-
#1080 by TheTraveller on 28 Aug, 2017 12:19
-
Traveler, enough of this:
Enough of what?
Explaining why Cullen measured reduced radiation pressure inside a circular wave guide and why this effect causes asymmetrical force generation?
Explaining why an EmDrive, while accelerating mass, can't be overunity and can't violate CofE?
Explaining why trapped photon momentum and energy loss is the source of gained EmDrive momentum and KE and thus CofM and CofE is obeyed?
Have shared 13.7N/kW at 4K as best result some time ago. Also shared use of a rotary test rig that backed up Roger's acceleration claims. Plus have shared I'm working with the client who bought 4 x 0.4N/kW very early build EmDrives to produce a TRL 9 unit for commercial space use. This testing has included tests at 77K and 4K using cavities of various base metals and inner surface coatings. Can report straight Cu cavities increased Q and force generation about 2.5x at 77K and 4.5x at 4K vs room temp Q and force. This is needed to understand EmDrive characterists when operating in space and using black body thermal radiation as the only cooling.
When my client decides to go commercial, they will provide what test data they choose. They believe the time to achieve TRL 8 will be about 2 years, then more time doing testing in space to achieve TRL 9.
Gilo Industries Group has recently taken controlling interest in Universal Propulsion, the JV between SPR and Gilo Cardozo. I expect they will go commercial with a very high specific force EmDrive thruster, designed to lift mass out of the Earth's gravity well, before my client goes commercial with our much lower specific force thruster designed to replace 200mN Ion drive spacecraft thrusters. -
#1081 by Notsosureofit on 28 Aug, 2017 14:17
-
#1082 by meberbs on 28 Aug, 2017 14:19
-
Roger never claimed no side wall radiation pressure. What he said was with good cavity design the side wall radiation pressure could be made insignificant.
This is equally wrong. The nature of the EM radiation is such that this would not happen, if it did simple logic shows that in this case there would be no difference between the force on the end plates, since as you say the difference in force is due to the photons effectively travelling at different angles.BTW you do know Roger has stated that if the EmDrive is not accelerating then there is NO static force generated? Which says that in a static, non accelerating situation, all the radiation pressures equal ZERO?
This does not come out of his theory in any way, which is part of why no number for "minimum acceleration" has ever been provided. It seems like an excuse he made up to explain why decently controlled experiments don't replicate his results. Any guesses what I conclude from that?BTW my work equation of
It is, but it only applies force a constant force, and when working in the initial rest frame of the object. You are now claiming decreasing force with time, some what would you even use for the force value?
Work = (N^2 * t^2) / (2 * m) is correct.Your use of 50,000N against 3,000kg for 1 sec is clearly incorrect as using the traditional Work = N * distance also results in the Work being OU. Why? Because the dynamics of the EmDrive will not generate 50,000 Ns of force in a dynamic accelerating enviroment. Which is why I created the EmDrive mission calculator as it factors in the dynamics of the EmDrive where N of force generated drop as KE climbs during acceleration.
You have still not provided those "dynamic equations". All I have to work with is a constant force per power ratio. Even if you don't provide these equations, at least tell me how fast you claim the ship would be moving after 1 second. Also, just to be clear, lets stick with the 4000 kg ship to not change the scenario we were discussing
Which says YES, 50,000N of force applied to accelerate 3,000kg of mass over 1 sec is OU. So instead of using it to claim bad theory and bad equation, maybe take a step back and try to understand that in the EmDrive, force drops as the KE gain of mass during acceleration increases. It is not a static situation but a dynamic situation. So any analysis needs to be done using dynamic equations.
Also do you see the implications of claiming simultaneously that there is no force when the drive is not accelerating, and that the magnitude of the force decreases as it accelerates?
Your explanations have consistently been wrong and contradictory, and basically everyone here can recognize this.Traveler, enough of this:
Enough of what?
You have thrown out a couple of experimental claims before, but the best you have provided is a simple sketch, and when pressed for evidence you come up with creative excuses like "a burned out amplifier meant I couldn't take a picture of a frustum." -
#1083 by LowerAtmosphere on 28 Aug, 2017 14:29
-
TheTraveller
Hiding behind a corporate shield does not absolve you of the duties of science, rigor and validity. Both internal and external validity are needed to verify and remove uncertainty from physical interpretations of the theoretical results.
Show us the evidence so the empiricists can be sated. If you can't then as scientists we have to assume the null hypothesis. -
#1084 by graybeardsyseng on 28 Aug, 2017 23:24
-
Folks, things have gotten testy in the past, but the thread survives.
Maybe just relax, and if someone gets in your face on either side of an issue just don't respond instead of hammering on and on. It's hard to argue if the only response is what you see in the mirror.
Eventually the winner will will be decided by whomever wins the Nobel prize.
Bob -
Couldn't agree more.
I went back over the past 10+ pages and I could only find one sequence where a "newbie" (say less than 25 posts) posited a highly questionable theory and then proceeded to throw personal attacks and vitriol on meberbs when he pointed out the flaws in the newbie theory. I've seen this happen before on numerous times probably going back to thread 2. If everyone just keeps calm it always dies down - I don't think there is much need to change the forum processes.
