-
#820 by WarpTech on 21 Dec, 2016 17:37
-
...No, I don't get it. ...
As discussed by MIT Prof. Penfield and Haus, the definition of your flux is irrelevant by itself. What matters is how the fluxes enter the equations of motion and the constitutive equations. That's all that matters, not the fluxes by themselves. If your theory would have the same equations of motion and the same constitutive equations as classical theory, then there would be nothing new in your theory. Obviously your equations of motion and constitutive equations are different. So let's stop discussing your definition of fluxes (their definition is non-unique and we are going on circles discussing this) and solve what matters: the equations of motion, for known conditions.
...
No, that is your assumption. The gauge transformation leaves the equations of motion unaffected. The equations of motion are gauge invariant! The ONLY experiments that can be done to show a difference, are things like gravitational red-shift, gravitational time dilation and/or length contraction. In a "flat" space-time, or an "Inertial" reference frame, my theory leaves Maxwell's equations and Newtons equations unchanged. There is no experiment that can be done in a local frame. The only experiments are those that compare them between two different gravitational potentials, which is what was written about in my paper.
So No, I can't show my equations of motion are different and it is trivial to show they apply to classical cases, because they are identical to the Classical and/or QED equations of motion, when doing test in a Laboratory frame.
Understand now?
The INTERPRETATION is different, not the equations!
-
#821 by Rodal on 21 Dec, 2016 18:45
-
...No, I don't get it. ...
As discussed by MIT Prof. Penfield and Haus, the definition of your flux is irrelevant by itself. What matters is how the fluxes enter the equations of motion and the constitutive equations. That's all that matters, not the fluxes by themselves. If your theory would have the same equations of motion and the same constitutive equations as classical theory, then there would be nothing new in your theory. Obviously your equations of motion and constitutive equations are different. So let's stop discussing your definition of fluxes (their definition is non-unique and we are going on circles discussing this) and solve what matters: the equations of motion, for known conditions.
...
No, that is your assumption. The gauge transformation leaves the equations of motion unaffected. The equations of motion are gauge invariant! The ONLY experiments that can be done to show a difference, are things like gravitational red-shift, gravitational time dilation and/or length contraction. In a "flat" space-time, or an "Inertial" reference frame, my theory leaves Maxwell's equations and Newtons equations unchanged. There is no experiment that can be done in a local frame. The only experiments are those that compare them between two different gravitational potentials, which is what was written about in my paper.
So No, I can't show my equations of motion are different and it is trivial to show they apply to classical cases, because they are identical to the Classical and/or QED equations of motion, when doing test in a Laboratory frame.
Understand now?
The INTERPRETATION is different, not the equations!
Well, be it as it may, I said equations of motion and constitutive equations. It is a matter of fact that your equations present an intrinsic dissipation damping property that does not appear in Maxwell's equations, or in Newton's laws, or in General Relativity or in Quantum Mechanics, as in all of those theories entropy is an emerging property in macroscopic thermodynamics and not present in those basic equations. Also, how can it be that your theory will show a force for the EM Drive, a closed resonant microwave cavity at room temperature with input power of 1 kW or less, when all those theories show no such force, and yet there is no other experiment, other than the EM Drive, where your theory will not show a discrepancy ? Only the EM Drive experiment will show a discrepancy between your theory and classical physics? No other physical experiment on Earth or astrophysical measurement will show a discrepancy between your theory and classical physics?
Case in point: McCulloch, accepts that his theory gives different results than classical theory, for a number of astrophysical phenomena, thus explaining dark matter with his theory etc.
Also the example previously given on the scalar tensor theory of Minotti, predicting a force for the EM Drive but also running afoul on ground, LEO and Geosynchronous orbit with known physics due to unphysical coupling between electromagnetism and gravity.
Am I understanding you correctly that you are saying that only the EM Drive experiment will show a discrepancy between your theory and classical physics for all of known physical phenomena? You can't think of anything else?
-
#822 by rfmwguy on 21 Dec, 2016 19:55
-
This repeats an oft-used simplistic analogy that looks for similarities with past experiments....No, I don't get it. ...
As discussed by MIT Prof. Penfield and Haus, the definition of your flux is irrelevant by itself. What matters is how the fluxes enter the equations of motion and the constitutive equations. That's all that matters, not the fluxes by themselves. If your theory would have the same equations of motion and the same constitutive equations as classical theory, then there would be nothing new in your theory. Obviously your equations of motion and constitutive equations are different. So let's stop discussing your definition of fluxes (their definition is non-unique and we are going on circles discussing this) and solve what matters: the equations of motion, for known conditions.
...
No, that is your assumption. The gauge transformation leaves the equations of motion unaffected. The equations of motion are gauge invariant! The ONLY experiments that can be done to show a difference, are things like gravitational red-shift, gravitational time dilation and/or length contraction. In a "flat" space-time, or an "Inertial" reference frame, my theory leaves Maxwell's equations and Newtons equations unchanged. There is no experiment that can be done in a local frame. The only experiments are those that compare them between two different gravitational potentials, which is what was written about in my paper.
