EW is not alone in observing there is a time for the force to build up.
Roger also observed it with both the Experimental and Demonstrator EmDrives as attached.
I believe it has to do with the operational best point of the EmDrive being slightly off and the EmDrive pulling the natural resonant freq to be a better match to that of the applied Rf.......
...... So YES EmDrives can SOMETIME be slow to generate their force as evident by both EW's data and by Roger's data. Here again EW confirm what Roger measured way back in 2002 and 2006.
IMO, and as previously discussed, everything we have a grasp on is made of these quantum vacuum fluctuations (qvf); B field, E field, em waves, matter etc. So, we are already playing a lot with these qvf but not in the best of ways.
So, one possible explanation, to the slow build up of the force (above) may indicate/suggest a proper polarization or sorting build-up and accumulation of these qvf... forming the required causal structure, i.e. a time rate differential across some portion of the test article..
Food for thought ...
Here's a more practical idea. My theory says that the thrust is due to asymmetrical power dissipation (losses) and dispersion. Perhaps it takes a while for the metal to heat up. Resistance increases with temperature, creating higher losses and there may be a threshold where the asymmetry is finally enough to produce a measurable effect. I have not seen any results for a fully superconducting EmDrive.
From what I know about the QV, 99.999% of the energy is in the bandwidth STARTING at 10^22 Hz and going up from there. This is why I do not see MiHsC as a viable theory, nor do I see Dr. Whites QV model as a viable option. The modes that are not allowed in the frustum are "negligible" in comparison to the vacuum energy density starting at 10^22 Hz and up, where matter is transparent and the asymmetry results in Gravity. The EmDrive is operating 13 orders of magnitude lower frequency. So to me, the QV is out of the picture.
Todd:
"From what I know about the QV, 99.999% of the energy is in the bandwidth STARTING at 10^22 Hz and going up from there."
What both you and Woodward & Fearn are assuming in your above premise is that the Quantum Vacuum (QV) is non-mutable and non-degradable. IF the QV background mass/energy density can be changed with the application of E&M energy to a restricted volume like a copper frustum, i.e., the QV is mutable and degradable, then the above QV energy distribution AKA bandwidth can be skewed down toward lower frequency interactions at typical microwave frequencies. If one increases the E&M mass/energy in the frustum to sufficient levels via Q-factor and other parametric based multiplications, then one can create QV flow fields coming out of the frustums that can act like a gravity field around the frustum. The EW Lab's mutable QV simulations indicates that when the QV background mass/energy density is amplified from its intergalactic density of the ~9.1x10^-27 kg/m^3 up to ~1x10^12 kg/m^3, frustum based force outputs get up into the micro-Newton to tens of uN levels, but only IF the QV is mutable and compressible as one would do with air using an air compressor.
Best, Paul M.
OK, but Todd's dissipation theory explains a very bothersome aspect of the experiments: the very long time delay (that appears to be easily explainable as a thermal delay [Ref. as58's posts]). Todd's theory explains this because of the thermal diffussion in the copper, and dissipation is a crucial aspect of Todd's theory.
How is the very long time delay explained according to a degradable Quantum Vacuum theory? Shouldn't the time process for a degradable Quantum Vacuum be many orders of magnitude faster?
...Has Woodward ever achieved acceleration of his devices on a rotary test rig or do they just generate a static force?
All Fearn/Woodward piezoelectric experiments are dynamic by definition, not static, as they involve a resonant mass Langevin stack with masses at both ends!. The whole stack is vibrating during the experiment.
So the thruster as a whole unit undergoes constant acceleration and velocity increase? How far has the thruster moved, what was the acceleration and time?
If so got data to share?
...Has Woodward ever achieved acceleration of his devices on a rotary test rig or do they just generate a static force?
All Fearn/Woodward piezoelectric experiments are dynamic by definition, not static, as they involve a resonant mass Langevin stack with masses at both ends!. The whole stack is vibrating during the experiment.
