I though Mr March was at one point intending to build a new frustum?
...
I intend to do whatever is necessary to keep developing EmDrive build and test information as open sourced as possible.
Is it possible that you post the photos of your original 8mN test? It is the one that utilized a digital scale.
What kind of drive is needed for that amp? Looking at this sig gen: https://windfreaktech.com/product/usb-rf-signal-generator/
That looks like an interesting alternative. But do I understand well that the resolution is 100 kHz? That would be a bit too coarse to tune a resonance with a width of a few hunderd kHz.
But in combination with a wireless USB hub, mmm, mm. Interesting.
What kind of drive is needed for that amp? Looking at this sig gen: https://windfreaktech.com/product/usb-rf-signal-generator/
That looks like an interesting alternative. But do I understand well that the resolution is 100 kHz? That would be a bit too coarse to tune a resonance with a width of a few hunderd kHz.
But in combination with a wireless USB hub, mmm, mm. Interesting.
Very nice post. You are keenly aware of one of the topics of debate. What I have gathered over the past couple of years is the debate centers on the medium, or dielectric. Mach Effect requires this and EmDrive researchers have differing viewpoints. Shell is on a path which attempts to "unify" the 2 concepts; EmDrive and Mach. This I find "fascinating".
Speaking from my own work, 18.4 mN was achieved without a medium. This does not mean a proper medium could not amplify this result. I focused on polished raw copper, which will be the same cavity in use during Gen III testing next year.
But this one even nicer: https://windfreaktech.com/product/rf-signal-generator-and-power-detector/What kind of drive is needed for that amp? Looking at this sig gen: https://windfreaktech.com/product/usb-rf-signal-generator/
That looks like an interesting alternative. But do I understand well that the resolution is 100 kHz? That would be a bit too coarse to tune a resonance with a width of a few hunderd kHz.
But in combination with a wireless USB hub, mmm, mm. Interesting.
This is the unit I'm using. It also functions as a spectrum scanner:
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/138Mhz-4-4Ghz-Usb-Sma-Signal-Source-Signal-Generator-Simple-Spectrum-Analyzer-M-/291762565680?hash=item43ee677230:g:e~IAAOSwWntXNP~D
I'd say the presentations are split about 50-50 between Mach Effect and EMdrive topic and results, and there is a concerted effort to integrate the theories for each approach.
This is a good thing to gather everyone around a common theory or a group of mutually compatible theories. We must point out that the anomalous thrust produced by the EmDrive with a dielectric inside can indeed be explained as a Mach effect according to Woodward and March:
"The RF excited dielectric in the cavity generates bulk proper accelerations and decelerations during RF cycles, that in turn generate an 2ω electrostrictive response in the dielectric that could, under the correct EM mode and physical configurations, force rectify the dielectric vibrations induced in the dielectric by the RF over a full RF cycle, into a unidirectional thrust."
But we also must point out that, still according to Woodward, an EmDrive without any dielectric can not work.*
This is in contradiction with recent experiments of the EmDrive without any dielectric from SPR (Shawyer), Cannae LLC (Fetta), TU Dresden (Tajmar), NWPU (Yang)… even according to a post from Paul March where he stated that Eagleworks measured an anomalous force without a dielectric inside (while their whole test campaign focused on a cavity integrating a dielectric though) as well as DIYers who measured thrust with finer control than before: rfmwguy (Dave), Seeshells (Michelle), TheTraveller (Phil), Monomorphic (Jamie)…
So it will be quite interesting to follow the debates over Mach effect and the EmDrive that took place at this exotic propulsion workshop.
* However, we can't rule out a Machian explanation of a pure copper cavity, involving an interaction with the walls (metal or coating), the material relative permittivity being perhaps modified by RF frequencies (skin effect?). But wouldn't this Machian explanation produce much weaker forces than a stack of bigger dielectric disks?Very nice post. You are keenly aware of one of the topics of debate. What I have gathered over the past couple of years is the debate centers on the medium, or dielectric. Mach Effect requires this and EmDrive researchers have differing viewpoints. Shell is on a path which attempts to "unify" the 2 concepts; EmDrive and Mach. This I find "fascinating".
Speaking from my own work, 18.4 mN was achieved without a medium. This does not mean a proper medium could not amplify this result. I focused on polished raw copper, which will be the same cavity in use during Gen III testing next year.