So No, I can't show my equations of motion are different and it is trivial to show they apply to classical cases, because they are identical to the Classical and/or QED equations of motion, when doing test in a Laboratory frame.
Understand now?
The INTERPRETATION is different, not the equations!
Well, be it as it may, I said equations of motion and constitutive equations. It is a matter of fact that your equations present an intrinsic dissipation damping property that does not appear in Maxwell's equations, or in Newton's laws, or in General Relativity or in Quantum Mechanics, as in all of those theories entropy is an emerging property in macroscopic thermodynamics and not present in those basic equations. Also, how can it be that your theory will show a force for the EM Drive, a closed resonant microwave cavity at room temperature with input power of 1 kW or less, when all those theories show no such force, and yet there is no other experiment, other than the EM Drive, where your theory will not show a discrepancy ? Only the EM Drive experiment will show a discrepancy between your theory and classical physics? No other physical experiment on Earth or astrophysical measurement will show a discrepancy between your theory and classical physics?
Case in point: McCulloch, accepts that his theory gives different results than classical theory, for a number of astrophysical phenomena, thus explaining dark matter with his theory etc.
Also the example previously given on the scalar tensor theory of Minotti, predicting a force for the EM Drive but also running afoul on ground, LEO and Geosynchronous orbit with known physics due to unphysical coupling between electromagnetism and gravity.
Am I understanding you correctly that you are saying that only the EM Drive experiment will show a discrepancy between your theory and classical physics for all of known physical phenomena? You can't think of anything else?
So the question for you is, where can you point to an experiment where a closed conical/asymmetric resonant cavity with contained photon radiation was studied for inertial forces?
You cannot. And neither can WarpTech. Therefore your post is irrelevant. This is a unique electromechanical assembly whose operation has not been studied nor theorized until recently. Multiple people across the globe report displacement forces 1000x that of Woodward's research. This alone is enough to focus on emdrive as the primary solution for deep spaceflight if not stationkeeping.
Just because there is no precedent, does not mean it should be disgarded. I agree with Prof McCouch who tweeted me yesterday:
Mainstream've made 96% of the cosmos up w. no reason & resort 2 censorship 2 maintain the illusion. History is giggling.
Warptech, Prof Mike and several others are engaging the 96% and I might add, are taking on the mainstream 4%'ers. Rather than peppering him with multiple irrelevant questions which are distracting, focus in on the specifics of his working theory and not send him off answering your multiple questions. -
#823 by WarpTech on 21 Dec, 2016 19:59
-
...
The INTERPRETATION is different, not the equations!
Well, be it as it may, I said equations of motion and constitutive equations. It is a matter of fact that your equations present an intrinsic dissipation damping property that does not appear in Maxwell's equations, or in Newton's laws, or in General Relativity or in Quantum Mechanics, as in all of those theories entropy is an emerging property in macroscopic thermodynamics and not present in those basic equations. Also, how can it be that your theory will show a force for the EM Drive, a closed resonant microwave cavity at room temperature with input power of 1 kW or less, when all those theories show no such force, and yet there is no other experiment, other than the EM Drive, where your theory will not show a discrepancy ? Only the EM Drive experiment will show a discrepancy between your theory and classical physics? No other physical experiment on Earth or astrophysical measurement will show a discrepancy between your theory and classical physics?
...
Am I understanding you correctly that you are saying that only the EM Drive experiment will show a discrepancy between your theory and classical physics for all of known physical phenomena? You can't think of anything else?
Correct. The EmDrive is the first experiment I have seen where the alternative interpretation offered by my model is well suited to differentiate between the classical interpretation and my own. For example,
The gravitational potential from the Schwarzschild metric is just,
(2*G*M)/(r*c2)
I "interpret" this as a Damping Factor, ζ2, but the only prediction I can make is that the derivatives will lead to gravitational fields. So there is no experiment that can determine between these two "very" different interpretations of the same prediction, of the same mathematics.
I "interpret" the gauge function \PHI (\chi in Felsager) as a real field, but since gauge transformations of the potentials leave Maxwell's equations unaffected, there is no experiment that can be done "in the same local space-time" where they can be distinguished. The math is the same, the predictions are the same, the interpretation is different.
ONLY if you connect the dots of the quantized units, can you see how these two are related.
Quantized magnetic flux is hbar/2*e, where "e" is the electric charge quantum.
In superconductors, quantized magnetic flux causes resistance. Resistance in Ohms, is quantized as hbar/2*e2.
Resistance causes damping of the harmonic oscillators in the Schrodinger (Dirac) equation.
In the path integral formalism of the wave function of a charged particle, the gauge potential acts as a phase shift of the quantum wave function. That is what gauge fields do, they induce phase shifts. A gradient in the scalar gauge function shifts the phase of the wave function on a 1-way path, but if you do a closed loop, it cancels out. That is gauge invariance.