So the thruster as a whole unit undergoes constant acceleration and velocity increase? How far has the thruster moved, what was the acceleration and time?
If so got data to share?
The measured vibration amplitude of the masses is larger than the measured motion due to the Mach effect force. The measured Langevin stack is at the end of a torsional pendulum that as a result of the Mach effect force executes a very small rotary motion around the center of rotation of the torsional pendulum.
The forces and motion in their experiments up to now are
smaller than what is claimed in EM Drive experiments (forces and amplitudes are of the order of what Tajmar measured in vacuum for the EM Drive, which is much smaller than what is claimed in all other EM Drive experiments).
(The Q in Tajmar's EM Drive vacuum experiments was only 20, while the Q in Woodward's vacuum experiments is only 190).See EM Drive wiki experimental section:
http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Resultshttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/283007333_Theory_of_a_Mach_Effect_Thruster_IIPresently Woodward's emphasis is to increase amplitude using chirp (a linear rate of change in frequency as a function of time) excitation.
Prof. Tajmar at TU Dresden reported having replicated earlier Woodward's experiments, using a material that produces even smaller amplitude force.
...Has Woodward ever achieved acceleration of his devices on a rotary test rig or do they just generate a static force?
All Fearn/Woodward piezoelectric experiments are dynamic by definition, not static, as they involve a resonant mass Langevin stack with masses at both ends!. The whole stack is vibrating during the experiment.
So the thruster as a whole unit undergoes constant acceleration and velocity increase? How far has the thruster moved, what was the acceleration and time?
If so got data to share?
The measured vibration amplitude of the masses is larger than the measured motion due to the Mach effect force. The measured Langevin stack is at the end of a torsional pendulum that as a result of the Mach effect force executes a small rotary motion around the center of rotation of the torsional pendulum.
The forces and motion in their experiments up to now are smaller than what is claimed in EM Drive experiments (forces and amplitudes of the order of what Tajmar measured in vacuum for the EM Drive). See EM Drive wiki experimental section: http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283007333_Theory_of_a_Mach_Effect_Thruster_II
Presently Woodward's emphasis is to increase amplitude using chirp (a linear rate of change in frequency as a function of time) excitation.
Prof. Tajmar at TU Dresden reported having replicated earlier Woodward's experiments, using a material that produces even smaller amplitude force.
I am writing a comprehensive article (so far over 40 pages long) on calculations vs. experiments for Woodward's device that will be published as part of the Estes Conference proceeding this December. Besides a thorough review of the technology involved (materials and experiments) I present the first exact solution for the dynamic vibration problem of Woodward's experiments. My calculations match their experimental observations regarding optimal mass to use in their piezoelectric/electrostrictive stack, and the direction of the force.
The proceedings will also have a very long article on the EM Drive as written by Fearn based on Paul March's presentation.
There should also be an article by Tajmar on his replication of Woodward's experiments (using a material that results in even lower amplitude than the material presently used by Woodward) and on
Tajmar's latest EM Drive experiments. (Tajmar's new results on the EM Drive heretofore unpublished but presented at the Estes Conference)
There will also be an article published on an independent replication of Woodward's experiments by an independent consulting company in Canada. And there will be an article about Todd's (WarpTech) theory.
About Woodward's Mach Effect Thrusters or METs: I recommend reading Tom Mahood's homepage about earlier experiments (he has been Woodward's graduate student from 1997 to 1999) which contains good pictures of METs:
http://www.otherhand.org/home-page/physics/graduate-studies-in-physics-at-cal-state-university-fullerton/As well as this well-written article on Mach effect based propellantless propulsion:
http://boingboing.net/2014/11/24/the-quest-for-a-reactionless-s.htmlwhich has the best description of Mach's principle I have ever read. Short and crystal clear:
Mach was an Austrian physicist whose name is used as a measurement of speed, as in "Mach 1," the speed of sound at sea level. He was a contemporary of Einstein, to whom he suggested a thought experiment: What if there was only one object in the universe? Mach argued that it could not have a velocity, because according to the theory of relativity, you need at least two objects before you can measure their velocity relative to each other.
