correct and it is not related to the above.
So just maybe there is not ONE RING that controls ALL the others?
One must measure and report results of:
- EM frequency value along z-axis in the frustum to show if it is constant or not
- radiation pressure on both ends (flat and spherical) to show if it is different
- radiation pressure on side walls for flat and spherical ends to show if it has an effective contribution.
This has never been done (alas there is no public record). All we have his Cullen's 1952 report dealing with open waveguides. The same tests are needed today with closed tapered cavities to definitively settle the issue. -
#2742 by TheTraveller on 15 Nov, 2016 11:55
-
There is a strong possibility that:
1) Roger's Radiation pressure theory is correct.
2) Dr. Woodward's Mach Effect theory is correct and is not related to the above.
3) Dr. White's QV thruster theory is correct and it is not related to the above.
So just maybe there is not ONE RING that controls ALL the others?
One must measure and report results of:
- EM frequency value along z-axis in the frustum to show if it is constant or not
- radiation pressure on both ends (flat and spherical) to show if it is different
- radiation pressure on side walls for flat and spherical ends to show if it has an effective contribution.
This has never been done (alas there is no public record). All we have his Cullen's 1952 report dealing with open waveguides. The same tests are needed today with closed tapered cavities to definitively settle the issue.
Simulators like FEKO show that the guide wavelength increases as the tapered waveguide diameter decreases as attached.
Existing microwave engineering equations predict this increasing guide wavelength as the diameter reduces as attached.
Roger's equations are based on using these equations to predict the end plate guide wavelength and group velocity and from that using Cullen's equations the value of the radiation pressure. BTW one end of the waveguide Cullen used had the end plate that he measured the radiation pressure on. His later papers showed how to use this effect to measure the energy in a cavity from the radiation pressure, which is increased as Q increases. It is behind a paywall, so can't share it.
On this issue of guide wavelength increasing as diameter decreases there is no doubt as both FEKO and microwave engineering equations predict it.
I plan on doing a series of experiments to directly measure the radiation pressure on the end plates and on the frustum.
-
#2743 by TheTraveller on 15 Nov, 2016 12:08
-
FWIW, emdrives.com currently redirects to the latest post in the latest page in this thread 8.
www.emdrive.com works fine for me. -
#2744 by TheTraveller on 15 Nov, 2016 12:13
-
My pet theory is that the emdrive lacks translational symmetry and therefore is not bound by certain conservation laws.
CofM is conserved.
The EmDrive and it's accelerative loads GAINED momentum is sourced from the internal EmWave's LOST momentum. This is seen to the cavity as another per cycle energy loss that adds to the eddy current loss. So when accelerating, the cavity Q drops as there is another cavity energy loss that does work on accelerating the total mass.
This has been measured. -
#2745 by SeeShells on 15 Nov, 2016 12:15
-
There is a strong possibility that:
Maybe there is TT.
1) Roger's Radiation pressure theory is correct.
2) Dr. Woodward's Mach Effect theory is correct and is not related to the above.
3) Dr. White's QV thruster theory is correct and it is not related to the above.
So just maybe there is not ONE RING that controls ALL the others?
Sometimes you will read something that someone is speculating about and it resonates so so very well. Resonates with your own thoughts, visualizations and basic theories of what's happening within all of the Q-Thruster, Shawyer's cavities and Woodward Mach drives. Not saying this statement is fully correct although what they are saying could be pointing to the reasons why all drives show a varying anomaly of thrusts.
I've built and designed for this mix of ideas for the last year with a frustum shape, a dielectric insert, PZT inserts, parametric amplification, antenna designs and secret squirrel sauces, taking the best from some of the best engineers and physicists in this field. I'll not take anything from them but uniformly applaud their efforts to dream.
Am I on the right track? Only time and testing will tell. HA! What else could I be doing? Sitting in my hot tub getting more wrinkles? Well, maybe not as my hot tub broke and instead of getting another one I've put that money towards my new lab. I still can use gofundme help if anyone is interested, my hot tub will wait.