Last dot... This is identical to how the "metric" affects the wave function in a gravitational field. If the wave function propagates from one gravitational potential to another, it experiences a phase shift. If it travels in a closed loop, (up and back down) the phase shift cancels out.
The model does not predict anything different than what we already observe in gravity and electromagnetism. What is different is the interpretation, and once you know how to interpret it "correctly" (meaning, my way) then how the EmDrive works becomes apparent, but it's hidden behind the artificial division between gravity and electromagnetism that is the current norm in physics. I contend that the two are unified and have been unified since the advent of QED, but to understand it, one must accept an alternative interpretation of space-time curvature and the notion of a gauge transformation as a conformal transformation.
Now, how do I go about teaching people to see it my way, if I can't get past the first hurdle of pre-existing faith that there is only one way to skin a cat? (I love cats!)
-
#824 by as58 on 21 Dec, 2016 20:07
-
Warptech, Prof Mike and several others are engaging the 96% and I might add, are taking on the mainstream 4%'ers. Rather than peppering him with multiple irrelevant questions which are distracting, focus in on the specifics of his working theory and not send him off answering your multiple questions.
But I have no idea what is happening in his theory and reading what WarpTech has written only leads to more confusion. How can that be resolved other than by asking questions (which he, IMO, has failed to answer satisfactorily)?
If no-one else but the originator appears to understand how the theory works, don't you thing that the fault could be in the theory (or in the best case, how the theory is explained) rather than everyone else? -
#825 by Nerm999 on 21 Dec, 2016 20:13
-
It's simple. For the EmDrive to be a viable spaceflight engine, it has to work in all three locales. The correct theory will invoke an external energy present in all three (and elsewhere). I ran this thought experiment elsewhere and it solicited about 200 comments and narrowed down the possibilities rather quickly.Quote
Identify the energy (particle, field, wave, etc) which is equally present that passes through copper at sea level, LEO and GEO. Within this simple qualification, you will find the answer to what makes EmDrive a viable spaceflight engine, for it must be an open system and react with the relative conditions within the emdrive cavity. Warp tech is getting there imo.
I'm not sure this is meant to be cryptic or a riddle, but what has LEO or GEO got to do with it when we have no idea whatsoever if the emdrive works at LEO or GEO? It entirely possible that the effect is related to the Earth's gravitational or magnetic fields, and their strength at sea level.
Considering the repetitive chat here about old classical ideas, thought I would suggest the important basics to keep the theory discussion moving forward, not circular.
Edit - China is first to claim EmDrive works in LEO by accounts here and elsewhere.
I get that, but it's a totally arse about tits way to come up with a theory of operation. It's like trying to justify the premise of FTL space travel in a sci fi book with some pseudo science babble. The EmDrive doesn't HAVE to be a viable space flight engine, we all just hope and wish it is.
I guess on reflection it's just your phrasing that confused me. What you're asking is, if emdrive operation is based on gravity, neutrinos, or whatever the answer to your question is, then it can be used outside orbit, otherwise it's just useful for satellites or nothing at all?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk -
#826 by WarpTech on 21 Dec, 2016 20:22
-
Warptech, Prof Mike and several others are engaging the 96% and I might add, are taking on the mainstream 4%'ers. Rather than peppering him with multiple irrelevant questions which are distracting, focus in on the specifics of his working theory and not send him off answering your multiple questions.
Dave, I appreciate your support, but I also appreciate @Rodal's input in this as well as @meberbs. It is helping to refine where I need to concentrate my efforts. That is what I need to finish writing this paper.
Hey, I'm the first to admit that only 2 or 3 people actually understand my theory, and that I don't have numerical predictions, because the ones I do have are no different than @notsosureofit. My theory is a work in progress, and it's lead me to believe there is more going on with thermal effects than I previously thought. These discussions are what move things forward. The conversation has not degraded into a fur-ball yet, so I hope we can all keep it civil and "play nice".
I actually enjoy this type of argument. I just don't like being insulted in public and neither does anyone else, I'm sure.
Thank you.
-
#827 by WarpTech on 21 Dec, 2016 20:25
-
Warptech, Prof Mike and several others are engaging the 96% and I might add, are taking on the mainstream 4%'ers. Rather than peppering him with multiple irrelevant questions which are distracting, focus in on the specifics of his working theory and not send him off answering your multiple questions.
But I have no idea what is happening in his theory and reading what WarpTech has written only leads to more confusion. How can that be resolved other than by asking questions (which he, IMO, has failed to answer satisfactorily)?
If no-one else but the originator appears to understand how the theory works, don't you thing that the fault could be in the theory (or in the best case, how the theory is explained) rather than everyone else?