Its become apparent with DIY and professional lab testing that something is there and designers and theorists are struggling to get their minds around it. I think the worst thing that could happen is Mach Effect and EmDrive proponents take sides and battle one another. They should look for commonality and pursue designs as they see fit. If commonality is found, public sharing of this info would be critical to quicker advancement in advanced propulsion.
I guess what I am "preaching" about is collaboration rather than taking sides...if that makes sense. Unfortunately, I suspect the latter has been occurring too often.
...
The 20-30% c limit I used, just comes from the fact that in accelerators and in nature, detectable atoms exceeding this range seem to be fully ionized bare nuclei. Mostly protons and alpha particles in nature and up to gold and lead nuclei in accelerators.
...
We are moving to 90% of C from billion light years distant galaxies. So, a speed higher than 30% of C is not a problem if it is relatively to a distant body. If it is a problem, it is locally.
Particles in accelerators on earth are also submitted to an important proper acceleration, so it may the important proper acceleration that causes the ionization.
We can not assert that an interplanetary ship in our galaxy would be limited to 30% of C. We have no evidence for that in standard physics.The particle accelerator comments are just completely confusing cause and effect. Accelerators are designed to use charged particles, because we need some way to push on them while they are in a vacuum tube. The best way to do this is via electric and magnetic forces, but that doesn't work on neutral particles. As a result we inject (still slow moving) ions into the accelerator to begin with.
Saying this means that atoms in space would randomly ionize themselves just because they are moving fast relative to something else is just bad logic. According to everything we know, the only way we would be limited in speed relative to anything (local or distant) is by collisions with slower moving particles. (Assuming we continue having means to accelerate) Space is pretty empty, so > 90% c should be fine.
In the Newtonian sense the vacuum is an empty space. There is no quantum structure or element to it. As such there is no possible interaction between a moving object and the empty vacuum.
Within the context of GR things are not quite as clear cut. While we have no conclusive evidence that the spacetime of GR has any independent substance, that we could describe as a QV, experiments like the Gravity Probe B experiment and its confirmation of the frame dragging effect, tend to support.., or at least open the door to this kind of interpretation. If, in any model of the QV a physical object interacts with the QV to any degree, we are no longer dealing with a vacuum we can think of as Empty Space.., and we can no longer discount the possibility that that interaction has consequences, on either the QV or the physical object.
The 20-30% c limit I used, just comes from the fact that in accelerators and in nature, detectable atoms exceeding this range seem to be fully ionized bare nuclei. Mostly protons and alpha particles in nature and up to gold and lead nuclei in accelerators.
While as I mentioned aspects of and even perhaps the existence of a/the QV remains controversial, Unruh Radiation is generally accepted. While at classical velocities the impact of Unruh Radiation is generally insignificant to atomic stability, it is not unreasonable to expect that at relativistic velocities, the situation may be different.
Both the potential existence of Unruh Radiation and any interaction between a physical object and Spacetime, as suggested by the frame dragging effect, open the door to the potential that, relativistic velocities may result in the ionization of atomic structures.
All of this leads to, at least the potential that the idea that all things in motion tend to stay in motion may not be entirely accurate beyond the classical environments and conditions, that it has been proven.
I'd say the presentations are split about 50-50 between Mach Effect and EMdrive topic and results, and there is a concerted effort to integrate the theories for each approach.
This is a good thing to gather everyone around a common theory or a group of mutually compatible theories. We must point out that the anomalous thrust produced by the EmDrive with a dielectric inside can indeed be explained as a Mach effect according to Woodward and March:
"The RF excited dielectric in the cavity generates bulk proper accelerations and decelerations during RF cycles, that in turn generate an 2ω electrostrictive response in the dielectric that could, under the correct EM mode and physical configurations, force rectify the dielectric vibrations induced in the dielectric by the RF over a full RF cycle, into a unidirectional thrust."
But we also must point out that, still according to Woodward, an EmDrive without any dielectric can not work.*
This is in contradiction with recent experiments of the EmDrive without any dielectric from SPR (Shawyer), Cannae LLC (Fetta), TU Dresden (Tajmar), NWPU (Yang)… even according to a post from Paul March where he stated that Eagleworks measured an anomalous force without a dielectric inside (while their whole test campaign focused on a cavity integrating a dielectric though) as well as DIYers who measured thrust with finer control than before: rfmwguy (Dave), Seeshells (Michelle), TheTraveller (Phil), Monomorphic (Jamie)…
So it will be quite interesting to follow the debates over Mach effect and the EmDrive that took place at this exotic propulsion workshop.