My Best,
ShellQuoteThis was posted on another site
http://tinyurl.com/z5ypcdh
ZephirAWT 1 point 12 hours ago*
Jim Woodward wildly opposes Shawyer's and Harold White's theories, but he himself promotes an idea, that reaction-less drive creates a sparse (benign) worm hole for its motion. But if you read the White's work, you'll realize, that the formation of warp field and worm holes belongs into crucial part of his quantum vacuum theory and he is even trying to detect it experimentally with Juday-White's interferometer. Shortly after this NASA released a memo stating essentially "No we're not studying Warp Drives" in an effort to reign in the media's collective meltdown.
This may serve as a clue, that the both theories may be actually more close each other, than these guys are willing to admit: the Woodward's Mach effect based theory may be simply intrinsic perspective of the Harold White's one: the change in inertial mass is caused just with introduction of warp field into vacuum.
Illustratively speaking: once you make the vacuum around yourself more sparse and less dense (by changing the ratio of transverse and longitudinal waves in it), then your inertia will increase accordingly and vice-versa. We even have macroscopic analogy for it in gravitational anomalies observed during solar eclipses or even planetary conjunctions (so-called the Allais effect). Dense aether model explains it with preferred shielding of longitudinal waves of vacuum with collinear massive bodies (i.e. like sorta an analogy of enforcement of tsunami waves within island archipelagos).
enforcement of longitudinal waves with obstacles
Which perspective may be more relevant may depend on character of experimental device. Mach drive of Woodward is essentially solid state device for which the inertial effects may be more relevant, whereas the EMDrive of Shawyer represents rather hollow cavity filled with warp field. But at the moment, when we would equip the EMDrive with insert of high dielectric constant (which Shawyer and others is also testing), then the Shawyer drive would converge to Woodward drive (which is also utilizing high dielectric constant materials) in rather seamless way. -
#2746 by TheTraveller on 15 Nov, 2016 13:10
-
There is a strong possibility that:
Maybe there is TT.
1) Roger's Radiation pressure theory is correct.
2) Dr. Woodward's Mach Effect theory is correct and is not related to the above.
3) Dr. White's QV thruster theory is correct and it is not related to the above.
So just maybe there is not ONE RING that controls ALL the others?
Sometimes you will read something that someone is speculating about and it resonates so so very well. Resonates with your own thoughts, visualizations and basic theories of what's happening within all of the Q-Thruster, Shawyer's cavities and Woodward Mach drives. Not saying this statement is fully correct although what they are saying could be pointing to the reasons why all drives show a varying anomaly of thrusts.
I've built and designed for this mix of ideas for the last year with a frustum shape, a dielectric insert, PZT inserts, parametric amplification, antenna designs and secret squirrel sauces, taking the best from some of the best engineers and physicists in this field. I'll not take anything from them but uniformly applaud their efforts to dream.
Am I on the right track? Only time and testing will tell. HA! What else could I be doing? Sitting in my hot tub getting more wrinkles? Well, maybe not as my hot tub broke and instead of getting another one I've put that money towards my new lab. I still can use gofundme help if anyone is interested, my hot tub will wait.
My Best,
ShellQuoteThis was posted on another site
http://tinyurl.com/z5ypcdh
ZephirAWT 1 point 12 hours ago*
Jim Woodward wildly opposes Shawyer's and Harold White's theories, but he himself promotes an idea, that reaction-less drive creates a sparse (benign) worm hole for its motion. But if you read the White's work, you'll realize, that the formation of warp field and worm holes belongs into crucial part of his quantum vacuum theory and he is even trying to detect it experimentally with Juday-White's interferometer. Shortly after this NASA released a memo stating essentially "No we're not studying Warp Drives" in an effort to reign in the media's collective meltdown.
