-
#880 by rfmwguy on 23 Sep, 2016 13:55
-
I think this is the quote of the week. Very nicely said. Being outside academic circles and well beyond my Purdue days, I brought in no reservations about reporting as I saw it. Jamie and I have similar attitudes about letting the Internet be used for open collaboration and discussion on scientific projects. EmDrive is one of many Citizen Scientist projects going on right now. I don't think its the most radical, but it certainly is the most interesting project I've read about.I understand why this happens but it is a loss to progress and scientific understanding to have groups go private/dark just to avoid caustic criticism. Others may also label it as a "distraction" to communicate their experiments/results as they happen but it's critical to do so. It's not easy to ignore or politely respond to some forms of criticism but I do believe it does benefit us as experimentalists to hear and respond to it. Avoiding it just leads to groups hoarding data, going down dead ends un-necessarily, and retarding the advancement of the field. Please consider being as open as possible with your experiments and data. You will no doubt be highly esteemed in the end if you do so.
(...)
I suggest to everyone; appreciate what is happening here. It is remarkable. I have never seen a collaboration in such a medium that is actually effective in getting to the bottom of a potentially earth shattering mystery (or the opposite, as the case may be). Appreciate what we are given. It is more than I could have ever dreamed possible outside of a group of people I know personally. Don’t be afraid to ask for more, but don’t be upset if it doesn’t happen. Just appreciate, that is all.
Slyver
As we shall read in December, there are many things we don't yet comprehend and did not anticipate. To me, that's what science is all about and what defines a legacy. I think we all are a small part of something very big: The true genesis of Advanced Space Propulsion. -
#881 by Monomorphic on 23 Sep, 2016 14:39
-
Better view of the E-fields in TM010 Cannae drive. Last video wasn't very clear.
E&H Fields:
-
#882 by Gilbertdrive on 23 Sep, 2016 14:49
-
Totally agree for relative velocity and kinetic energy. I agree also It is not a proof that the Emdrive don't work. There are at least 4 possibilities (probably there are many others)...He should assume his emdrive as a free energy device...
The work done by the electrical energy supply to accelerate the mass of the ship does not generate free energy. It is just work done on the ship's mass and most of it is turned into heat energy. There is no energy gain, no free energy.
Unless I am mistaken (it wouldn't be the first time
), relative velocity and kinetic energy doesn't care about how much waste heat you have; an indefinite acceleration period and greater than photon rocket thrust (eventually) works out to more kinetic energy than input power. Still, in my opinion, this is a problem that merely needs to be resolved in theoretical frameworks (assuming EM drive works), not an ultimate proof that EM drives don't work.
1 : Emdrive don't work. No new physic needed.
2 : Emdrive works, and does not violate CoE, because it exists non classical reference frames to define appropriately Kinetic Energy, and the Emdrive does not give a constant acceleration, but an acceleration decreasing proportionnaly to the speed. New physics needed.
3 : Emdrive works, gives constant acceleration at constant power, but CoE is still not violated, because it is a way of stealing Energy to something else. Mutable Quantum Vacuum for example. New physics needed.
4 : Emdrive works at constant acceleration at constant power, and violates CoE. New physics needed.
I think that most of us would find that 2 or 3 are more probable than 4.
Shawyer tells that he does no needs no physics, so he is not in 2 or 3. He is in 4.
Shawyer's calculus give a speed of 0.67C after 10 years for a 10 ton ship. It makes 3.1191599*10^20 joules in an earth referential. It is around what the entire world used in 2001.
The Energy provided to the emdrive by the 200kwe nuclear Power plant during the 10 years of operation would be 6.311*10^13 Joules
I detailed the calculus in a preceding message.
If a ship do not steal energy to something else, and comes with more Kinetic Energy that it has used of Electricity, CoE is violated. -
#883 by Mezzenile on 23 Sep, 2016 15:39
-
Is Professor Woodward on the photo ?
-
#884 by wicoe on 23 Sep, 2016 16:18
-
2 : Emdrive works, and does not violate CoE, because it exists non classical reference frames to define appropriately Kinetic Energy, and the Emdrive does not give a constant acceleration, but an acceleration decreasing proportionnaly to the speed. New physics needed.