* However, we can't rule out a Machian explanation of a pure copper cavity, involving an interaction with the walls (metal or coating), the material relative permittivity being perhaps modified by RF frequencies (skin effect?). But wouldn't this Machian explanation produce much weaker forces than a stack of bigger dielectric disks?Very nice post. You are keenly aware of one of the topics of debate. What I have gathered over the past couple of years is the debate centers on the medium, or dielectric. Mach Effect requires this and EmDrive researchers have differing viewpoints. Shell is on a path which attempts to "unify" the 2 concepts; EmDrive and Mach. This I find "fascinating".
Speaking from my own work, 18.4 mN was achieved without a medium. This does not mean a proper medium could not amplify this result. I focused on polished raw copper, which will be the same cavity in use during Gen III testing next year.
Its become apparent with DIY and professional lab testing that something is there and designers and theorists are struggling to get their minds around it. I think the worst thing that could happen is Mach Effect and EmDrive proponents take sides and battle one another. They should look for commonality and pursue designs as they see fit. If commonality is found, public sharing of this info would be critical to quicker advancement in advanced propulsion.
I guess what I am "preaching" about is collaboration rather than taking sides...if that makes sense. Unfortunately, I suspect the latter has been occurring too often.Hi RFmwguy,
Has there been any talk about the MW resonance setting up a similar effect to cooper pairing in the photons? Just thinking if the standing waves were some how exhibiting fermionic tendancies it may have an associated degenerate pressure on the copper of the Frostrum. And therefore almost separate to the thermal affects. Given that copper is well within the 'anomalous' orbital configuration of 4d 3s overlap wondering if it might show some effect on overall depth penetration? Still wouldn't know how it would violate CoM but it's the only strange things I could even start to question.
Thanks
A new radial acceleration relation found among spiral and irregular galaxies challenges current understanding – and possibly existence – of dark matter
“The natural inference is that this law stems from a universal force such as a modification of gravity like MOND, the hypothesis of Modified Newtonian Dynamics proposed by Israeli physicist Moti Milgrom. But it could also be something in the nature of dark matter like the superfluid dark matter proposed by Justin Khoury,” McGaugh said. “Most importantly, whatever theory you want to build has to reproduce this.”
Another poster here (I have unfortunately lost track of who) posted a quite thorough proof and explanation of why devices that operate like the EMDrive as self contained units emitting no mass, and having in their own frame a constant force / input power greater than 1/c must therefore be a free energy machine. Their analysis included explanations of how to account for the energy properly in this case for a chemical rocket.
Hopefully someone else thought to save the link and can point you to that post.
The short version is that this is a real problem, and saying otherwise is simply wrong. (Note that some of the better proposed theories for the EMDrive include ways around this, by making the EMDrive not a closed system, but Shawyer doesn't do this)
This might be relevant to people's consideration of how EM drives work.
In rotating galaxies, distribution of normal matter precisely determines gravitational accelerationQuoteA new radial acceleration relation found among spiral and irregular galaxies challenges current understanding – and possibly existence – of dark matterQuote“The natural inference is that this law stems from a universal force such as a modification of gravity like MOND, the hypothesis of Modified Newtonian Dynamics proposed by Israeli physicist Moti Milgrom. But it could also be something in the nature of dark matter like the superfluid dark matter proposed by Justin Khoury,” McGaugh said. “Most importantly, whatever theory you want to build has to reproduce this.”
http://thedaily.case.edu/rotating-galaxies-distribution-normal-matter-precisely-determines-gravitational-acceleration/
Here is the paper.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.05917
This might be relevant to people's consideration of how EM drives work.
In rotating galaxies, distribution of normal matter precisely determines gravitational accelerationQuoteA new radial acceleration relation found among spiral and irregular galaxies challenges current understanding – and possibly existence – of dark matterQuote“The natural inference is that this law stems from a universal force such as a modification of gravity like MOND, the hypothesis of Modified Newtonian Dynamics proposed by Israeli physicist Moti Milgrom. But it could also be something in the nature of dark matter like the superfluid dark matter proposed by Justin Khoury,” McGaugh said. “Most importantly, whatever theory you want to build has to reproduce this.”
http://thedaily.case.edu/rotating-galaxies-distribution-normal-matter-precisely-determines-gravitational-acceleration/
Here is the paper.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.05917
There is a whole lot of other evidence of dark matter. I don't believe it's just about galactic rotations.