This may serve as a clue, that the both theories may be actually more close each other, than these guys are willing to admit: the Woodward's Mach effect based theory may be simply intrinsic perspective of the Harold White's one: the change in inertial mass is caused just with introduction of warp field into vacuum.
Illustratively speaking: once you make the vacuum around yourself more sparse and less dense (by changing the ratio of transverse and longitudinal waves in it), then your inertia will increase accordingly and vice-versa. We even have macroscopic analogy for it in gravitational anomalies observed during solar eclipses or even planetary conjunctions (so-called the Allais effect). Dense aether model explains it with preferred shielding of longitudinal waves of vacuum with collinear massive bodies (i.e. like sorta an analogy of enforcement of tsunami waves within island archipelagos).
enforcement of longitudinal waves with obstacles
Which perspective may be more relevant may depend on character of experimental device. Mach drive of Woodward is essentially solid state device for which the inertial effects may be more relevant, whereas the EMDrive of Shawyer represents rather hollow cavity filled with warp field. But at the moment, when we would equip the EMDrive with insert of high dielectric constant (which Shawyer and others is also testing), then the Shawyer drive would converge to Woodward drive (which is also utilizing high dielectric constant materials) in rather seamless way.
Have yet to see any theory that predicts the small to big static Thrust force that Roger, EW and myself have measured. Plus from Roger's video on the rotary test rig the dynamic accelerative Reaction force generation is in the other direction.
Follow the DATA, Theory be DAMNED unless it can explain ALL the experimental data.
BTW would enjoy doing an analysis of ANY of your experimental data, the test setups you used to measure the force and the direction of the force. It really doesn't have to be polished, just something to work on would be very interesting. -
#2747 by meberbs on 15 Nov, 2016 13:52
-
I don't understand what is "new" physics in your descriptions....
If it would be as simple as just having energy dissipation, it looks like a mechanical analogy is still possible.
What is difficult to grasp for most is that the EM energy inside CAN and DOES disappear into heat. Something that billiard balls, or air particles cannot do. So if you think in terms of these solid objects, you will not get any thrust and you will not grasp the mechanism. You must consider that the EM field has this magic property, that it can be dissipated and lost as heat. You can't do that with billiard balls. But like billiard balls, if the balls roll from one side to the other, the container will move the other way. NOTHING has to come out for it to move. If those balls could just disappear and reappear at the other end, they could do it again. The EM drive moves as the field inside shifts position. Then that field disappears and we refill it from the battery. It moves, it has to move this way if the mass inside moves the other way. That is CoM, by definition.
Make the balls out of a material that upon impact experiences an inelastic collision: it suffers a plastic permanent deformation. Metals are known to experience this when sheared beyond their yield limit. Make the balls out of lead. Have a cannon inside your spacecraft that ejects lead balls against one of the spacecrafts rigid walls. The collision (given enough speed) is mostly inelastic (actually metals are modeled for engineering purposes as rigid-plastic for many processes involving large plastic strains), and there is little elastic bounce. Since most of the energy is dissipated (by internal friction between grain boundaries and in the dislocation pile up of plasticity in the elastic-plastic body) one would think according to your model that this could work as a means of space propulsion.
If you are not happy with internal energy dissipation (due to internal friction) as a model, one can certainly have the cannon eject balls of material that will experience heat generation as a result of the impact (it is well known that at a high enough speed the metal will melt).
Are you saying that this method will result in an efficient method of space propulsion? (notice that there is a propellant being used: the balls out of the cannon, but since they are not ejected into outer space, they could be recycled, since the mass is not lost into space).
The mass of the spacecraft does not change. Just the mass is re-distributed within it, leading to the center of mass shifting position within the spacecraft. As re-arranging the position of the chairs on the deck.
I don't think so... So it cannot be just the energy dissipation...
...
Efficient? No, I never said it was efficient!