How can acceleration be decreasing proportional to the speed? This would mean that acceleration would be measured differently in different frames of reference (i.e. it would have to be higher in a frame co-moving with the rocket w/o acceleration). How is that possible? -
#885 by Bob012345 on 23 Sep, 2016 17:05
-
Shawyer's description of how the device works (which is what started this conversation) does not have it pushing on anything, so according to Shawyer's claims it would be a free energy device.
His claim is a small % of the momentum in the internal EmWave is transferred to the external frustum. Most of the energy in the frustum exits as heat as in the attached image from his peer reviewed paper.
Bottom line is the EmDrive generates a force and accelerates a mass while it consumes energy to do so.
What referential for Kinetic Energy ? in GR you do not have an absolute reference frame. What is your reference frame for Kinetic Energy ?
As I calculated a few pages ago, the 0.67C (relatively to the earth referential) mentionned in the Shawyer peer-rewieved paper means a Kinetic Energy of 3.1191599*10^20 joules
Since the 10 years of operation of the 200Kwe generator gives only 6.311*10^13 Joules
So, following Shawyer, at the expanse of 6.311*10^13 Joules a spaceship can get 3.1191599* 10^20 joules of Kinetic Energy. We get massive free energy !
No, you don't get massive 'free' energy. What you get is different energies in different reference frames. You can see that simply by the following example. Say a ship is moving wrt earth frame at just under 0.5c by 1000m/s and you observe it. The ship makes a burn to increase its velocity wrt you by 1000m/s to exactly 0.5c wrt you. For a 10,000kg ship, how much energy does the pilot need to add? It depends on which reference frame. In the ships frame the pilot only needs to do the same burn to gain 1000m/s as always which is 5E9 J. You would say its about 1.5E15 J. It does gain that but not by the ship expending that energy in its reference frame. It would be the same regardless of a rocket of an EmDrive engine except the EmDrive would be more efficient. No doubt some will claim the rocket fuel already has kinetic energy, which it does, but that's natures gift, not something the ship had to provide by internal energy release stored as fuel because it never had that energy content to begin with. If someone objects further then consider that the ship was launched from a planet already moving at just under 05c to start with.
The bottom line is that the actual energy to get to the stars is probably a lot less that convention dictates.
P.S. I understand Woodward and allies previously released an essay demolishing the free energy or over unity arguments.
http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf
Was that discussed at the workshop? -
#886 by SeeShells on 23 Sep, 2016 17:16
-
No, he isn't. It was a bit of a walk over a small ditch and rough ground to get to the open field and sadly he is getting up there in years. Although, he may have been with a group of others who headed out to relieve themselves of to much coffee or water after 3 hours of intense presentation and debate.
Is Professor Woodward on the photo ?
Shell -
#887 by rfmwguy on 23 Sep, 2016 17:22
-
I am certainly not a theorist, but I don't view an EmDrive as a perpetual motion nor a free energy machine, on the contrary, I view it as self-propelled device converting electrons into an inertial force and there will be losses and resistance. Both the electrons and the inertia they create have its limits. Seems like top end is C, given enough time and electrons...2 : Emdrive works, and does not violate CoE, because it exists non classical reference frames to define appropriately Kinetic Energy, and the Emdrive does not give a constant acceleration, but an acceleration decreasing proportionnaly to the speed. New physics needed.
How can acceleration be decreasing proportional to the speed? This would mean that acceleration would be measured differently in different frames of reference (i.e. it would have to be higher in a frame co-moving with the rocket w/o acceleration). How is that possible?
Energy lost to heat, cosmic particles and gravity can slow the device down and can increase exponentially with speed in the case of particles and gravity.
As far as people calling this a kinetic weapon, the obvious joke is a Cheese Sandwich can be a kinetic weapon given enough of a push.
I wouldn't fret about the theory, it didn't deter my build, design and test...it will be solved and my guess is its not as much new physics as a twist or expansion on what we already know.
-
#888 by Bob012345 on 23 Sep, 2016 17:46
-
2 : Emdrive works, and does not violate CoE, because it exists non classical reference frames to define appropriately Kinetic Energy, and the Emdrive does not give a constant acceleration, but an acceleration decreasing proportionnaly to the speed. New physics needed.