Taking this thought experiment a step further, if an object was alone in the universe, and it had no velocity, it could not have a measurable mass, because mass varies with velocity.
Mach concluded that inertial mass only exists because the universe contains multiple objects. When a gyroscope is spinning, it resists being pushed around because it is interacting with the Earth, the stars, and distant galaxies. If those objects didn't exist, the gyroscope would have no inertia.
Einstein was intrigued by this concept, and named it "Mach's principle."
EW is not alone in observing there is a time for the force to build up.
Roger also observed it with both the Experimental and Demonstrator EmDrives as attached.
I believe it has to do with the operational best point of the EmDrive being slightly off and the EmDrive pulling the natural resonant freq to be a better match to that of the applied Rf.......
...... So YES EmDrives can SOMETIME be slow to generate their force as evident by both EW's data and by Roger's data. Here again EW confirm what Roger measured way back in 2002 and 2006.
IMO, and as previously discussed, everything we have a grasp on is made of these quantum vacuum fluctuations (qvf); B field, E field, em waves, matter etc. So, we are already playing a lot with these qvf but not in the best of ways.
So, one possible explanation, to the slow build up of the force (above) may indicate/suggest a proper polarization or sorting build-up and accumulation of these qvf... forming the required causal structure, i.e. a time rate differential across some portion of the test article..
Food for thought ...
Here's a more practical idea. My theory says that the thrust is due to asymmetrical power dissipation (losses) and dispersion. Perhaps it takes a while for the metal to heat up. Resistance increases with temperature, creating higher losses and there may be a threshold where the asymmetry is finally enough to produce a measurable effect. I have not seen any results for a fully superconducting EmDrive.
From what I know about the QV, 99.999% of the energy is in the bandwidth STARTING at 10^22 Hz and going up from there. This is why I do not see MiHsC as a viable theory, nor do I see Dr. Whites QV model as a viable option. The modes that are not allowed in the frustum are "negligible" in comparison to the vacuum energy density starting at 10^22 Hz and up, where matter is transparent and the asymmetry results in Gravity. The EmDrive is operating 13 orders of magnitude lower frequency. So to me, the QV is out of the picture.
Todd:
"From what I know about the QV, 99.999% of the energy is in the bandwidth STARTING at 10^22 Hz and going up from there."
What both you and Woodward & Fearn are assuming in your above premise is that the Quantum Vacuum (QV) is non-mutable and non-degradable. IF the QV background mass/energy density can be changed with the application of E&M energy to a restricted volume like a copper frustum, i.e., the QV is mutable and degradable, then the above QV energy distribution AKA bandwidth can be skewed down toward lower frequency interactions at typical microwave frequencies. If one increases the E&M mass/energy in the frustum to sufficient levels via Q-factor and other parametric based multiplications, then one can create QV flow fields coming out of the frustums that can act like a gravity field around the frustum. The EW Lab's mutable QV simulations indicates that when the QV background mass/energy density is amplified from its intergalactic density of the ~9.1x10^-27 kg/m^3 up to ~1x10^12 kg/m^3, frustum based force outputs get up into the micro-Newton to tens of uN levels, but only IF the QV is mutable and compressible as one would do with air using an air compressor.
Best, Paul M.
OK, but Todd's dissipation theory explains a very bothersome aspect of the experiments: the very long time delay (that appears to be easily explainable as a thermal delay [Ref. as54's posts]). Todd's theory explains this because of the thermal diffusion in the copper, and dissipation is a crucial aspect of Todd's theory.
How is the very long time delay explained according to a degradable Quantum Vacuum theory? Shouldn't the time process for a degradable Quantum Vacuum be many orders of magnitude faster?