Another poster here (I have unfortunately lost track of who) posted a quite thorough proof and explanation of why devices that operate like the EMDrive as self contained units emitting no mass, and having in their own frame a constant force / input power greater than 1/c must therefore be a free energy machine. Their analysis included explanations of how to account for the energy properly in this case for a chemical rocket.
Hopefully someone else thought to save the link and can point you to that post.
The short version is that this is a real problem, and saying otherwise is simply wrong. (Note that some of the better proposed theories for the EMDrive include ways around this, by making the EMDrive not a closed system, but Shawyer doesn't do this)
Thanks. It's a fascinating problem and I have been giving a lot of thought lately. It is well know that the upper stage of a multi-stage chemical rocket can yield far more kinetic energy than is accounted for by just the chemical energy of it's fuel. In principle, any device that has a self generated constant force will hit eventually run into the energy conundrum. It's not just an EMDrive thing as you say. In fact, one can buy little electric toy airplane motors that give 27 oz of thrust for 85 watts which amounts to 0.088N/W or 88N/KW. Rounding to 0.1 N/W and assuming an input of 100W, a 1Kg self powered device on a frictionless surface would run into the conundrum in about 2 seconds assuming a acceleration of 1g. After that the input power times the time is less than the kinetic energy in the lab frame according to my calculations. I have not tried this in a physical device, just thought experiments. My point is that the energy conundrum is not confined to some esoteric set of conditions, it is totally testable under very nominal conditions in any lab probably by a freshman physics class. But of course no one in their right mind would openly bother to try it if anyone else knew about it and if it worked, you really couldn't tell anyone either! But it's fun to ponder.
Of course if a ship increases it's velocity by some amount using a given energy, there is always a reference frame (an infinite number of them) where the increase in kinetic energy observed is far greater than the release of energy in the ships frame. But does than make it a problem? I really don't think so. As I mentioned before, if light power, 1/c, is the theoretical maximum usable without creating energy conundrums, then using photon recycling, which we know works from experiments, even over part of a trip might in principle break that.
This might be relevant to people's consideration of how EM drives work.
In rotating galaxies, distribution of normal matter precisely determines gravitational accelerationQuoteA new radial acceleration relation found among spiral and irregular galaxies challenges current understanding – and possibly existence – of dark matterQuote“The natural inference is that this law stems from a universal force such as a modification of gravity like MOND, the hypothesis of Modified Newtonian Dynamics proposed by Israeli physicist Moti Milgrom. But it could also be something in the nature of dark matter like the superfluid dark matter proposed by Justin Khoury,” McGaugh said. “Most importantly, whatever theory you want to build has to reproduce this.”
http://thedaily.case.edu/rotating-galaxies-distribution-normal-matter-precisely-determines-gravitational-acceleration/
Here is the paper.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.05917
There is a whole lot of other evidence of dark matter. I don't believe it's just about galactic rotations.
I am in the increasingly sceptic camp on dark matter.
Another poster here (I have unfortunately lost track of who) posted a quite thorough proof and explanation of why devices that operate like the EMDrive as self contained units emitting no mass, and having in their own frame a constant force / input power greater than 1/c must therefore be a free energy machine. Their analysis included explanations of how to account for the energy properly in this case for a chemical rocket.
Hopefully someone else thought to save the link and can point you to that post.
The short version is that this is a real problem, and saying otherwise is simply wrong. (Note that some of the better proposed theories for the EMDrive include ways around this, by making the EMDrive not a closed system, but Shawyer doesn't do this)
Thanks. It's a fascinating problem and I have been giving a lot of thought lately. It is well know that the upper stage of a multi-stage chemical rocket can yield far more kinetic energy than is accounted for by just the chemical energy of it's fuel. In principle, any device that has a self generated constant force will hit eventually run into the energy conundrum. It's not just an EMDrive thing as you say. In fact, one can buy little electric toy airplane motors that give 27 oz of thrust for 85 watts which amounts to 0.088N/W or 88N/KW. Rounding to 0.1 N/W and assuming an input of 100W, a 1Kg self powered device on a frictionless surface would run into the conundrum in about 2 seconds assuming a acceleration of 1g. After that the input power times the time is less than the kinetic energy in the lab frame according to my calculations. I have not tried this in a physical device, just thought experiments. My point is that the energy conundrum is not confined to some esoteric set of conditions, it is totally testable under very nominal conditions in any lab probably by a freshman physics class. But of course no one in their right mind would openly bother to try it if anyone else knew about it and if it worked, you really couldn't tell anyone either! But it's fun to ponder.