Are you willing to entertain an interpretation of the mathematics that you already know well, that is different, "alien" and not what you expect it to be? If so, we can continue. But I can't put it in your terms and make you see it my way. The entire classical interpretation of gravity is flawed, which is why it's taken 100+ years to come to grips with unification to quantum mechanics. But that unification is already built into the Standard Model of QFT. They just don't see it because it's not interpreted correctly. If you're not willing to think outside the box, I can't help you to understand. -
#828 by rfmwguy on 21 Dec, 2016 21:35
-
Sure, I just didn't understand the need for multiple questions, rapid fire. You're on you own from here on out
Warptech, Prof Mike and several others are engaging the 96% and I might add, are taking on the mainstream 4%'ers. Rather than peppering him with multiple irrelevant questions which are distracting, focus in on the specifics of his working theory and not send him off answering your multiple questions.
Dave, I appreciate your support, but I also appreciate @Rodal's input in this as well as @meberbs. It is helping to refine where I need to concentrate my efforts. That is what I need to finish writing this paper.
Hey, I'm the first to admit that only 2 or 3 people actually understand my theory, and that I don't have numerical predictions, because the ones I do have are no different than @notsosureofit. My theory is a work in progress, and it's lead me to believe there is more going on with thermal effects than I previously thought. These discussions are what move things forward. The conversation has not degraded into a fur-ball yet, so I hope we can all keep it civil and "play nice".
I actually enjoy this type of argument. I just don't like being insulted in public and neither does anyone else, I'm sure.
Thank you.
-
#829 by spupeng7 on 22 Dec, 2016 01:21
-
Warptech, Prof Mike and several others are engaging the 96% and I might add, are taking on the mainstream 4%'ers. Rather than peppering him with multiple irrelevant questions which are distracting, focus in on the specifics of his working theory and not send him off answering your multiple questions.
But I have no idea what is happening in his theory and reading what WarpTech has written only leads to more confusion. How can that be resolved other than by asking questions (which he, IMO, has failed to answer satisfactorily)?
If no-one else but the originator appears to understand how the theory works, don't you thing that the fault could be in the theory (or in the best case, how the theory is explained) rather than everyone else?
Are you willing to entertain an interpretation of the mathematics that you already know well, that is different, "alien" and not what you expect it to be? If so, we can continue. But I can't put it in your terms and make you see it my way. The entire classical interpretation of gravity is flawed, which is why it's taken 100+ years to come to grips with unification to quantum mechanics. But that unification is already built into the Standard Model of QFT. They just don't see it because it's not interpreted correctly. If you're not willing to think outside the box, I can't help you to understand.
Well it is all in the explanation :-)
If I could explain it right I would be able to show folk that complex time, as a reality only slightly different from GR, can resolve QM and then allows a righteous explanation of mechanism for emdrive thrust. To get such points across we must first get ALL of our ducks in a row, find and resolve ALL the obvious objections, and then find the words AND numbers that make it a better explanation than what currently exists.
Otherwise it is all just mansplaining... -
#830 by hyperplanck on 22 Dec, 2016 01:36
-
Before I go into details I think it is very important that I first explain where some problems might be arising in the discourse of the theories development.
It may seem very natural and at times the only way to describe something through analogy. This can not only cause much confusion, but it can be dangerous. In a lecture by Donald E. Simanek entitled "the dangers of analogies", he outlines, "The notion is widespread among teachers, especially at the introductory levels of physics, that use of analogies to get across concepts is a "good thing." Actually, I (who have taught both introductory and advanced courses) think that it's a very risky practice, which usually leads to concepts, ideas and thinking habits that must later be painfully unlearned." [1] When using pendulum analogies, etc, there is a lot that is lost in translation. I don't think you will find much use of it and it may only cause more problems.
-----------------------------------------------------Lets do dimensional analysis on a simple pendulum.
- -----------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
If you still insist on proving that I'm doing something wrong by interpreting Volt-seconds as magnetic flux, and adding it to a magnetic potential, then there isn't anything else I can say to convince you. You need a bigger box.
The issue is not as trivial as in the mechanical pendulum example.
As Penfield and Haus showed in the 1960's, all kinds of issues commonly known as "hidden momentum" or "hidden fluxes" have to do with an incomplete physical definition of the fluxes,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"commonly known as "hidden momentum" or "hidden fluxes"" Here, comparing or unifying momentum and flux is not a good practice. They are not at all the same.
"we know from the NASA reports, that the natural frequency of the EM Drive is completely and accurately described by classical electromagnetism (as proven with the exact solution by the COMSOL FEA, FEKO BEM, and EmPro FEA results, all of which predict zero EM Drive force, and yet predict the natural frequencies found in EM Drive experiments very accurately). "
Here, using comsol as a definitive judge is not really functional. The COMSOL is built on physics that are incomplete. I hardly ever see a predictive model turn out in perfect translation as the results of an experiment, and definitely not for newer technologies. Such as the DBD's simulation and the actual airfoil data from the applied test. They exactly match in no way shape or form. (but they are, 'close')
That being said, WarpTech is quite right in many ways. You have to look at this problem from a completely new way than you have in the past. Outside of the box. If I may quote, "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." - Albert Einstein
Why does this require unlearning the ways you interpreted past problems? Because electromagnetics are very non-intuitive. They are not like the normal conservation interpretations you have been taught (possibly indoctrinated into believing) and are used to. I will show you an example of how important it is to keep an open mind in a lecture by MIT's Walter Lewin where he says, "What you are going to see here, is very strange. and I want you to tell your grandchildren about it." Please watch, its very important. Minute 48.