Dr. Rodal:
"Shouldn't the time process for a degradable Quantum Vacuum be many orders of magnitude faster?"
Agreed, but IMO the time delays observed in the fall 2015 EW lab's in-vacuum testing are specific to the ICFTA design interactions with the EW torque pendulum and are not inherent in the degradable QV interactions. The EW lab's Dec 2014 split system in-vacuum test had much more prompt force turn-on and turn-off responses as demonstrated in figure 12 in the AIAA/JPP paper and my spring 2015 postings here a NSF.com. I've attached a couple of slides from this spring 2015 time period as a reminder to all.
Best, Paul M.
Todd:
"From what I know about the QV, 99.999% of the energy is in the bandwidth STARTING at 10^22 Hz and going up from there."
What both you and Woodward & Fearn are assuming in your above premise is that the Quantum Vacuum (QV) is non-mutable and non-degradable. IF the QV background mass/energy density can be changed with the application of E&M energy to a restricted volume like a copper frustum, i.e., the QV is mutable and degradable, then the above QV energy distribution AKA bandwidth can be skewed down toward lower frequency interactions at typical microwave frequencies. If one increases the E&M mass/energy in the frustum to sufficient levels via Q-factor and other parametric based multiplications, then one can create QV flow fields coming out of the frustums that can act like a gravity field around the frustum. The EW Lab's mutable QV simulations indicates that when the QV background mass/energy density is amplified from its intergalactic density of the ~9.1x10^-27 kg/m^3 up to ~1x10^12 kg/m^3, frustum based force outputs get up into the micro-Newton to tens of uN levels, but only IF the QV is mutable and compressible as one would do with air using an air compressor. Please take a look at the attached EW Lab's JMP paper for more details.
Best, Paul M.
I have considered the MHD model for many, many years. My conclusion has been that, the temperature at which electron-positron pairs annihilate each other is in excess of 10
8 Kelvin. If e-p pairs in the frustum had a density ~1x10
12 kg/m
3, and a life time of ~10
-22 s, the frustum would be vaporized from the heat, faster than dropping it onto the surface of the sun.
The paper in JBIS is saying that it would require a mass of e-p pairs in excess of 10
5 kg. So the heat and the mass would not go undetected, therefore that's not it.
Regarding the paper you attached, I love this paper! However, at the scale of electrons and quarks, they are constantly undergoing exchange scattering with their counterparts in the QV. At this scale it is possible because the E field exceeds the Schwinger limit, but in the frustum the E field is no where near that limit. So the expectation of producing so many pairs is unreasonable, and I offer that it can't be happening if the frustum is not melting instantly upon their creation.
Todd
Each time i read about this "new rocket engine", i cringe..
It's not.. it really is not...
Todd:
"From what I know about the QV, 99.999% of the energy is in the bandwidth STARTING at 10^22 Hz and going up from there."
What both you and Woodward & Fearn are assuming in your above premise is that the Quantum Vacuum (QV) is non-mutable and non-degradable. IF the QV background mass/energy density can be changed with the application of E&M energy to a restricted volume like a copper frustum, i.e., the QV is mutable and degradable, then the above QV energy distribution AKA bandwidth can be skewed down toward lower frequency interactions at typical microwave frequencies. If one increases the E&M mass/energy in the frustum to sufficient levels via Q-factor and other parametric based multiplications, then one can create QV flow fields coming out of the frustums that can act like a gravity field around the frustum. The EW Lab's mutable QV simulations indicates that when the QV background mass/energy density is amplified from its intergalactic density of the ~9.1x10^-27 kg/m^3 up to ~1x10^12 kg/m^3, frustum based force outputs get up into the micro-Newton to tens of uN levels, but only IF the QV is mutable and compressible as one would do with air using an air compressor. Please take a look at the attached EW Lab's JMP paper for more details.
Best, Paul M.
