-
#3040 by mwvp on 06 Mar, 2017 16:54
-
Yes, there is no need for any "computer do the math" to know the problem with General Relativity, because if mwvp's computer would give an answer that makes a difference between the two proposed situations, then it would mean that mwvp's computer model would not be satisfying one of the basic tenets of General Relativity, which has been experimentally confirmed by numerous experiments (STEP, Galileo-Galilei satellite, etc.)I ought to have my computer do the math. Because it seems obvious to me that an accelerating can of light, being Doppler-scattered by the top and bottom lids, is not the same as a can of light permeated by gravity.
These two situations being indistinguishable is literally the basis for general relativity. In a closed box there is no way to tell whether you are being accelerated by a rocket in free space or sitting on the ground in a uniform gravitational field. That includes if you reflect light off the top and bottom of the box and measure the Doppler shift. Intuition generally does not match with general relativity.
It depends on which "two proposed situations". In the typical equivalence principle (EP); a guy in a box with an accelerometer, I agree, you can't say whether its gravity or acceleration measured.
But to illustrate my point, lets say instead of our frustrum, we have a large spherical shell in space, and an experimenter floats in it with an accelerometer (say a BEC gravity wave sensor). Can he tell the difference between the shell vibrating around him, and a gravity wave propagating through the space both he and the sphere reside in? I think so.
My point is that the difference is the space, the vacuum enclosed by an accelerating shell is not accelerated by the shell, but gravity does "accelerate" the enclosed space, gravity gives space curvature.
This violates GR? Really? -
#3041 by Rodal on 06 Mar, 2017 19:06
-
The new example (a vibrating shell) seems like a non-sequitur to the previous "an accelerating can of light, being Doppler-scattered by the top and bottom lids, is not the same as a can of light permeated by gravity. "
Yes, there is no need for any "computer do the math" to know the problem with General Relativity, because if mwvp's computer would give an answer that makes a difference between the two proposed situations, then it would mean that mwvp's computer model would not be satisfying one of the basic tenets of General Relativity, which has been experimentally confirmed by numerous experiments (STEP, Galileo-Galilei satellite, etc.)I ought to have my computer do the math. Because it seems obvious to me that an accelerating can of light, being Doppler-scattered by the top and bottom lids, is not the same as a can of light permeated by gravity.
These two situations being indistinguishable is literally the basis for general relativity. In a closed box there is no way to tell whether you are being accelerated by a rocket in free space or sitting on the ground in a uniform gravitational field. That includes if you reflect light off the top and bottom of the box and measure the Doppler shift. Intuition generally does not match with general relativity.
It depends on which "two proposed situations". In the typical equivalence principle (EP); a guy in a box with an accelerometer, I agree, you can't say whether its gravity or acceleration measured.
But to illustrate my point, lets say instead of our frustrum, we have a large spherical shell in space, and an experimenter floats in it with an accelerometer (say a BEC gravity wave sensor). Can he tell the difference between the shell vibrating around him, and a gravity wave propagating through the space both he and the sphere reside in? I think so.
My point is that the difference is the space, the vacuum enclosed by an accelerating shell is not accelerated by the shell, but gravity does "accelerate" the enclosed space, gravity gives space curvature.
This violates GR? Really?
A vibrating shell does not at all necessarily imply that the center of mass of the vibrating shell (and its contents) are experiencing any acceleration. While previously you were discussing a can whose center of mass was accelerating. -
#3042 by WarpTech on 06 Mar, 2017 20:06
-
Either that, or you could "invert the flow while re-routing to the auxiliary backup" - it always seems to work on TV, and that's where field propulsion has been most successful so far.
Either that, or reverse the polarity of the neutron flow!
-
#3043 by Star-Drive on 06 Mar, 2017 21:50
-
Folks:
I ran across an alternate explanation of Roger Shawyer's EMdrive in a private email thread that stands repeating here for the forum folks to chew on. Your observations and comments are most welcomed.