[1] https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/analogy.htm
-
#831 by S.Paulissen on 22 Dec, 2016 01:41
-
I'm beginning to wrap my head around Warpdrive's idea of unification.
It's fairly obvious how it essentially perfectly mirrors classical EM as his idea is essentially an independent term that allows for gravitation to be a factor in EM ?behavior? without directly inserting a term into the classical equation. This is quite thought provoking.
It's all well and good that it's an equation that has a gravitational term in the EM equation, I'm interested in seeing it applied to real life. How his 'reinterpretation' of classical physics fare when used to describe astral movements etc.
I share Dr. Rodal's sentiment of wanting to find an independent experiment that hypothetically could show where gravitation can indeed arise from EM.
P.S. I hope I comported myself well enough not to sound too foolish here.
-
#832 by mwvp on 22 Dec, 2016 02:01
-
...
Really, the cavity optomechanics paper I've pasted the doppler work-curve from, and no doubt plenty of other papers on laser cooling address such, but not in our context. I'm surprised and disappointed none seem to get it, or consider it a key characteristic.
...
No one to my knowledge has done a dynamic analysis on what you have proposed, also moving in the right direction imo. Optomechanical cooling is another distraction. Of all the variables in mechanical designs of the emdrive as well as power levels, the resulting displacement forces being attributed to cg changes is almost laughable.
All someone needs to do is put calibrated weights at various points on a static emdrive on a torsion beam test stand and record displacements accordingly. But that only serves to have authority types choose another classical explanation to focus on. Just saying...
I gave you the wrong idea, I'm afraid. If I haven't communicated clearly enough for a fellow, senior engineer to understand, it's my problem.
When I spoke of optical cooling, its nothing to do with CG shifts and subtle measurement error. Or what Warp Tech is discussing, which I only have fuzzy notions about (hopefully when I read Milonni on QV I'll get more of it).
When I speak of optical cooling, I'm speaking about active damping by radiation pressure, that is caused by slightly off-tuning on the Doppler red-shift side of a tuned cavity coupled to a reflective target. The reflecting object being cooled/quieted/stilled experienced greater radiation pressure if it vibrates to or fro, thus is trapped or confined by radiation pressure. This happens in on the red-shifted side of the off-tuned resonator coupling energy from the laser.
But if you tune the laser above the cavity resonator frequency, the blue-shifted side, the reflected Doppler shifted radiation pressure increases as the target accelerates, reflects back stronger and reinforces the direction the object is moving. Usually the momentum of its mass carries it until a spring decelerates it, its blue shifted energy falls away from cavity resonance, it stops and is accelerated backwards. The reflector oscillates, its oscillation driven by radiation pressure.
If we put a dynamic/magnetic microphone or speaker on a flimsy frustrum, unwisely acoustically/mechanically/structurally tuned to resonate near the group-velocity period if multi-mode or the time-constant of the damping period, we should be able to tune slightly above or below EM resonance, and find it acoustically "sings" or oscillates, or reinforces/amplifies (negative resistance) any input vibrations. On the red-shifted RF side, it should actively dampen or suppress mechanical vibrations. This is a prediction, and something that can be tested.
In free space, self contained and powered, it doesn't oscillate but continue to accelerate in a direction given an initial input acceleration - negative inertial resistance. Provided that it is powerful enough, that is Doppler shifted energy in the lower sideband is far enough spread by initial acceleration to be adequately dissipated by the frustrum's anisotropic low-pass filtering action. And it is light weight enough, and can contain enough energy to accelerate enough to Doppler spread it energy.
That is unlikely with present non-superconducting materials. So to make a viable engine, it would be necessary to shake the frustrum, and use it in the fashion Woodward has in mind, relying on its anisotropic inertia rather than negative inertia.
To model the system, the math used for optomechanics seems like it should be apt. It's a bit beyond me in the paper I sited, being about QM, laser and atomic physics. It should be possible to reformulate in EE terms.
But of course, a static analysis of a tuned cavity isn't going to show anything interesting. Make the cavity frequency and dissipation anisotropic and dispersive, accelerate it, and you'll see some interesting dynamics similar to that of optical cooling and oscillation.
Hence my "Ah Ha" post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1611911#msg1611911 ) about the "phase-angle quality factor" Paul March identified. That really nails it, for me anyways. It screams optomechanic damping/amplification.
It would take me many hours, dozens no doubt, to put all the pieces of evidence together, run crude simulations. And for what? To be ignored and gnit-picked? Or spend kilobucks to design and build a device to the same end? I do have other demands on my time and fish to fry.