I have considered the MHD model for many, many years. My conclusion has been that, the temperature at which electron-positron pairs annihilate each other is in excess of 108 Kelvin. If e-p pairs in the frustum had a density ~1x1012 kg/m3, and a life time of ~10-22 s, the frustum would be vaporized from the heat, faster than dropping it onto the surface of the sun.
The paper in JBIS is saying that it would require a mass of e-p pairs in excess of 105 kg. So the heat and the mass would not go undetected, therefore that's not it.
Regarding the paper you attached, I love this paper! However, at the scale of electrons and quarks, they are constantly undergoing exchange scattering with their counterparts in the QV. At this scale it is possible because the E field exceeds the Schwinger limit, but in the frustum the E field is no where near that limit. So the expectation of producing so many pairs is unreasonable, and I offer that it can't be happening if the frustum is not melting instantly upon their creation.
Todd
Todd:
"My conclusion has been that, the temperature at which electron-positron pairs annihilate each other is in excess of 108 Kelvin."
Again you are making the assumption that the e/p pairs are fully fleshed out in our universe, which does require 0.511 MeV per particle and that would indeed melt the frustum if fully developed. What Dr. White's QV conjecture posits is that these virtual force carriers can be expressed in our reality with a variable effective mass/energy density that goes from just barely here to fully here at the Schwinger limit energy densities. Of course the only way to prove this QV conjecture is to test a given frustum design over a broad input power range of four orders of magnitude or greater to see if it generates the COMSOL/QV Plasma code's EW copper frustum's TM010 thrust predictions I posted at NSF.com earlier, or not.
Best, Paul M.
...Has Woodward ever achieved acceleration of his devices on a rotary test rig or do they just generate a static force?
All Fearn/Woodward piezoelectric experiments are dynamic by definition, not static, as they involve a resonant mass Langevin stack with masses at both ends!. The whole stack is vibrating during the experiment.
So the thruster as a whole unit undergoes constant acceleration and velocity increase? How far has the thruster moved, what was the acceleration and time?
If so got data to share?
The measured vibration amplitude of the masses is larger than the measured motion due to the Mach effect force. The measured Langevin stack is at the end of a torsional pendulum that as a result of the Mach effect force executes a small rotary motion around the center of rotation of the torsional pendulum.
The forces and motion in their experiments up to now are smaller than what is claimed in EM Drive experiments (forces and amplitudes of the order of what Tajmar measured in vacuum for the EM Drive). See EM Drive wiki experimental section: http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283007333_Theory_of_a_Mach_Effect_Thruster_II
Presently Woodward's emphasis is to increase amplitude using chirp (a linear rate of change in frequency as a function of time) excitation.
Prof. Tajmar at TU Dresden reported having replicated earlier Woodward's experiments, using a material that produces even smaller amplitude force.
I am writing a comprehensive article (so far over 40 pages long) on calculations vs. experiments for Woodward's device that will be published as part of the Estes Conference proceeding this December. Besides a thorough review of the technology involved (materials and experiments) I present the first exact solution for the dynamic vibration problem of Woodward's experiments. My calculations match their experimental observations regarding optimal mass to use in their piezoelectric/electrostrictive stack, and the direction of the force.
The proceedings will also have a very long article on the EM Drive as written by Fearn based on Paul March's presentation.
There should also be an article by Tajmar on his replication of Woodward's experiments (using a material that results in even lower amplitude than the material presently used by Woodward) and on Tajmar's latest EM Drive experiments. (Tajmar's new results on the EM Drive heretofore unpublished but presented at the Estes Conference)
There will also be an article published on an independent replication of Woodward's experiments by an independent consulting company in Canada. And there will be an article about Todd's (WarpTech) theory.
I seriously can't wait for your paper Dr. Rodal, but at over 40 pages, it's going to take me a year to comprehend it all! Yikes!
...
I seriously can't wait for your paper Dr. Rodal, but at over 40 pages, it's going to take me a year to comprehend it all! Yikes!