How can acceleration be decreasing proportional to the speed? This would mean that acceleration would be measured differently in different frames of reference (i.e. it would have to be higher in a frame co-moving with the rocket w/o acceleration). How is that possible?
Actually, at relativistic speeds, acceleration is reduced so it's no longer invariant among different frames. -
#889 by SeeShells on 23 Sep, 2016 18:08
-
Quote
In physics, a conservation law states that a particular measurable property of an isolated physical system does not change as the system evolves over time. Exact conservation laws include conservation of energy, conservation of linear momentum, conservation of angular momentum, and conservation of electric charge. There are also many approximate conservation laws, which apply to such quantities as mass, parity, lepton number, baryon number, strangeness, hypercharge, etc. These quantities are conserved in certain classes of physics processes, but not in all.
A local conservation law is usually expressed mathematically as a continuity equation, a partial differential equation which gives a relation between the amount of the quantity and the "transport" of that quantity. It states that the amount of the conserved quantity at a point or within a volume can only change by the amount of the quantity which flows in or out of the volume.
From Noether's theorem, each conservation law is associated with a symmetry in the underlying physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law
The basic conservation laws are some of the strongest laws we know of governing the actions of systems and particles in our universe and are not thrown out the window when considering the actions of EM propulsion. They don't negate the data we have seen regarding the drives. They need to be used as a guide within the framework of physics in what maybe happening.
While at the workshop one presentation hit home by a exceptional engineer who has been working in the fields of unusual phenomena, debunking extraordinary claims for 30 years. He made me proud to be called an engineer. He presented (I would guess) over a hundred processes who's actions could produce not only false positives, but also increase the error windows in the testing phase. Try as I may I could only add a couple odd ball actions to the list. The real gold in his presentation relates to the fact, that if you take into account and quantify or negate these list of actions you will be left with solid data and have your test data be taken much more seriously. We all deserve that, not only believers but skeptics.
I'll try to relist these in the days to come.
Shell -
#890 by wicoe on 23 Sep, 2016 18:08
-
Say a ship is moving wrt earth frame at just under 0.5c by 1000m/s and you observe it. The ship makes a burn to increase its velocity wrt you by 1000m/s to exactly 0.5c wrt you. For a 10,000kg ship, how much energy does the pilot need to add? It depends on which reference frame.
If I understand it correctly, this is not the case. Let's say you're inside the ship at t0, and you burn some fuel for a very short time (total energy spent = E). As a result, your speed is now V1, and the speed of the exhaust is V2 in the opposite direction. The total kinetic energy is now m1v1^2/2 + m2v2^2/2, which equals the amount of energy spent (E). Now let's calculate this in a different ref frame, in which the ship is already moving at speed U. The total kinetic energy prior to the boost is E0 = (m1+m2)U^2/2. After the boost, the total kinetic energy will be E1 = m1(u+v1)^2/2 + m2(u-v2)^2/2. If you calculate the difference between E1 and E0 and take into account that m1v1 = m2v2 (CoM), you will get exactly E, i.e. the energy spent by burning the fuel does not depend on the reference frame, even though the kinetic energy before and after obviously does. -
#891 by wicoe on 23 Sep, 2016 18:23
-
I am certainly not a theorist, but I don't view an EmDrive as a perpetual motion nor a free energy machine, on the contrary, I view it as self-propelled device converting electrons into an inertial force and there will be losses and resistance. Both the electrons and the inertia they create have its limits. Seems like top end is C, given enough time and electrons...
Energy lost to heat, cosmic particles and gravity can slow the device down and can increase exponentially with speed in the case of particles and gravity.
As far as people calling this a kinetic weapon, the obvious joke is a Cheese Sandwich can be a kinetic weapon given enough of a push.
I wouldn't fret about the theory, it didn't deter my build, design and test...it will be solved and my guess is its not as much new physics as a twist or expansion on what we already know.