But God-speed to all of you. I wish you the best, because there are many other media optomechanical dynamics can be applied in that may make a heck of a rocket engine that will be game changing technology.
-
#833 by Rodal on 22 Dec, 2016 02:31
-
....
1) You have the quotations around my name wrapped wrong. I was not the one that stated that about <<Lets do dimensional analysis on a simple pendulum. >>.
-----------------------------------------------------Lets do dimensional analysis on a simple pendulum.
- -----------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
If you still insist on proving that I'm doing something wrong by interpreting Volt-seconds as magnetic flux, and adding it to a magnetic potential, then there isn't anything else I can say to convince you. You need a bigger box.
The issue is not as trivial as in the mechanical pendulum example.
As Penfield and Haus showed in the 1960's, all kinds of issues commonly known as "hidden momentum" or "hidden fluxes" have to do with an incomplete physical definition of the fluxes,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"commonly known as "hidden momentum" or "hidden fluxes"" Here, comparing or unifying momentum and flux is not a good practice. They are not at all the same.
"we know from the NASA reports, that the natural frequency of the EM Drive is completely and accurately described by classical electromagnetism (as proven with the exact solution by the COMSOL FEA, FEKO BEM, and EmPro FEA results, all of which predict zero EM Drive force, and yet predict the natural frequencies found in EM Drive experiments very accurately). "
Here, using comsol as a definitive judge is not really functional. The COMSOL is built on physics that are incomplete. I hardly ever see a predictive model turn out in perfect translation as the results of an experiment, and definitely not for newer technologies. Such as the DBD's simulation and the actual airfoil data from the applied test. They exactly match in no way shape or form. (but they are, 'close')
...
2) Concerning <<Here, using comsol as a definitive judge is not really functional. >> following my quotation, in case you are referring to me:
I never used COMSOL as a definite judge, on the contrary ! There are better Finite Element codes. COMSOL is much less expensive than ABAQUS or ANSYS multiphysics. The statement made rather than being vague and qualitative, was precise and quantitative: it showed numerical predictions about natural frequency (NOTHING ELSE !) from COMSOL FEA, FEKO BEM, EmPRO FEA as well as exact solutions, agreeing within 0.5% of the experimental natural frequency measurement (which given the imprecision of NASA's truncated cone geometry is as close as you can reasonably get). The exact solutions were closer to the experimental measurement (as one would expect due to the finite mesh used by the analyst in order to get a solution in a short amount of computer time, the FEA solution is naturally stiffer). The point was that the natural frequency is not affected by any considerable extent by any new physics. If there is any inertial added mass, it is so small that it doesn't affect the natural frequency to within 0.5%. That's all that was stated.
Here it is again:
COMPARISON OF SOLUTIONS WITH NASA's experiment
measured frequency at which NASA test was performed (TE012 flat ends): 2.168 GHz
calculated natural frequency (Rodal exact solution, assuming spherical ends): 2.129 GHz
calculated natural frequency (Rodal exact solution, assuming flat ends): 2.165 GHz
calculated natural frequency (analysis by X_Ray method A): 2.16512 GHz
calculated natural frequency (analysis by X_Ray method B): 2.1653438 GHz
calculated natural frequency (COMSOL FEA analysis by Frank Davis at NASA): 2.179 GHz
calculated natural frequency (FEKO BEM analysis by Monomorphic): 2.17895Ghz
calculated natural frequency (Keysight EMPro FEA analysis by X_Ray): 2.17983GHz
==>There was a solution posted for this problem that it was said to be based on Shawyer's spreadsheet, that is much further off in frequency. This was said by the author of the prediction to be because of Shawyer's cut-off rule which is based on the known formula for OPEN waveguides that have constant cross-section (instead of the CLOSED truncated conical cavity like the EM Drive) -
#834 by dustinthewind on 22 Dec, 2016 02:54
-
..., he outlines, "The notion is widespread among teachers, especially at the introductory levels of physics, that use of analogies to get across concepts is a "good thing." Actually, I (who have taught both introductory and advanced courses) think that it's a very risky practice, which usually leads to concepts, ideas and thinking habits that must later be painfully unlearned." [1] When using pendulum analogies, etc, there is a lot that is lost in translation. I don't think you will find much use of it and it may only cause more problems.
I like this point. One example that always bothered me was the gravity on a rubber sheet but which implies gravity pulling on a ball to illustrate gravity. It's an example that doesn't seem to help much but may still have its merits.Quote from: hyperplanck
...
Why does this require unlearning the ways you interpreted past problems? Because electromagnetics are very non-intuitive. They are not like the normal conservation interpretations you have been taught (possibly indoctrinated into believing) and are used to. I will show you an example of how important it is to keep an open mind in a lecture by MIT's Walter Lewin where he says, "What you are going to see here, is very strange. and I want you to tell your grandchildren about it." Please watch, its very important. Minute 48.