So far I have 30 figures and 6 tables, that should make it easier to digest
...and there is nothing you can't comprehend
I am writing it in LaTex, but it will be published in another language (epub ?) so that will take some time to convert and edit, so I plan to post my LaTex version in ResearchGate...
I have considered the MHD model for many, many years. My conclusion has been that, the temperature at which electron-positron pairs annihilate each other is in excess of 108 Kelvin. If e-p pairs in the frustum had a density ~1x1012 kg/m3, and a life time of ~10-22 s, the frustum would be vaporized from the heat, faster than dropping it onto the surface of the sun.
The paper in JBIS is saying that it would require a mass of e-p pairs in excess of 105 kg. So the heat and the mass would not go undetected, therefore that's not it.
Regarding the paper you attached, I love this paper! However, at the scale of electrons and quarks, they are constantly undergoing exchange scattering with their counterparts in the QV. At this scale it is possible because the E field exceeds the Schwinger limit, but in the frustum the E field is no where near that limit. So the expectation of producing so many pairs is unreasonable, and I offer that it can't be happening if the frustum is not melting instantly upon their creation.
Todd
Todd:
"My conclusion has been that, the temperature at which electron-positron pairs annihilate each other is in excess of 108 Kelvin."
Again you are making the assumption that the e/p pairs are fully fleshed out in our universe, which does require 0.511 MeV per particle and that would indeed melt the frustum if fully developed. What Dr. White's QV conjecture posits is that these virtual force carriers can be expressed in our reality with a variable effective mass/energy density that goes from just barely here to fully here at the Schwinger limit energy densities. Of course the only way to prove this QV conjecture is to test a given frustum design over a broad input power range of four orders of magnitude or greater to see if it generates the COMSOL/QV Plasma code's EW copper frustum's TM010 thrust predictions I posted at NSF.com earlier, or not.
Best, Paul M.
I've read this idea a very long time ago, but I thought it was discredited because I never heard of it again.
If that is the case, a much simpler experiment would be to measure the "linearity" of vacuum permittivity and permeability up to fields strengths equivalent to those in the frustum. Because, any such creation of virtual pairs, or voltage tension between two virtual masses, will change the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum in a measurable way. How non-linear are vacuum filled capacitors as the field strength approaches 10^7 V/m?
See the attached paper by Urban, which derives these values from the polarizable vacuum. We could probably extend this to apply directly to such an experiment.
Tangent to the present discussion, it's curious that the Eagleworks paper shows effectively no linear response in forward thrust between the 60 to 80 watt runs. Thoughts?
The EW lab's Dec 2014 split system in-vacuum test had much more prompt force turn-on and turn-off responses as demonstrated in figure 12 in the AIAA/JPP paper and my spring 2015 postings here a NSF.com. I've attached a couple of slides from this spring 2015 time period as a reminder to all.
Good to see the occasional torce direction reversal on power on.
Bet that had a few heads scratching? Did no one ask why can this EmDrive generate a static force in one direction at one power on event and then generate the opposite static force direction at the next power on event?
Interesting?
Tangent to the present discussion, it's curious that the Eagleworks paper shows effectively no linear response in forward thrust between the 60 to 80 watt runs. Thoughts?
I believe doing tuning in vac involves a bit of what someone I know once called "Kentucky Windage"? Doing a good gut feel guess job.
Would suggest the force vs power results could have been tighter if they had the lowest reflected freq tuner instead of the PLL.
Craig:
I'm impressed! However if L-3 Com approached Dr.. White about this 100kW Q-Thruster topic, he never told me about it. However I hope you are right in that someone has picked up this 100kW ball that could have produced over a 1,200 Newtons running at its TM010, 929 MHz resonance mode of the EW copper frustum while pumping in 100kW of RF power. Provided of course IF Sonny's QV conjecture was fully encapsulated in Dr. White's 2015 COMSOL/QV Plasma code simulations, see below, and IF it is based in reality, which is still TBD.