This is all understood, it's just that the more I look into it, the more difficult it becomes to reconcile with physics, and even common sense for that matter... if this is not a free energy device, then energy must be conserved. I could be wrong, but I cannot reconcile conservation of energy with constant acceleration w/o a propellant, even at speeds much lower than C. For example, let's say an EmDrive-powered rocket is moving at a certain constant speed (U) relative to an external observer. Now a short boost is applied (total energy spent = E), and the rocket accelerates to speed U+V. In the rocket ref frame, energy E got converted into kinetic energy (mV^2/2) and some heat. In the external ref frame, the observed kinetic energy boost is much higher: m(U+V)^2/2 - mU^2/2, but the amount of electric energy spent is the same since it cannot depend on the ref. frame. This makes no sense (to me) since you get different energy boosts depending on the ref. frame. When propellant is used, it perfectly compensates for this, so the energy boost is the same regardless of the ref. frame. -
#892 by rfmwguy on 23 Sep, 2016 19:58
-
I have been there before, many times. I finally set it aside once I realized Photons are both a particle and wave and wink out of existence in an apparent violation of CoE/CoM themselves. As I mentioned in an earlier post, light pressure from massless particles are behind this somehow. Once you accept the photon, you can probably accept the EmDrive. Photons are the product of electrons and their concentration/reflection/deflection is what I think is behind the EmDrive...and not as a thermal radiator once they're absorbed into the copper.I am certainly not a theorist, but I don't view an EmDrive as a perpetual motion nor a free energy machine, on the contrary, I view it as self-propelled device converting electrons into an inertial force and there will be losses and resistance. Both the electrons and the inertia they create have its limits. Seems like top end is C, given enough time and electrons...
Energy lost to heat, cosmic particles and gravity can slow the device down and can increase exponentially with speed in the case of particles and gravity.
As far as people calling this a kinetic weapon, the obvious joke is a Cheese Sandwich can be a kinetic weapon given enough of a push.
I wouldn't fret about the theory, it didn't deter my build, design and test...it will be solved and my guess is its not as much new physics as a twist or expansion on what we already know.
This is all understood, it's just that the more I look into it, the more difficult it becomes to reconcile with physics, and even common sense for that matter... if this is not a free energy device, then energy must be conserved. I could be wrong, but I cannot reconcile conservation of energy with constant acceleration w/o a propellant, even at speeds much lower than C. For example, let's say an EmDrive-powered rocket is moving at a certain constant speed (U) relative to an external observer. Now a short boost is applied (total energy spent = E), and the rocket accelerates to speed U+V. In the rocket ref frame, energy E got converted into kinetic energy (mV^2/2) and some heat. In the external ref frame, the observed kinetic energy boost is much higher: m(U+V)^2/2 - mU^2/2, but the amount of electric energy spent is the same since it cannot depend on the ref. frame. This makes no sense (to me) since you get different energy boosts depending on the ref. frame. When propellant is used, it perfectly compensates for this, so the energy boost is the same regardless of the ref. frame. -
#893 by SeeShells on 23 Sep, 2016 19:59
-
Better view of the E-fields in TM010 Cannae drive. Last video wasn't very clear.
My goodness you do fine work. Maybe it could make much more sense if you could animate a full cycle to see the poynting vectors fluctuate through a complete cycle and visually see if there are any asymmetries created with the dielectric plug in the antenna end.
E&H Fields:
I did send you the location of the Advanced Propulsion Workshop at the YMCA in Estes Park Co, but I guess you didn't get it in time to attend. You would have been quite welcome there being a drive tester. Plus, you could have met face to face with; Dr. Rodal, Todd, Paul March, Dr. Woodward, Dr. Hiedi Fern, Dr. Martin Tajmar along with many other other physicists, engineers and experts in propulsion. Also met the fine SSI.org group that has tirelessly worked through the years for advancement in space. http://ssi.org/about/history/ It is worth a read.
My Best,
Shell -
#894 by Tellmeagain on 23 Sep, 2016 20:42
-
I have been there before, many times. I finally set it aside once I realized Photons are both a particle and wave and wink out of existence in an apparent violation of CoE/CoM themselves. As I mentioned in an earlier post, light pressure from massless particles are behind this somehow. Once you accept the photon, you can probably accept the EmDrive. Photons are the product of electrons and their concentration/reflection/deflection is what I think is behind the EmDrive...and not as a thermal radiator once they're absorbed into the copper.