It's like a ratchet. Instead of giving a delta-v, it gives a delta-x. It would be more efficient if you just moved all the cannon balls from one end of the ship to the other end to get a displacement. Then drop the cannon balls out the airlock, and recharge the front of the ship from the sun, using the ACME "Sun to Cannon Ball" machine. Each time it recharges and then relocates the mass, the ship gets another displacement, delta-x.
It requires that the field inside be an accelerated reference frame, which in this case is provided by the cannon powder.
The problem here is that the effective mass of what you are moving is the relativistic mass of the photons, which is tiny and dumping them out the back just means you have a photon rocket. -
#2748 by meberbs on 15 Nov, 2016 14:12
-
There is a strong possibility that:
There is not a strong possibility that all are correct, since there is no data to suggest that different effects are occurring. Also there is no possibility that Shawyer's theory is correct, because it is inconsistent with itself no matter how much you deny basic algebra.
1) Roger's Radiation pressure theory is correct.
2) Dr. Woodward's Mach Effect theory is correct and is not related to the above.
3) Dr. White's QV thruster theory is correct and it is not related to the above.
So just maybe there is not ONE RING that controls ALL the others?
Conservation of Momentum is broken in Shawyer's theory, there are many ways to see this, the most basic being the part of the theory where the momentum of the emWave changes without interacting with anything. And if you allow it to interact with the sidewalls, then you will just get exactly what is needed to cancel the imbalance in radiation pressure from the front and back plates.My pet theory is that the emdrive lacks translational symmetry and therefore is not bound by certain conservation laws.
CofM is conserved.
The EmDrive and it's accelerative loads GAINED momentum is sourced from the internal EmWave's LOST momentum. This is seen to the cavity as another per cycle energy loss that adds to the eddy current loss. So when accelerating, the cavity Q drops as there is another cavity energy loss that does work on accelerating the total mass.
This has been measured.Have yet to see any theory that predicts the small to big static Thrust force that Roger, EW and myself have measured. Plus from Roger's video on the rotary test rig the dynamic accelerative Reaction force generation is in the other direction.
You have not shared the details of your experiments, there are issues with Shawyer's experiments (and insufficient data released for replecation, etc), both you and Shawyer have demonstrated a lack of understanding of the definition of the word force, so that weakens that evidence. Your reference to EW data is to their unreleased data, so I won't be specific, but you are misrepresenting their results to force them into your preconceived notions of what you want to see.
If you want to dispute the part where I said you don't know what a force is, then you should start by answering those 2 questions I have kept asking you to answer.Follow the DATA, Theory be DAMNED unless it can explain ALL the experimental data.
Then stop promoting Shawyer's theory as it does not match the experimental data either (wrong direction of force prediction, outside of experiments that as described indicate to anyone who understands forces that the measurements are experimental artifacts.) -
#2749 by WarpTech on 15 Nov, 2016 14:36
-
...
I don't understand what is "new" physics in your descriptions.
The problem here is that the effective mass of what you are moving is the relativistic mass of the photons, which is tiny and dumping them out the back just means you have a photon rocket.
Yup. A photon rocket with a very, very slow exhaust velocity because it escapes the cavity, through power dissipation in the copper. The Q increases the available mass, but yes it is still very tiny, << 1kg, but it is enough, in conjunction with the acceleration caused by the dissipation, to exert a small reaction force on the frustum as it leaves the cavity and heats up the copper ASYMMETRICALLY.
When I say it's not New physics, I am criticized by the argument that nothing is coming out. When I say it is new physics, I'm criticized because it's really not. It's just an unexpected effect from what we (i?) intuitively already know happens.
-
#2750 by kaublezw on 15 Nov, 2016 14:45
-
...
I don't understand what is "new" physics in your descriptions.
The problem here is that the effective mass of what you are moving is the relativistic mass of the photons, which is tiny and dumping them out the back just means you have a photon rocket.
Yup. A photon rocket with a very, very slow exhaust velocity because it escapes the cavity, through power dissipation in the copper. The Q increases the available mass, but yes it is still very tiny, << 1kg, but it is enough, in conjunction with the acceleration caused by the dissipation, to exert a small reaction force on the frustum as it leaves the cavity and heats up the copper ASYMMETRICALLY.
