-
#2760 by Notsosureofit on 15 Nov, 2016 16:13
-
#2761 by WarpTech on 15 Nov, 2016 17:03
-
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.
These are NOTES and not a well written paper, but all the terms are defined for you. You should be able to follow the equations now. I have more notes, but these are the part that lead up to the prediction of thrust.
Edit: Note: The thrust equation at the end, depends on the Neper frequency. This is [resistance x capacitance]-1.
If we assume this time period to be proportional to the diameter of the frustum, then the time-independent part of this equation reduces to @Notsosureofit's thrust formula. Where, the gradient derivative is expressed as the difference between two potentials.
-
#2762 by JasonAW3 on 15 Nov, 2016 17:20
-
Guys, dumb question here;
Has anyone looked at one of these devices with an infrared camera during operation? If so, could someone direct me to the pictures? -
#2763 by RotoSequence on 15 Nov, 2016 17:27
-
Guys, dumb question here;
Has anyone looked at one of these devices with an infrared camera during operation? If so, could someone direct me to the pictures?
IIRC, Eagleworks and RFMWguy are the only known EM Drive builders to have taken and released infrared images. There's not much to be gleaned from RFMWguy's work in the infrared channels, but Eagleworks' high surface currents allowed resonance mode verification and cross-reference with simulation. -
#2764 by Bob012345 on 15 Nov, 2016 17:42
-
...
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.
Are you simply saying the exhaust is very slow photons with appropriately higher momentum? -
#2765 by kml on 15 Nov, 2016 17:53
-
Has anyone considered very light sterile neutrino pair production as a thrust mechanism? If sterile neutrinos exist with rest mass less than half of the RF photon energy then pairs could be produced by interactions with atomic nuclei of thruster walls or internal components. This would conserve momentum and energy as the sterile neutrinos would escape with half the generated/converted momentum while the atoms of the walls retain the remaining (opposite direction) momentum resulting in thrust. If the thruster photon energy is significantly higher than twice the sterile neutrino rest mass the momentum transfer of each individual pair production event would be very efficient. The overall efficiency would be limited by the reaction cross section, cavity Q and how well you can focus the net scattering angle. While active neutrinos would also easily escape the thruster walls without interaction they are excluded by their expected rest masses (>10^-5 eV) being far too large for the photon energies of these experiments to generate pairs.
The reason this is more efficient than photon emission alone is that the energy/momentum ratio of the input photon is converted to a different energy/momentum ratio by the pair production process. Another way to look at it is you are converting input photons to an extremely light reaction mass and then expelling it from the cavity.
This effect would scale linearly with Q (if the cross section of the interaction is small) and input power. The effect would likely be enhanced by using materials with high-Z atoms. The effect would likely be further enhanced by using different wall materials: High-Z materials on particular surfaces and low-Z on others to control the net scattering angle. Gold/Aluminum would be an obvious High/Low Z choice for a microwave thruster. Thrust direction would depend on net scattering angle and resulting recoil direction.
Some experiments to explore this theory:
- try gold plated end cap at one end, aluminum at the other
- try gold plated side walls with at least one aluminum end cap.
- try a rectangular non-tapered thruster with gold and aluminum end caps.
- gold plate the entire inside of a copper thruster known to generate thrust and see if thrust efficiency has improved (after adjusting for improved Q).
- Use a spectrum analyzer to search for unexpected signal peaks not related to the input frequency (or signal generator internal frequency) harmonics. While there is no guarantee that pairs would annihilate near the experiment, if they did in significant numbers detection of those photons would both confirm the pair production process as well as indicate the masses of the particles involved. -
#2766 by WarpTech on 15 Nov, 2016 17:58
-
...
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.
Are you simply saying the exhaust is very slow photons with appropriately higher momentum?
That is one way to look at it, yes. My thrust equation can be put into T/P = 1/v, where v is the group velocity.
-
#2767 by InterestedEngineer on 15 Nov, 2016 18:00
-
No, it won't. What I've said a bazzilion times but nobody seems to get it, is that the effective potential is equivalent to gravity, but only across the limited bandwidth of the frustum. True gravity have an enormous bandwidth, that isn't even relevant until it's in the soft X-ray spectrum and up from there. Gravity acts in the spectrum where matter is mostly transparent. The MW in the frustum are not high enough energy to create a real gravitational field, but they can mimic it within the narrow bandwidth of the resonance.
Don't be afraid to politely correct repeatedly. I had the same bad assumption until I just saw this. In these kind of threaded forums it's easy to forget what was said before.