This is all understood, it's just that the more I look into it, the more difficult it becomes to reconcile with physics, and even common sense for that matter... if this is not a free energy device, then energy must be conserved. I could be wrong, but I cannot reconcile conservation of energy with constant acceleration w/o a propellant, even at speeds much lower than C. For example, let's say an EmDrive-powered rocket is moving at a certain constant speed (U) relative to an external observer. Now a short boost is applied (total energy spent = E), and the rocket accelerates to speed U+V. In the rocket ref frame, energy E got converted into kinetic energy (mV^2/2) and some heat. In the external ref frame, the observed kinetic energy boost is much higher: m(U+V)^2/2 - mU^2/2, but the amount of electric energy spent is the same since it cannot depend on the ref. frame. This makes no sense (to me) since you get different energy boosts depending on the ref. frame. When propellant is used, it perfectly compensates for this, so the energy boost is the same regardless of the ref. frame.
Photons are perfectly fine with CoE/CoM. Massless particles such as Photons carry both energy and momentum. Phenomenons involving photons (such as light pressure) do not violate CoE/CoM. EmDrive, however, if works as described, violates CoE/CoM.
-
#895 by Mezzenile on 23 Sep, 2016 20:52
-
No, he isn't. It was a bit of a walk over a small ditch and rough ground to get to the open field and sadly he is getting up there in years. Although, he may have been with a group of others who headed out to relieve themselves of to much coffee or water after 3 hours of intense presentation and debate.
Shell
Thank you Shell. -
#896 by rfmwguy on 23 Sep, 2016 21:00
-
This is a rabbit-hole, meaning photons, while only partially understood are assumed not to violate CoE/CoM. The duality of photons violates our known physics, as does particle entanglement at a distance. So I still offer that the EmDrive solution will involve a new twist on the assumptions of the photon...which remains an enigma. Just my humble opinion however...
I have been there before, many times. I finally set it aside once I realized Photons are both a particle and wave and wink out of existence in an apparent violation of CoE/CoM themselves. As I mentioned in an earlier post, light pressure from massless particles are behind this somehow. Once you accept the photon, you can probably accept the EmDrive. Photons are the product of electrons and their concentration/reflection/deflection is what I think is behind the EmDrive...and not as a thermal radiator once they're absorbed into the copper.
This is all understood, it's just that the more I look into it, the more difficult it becomes to reconcile with physics, and even common sense for that matter... if this is not a free energy device, then energy must be conserved. I could be wrong, but I cannot reconcile conservation of energy with constant acceleration w/o a propellant, even at speeds much lower than C. For example, let's say an EmDrive-powered rocket is moving at a certain constant speed (U) relative to an external observer. Now a short boost is applied (total energy spent = E), and the rocket accelerates to speed U+V. In the rocket ref frame, energy E got converted into kinetic energy (mV^2/2) and some heat. In the external ref frame, the observed kinetic energy boost is much higher: m(U+V)^2/2 - mU^2/2, but the amount of electric energy spent is the same since it cannot depend on the ref. frame. This makes no sense (to me) since you get different energy boosts depending on the ref. frame. When propellant is used, it perfectly compensates for this, so the energy boost is the same regardless of the ref. frame.
Photons are perfectly fine with CoE/CoM. Massless particles such as Photons carry both energy and momentum. Phenomenons involving photons (such as light pressure) do not violate CoE/CoM. EmDrive, however, if works as described, violates CoE/CoM. -
#897 by Tellmeagain on 23 Sep, 2016 21:08
-
I have been there before, many times. I finally set it aside once I realized Photons are both a particle and wave and wink out of existence in an apparent violation of CoE/CoM themselves. As I mentioned in an earlier post, light pressure from massless particles are behind this somehow. Once you accept the photon, you can probably accept the EmDrive. Photons are the product of electrons and their concentration/reflection/deflection is what I think is behind the EmDrive...and not as a thermal radiator once they're absorbed into the copper.