When I say it's not New physics, I am criticized by the argument that nothing is coming out. When I say it is new physics, I'm criticized because it's really not. It's just an unexpected effect from what we (i?) intuitively already know happens.
What does your theory predict with respect to Shawyer's 2nd generation emdrive claims? -
#2751 by meberbs on 15 Nov, 2016 14:50
-
The Q doesn't really increase the available mass, since in your description you are only getting motion through the dissipation, which is only as fast as the input energy....
I don't understand what is "new" physics in your descriptions.
The problem here is that the effective mass of what you are moving is the relativistic mass of the photons, which is tiny and dumping them out the back just means you have a photon rocket.
Yup. A photon rocket with a very, very slow exhaust velocity because it escapes the cavity, through power dissipation in the copper. The Q increases the available mass, but yes it is still very tiny, << 1kg, but it is enough, in conjunction with the acceleration caused by the dissipation, to exert a small reaction force on the frustum as it leaves the cavity and heats up the copper ASYMMETRICALLY.
When I say it's not New physics, I am criticized by the argument that nothing is coming out. When I say it is new physics, I'm criticized because it's really not. It's just an unexpected effect from what we (i?) intuitively already know happens.
The emDrive requires new physics (or obscure bits of general relativity, that if shown to work as described, I think many physicists would consider new) to explain it if it produces useful motion. If you aren't introducing something new, you either have some variant of a photon rocket, or you are making a mistake somewhere. -
#2752 by TheTraveller on 15 Nov, 2016 15:00
-
Then stop promoting Shawyer's theory as it does not match the experimental data either (wrong direction of force prediction, outside of experiments that as described indicate to anyone who understands forces that the measurements are experimental artifacts.)
Experimental data that measured a non dielectric static force direction small to big
1) Roger's Cu Experimental EmDrive on a scale
2) Roger's Cu Demonstrator EmDrive on a scale
3) EW's Cu frustum on a very stiff torsion pendulum
4) EW's Al frustum on a balance beam with a scale
5) My Cu frustum on a scale
ALL 5 measured a static force that was directed small to big. There was no apparent something to push on. The small to big force and direction just appears when the non dielectric frustum is filled with Rf at the resonant freq.
As far as I know none of the other theories can predict that static force's direction, other than Roger's. If you doubt Roger's theory predicts the small to big Thrust force, please review his theory presentation:
plus review the experimental data of the non dielectric force that was generated small to big.
Have you accepted the EmDrive can generate a P-P (Propellant Less Propulsion) force?
-
#2753 by meberbs on 15 Nov, 2016 15:15
-
Shawyer's theory does not predict the observed results that go in the other direction (mangling Newton's third law is not a prediction). Also, you seem to have missed part of my last post that explains the issues with using that list in the way that you are:Then stop promoting Shawyer's theory as it does not match the experimental data either (wrong direction of force prediction, outside of experiments that as described indicate to anyone who understands forces that the measurements are experimental artifacts.)
Experimental data that measured a non dielectric static force direction small to big
1) Roger's Cu Experimental EmDrive on a scale
2) Roger's Cu Demonstrator EmDrive on a scale
3) EW's Cu frustum on a very stiff torsion pendulum
4) EW's Al frustum on a balance beam with a scale
5) My Cu frustum on a scale
ALL 5 measured a static force that was directed small to big. There was no apparent something to push on. The small to big force and direction just appears when the non dielectric frustum is filled with Rf at the resonant freq.You have not shared the details of your experiments, there are issues with Shawyer's experiments (and insufficient data released for replecation, etc), both you and Shawyer have demonstrated a lack of understanding of the definition of the word force, so that weakens that evidence. Your reference to EW data is to their unreleased data, so I won't be specific, but you are misrepresenting their results to force them into your preconceived notions of what you want to see.