BTW, the time steps along the x-axis in these COMSOL/QV-Plasma code Copper Frustum thruster simulations is in picoseconds or 1x10^-12 seconds.
Best, Paul M.
Paul M,
I will push this then and advise you if anything comes out of it!!! They have a test magnetron just sitting there waiting to do this experiment!!! The only catch was that you could not just put the magnetron into the frustrum as shown in the diagram as anything less than a perfect impedance match between the magnetron and the "thruster" would fry the magnetron. However since this bird doesn't need to fly you would just pipe it in-place after an isolator with a waterload to absorb RF energy. I will at the very least ask to show pictures of the setup, it is impressive. Talking picoseconds at 915MHz they could do a 5MW(!!!) 10us trial and the equipment is just sitting there!!! Worst case scenario we have to pay for a nitrogen cooler from Air Liquide. The hardest part is just fabricating the frustrum as just a small bent can cause the resonant frequency to shift. Would this not be the experiment to learn about the QV (or lack of QV?) interaction?
The question I have is why TM010 vs say TM013? We were going to build two frustrums, one at TM010 and one at TM013. Is thrust just impacted by mode because of Q-factor or does anyone think there is something to the mode (magnetohydrodynamic QV flow??).
Will push this.. maybe everyone just got busy and I have made the wrong assumption that they were off to the races with someone else??
CNP
Tangent to the present discussion, it's curious that the Eagleworks paper shows effectively no linear response in forward thrust between the 60 to 80 watt runs. Thoughts?
I believe doing tuning in vac involves a bit of what someone I know once called "Kentucky Windage"?
Would suggest the force vs power results could have been tighter if they had the lowest reflected freq tuner instead of the PLL.
Phil:
"I believe doing tuning in vac involves a bit of what someone I know once called "Kentucky Windage"?"
With 20/20 hindsight in place some of us now know that PLL frequency trackers are NOT the best way to go. What is needed is a digital S11 resonant frequency tracker that can accommodate a variable permitivity in the frustum due to pressure changes, but with a force feedback input that can skew the drive frequency off peak resonant power just a few Hz to kHz to maximize the dynamic force output. It also needs to accommodate vehicle acceleration in the manner that Shawyer has talked about in his patents.
Best, Paul M.
Craig:
I'm impressed! However if L-3 Com approached Dr.. White about this 100kW Q-Thruster topic, he never told me about it. However I hope you are right in that someone has picked up this 100kW ball that could have produced over a 1,200 Newtons running at its TM010, 929 MHz resonance mode of the EW copper frustum while pumping in 100kW of RF power. Provided of course IF Sonny's QV conjecture was fully encapsulated in Dr. White's 2015 COMSOL/QV Plasma code simulations, see below, and IF it is based in reality, which is still TBD.
BTW, the time steps along the x-axis in these COMSOL/QV-Plasma code Copper Frustum thruster simulations is in picoseconds or 1x10^-12 seconds.
Best, Paul M.
Paul M,
I will push this then and advise you if anything comes out of it!!! They have a test magnetron just sitting there waiting to do this experiment!!! The only catch was that you could not just put the magnetron into the frustrum as shown in the diagram as anything less than a perfect impedance match between the magnetron and the "thruster" would fry the magnetron. However since this bird doesn't need to fly you would just pipe it in-place after an isolator with a waterload to absorb RF energy. I will at the very least ask to show pictures of the setup, it is impressive. Talking picoseconds at 915MHz they could do a 5MW(!!!) 10us trial and the equipment is just sitting there!!! Worst case scenario we have to pay for a nitrogen cooler from Air Liquide. The hardest part is just fabricating the frustrum as just a small bent can cause the resonant frequency to shift. Would this not be the experiment to learn about the QV (or lack of QV?) interaction?
The question I have is why TM010 vs say TM013? We were going to build two frustrums, one at TM010 and one at TM013. Is thrust just impacted by mode because of Q-factor or does anyone think there is something to the mode (magnetohydrodynamic QV flow??).