"I agree with his (Shawyer's) relativistic premise, but the explanation leaves a lot to be desired. Radiation pressure would normally cancel inside a closed system since the plates are part of a common structure. What he fails to articulate is that impact is occurring inside different inertial frames, so the XYZ of one end of the EMdrive relative to the waveform is in a near C frame, while the opposite end is considered stationary relative to the group velocity. If you are familiar the twin paradox you know the near C twin occupies a different phase of our 4d surroundings than the stationary twin. If the near C twin reached C he would occupy only 2 of our spatial axii and perceive our time axis as spatial. It is this difference in a far diluted sense that the EMdrive employs to unbalance the normal equal and opposite reactions of radiation pressure by employing geometry and Q to segregate frames [breaching the isotropy inside the cavity.] We have known that spontaneous emission sometimes occurs anomalously inside a microwave cavity and there have been half life anomalies reported when radioactive gas is loaded into skeletal catalysts, but they are low level unpowered occurrences, while Shawyer is attempting to scale up by actively "driving" this anomaly with microwave power."
Best, Paul M. -
#3044 by TheTraveller on 06 Mar, 2017 23:05
-
Todd:EW's TM212 Frustum, Cu walls (5.8E7 S/m) Polyethylene disc (eps_r = 2.25) using eigenmode solver
Frequency was 1.97 GHz, not 1.94 , maybe due to antenna, small distortions in copper walls etc
Interesting results...
The results of the diagrams make sense according to my theory. The majority of energy is at the big end, and the majority of the losses are at the small end. So the gradient is from big to small and so the frustum moves the other way. Big end leading. No argument from me! Looks great!
"So the gradient is from big to small and so the frustum moves the other way. Big end leading."
The documented force vector for the EW copper frustum with 2-PE discs driving the TM212 mode is from the frustum's large OD to small OD, so the small end is leading. Sorry...
Best, Paul M.
Paul,
Need to balance that with the no PE discs TE012 result showing force small to big end or big end leading. Of course that was a static result, where there was no significant movement nor acceleration occurring. What Roger calls the static Thrust force as opposed direction to the accelerative Reaction force.
Depending on the test setup, it is possible to measure either the static Thrust force or the accelerative Reaction force but not both at the same time.
Still believe this data, attached, is the best that you and EW produced as it very clearly shows:
1) Force generation direction reversal with and without the 2 PE discs.
2) CG thermal base line movement direction reversal with and without the 2 PE discs.
3) Higher specific force generation without the 2 PE discs.
For me the reversed CG thermal baseline movement without the 2 PE discs shows it was the 2 PE discs that caused most of the small thermal heating and expansion, driving the CG toward the small end. In the force image without the 2 PE discs, it is clear the thermal base line went down slightly (lower left image) vs the very large thermal base line shift going up that occurred with the 2 PE discs in the small end (lower right image)/
So to those that claim this is either thermal CG shift or Lorentz, I suggest you really have a long and hard look at this data, where the thruster and wiring position did not change, the Lorentz force, which was measured, did not change, yet the force generate by the TE012 mode thruster altered 180 deg AND the thermal CG base line shift also reversed direction.
Clearly the thermal CG shift did not cause the very rapid onset impulse force nor did the existing Lorentz force cause the impulse force.
Excellent work Paul. This result deserves a paper all on it's own as for me it is the best proof that EW produced the EmDrive works as claimed.
-
#3045 by Monomorphic on 06 Mar, 2017 23:19
-
After having mitigated most of the battery noise, I couldn't understand why I would have noise free runs, but then problems duplicating in subsequent runs. It turns out that after about 25 minutes of all electrical components being powered, the entire torsional pendulum heats up about 10 degrees F.
The simplest solution is to perform powered runs when the torsional pendulum is cold. Running static tests and tap tests beforehand is fine, so long as I wait for things to cool down before performing powered tests. That gives me a ~20 minute window to run powered tests, which should be adequate. I was able to capture thermal noise creeping in during one of the electromagnetic tap tests, which one can see in the chart bellow.
-
#3046 by TheTraveller on 06 Mar, 2017 23:22
-
is needed unless you can take the antenna out of the equation and keep the decaying energy inside of the frustum which then can be manipulated. I believe I've done that, although I'm waiting to finish off a provisional patent before I disclose how.
My Very Best,
Shell
Shell,
Good luck.
In corro with Roger, he stated that various types of couplers, loops, stubs, side wall slots, fancy end plate couplers all had advantages and disadvantages depending on the intended mode of operation.