[1] https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/analogy.htm
This effect pointed out in the video that is mysterious I believe is the time retarded EM field of an accelerated charge. page 31 http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/mrr/MRRnotes.pdf . The image of the electric field in the notes are also similar to Edward Purcell's book "electricity and magnetism". That curling electric field I believe is the dynamic part of the magnetic field -dB/dt=curlE that deposits the static magnetic flux over space. That is if you integrate all the magnetic field over space from infinity to the point of the disturbance that is yet to be deposited, and assume it travels at velocity c, you get the electric field of light. You can actually derive it from the Biot-Savart equation and get the same e-field for light from an accelerated charge as Purcell gets. I did this in my thesis, appendix A page 122. Determining if an axially rotated solenoid will induce a radial EMF I thought it was a neat twist.
That is, the mystery in the video is in a current loop all the accelerated charges accelerated in a circle, make a curling electric field that is non-conservative. You can integrate around the loop and continuously work against the electric field generated. Different integral paths differ in energy required. It isn't path independent, unlike a gravity well or a charge which appear to come from a point source.
The magnetic field appears to be mostly a way of accounting for the relativistic behavior of the electric field and yet it also seems to take on a life of its own. -
#835 by WarpTech on 22 Dec, 2016 02:54
-
I'm beginning to wrap my head around Warpdrive's idea of unification.
It's fairly obvious how it essentially perfectly mirrors classical EM as his idea is essentially an independent term that allows for gravitation to be a factor in EM ?behavior? without directly inserting a term into the classical equation. This is quite thought provoking.
It's all well and good that it's an equation that has a gravitational term in the EM equation, I'm interested in seeing it applied to real life. How his 'reinterpretation' of classical physics fare when used to describe astral movements etc.
I share Dr. Rodal's sentiment of wanting to find an independent experiment that hypothetically could show where gravitation can indeed arise from EM.
P.S. I hope I comported myself well enough not to sound too foolish here.
EUREKA! "Sokath, his eyes opened!"
Exactly! Interpreting the gauge function as magnetic flux, as a real field, has absolutely no effect on the EM equations of motion. But interpreting magnetic flux as a the basis for damping of quantum harmonic oscillators, based on its behavior in superconductors, leads to gravity-like potentials. THAT is the key prediction of the model.
I too want to apply it in real life. It was at least 11 years ago that my associate and I wrote about using a resonant cavity to create a gradient that would produce an asymmetrical Poynting vector and produce gravitation-like effects. When I learned of the EmDrive about 2 years ago, I thought, "There's the experiment, it's been done and it works!" Eleven years ago, we didn't know how to do it. We had a rectangular box in mind, and we didn't know a thing about RF or MW's. So it was difficult to do anything but speculate, because this idea "fit the model", which required very high EM energy densities to work.
Believe me, I've been trying for more than a decade to find an experiment that could distinguish this from conventional physics, but what came out of that was the fact that there is no difference. Maxwell's equations are the same. Einstein's equations are the same but interpreted conformally. The connection between the two is this simple little trick of how we interpret a scalar function as magnetic flux. All of the matter in the universe produces magnetic flux. The vacuum is not empty space, it is full of electromagnetic fields from "everything else" in the universe. A wave function interacts with all of that and is either in a state of equilibrium, which is an inertial frame. Or the symmetry is broken and it's in an accelerated reference frame. It's as simple as it can be, without being too simple.
As I said in my video. I believe we could make much faster progress if we had an army of engineers who could wrap their heads around this model!
Thank you!
-
#836 by Rodal on 22 Dec, 2016 03:02
-
...
Yes, the possibility of path-dependent, Non-Conservative fields was brought up several threads ago, for example by Mulletron, who posted repeatedly about it.
This effect pointed out in the video that is mysterious I believe is the time retarded EM field of an accelerated charge. page 31 http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/mrr/MRRnotes.pdf . The notes are similar to Edward Purcell's book "electricity and magnetism". That curling electric field I believe is the dynamic part of the magnetic field -dB/dt=curlE that deposits the static magnetic flux over space. That is if you integrate all the magnetic field over space from infinity to the point of the disturbance that is yet to be deposited, and assume it travels at velocity c, you get the electric field of light. You can actually derive it from the Biot-Savart equation and get the same e-field for light from an accelerated charge as Purcell gets. I did this in my thesis, appendix A page 122. Determining if an axially rotated solenoid will induce a radial EMF I thought it was a neat twist.
That is, the mystery in the video is in a current loop all the accelerated charges accelerated in a circle, make a curling electric field that is non-conservative. You can integrate around the loop and continuously work against the electric field generated. Different integral paths differ in energy required. It isn't path independent, unlike a gravity well or a charge which appear to come from a point source.
There are many types of path-dependent problems (elastic-plastic deformation in solids is path-dependent, so are follower-forces in nonlinear dynamics, etc.) Foucault's pendulum is nonholonomic.
The question is: what would make the EM Drive path-dependent ? what non-conservative field is there in the EM Drive?