Of course if a ship increases it's velocity by some amount using a given energy, there is always a reference frame (an infinite number of them) where the increase in kinetic energy observed is far greater than the release of energy in the ships frame. But does than make it a problem? I really don't think so. As I mentioned before, if light power, 1/c, is the theoretical maximum usable without creating energy conundrums, then using photon recycling, which we know works from experiments, even over part of a trip might in principle break that.
The massic Energy of classical fuel must be taken into account. Even if it is not used directly to increase the Kinetic Energy of the ship, it participates. Once this Energy taken into account, there is no more Kinetic Energy paradox for upper stages.
It would be interesting to calculate what speed would be needed to get the paradox with an Emdrive. But I am afaid it needs high speed...
Another poster here (I have unfortunately lost track of who) posted a quite thorough proof and explanation of why devices that operate like the EMDrive as self contained units emitting no mass, and having in their own frame a constant force / input power greater than 1/c must therefore be a free energy machine. Their analysis included explanations of how to account for the energy properly in this case for a chemical rocket.
Hopefully someone else thought to save the link and can point you to that post.
The short version is that this is a real problem, and saying otherwise is simply wrong. (Note that some of the better proposed theories for the EMDrive include ways around this, by making the EMDrive not a closed system, but Shawyer doesn't do this)
Thanks. It's a fascinating problem and I have been giving a lot of thought lately. It is well know that the upper stage of a multi-stage chemical rocket can yield far more kinetic energy than is accounted for by just the chemical energy of it's fuel. In principle, any device that has a self generated constant force will hit eventually run into the energy conundrum. It's not just an EMDrive thing as you say. In fact, one can buy little electric toy airplane motors that give 27 oz of thrust for 85 watts which amounts to 0.088N/W or 88N/KW. Rounding to 0.1 N/W and assuming an input of 100W, a 1Kg self powered device on a frictionless surface would run into the conundrum in about 2 seconds assuming a acceleration of 1g. After that the input power times the time is less than the kinetic energy in the lab frame according to my calculations. I have not tried this in a physical device, just thought experiments. My point is that the energy conundrum is not confined to some esoteric set of conditions, it is totally testable under very nominal conditions in any lab probably by a freshman physics class. But of course no one in their right mind would openly bother to try it if anyone else knew about it and if it worked, you really couldn't tell anyone either! But it's fun to ponder.
Of course if a ship increases it's velocity by some amount using a given energy, there is always a reference frame (an infinite number of them) where the increase in kinetic energy observed is far greater than the release of energy in the ships frame. But does than make it a problem? I really don't think so. As I mentioned before, if light power, 1/c, is the theoretical maximum usable without creating energy conundrums, then using photon recycling, which we know works from experiments, even over part of a trip might in principle break that.
The massic Energy of classical fuel must be taken into account. Even if it is not used directly to increase the Kinetic Energy of the ship, it participates. Once this Energy taken into account, there is no more Kinetic Energy paradox for upper stages.
It would be interesting to calculate what speed would be needed to get the paradox with an Emdrive. But I am afaid it needs high speed...
People like to say that, that if you include the kinetic energy of the fuel before it burns, there is no paradox. Of course, but the problem is that no one can point to where all the extra energy was actually put in beyond the already burned fuel. In other words, it takes the same amount of energy for every spec of velocity gain, not more when it's going faster. So saying the kinetic energy of the fuel must be accounted for does not resolve the paradox, it magnifies it.
It's easy to calculate the speed the Emdrive or Cannae drive reach that point. You just need the acceleration and the power used for thrust and the mass. Set Power times time to kinetic energy. Substitute a*t for v and you get t=2*power/(mass* acceleration^2). In the Cannae Deep Space Probe, that works out to about 267 seconds! In the Shawyer Interstellar probe (29.6KW thruster, 8936 Kg mass, about 1m/s^2 acceleration) about 6.6 seconds. So failure would be known quickly.
Thank you rfmwguy,
I do agree experimentation can trump the theory(I was a chemist that hit a problem and overturned it by proving accepted theory was wrong, it still fitted accepted theory after but approach was changed). If it works getting from A to B may be possible and theory follows. I'm a healthy sceptic however but optimistic. Do you mind me asking how much collaboration is going on behind scenes? No specifics needed just are you getting a feeling of things are getting polarised in good way?
I'm getting sense that critical mass on thinking is changing.
Thanks