I believe his favourite for pulsed mode and to be as effective as possible to get the antenna out of the cavity was to use a small side wall slit and to inject the Rf into the cavity through the slit as in the 2nd attachment. Also believe Prof Yang was going down the same path as she developed this hybrid stub and slot coupler, 1st attachment, where it is maybe better to move the slot to the side wall as Roger shows.
So yes if you are chasing extended cavity energy decay time to farm more of the photon momentum, then for sure moving the coupler out of the cavity may have advantages.
For those of you who may not understand why this is important, please look at the last attachment and understand the decay slope of the stored energy and the force it is generating is dependent on the total losses per cycle inside the cavity. Having an antenna inside the cavity will increase the per cycle losses and reduce the amount of time the decaying stored photon energy has to generate force. So bottom line is to get the most force generation during the non powered, decaying time needs a input coupler design that is optimised to reduce cavity per cycle losses to a min.
Shell, it will be interesting to see what you have come up with.
-
#3047 by meberbs on 06 Mar, 2017 23:54
-
Folks:
If you parse out what they are saying, it pretty clearly is not a helpful explanation.
I ran across an alternate explanation of Roger Shawyer's EMdrive in a private email thread that stands repeating here for the forum folks to chew on. Your observations and comments are most welcomed.QuoteRadiation pressure would normally cancel inside a closed system since the plates are part of a common structure.
Good start, though the "since" part is an incomplete explanation.QuoteWhat he fails to articulate is that impact is occurring inside different inertial frames,
And, they lost it. Inertial frames are mathematical constructs we use, but things don't happen in a specific inertial frame, we just measure them (pick numbers that accurately describe them) in a specific inertial frame. In any physics calculation you need to do all of your calculations in the same frame. You can do different frames for pieces, but then you have to transform them into the same frame before combining them.QuoteIf you are familiar the twin paradox you know the near C twin occupies a different phase of our 4d surroundings than the stationary twin.
Phase doesn't have a defined meaning in this context, so I conclude the author does not actually understand the twin paradox. (Also it isn't a paradox, just a thought exercise that indicates how a clock tied to a non-inertial frame will behave in a more complicated fashion.)Quotewhen radioactive gas is loaded into skeletal catalysts
If you don't have enough physics background to recognize the issues I mentioned above, this un-sourced claim with no apparent relevance should be a tip that this person doesn't know what they are talking about. -
#3048 by OttO on 07 Mar, 2017 06:52
-
Translation and Rotation of Transformation Media under Electromagnetic Pulse
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1610/1610.04687.pdf
"Here we investigate responses of three transformation media under electromagnetic pulses, and find that pulse radiation can induce unbalanced net force on transformation media, which will cause translation and rotation of transformation media although their final momentum can still be zero." -
#3049 by ThatOtherGuy on 07 Mar, 2017 07:35
-
monomorphic: after the various tests and checks (orientation and all that) and before trying to increase the power, have you considered "pulsing" the power ? I mean, instead of constantly powering the drive for a given time, using an on/off approach somewhat "modulating" the power; not sure but I wonder if such a thing may start some kind of resonance effect
They turned into matchsticks running at high Q, ionizied the air, arced and suffered a breakdown, lost resonance and then fed back frying the coax and magnetron. It would have worked well as a magnetron can withstand a high VSWR being a tube unlike a SS device but there is a limit in everything. I didn't take into account that the very air inside of the frustum would be the root cause.
SeeShells, I guess you were using far more than the 2W used by monomorphic when the above happened; that's why I wrote about running pulsed tests at "low power" and before trying to turn the throttle to full; monomorphic has a quite good rig and it seems to work well even with just 2W, so it may be relatively easier trying to run pulsed tests w/o the risk of frying everything. By the way, such tests should come last, that is, first complete the characterization of the rig, reduce noise as much as possible, rule out Lorentz and all that, then, after regular tests (which may or may not show thrust), try pulsing the power; I think it may be a good approach.
-
#3050 by Peter Lauwer on 07 Mar, 2017 08:30
-
After having mitigated most of the battery noise, I couldn't understand why I would have noise free runs, but then problems duplicating in subsequent runs. It turns out that after about 25 minutes of all electrical components being powered, the entire torsional pendulum heats up about 10 degrees F.