If you want to dispute the part where I said you don't know what a force is, then you should start by answering those 2 questions I have kept asking you to answer. -
#2754 by RotoSequence on 15 Nov, 2016 15:21
-
Sometimes you will read something that someone is speculating about and it resonates so so very well. Resonates with your own thoughts, visualizations and basic theories of what's happening within all of the Q-Thruster, Shawyer's cavities and Woodward Mach drives. Not saying this statement is fully correct although what they are saying could be pointing to the reasons why all drives show a varying anomaly of thrusts.
I'm a bit wary of the aesthetic appeal of theories... after fifty years of entertaining the idea of Super Symmetry, it's been all but disproven by experimental results. It was an appealing rabbit hole, but it hasn't gone anywhere in the end.
-
#2755 by SeeShells on 15 Nov, 2016 15:40
-
Sometimes you will read something that someone is speculating about and it resonates so so very well. Resonates with your own thoughts, visualizations and basic theories of what's happening within all of the Q-Thruster, Shawyer's cavities and Woodward Mach drives. Not saying this statement is fully correct although what they are saying could be pointing to the reasons why all drives show a varying anomaly of thrusts.
I'm a bit wary of the aesthetic appeal of theories... after fifty years of entertaining the idea of Super Symmetry, it's been all but disproven by experimental results. It was an appealing rabbit hole, but it hasn't gone anywhere in the end.
Me too and when every theory has its holes it can't but help to raise questions.
You know, after all the data is captured it might not fit into anyone's rabbit hole. It maybe we are seeing something new here. And it could all just point out to a weird action in Lorentz forces or moon phases. I'll admit this RotoSequence, that this is a very very tough problem and I appreciate everyone's help.
This site is truly a hotbed, a hotbed of mind numbing reality, thoughts and ideas.
My Best,
Shell -
#2756 by WarpTech on 15 Nov, 2016 15:56
-
The Q doesn't really increase the available mass, since in your description you are only getting motion through the dissipation, which is only as fast as the input energy....
I don't understand what is "new" physics in your descriptions.
The problem here is that the effective mass of what you are moving is the relativistic mass of the photons, which is tiny and dumping them out the back just means you have a photon rocket.
Yup. A photon rocket with a very, very slow exhaust velocity because it escapes the cavity, through power dissipation in the copper. The Q increases the available mass, but yes it is still very tiny, << 1kg, but it is enough, in conjunction with the acceleration caused by the dissipation, to exert a small reaction force on the frustum as it leaves the cavity and heats up the copper ASYMMETRICALLY.
When I say it's not New physics, I am criticized by the argument that nothing is coming out. When I say it is new physics, I'm criticized because it's really not. It's just an unexpected effect from what we (i?) intuitively already know happens.
The emDrive requires new physics (or obscure bits of general relativity, that if shown to work as described, I think many physicists would consider new) to explain it if it produces useful motion. If you aren't introducing something new, you either have some variant of a photon rocket, or you are making a mistake somewhere.
I've already gone over this many, many times. Please, take some time to understand my equations and my theory. Don't just respond to each post as an independent entity. All my posts regarding theory are to be taken in conjunction with all my previous posts and equations.
I've already explained, with equations, how there is an accelerated reference frame created inside the frustum. The accelerated reference frame alone will not produce thrust. In conjunction with the accelerated frame, we need a counter-mass to balance the force and momentum gained by the frustum. In order to do that, "some" mass must escape "the cavity", not the frustum, to break the equilibrium in each direction. Energy escapes from the cavity by heating the copper asymmetrically. The two combined cause an unbalance force, that allows the frustum to react and move. -
#2757 by WarpTech on 15 Nov, 2016 15:59
-
...
I don't understand what is "new" physics in your descriptions.
The problem here is that the effective mass of what you are moving is the relativistic mass of the photons, which is tiny and dumping them out the back just means you have a photon rocket.