This is all understood, it's just that the more I look into it, the more difficult it becomes to reconcile with physics, and even common sense for that matter... if this is not a free energy device, then energy must be conserved. I could be wrong, but I cannot reconcile conservation of energy with constant acceleration w/o a propellant, even at speeds much lower than C. For example, let's say an EmDrive-powered rocket is moving at a certain constant speed (U) relative to an external observer. Now a short boost is applied (total energy spent = E), and the rocket accelerates to speed U+V. In the rocket ref frame, energy E got converted into kinetic energy (mV^2/2) and some heat. In the external ref frame, the observed kinetic energy boost is much higher: m(U+V)^2/2 - mU^2/2, but the amount of electric energy spent is the same since it cannot depend on the ref. frame. This makes no sense (to me) since you get different energy boosts depending on the ref. frame. When propellant is used, it perfectly compensates for this, so the energy boost is the same regardless of the ref. frame.
Photons are perfectly fine with CoE/CoM. Massless particles such as Photons carry both energy and momentum. Phenomenons involving photons (such as light pressure) do not violate CoE/CoM. EmDrive, however, if works as described, violates CoE/CoM.
I think the last statement has been put to rest multiple times in this thread alone. It does not violate CoE/CoM. If it did it wouldn't work.
I should have been more specific. I meant, "EmDrive, however, if works as described by Mr. Shawyer, violates CoE/CoM." The new theories presented by the Dr.'s are beyond my ability to digest. -
#898 by Star One on 23 Sep, 2016 21:30
-
I have been there before, many times. I finally set it aside once I realized Photons are both a particle and wave and wink out of existence in an apparent violation of CoE/CoM themselves. As I mentioned in an earlier post, light pressure from massless particles are behind this somehow. Once you accept the photon, you can probably accept the EmDrive. Photons are the product of electrons and their concentration/reflection/deflection is what I think is behind the EmDrive...and not as a thermal radiator once they're absorbed into the copper.
This is all understood, it's just that the more I look into it, the more difficult it becomes to reconcile with physics, and even common sense for that matter... if this is not a free energy device, then energy must be conserved. I could be wrong, but I cannot reconcile conservation of energy with constant acceleration w/o a propellant, even at speeds much lower than C. For example, let's say an EmDrive-powered rocket is moving at a certain constant speed (U) relative to an external observer. Now a short boost is applied (total energy spent = E), and the rocket accelerates to speed U+V. In the rocket ref frame, energy E got converted into kinetic energy (mV^2/2) and some heat. In the external ref frame, the observed kinetic energy boost is much higher: m(U+V)^2/2 - mU^2/2, but the amount of electric energy spent is the same since it cannot depend on the ref. frame. This makes no sense (to me) since you get different energy boosts depending on the ref. frame. When propellant is used, it perfectly compensates for this, so the energy boost is the same regardless of the ref. frame.
Photons are perfectly fine with CoE/CoM. Massless particles such as Photons carry both energy and momentum. Phenomenons involving photons (such as light pressure) do not violate CoE/CoM. EmDrive, however, if works as described, violates CoE/CoM.
I think the last statement has been put to rest multiple times in this thread alone. It does not violate CoE/CoM. If it did it wouldn't work.
I should have been more specific. I meant, "EmDrive, however, if works as described by Mr. Shawyer, violates CoE/CoM." The new theories presented by the Dr.'s are beyond my ability to digest.
Thank you for that clarification.
I rather like the theory that the drive is stealing from distant objects beyond the cosmological horizon. Just as a probe steals from a planet in a gravitational assist. -
#899 by Monomorphic on 23 Sep, 2016 22:23
-
Maybe it could make much more sense if you could animate a full cycle to see the poynting vectors fluctuate through a complete cycle and visually see if there are any asymmetries created with the dielectric plug in the antenna end.
I did send you the location of the Advanced Propulsion Workshop at the YMCA in Estes Park Co, but I guess you didn't get it in time to attend.
I can do a time domain analysis, but that requires quite a bit of computation. Due to the complex geometry of the cannae drive, it has quite a few triangles in the 3d mesh - which also adds dramatically to compute time.
I received the location of the conference in time, but I was traveling with a sick spouse, and had non-refundable plane tickets back to Atlanta at 9:00 am Monday. Had I learned about the conference a couple of weeks earlier, I could have changed my schedule.
), relative velocity and kinetic energy doesn't care about how much waste heat you have; an indefinite acceleration period and greater than photon rocket thrust (eventually) works out to more kinetic energy than input power. Still, in my opinion, this is a problem that merely needs to be resolved in theoretical frameworks (assuming EM drive works), not an ultimate proof that EM drives don't work.