The simplest solution is to perform powered runs when the torsional pendulum is cold. Running static tests and tap tests beforehand is fine, so long as I wait for things to cool down before performing powered tests. That gives me a ~20 minute window to run powered tests, which should be adequate. I was able to capture thermal noise creeping in during one of the electromagnetic tap tests, which one can see in the chart bellow.
In the past, I had problems with air flow inside the torsion balance cage when the inside was hotter by ~1°C than the outside.
In my case, there were no heat generating components inside (apart from two leds), but in the top-level non-heated room in which it was set up, temperature could drop several deg C in the evening and the temp inside the cage lagged because it was well isolated (styropor sheets with Al on the inside). Never completely resolved the mechanism, but when it happened, measurements where impossible for several hours. -
#3051 by Mezzenile on 07 Mar, 2017 09:31
-
I dont't know if the following has already been discussed.
An unwanted torque can be applied on the test set up by the action ot the earth magnetic field on the DC current flowing through the non twisted section of the electrical circuit (mainly battery ?).
If the use of mu-metal shield can reduce the magnetic field amplitude acting on the electrical circuit, a good estimation of the order of magnitude of this effect on the observed rotation of the pendulum, can be obtained without modification of the test set-up, by simply performing the same EM-Drive test for two different orientations :
1 - With a test set-up oriented to impose a battery aligned with the earth magnetic field (minimum parasitic torque).
2 - With a test setup oriented to put the battery at 90° of the previous direction (maximum parasitic torque).
A simple compass should provide the right alignment direction.
-
#3052 by ThatOtherGuy on 07 Mar, 2017 13:24
-
After having mitigated most of the battery noise, I couldn't understand why I would have noise free runs, but then problems duplicating in subsequent runs. It turns out that after about 25 minutes of all electrical components being powered, the entire torsional pendulum heats up about 10 degrees F.
The simplest solution is to perform powered runs when the torsional pendulum is cold. Running static tests and tap tests beforehand is fine, so long as I wait for things to cool down before performing powered tests. That gives me a ~20 minute window to run powered tests, which should be adequate. I was able to capture thermal noise creeping in during one of the electromagnetic tap tests, which one can see in the chart bellow.
Given that, from what I see, you've a termic camera; why don't you try identifying the heat source and, if possible, find some workaround (heat sinks or the like) ? Sure, that won't eliminate noise, but it will probably lower it or, at least, give you a longer testing time before heat begins to interfere
-
#3053 by Bob Woods on 07 Mar, 2017 15:25
-
In corro with Roger, he stated that various types of couplers, loops, stubs, side wall slots, fancy end plate couplers all had advantages and disadvantages depending on the intended mode of operation.
The second attachment appears to show liquid hydrogen as the coolant for the superconducting design. That seems unnecessarily dangerous for experimentation when liquid nitrogen is readily available without the explosion risk.
I believe his favourite for pulsed mode and to be as effective as possible to get the antenna out of the cavity was to use a small side wall slit and to inject the Rf into the cavity through the slit as in the 2nd attachment. Also believe Prof Yang was going down the same path as she developed this hybrid stub and slot coupler, 1st attachment, where it is maybe better to move the slot to the side wall as Roger shows. -
#3054 by Rodal on 07 Mar, 2017 17:34
-
Folks:
I ran across an alternate explanation of Roger Shawyer's EMdrive in a private email thread that stands repeating here for the forum folks to chew on. Your observations and comments are most welcomed.
"I agree with his (Shawyer's) relativistic premise, but the explanation leaves a lot to be desired. Radiation pressure would normally cancel inside a closed system since the plates are part of a common structure. What he fails to articulate is that impact is occurring inside different inertial frames, so the XYZ of one end of the EMdrive relative to the waveform is in a near C frame, while the opposite end is considered stationary relative to the group velocity. If you are familiar the twin paradox you know the near C twin occupies a different phase of our 4d surroundings than the stationary twin. If the near C twin reached C he would occupy only 2 of our spatial axii and perceive our time axis as spatial. It is this difference in a far diluted sense that the EMdrive employs to unbalance the normal equal and opposite reactions of radiation pressure by employing geometry and Q to segregate frames [breaching the isotropy inside the cavity.] We have known that spontaneous emission sometimes occurs anomalously inside a microwave cavity and there have been half life anomalies reported when radioactive gas is loaded into skeletal catalysts, but they are low level unpowered occurrences, while Shawyer is attempting to scale up by actively "driving" this anomaly with microwave power."