Just curious, have you done some math on this? -
#2768 by WarpTech on 15 Nov, 2016 18:04
-
No, it won't. What I've said a bazzilion times but nobody seems to get it, is that the effective potential is equivalent to gravity, but only across the limited bandwidth of the frustum. True gravity have an enormous bandwidth, that isn't even relevant until it's in the soft X-ray spectrum and up from there. Gravity acts in the spectrum where matter is mostly transparent. The MW in the frustum are not high enough energy to create a real gravitational field, but they can mimic it within the narrow bandwidth of the resonance.
Don't be afraid to politely correct repeatedly. I had the same bad assumption until I just saw this. In these kind of threaded forums it's easy to forget what was said before.
Just curious, have you done some math on this?
Yes
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308891927_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY_SLIDES
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1609761#msg1609761
-
#2769 by bmcgaffey20 on 15 Nov, 2016 18:10
-
anyone willing to entertain the frustum is creating dilithium crystals somehow? just sayin.
-
#2770 by Rodal on 15 Nov, 2016 18:23
-
No, it won't. What I've said a bazzilion times but nobody seems to get it, is that the effective potential is equivalent to gravity, but only across the limited bandwidth of the frustum. True gravity have an enormous bandwidth, that isn't even relevant until it's in the soft X-ray spectrum and up from there. Gravity acts in the spectrum where matter is mostly transparent. The MW in the frustum are not high enough energy to create a real gravitational field, but they can mimic it within the narrow bandwidth of the resonance.
Don't be afraid to politely correct repeatedly. I had the same bad assumption until I just saw this. In these kind of threaded forums it's easy to forget what was said before.
Just curious, have you done some math on this?
Yes
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308891927_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY_SLIDES
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1609761#msg1609761
You may be interested in this, as these arguments may be raised against theories tying gravity and entropy:
"Once more, gravity is not an entropic force"
Archil Kobakhidze
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51932409_Once_more_gravity_is_not_an_entropic_force
arXiv:1104.4650
https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4161
-
#2771 by Bob012345 on 15 Nov, 2016 18:24
-
...
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.
Are you simply saying the exhaust is very slow photons with appropriately higher momentum?
That is one way to look at it, yes. My thrust equation can be put into T/P = 1/v, where v is the group velocity.
Thanks. I've often wondered about that possibility myself. If such a slow photon were to exist, it should provide a constant thrust at a constant power as standard photons do. It would solve CoM issues but I suspect people will still have CoE issues. -
#2772 by Bob012345 on 15 Nov, 2016 18:29
-
No, it won't. What I've said a bazzilion times but nobody seems to get it, is that the effective potential is equivalent to gravity, but only across the limited bandwidth of the frustum. True gravity have an enormous bandwidth, that isn't even relevant until it's in the soft X-ray spectrum and up from there. Gravity acts in the spectrum where matter is mostly transparent. The MW in the frustum are not high enough energy to create a real gravitational field, but they can mimic it within the narrow bandwidth of the resonance.
Don't be afraid to politely correct repeatedly. I had the same bad assumption until I just saw this. In these kind of threaded forums it's easy to forget what was said before.
Just curious, have you done some math on this?
Yes
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308891927_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY_SLIDES
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1609761#msg1609761
But why bother calling it quantum gravity which refers to hypothetical graviton particles and a whole different kind of invented math. It really looks more like a classical theory which works for me. -
#2773 by Bob012345 on 15 Nov, 2016 18:42
-
All the interest here seems focused on designs derived from Shawyer. Anyone doing work on Fetta's concept?
-
#2774 by SeeShells on 15 Nov, 2016 19:04
-
All the interest here seems focused on designs derived from Shawyer. Anyone doing work on Fetta's concept?
Fetta's is much like the EMDrive although uses a dielectric plug from what I can tell from the EW tests.
-
#2775 by Bob012345 on 15 Nov, 2016 19:06
-
All the interest here seems focused on designs derived from Shawyer. Anyone doing work on Fetta's concept?
Fetta's is much like the EMDrive although uses a dielectric plug from what I can tell from the EW tests.
The shape is very different, like a pancake. -
#2776 by Rodal on 15 Nov, 2016 19:38
-
All the interest here seems focused on designs derived from Shawyer. Anyone doing work on Fetta's concept?
Fetta's is much like the EMDrive although uses a dielectric plug from what I can tell from the EW tests.
The shape is very different, like a pancake.
-
#2777 by zellerium on 15 Nov, 2016 20:02
-
...
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.