Yup. A photon rocket with a very, very slow exhaust velocity because it escapes the cavity, through power dissipation in the copper. The Q increases the available mass, but yes it is still very tiny, << 1kg, but it is enough, in conjunction with the acceleration caused by the dissipation, to exert a small reaction force on the frustum as it leaves the cavity and heats up the copper ASYMMETRICALLY.
When I say it's not New physics, I am criticized by the argument that nothing is coming out. When I say it is new physics, I'm criticized because it's really not. It's just an unexpected effect from what we (i?) intuitively already know happens.
What does your theory predict with respect to Shawyer's 2nd generation emdrive claims?
I think it probably works pretty well, if the Q is as high as we expect it to be. I don't have predictions without knowing the dissipation inside the frustum. I'm still trying to quantify it to the dimensions of the cavity. Losses as a function of the cavity dimensions is not easy for me to figure out.
-
#2758 by WarpTech on 15 Nov, 2016 16:05
-
...
As far as I know none of the other theories can predict that static force's direction, other than Roger's. If you doubt Roger's theory predicts the small to big Thrust force, please review his theory presentation:
...
I demonstrated that my theory accurately predicted the force direction for the EW experiment at TM010 mode. It predicts the direction of the force is opposite the end with the highest dissipation, and that depends on the mode. This is why I think Shawyer's data is confusing. He has forces in both directions, but no data for which mode was excited in each test. If there were different modes excited, the forces could very well reverse for each test, scale vs rotary test rig.
-
#2759 by meberbs on 15 Nov, 2016 16:10
-
The Q doesn't really increase the available mass, since in your description you are only getting motion through the dissipation, which is only as fast as the input energy....
I don't understand what is "new" physics in your descriptions.
The problem here is that the effective mass of what you are moving is the relativistic mass of the photons, which is tiny and dumping them out the back just means you have a photon rocket.
Yup. A photon rocket with a very, very slow exhaust velocity because it escapes the cavity, through power dissipation in the copper. The Q increases the available mass, but yes it is still very tiny, << 1kg, but it is enough, in conjunction with the acceleration caused by the dissipation, to exert a small reaction force on the frustum as it leaves the cavity and heats up the copper ASYMMETRICALLY.
When I say it's not New physics, I am criticized by the argument that nothing is coming out. When I say it is new physics, I'm criticized because it's really not. It's just an unexpected effect from what we (i?) intuitively already know happens.
The emDrive requires new physics (or obscure bits of general relativity, that if shown to work as described, I think many physicists would consider new) to explain it if it produces useful motion. If you aren't introducing something new, you either have some variant of a photon rocket, or you are making a mistake somewhere.
I've already gone over this many, many times. Please, take some time to understand my equations and my theory. Don't just respond to each post as an independent entity. All my posts regarding theory are to be taken in conjunction with all my previous posts and equations.
I've already explained, with equations, how there is an accelerated reference frame created inside the frustum. The accelerated reference frame alone will not produce thrust. In conjunction with the accelerated frame, we need a counter-mass to balance the force and momentum gained by the frustum. In order to do that, "some" mass must escape "the cavity", not the frustum, to break the equilibrium in each direction. Energy escapes from the cavity by heating the copper asymmetrically. The two combined cause an unbalance force, that allows the frustum to react and move.
I have not understood the equations you have posted, because I don't know what any of the variables mean. Equations on their own don't mean anything without the variables being correlated to something physical, and if you ever did that, then I missed that post.
I am still not seeing what is different in your theory from standard physics, and if there is nothing new, then you aren't getting anything better than a photon rocket.
It's like a ratchet. Instead of giving a delta-v, it gives a delta-x. It would be more efficient if you just moved all the cannon balls from one end of the ship to the other end to get a displacement. Then drop the cannon balls out the airlock, and recharge the front of the ship from the sun, using the ACME "Sun to Cannon Ball" machine. Each time it recharges and then relocates the mass, the ship gets another displacement, delta-x.