Best, Paul M.
<<Your observations and comments are most welcomed.>>
I agree with Meberbs, the author of this is employing a word salad to try to explain the EM Drive:Quoteimpact is occurring inside different inertial frames....It is this difference in a far diluted sense that the EMdrive employs to unbalance the normal equal and opposite reactions of radiation pressure by employing geometry and Q to segregate frames [breaching the isotropy inside the cavity.]
and does not help Shawyer. The author (unlike Shawyer, who at least uses equations -however incorrectly justified they may be-) should try to use some equations, like Shawyer, as the language of Physics and Engineering is math, as using a word salad to try to explain something is a sure way at ending in confusion.
How can the geometry (a truncated cone), and most of all the quality factor of resonance (Q) segregate frames
The quality factor of resonance is an integral characteristic of the whole cavity, instead of segregating things, it integrates things, the definition of Q is in terms of integrals:
where the energy stored and the energy dissipated are integrals , not differentials !!!, over the whole cavity. The Q contains information about the entire cavity.
The Q factor cannot "breach isotropy."
Furthermore, Shawyer seeks a high a Q as possible, meaning as low a damping as possible. Meaning as small an energy dissipated as possible. Nowadays Shawyer is seeking a Q in the tens of millions, using low temperature superconductivity. How is a mode of resonance with extremely small damping (the inverse of Q) segregate frames of reference?
And he/she thinks that the Q in a cavity that is a fraction of a meter long segregates frames as in the twin paradox one of whom makes a journey into outer space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth has aged more ? How can the truncated geometry act as a high speed segregator? the author thinks that the EM Drive can serve as a test for the twin paradox instead of using satellites or other means? https://arxiv.org/vc/physics/papers/0502/0502007v2.pdf
In GPS, the earth-centered, earth-fixed, reference frame is used for the calculation. So the author proposes that one end of the EM Drive is in the earth-centered, earth-fixed, reference frame and the other end of the EM Drive is somehow better calculated on a different frame, that is different because of what... the high Q, or because it is at a fraction of a meter apart ?
-
#3055 by WarpTech on 07 Mar, 2017 20:19
-
Folks:
I ran across an alternate explanation of Roger Shawyer's EMdrive in a private email thread that stands repeating here for the forum folks to chew on. Your observations and comments are most welcomed.
"I agree with his (Shawyer's) relativistic premise, but the explanation leaves a lot to be desired. Radiation pressure would normally cancel inside a closed system since the plates are part of a common structure. What he fails to articulate is that impact is occurring inside different inertial frames, so the XYZ of one end of the EMdrive relative to the waveform is in a near C frame, while the opposite end is considered stationary relative to the group velocity. If you are familiar the twin paradox you know the near C twin occupies a different phase of our 4d surroundings than the stationary twin. If the near C twin reached C he would occupy only 2 of our spatial axii and perceive our time axis as spatial. It is this difference in a far diluted sense that the EMdrive employs to unbalance the normal equal and opposite reactions of radiation pressure by employing geometry and Q to segregate frames [breaching the isotropy inside the cavity.] We have known that spontaneous emission sometimes occurs anomalously inside a microwave cavity and there have been half life anomalies reported when radioactive gas is loaded into skeletal catalysts, but they are low level unpowered occurrences, while Shawyer is attempting to scale up by actively "driving" this anomaly with microwave power."
Best, Paul M.
<<Your observations and comments are most welcomed.>>
I agree with Meberbs, the author of this is employing a word salad to try to explain the EM Drive:Quoteimpact is occurring inside different inertial frames....It is this difference in a far diluted sense that the EMdrive employs to unbalance the normal equal and opposite reactions of radiation pressure by employing geometry and Q to segregate frames [breaching the isotropy inside the cavity.]
and does not help Shawyer. The author (unlike Shawyer, who at least uses equations -however incorrectly justified they may be-) should try to use some equations, like Shawyer, as the language of Physics and Engineering is math, as using a word salad to try to explain something is a sure way at ending in confusion.