Will push this.. maybe everyone just got busy and I have made the wrong assumption that they were off to the races with someone else??
CNP
Craig:
The one thing you need to understand is that the off-the-shelf 929 MHz XXXkW magnetrons won't work very well with a high-Q copper frustum due to its nominal very wide bandwidth, which means that most of its RF input power would be wasted heating the cavity walls instead of maximizing the generated E&M fields. At room temperature, a copper frustum driving a TE013 resonant response has a resonant -3dB bandwidth of say 30 kHz where as the magnetron's normal output is smeared over 30 to 60 MHz dependent on its design and operating temperature. However, what one can do is to modify the magnetron along the lines in the attached slide so that it becomes a controllable frequency source with similar -3dB bandwidth that can be CONTROLLED with an S11 resonant frequency tracker with force feedback as I was talking about with The Traveler (Phil).
BTW, we still don't know what resonant mode will generate the best thruster efficiency other than high Q-factors, to a point, are better. The reason I had Jerry Vera run these COMSOL/QV-Plasma code simulations at the TM010 resonant mode frequency was that we already had the COMSOL results for the EW copper frustum and it had a TM010 resonant frequency close to the 929 MHz output of this L-3 Comm 100kW magnetron with 88% efficiency. From the testing experience of Shawyer and others, the best frustum resonant mode may be to run the cavity at its TE013 resonance, which means purpose building a copper frustum with its as-built TE013 resonance at 929 MHz and one that can handle the 12+kW of power dissipation.
Best,
I have considered the MHD model for many, many years. My conclusion has been that, the temperature at which electron-positron pairs annihilate each other is in excess of 108 Kelvin. If e-p pairs in the frustum had a density ~1x1012 kg/m3, and a life time of ~10-22 s, the frustum would be vaporized from the heat, faster than dropping it onto the surface of the sun.
The paper in JBIS is saying that it would require a mass of e-p pairs in excess of 105 kg. So the heat and the mass would not go undetected, therefore that's not it.
Regarding the paper you attached, I love this paper! However, at the scale of electrons and quarks, they are constantly undergoing exchange scattering with their counterparts in the QV. At this scale it is possible because the E field exceeds the Schwinger limit, but in the frustum the E field is no where near that limit. So the expectation of producing so many pairs is unreasonable, and I offer that it can't be happening if the frustum is not melting instantly upon their creation.
Todd
Todd:
"My conclusion has been that, the temperature at which electron-positron pairs annihilate each other is in excess of 108 Kelvin."
Again you are making the assumption that the e/p pairs are fully fleshed out in our universe, which does require 0.511 MeV per particle and that would indeed melt the frustum if fully developed. What Dr. White's QV conjecture posits is that these virtual force carriers can be expressed in our reality with a variable effective mass/energy density that goes from just barely here to fully here at the Schwinger limit energy densities. Of course the only way to prove this QV conjecture is to test a given frustum design over a broad input power range of four orders of magnitude or greater to see if it generates the COMSOL/QV Plasma code's EW copper frustum's TM010 thrust predictions I posted at NSF.com earlier, or not.
Best, Paul M.
I've read this idea a very long time ago, but I thought it was discredited because I never heard of it again.
If that is the case, a much simpler experiment would be to measure the "linearity" of vacuum permittivity and permeability up to fields strengths equivalent to those in the frustum. Because, any such creation of virtual pairs, or voltage tension between two virtual masses, will change the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum in a measurable way. How non-linear are vacuum filled capacitors as the field strength approaches 10^7 V/m?
See the attached paper by Urban, which derives these values from the polarizable vacuum. We could probably extend this to apply directly to such an experiment.
Todd:
Great idea and thanks much for the pointer to the Urban paper! I will read and consider how one might do this on the cheap in my home lab once it is built.
Best, Paul M.
...and there is nothing you can't comprehend 