IIRC there have even been some cases where "newbies" posed very good questions and ideas. And sometimes DIYers show up as "newbies" with an operating experiment and interesting data to post. Often times there are systematic and operational errors in their systems but it still provides valuable data and a good chance to discuss experimental error sources and elimination techniques. So I would like to suggest that making "newbies" wait to post has too much potential to discard the infant with the cleaning fluid.
I try to only post when there is something to contribute and as such most of my posts are about the experimental side as that is where most of my professional experience (and gray beard hair) came from - but I very much like and enjoy the theoretical discussion. Much is beyond my decades old math but I still love to try and follow it.
I particularly appreciate folks like meberbs, Prof Rodal, WarpTech, Paul M. et al for their discussions and explanations. Likewise I love pouring over DIY designs like monomorphic and seashells etc. So I don't favor separating theory and experimental sections into separate forums. That is a purely selfish reason but here is one which I think has a more value to the group.
Keeping the two together tends to keep the theory and experimental discussions synced up to an extent (albeit not perfectly BUT much better than I have found in other groups). This lets DIY results or design kick off detailed discussions of many topics such as Lorentz Force and Thermal Effects to name a couple, while discussions of GR, Mach et al has sometimes affected DIY test programs. That is real time valuable interaction that is often missing. It will go away or be vastly reduced if the forums are split.
On last comment and I will close - a flurry of "newbies" and also "new" theories from left field often show up when something about EMDrive shows up in popular media. The show Salvation has something they are calling EMDrive as a central concept. From what little I have seen Very little accurate data and almost no grounding in reality BUT much discussion on the shall we say 'seedier" side of the internet. SOme of that always boils over here. The more we ignore it, only give them, as Bob said in his post, the response you get looking in a mirror. the sooner they will find someone else to troll.
Herman
Graybeardsyseng -
#1085 by Monomorphic on 29 Aug, 2017 00:40
-
Thingiverse post is up. Anyone with a 3D printer can now download and print the parts for a 2.404GHz TE013 EmDrive.
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2505612
-
#1086 by spupeng7 on 29 Aug, 2017 03:31
-
wicoe,I have to add that I have no problem with discussions about scientifically controversial topics, like the respect of COE/COM or lack thereof of any new physics applied to the subject of space propulsion.
I'm not sure I understood this correctly, but how is the respect of COE/COM considered controversial? Isn't this one of the least controversial topics in the scientific community?
from the thermodynamic perspective a device contravenes conservation of momentum if it can accelerate without mechanical force, mass or radiation crossing its outer boundaries. Shawyer claims that relativity allows thrust to be produced due to an imbalance of radiation pressure within his frustum when it is moving, but there are two problems with this. First, moving relative to what? Second, there is no accepted explanation for how such a dynamic could operate.
If thrust is produced, the coe/com questions are the relevant ones to ask if you want a seamless thermodynamic resolution of how it is possible for that to happen. Credible physicists agree that any emdrive thrust would contravene both conservation of energy and conservation of momentum, which is why Eagleworks try to maximize their characterization of their apparatus and do not go for the maximum possible output.
Just as soon as results are credibly confirmed it is the absolute obligation of academic physicists to explain how this could possibly happen. My own bet is that they will quietly turn their subject upside down in the process and it is my joy to attempt to preempt their solution.
Mass can never reach the speed of light because the speed of light never changes relative to it. Light itself exists at the infinite velocity c, where a different structure of space must exist, a structure within which time must have its complex component due to covariance, otherwise these things cannot be true all at once.
The emdrive has asymmetric Lorentzian forces within its asymmetric frustum due to the resonance of electron motion on its inside surface. We are then at an impasse when we try to use this to explain its acceleration because the frustum is also a Faraday cage. We must take care not to grasp at wild ideas in attempting a resolution but we can consider alternatives which fit the rest of the evidence we have.
Gravity is accepted as being a time dilation because that is the simplest explanation available but electromagnetic action does not appear to act by dilation of time because its action is relative to the dynamic distribution of excess of and/or deficit of charge locally. I propose that we should re-consider this interpretation for the following reasons.
Electromagnetic action propagates at velocity c in a vacuum, the photon being so far as we know, a resonance between a discreet pair of charges transferring energy in proportion to the local rate of passage of time for each of the two charges. This is an interaction with specific direction whose duration from the perspective of either charge is exactly proportional to the regions of time dilation (gravity) through which that direction passes.
If we can accept that the simplest explanation for this is that electromagnetism acts by time dilation across complex time, then we can avoid the difficulty of explaining why and how energy discovers the direction it should take toward the ideal absorber when the emission and absorption occur at different places in both space and time. If complex time is simply that place where locations separated by ict are coincident, then we have an explanation free from paradox.