How can the geometry (a truncated cone), and most of all the quality factor of resonance (Q) segregate frames
The quality factor of resonance is an integral characteristic of the whole cavity, instead of segregating things, it integrates things, the definition of Q is in terms of integrals:
where the energy stored and the energy dissipated are integrals , not differentials !!!, over the whole cavity. The Q contains information about the entire cavity.
The Q factor cannot "breach isotropy."
Furthermore, Shawyer seeks a high a Q as possible, meaning as low a damping as possible. Meaning as small an energy dissipated as possible. Nowadays Shawyer is seeking a Q in the tens of millions, using low temperature superconductivity. How is a mode of resonance with extremely small damping (the inverse of Q) segregate frames of reference?
And he/she thinks that the Q in a cavity that is a fraction of a meter long segregates frames as in the twin paradox one of whom makes a journey into outer space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth has aged more ? How can the truncated geometry act as a high speed segregator? the author thinks that the EM Drive can serve as a test for the twin paradox instead of using satellites or other means? https://arxiv.org/vc/physics/papers/0502/0502007v2.pdf
In GPS, the earth-centered, earth-fixed, reference frame is used for the calculation. So the author proposes that one end of the EM Drive is in the earth-centered, earth-fixed, reference frame and the other end of the EM Drive is somehow better calculated on a different frame, that is different because of what... the high Q, or because it is at a fraction of a meter apart ?
Whilst I agree that this author's post is word salad. I would interpret what he's saying to be similar to where I started. That there is a different gravitational potential at each end, which would/could be due to Q or Damping being a function of the coordinates inside the cavity, and not a "constant" of the cavity as it is "GENERICALLY" defined. It would be new physics if someone could show that Q, or Damping, or decay time, is NOT a constant inside the cavity. That energy at one end dissipates faster than at the other end. This would be equivalent to an accelerated reference frame.
-
#3056 by Rodal on 07 Mar, 2017 20:25
-
...
Just curious about the similarity...Do you have any idea of who the author of that "word salad" is? Are you hinting that it sounds like the author has read Puthoff's Engineering QV? Or do you see the similarity as just a pure coincidence?
Whilst I agree that this author's post is word salad. I would interpret what he's saying to be similar to where I started. That there is a different gravitational potential at each end, which would/could be due to Q or Damping being a function of the coordinates inside the cavity, and not a "constant" of the cavity as it is "GENERICALLY" defined. It would be new physics if someone could show that Q, or Damping, or decay time, is NOT a constant inside the cavity. That energy at one end dissipates faster than at the other end. This would be equivalent to an accelerated reference frame.
-
#3057 by dblack on 07 Mar, 2017 20:50
-
Monomorphic, I'm sure you're juggling a lot of things in your head regarding your upcoming testing, I thought I would throw another thing in the ring! How are you going to measure and account for any possible degradation to the inside of the frustrum?
I'm assuming you won't be doing one or two tests and calling it a day, I'm just wondering if there is any cause for concern that measurements may be effected later in the testing regime. -
#3058 by Monomorphic on 07 Mar, 2017 21:15
-
For thermal management, I added a wireless switch to the rig so I can turn on and off the second RF pre-amplifier. Unlike the main amp, it seems to constantly draw power. This makes it warm up in about 20 minutes, which adds a lot to the thermal noise at that time. The wireless switch will be used to turn on the amplifier before tests and off after the test is completed - so it is only operating for ~1/10th the time as before. I can also remotely shut down the computer after powered tests are completed (or schedule it to wake up at a certain time). I had to custom build the new six-circuit terminal block as I could only find versions where the hardware was ferromagnetic. Here I used stainless steel and copper.
-
#3059 by Monomorphic on 07 Mar, 2017 21:20
-
How are you going to measure and account for any possible degradation to the inside of the frustrum?
2W - 20W is not enough power to expect any degradation from high currents or arcs. I only expect the end-plates to oxidize. The sidewalls are protected from oxidation. Every week or so I open the small end and wipe the end-plates with acetone, which removes the oxidation. This seems to keep measurements consistent.