-
#837 by Danderman on 22 Dec, 2016 03:07
-
China Trumps NASA With Working "StarTrek" EM Propulsion Drive --"Testing Now Aboard the Tiangong-2 Space Laboratory"
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2016/12/china-trumps-nasa-with-working-startrek-em-propulsion-drive-testing-now-aboard-the-tiangong-2-space-.html
Scientists with the China Academy of Space Technology (CAST) claim NASA’s results ‘re-confirm’ what they’d already achieved, and have plans to implement it in satellites ‘as quickly as possible.’ China claims they’ve created a working prototype of the ‘impossible’ reactionless engine – and they say they’re already testing it in orbit aboard the Tiangong-2 space laboratory. The radical, fuel-free EmDrive recently stirred up controversy after a paper published by a team of NASA researchers appeared to show they’d successfully built the technology. -
#838 by TheTraveller on 22 Dec, 2016 03:39
-
==>There was a solution posted for this problem that it was said to be based on Shawyer's spreadsheet, that is much further off in frequency. This was said by the author of the prediction to be because of Shawyer's cut-off rule which is based on the known formula for OPEN waveguides that have constant cross-section (instead of the CLOSED truncated conical cavity like the EM Drive)
My spreadsheet can't predict the freq for that thruster, so there was no prediction as you stated. When the small end vs excitation freq is not in cutoff, the spreadsheet generated 2.450GHz for the spherical thruster, while FEKO got 2.432GHz. That is fairly close for FREE software that can do that calc in less than a minute.
Roger never stated that a thruster that disobeyed his 0.82 cutoff rule would not resonate. What he stated was there would be very little force generated, which we have seen with the EW thruster operated without a dielectric, in TE012 mode at 2.19GHz begin 3.85mN/kW.
My next experimental run will be to excite a copy of the EW thruster in TE012 mode and TE013 mode and compare the force generated. The result should end the purely theory driven debate about whether Roger's 0.82 rule of thumb is correct or not. For me, experimental data trumps theory every day.
Once that series of tests is completed, the EW copy thruster will be placed on a very simple torsion balance. Just piano wire from the workshop beam to a wooden plank near the floor with the thruster on one side and the 100W Rf amp and batteries on the other side as balance. The only connection between the thruster and the Rf amp will be a coax cable. Will run tests with the small end pointed Up, Down, Cw, CCw, pointed into the centre & pointed away from the centre.
Thanks to PotomacNeuron for the suggestion.
Much simpler way to test for acceleration vs energy drawn from the Li Ion batteries. OK sure as it winds up the acceleration will reduce as the torsion wire stores energy but it should still be able to do a few revs. -
#839 by WarpTech on 22 Dec, 2016 04:00
-
...
Yes, the possibility of path-dependent, Non-Conservative fields was brought up several threads ago, for example by Mulletron, who posted repeatedly about it.
This effect pointed out in the video that is mysterious I believe is the time retarded EM field of an accelerated charge. page 31 http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/mrr/MRRnotes.pdf . The notes are similar to Edward Purcell's book "electricity and magnetism". That curling electric field I believe is the dynamic part of the magnetic field -dB/dt=curlE that deposits the static magnetic flux over space. That is if you integrate all the magnetic field over space from infinity to the point of the disturbance that is yet to be deposited, and assume it travels at velocity c, you get the electric field of light. You can actually derive it from the Biot-Savart equation and get the same e-field for light from an accelerated charge as Purcell gets. I did this in my thesis, appendix A page 122. Determining if an axially rotated solenoid will induce a radial EMF I thought it was a neat twist.
That is, the mystery in the video is in a current loop all the accelerated charges accelerated in a circle, make a curling electric field that is non-conservative. You can integrate around the loop and continuously work against the electric field generated. Different integral paths differ in energy required. It isn't path independent, unlike a gravity well or a charge which appear to come from a point source.
There are many types of path-dependent problems (elastic-plastic deformation in solids is path-dependent, so are follower-forces in nonlinear dynamics, etc.) Foucault's pendulum is nonholonomic.
The question is: what would make the EM Drive path-dependent ? what non-conservative field is there in the EM Drive?
I suggest you watch the video above, starting from time 33:00 to the end. The demonstration he gives is exactly that non-conservative field, when the EmDrive is in the TE01x modes. In this case, the path differences are the different circumferences of the frustum. When we have a changing flux inside, we have an asymmetrical voltage potential, because the resistance around the small end is less than the resistance around the big end. This causes an E field, or differential voltage from the small end to the big end. Which is the same as a gravito-electric field times a coupling constant. The voltage drop around the loops is the flux passing through the loop. If there are voltage drops on the end plates, then flux is passing through those surfaces too.
It MUST work this way, because there is no battery, there are no gaps. There are only closed loops, short circuits on the output of an asymmetrical coupled inductor. At least that's how I see it after watching this video. Very cool example! It's trivia to a transformer expert, but that Prof. is an entertaining character.