I would like to test Todd's theory, and here's how I propose to do so:
I don't have fancy facilities like a vacuum chamber, torsion pendulum etc and there's no way I could create a better setup than EW. But what about a high power test with a separated power source?
I could weld together a WR340 sized aluminum waveguide that is long enough to add in extra magnetrons at quarter wave spacing to scale up the power if the force is below resolution. Connect that to a circulator that I might be able to borrow from work, otherwise I'll have to build one. I could probably connect some threaded pipes to jerry rig a triple stub tuner before the horn which will probably be necessary.
After that a horn antenna will transfer power to the another horn that is connect to a tapered prism to excite the TE013. Sure the horns will be leaky and the waveguide bends will be lossy but thats what the extra maggies are for right?
Have everything mounted on a mg resolution digital scale and potentially incorporate a tuning rod in the prism if necessary. And of course seal everything really well so I don't microwave myself...
I'm thinking copper prism walls .02" thick with removable end plates to test the dissipation theory. Future iterations could use the same prism-end flange and a straight section to connect a movable short plunger to test dielectrics with the same mode.
Luckily I have access to HFSS so the design shouldn't take too long, except the circulator which I haven't given much thought to. But it sounds to me like more data is needed to advance any of these theories. Although carefully controlling every spurious effect would be ideal, my approach would attempt to boost the signal out of the noise via excessive power and hopefully using the right theoretical approach.
-
#2778 by WarpTech on 15 Nov, 2016 20:43
-
...
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.
I would like to test Todd's theory, and here's how I propose to do so:
I don't have fancy facilities like a vacuum chamber, torsion pendulum etc and there's no way I could create a better setup than EW. But what about a high power test with a separated power source?
I could weld together a WR340 sized aluminum waveguide that is long enough to add in extra magnetrons at quarter wave spacing to scale up the power if the force is below resolution. Connect that to a circulator that I might be able to borrow from work, otherwise I'll have to build one. I could probably connect some threaded pipes to jerry rig a triple stub tuner before the horn which will probably be necessary.
After that a horn antenna will transfer power to the another horn that is connect to a tapered prism to excite the TE013. Sure the horns will be leaky and the waveguide bends will be lossy but thats what the extra maggies are for right?
Have everything mounted on a mg resolution digital scale and potentially incorporate a tuning rod in the prism if necessary. And of course seal everything really well so I don't microwave myself...
I'm thinking copper prism walls .02" thick with removable end plates to test the dissipation theory. Future iterations could use the same prism-end flange and a straight section to connect a movable short plunger to test dielectrics with the same mode.
Luckily I have access to HFSS so the design shouldn't take too long, except the circulator which I haven't given much thought to. But it sounds to me like more data is needed to advance any of these theories. Although carefully controlling every spurious effect would be ideal, my approach would attempt to boost the signal out of the noise via excessive power and hopefully using the right theoretical approach.
That would be great, but the high Q is still absolutely necessary to boost the output force. The acceleration vector due to dissipation cannot dominate the system, or there won't be any counter mass. There needs to be enough counter mass to push against, to exert a significant thrust. In that regard, higher Q is better than higher acceleration, because it possesses more inertia. So I don't think the use of Magnetrons will work very well. It really needs a very narrow bandwidth source, to get that extremely high Q.
My idea to boost thrust is to test an impulse response, using a spark-gap. Dump a ton of energy into the antenna in one big "snap", and let the system ring like a bell... and repeat.
Todd
-
#2779 by WarpTech on 15 Nov, 2016 21:33
-
No, it won't. What I've said a bazzilion times but nobody seems to get it, is that the effective potential is equivalent to gravity, but only across the limited bandwidth of the frustum. True gravity have an enormous bandwidth, that isn't even relevant until it's in the soft X-ray spectrum and up from there. Gravity acts in the spectrum where matter is mostly transparent. The MW in the frustum are not high enough energy to create a real gravitational field, but they can mimic it within the narrow bandwidth of the resonance.
Don't be afraid to politely correct repeatedly. I had the same bad assumption until I just saw this. In these kind of threaded forums it's easy to forget what was said before.
Just curious, have you done some math on this?
Yes
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308891927_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY_SLIDES
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1609761#msg1609761
But why bother calling it quantum gravity which refers to hypothetical graviton particles and a whole different kind of invented math. It really looks more like a classical theory which works for me.
Because the equilibrium condition between matter and vacuum is a process of QED. There is no classical equivalent for it. The closest would be thermal equilibrium, but when in equilibrium with the Zero-point field, that's not the preferred way to look at it, for me anyway.