Charges are then defined by the distortion of spacetime caused by their presence, even if their mass varies with their sign by a factor of 1836. For an electrically neutral object the generation of gravity is then the geometric consequence of the separation of charges within the atom. The action of gravity differs from the action we attribute to photons because it is not shielded by a Faraday cage. This is because photon interactions are comparatively rare and find ideal absorbers at the outside of a faraday cage, whereas gravity and inertia are the action of all charges upon all other charges and are not shielded.
The Mach effect explaining the mechanism of the emdrive is then the direct consequence of the asymmetric Lorentzian forces within its asymmetric frustum acting across complex time against all the rest of the charges of the universe and both energy and momentum can be conserved within the whole system of the universe.
This explanation cannot satisfy anyone who insists on making account of all force locally and it cannot satisfy anyone who considers the coincidence of locations which are remote from a point perspective to be impossible even at light speed. What this explanation can do, however, is to satisfy those who accept that relativity necessitates complex time as the only adequate explanation for electromagnetic action.
I stand by my statement that any continuous thrust from a sealed and physically independent device must break conservation of momentum, unless the universe is Machian and there is a mechanism for connection between what is inside the seal and the remote universe. We do not need some undetected particle that can pass through metal, because we have the mechanism required to explain that interaction in front of us already.
Yes, explanations for emdrive thrust involving mass fluctuations or virtual particles in the vacuum may eventually be defined but in my opinion these will amount to the same thing as the above arrived at through greater mathematical intricacy and more convoluted definitions of fundamental components. They may even circumnavigate the need for coincidence within complex time across separations ict, but at the expense of simplicity.
The nearest I can come to a proof of all this is that the gain in both momentum and energy for an object falling into a gravitational field is directly proportional to its total energy (including its atomic energy) multiplied by the dilation of time through which it falls. This being true from any perspective. This being true, in my opinion, for acceleration generated by a magnetic or electric field also. This being true also for resonance within an oscillating em field and how excellently well this simplifies our explanations, if only the reader can accept that time be complex to the extent that light speed truly is infinite. -
#1087 by Bob Woods on 29 Aug, 2017 05:25
-
Thingiverse post is up. Anyone with a 3D printer can now download and print the parts for a 2.404GHz TE013 EmDrive.
Put into the global commons. Simplification and repetition.
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2505612
Jamie, you have what it takes. And then some... -
#1088 by RotoSequence on 29 Aug, 2017 05:28
-
Thingiverse post is up. Anyone with a 3D printer can now download and print the parts for a 2.404GHz TE013 EmDrive.
Put into the global commons. Simplification and repetition.
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2505612
Jamie, you have what it takes. And then some...
I just wish we could use one to make a hole in someone's ceiling.
-
#1089 by Chrochne on 29 Aug, 2017 05:46
-
Thingiverse post is up. Anyone with a 3D printer can now download and print the parts for a 2.404GHz TE013 EmDrive.
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2505612
Great post Monomorphic. Lets hope it inspires some other scientists (even on the critical side - it can start interesting debate on the results) and engineers to test the device. Please include the warning about building and testing the EmDrive too as we all know it is very dangerous.
Your work here makes it possible and much easier now for wider scientific audience to test this. It can also help to produce much more needed data this community longs for.
When do you plan to test the device please? -
#1090 by Mark7777777 on 29 Aug, 2017 07:26
-
...Please include the warning about building and testing the EmDrive too as we all know it is very dangerous...
Yes, I'd second that. -
#1091 by Flyby on 29 Aug, 2017 09:37
-
Thingiverse post is up. Anyone with a 3D printer can now download and print the parts for a 2.404GHz TE013 EmDrive.
Jamie, although I'm all in favor for "open research", I think it might have been wiser to wait with the posting on thingyverse till after some extensive testing...
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2505612
What if a catastrophic meltdown happens due to the use of PLA and overheating ? (low glass transition temperature). That is a part that worries me a lot when thinking about 3d printed EMdrives...
I would have waited for some repeated tests to see how the PLA 3dprint holds up to make sure it cant do any immidiate harm to over enthusiastic DIY's... -
#1092 by Monomorphic on 29 Aug, 2017 12:59
-
Please include the warning about building and testing the EmDrive too as we all know it is very dangerous.
When do you plan to test the device please?
I hope to begin tests again very soon. I'm attaching the new frustum to the torsional pendulum now and then working on adding the 30W amplifier to the electronics. The electronics are being almost completely reworked - and that takes a little time. Another week or two.
I've included the following warning:
Safety:
Microwave amplifiers are radiation-emitting devices which pose a health threat. Therefore, extreme caution and proper procedures are highly encouraged. Amateur experiments are discouraged unless you have gained educated and/or professional advice for safety reasons. In addition, because of the materials used and thermal dissipation concerns, it is not recommended to use amplifiers with more than 30W of output power.
-
#1093 by moreno7798 on 29 Aug, 2017 14:15
-
Thingiverse post is up. Anyone with a 3D printer can now download and print the parts for a 2.404GHz TE013 EmDrive.
Jamie, although I'm all in favor for "open research", I think it might have been wiser to wait with the posting on thingyverse till after some extensive testing...
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2505612
What if a catastrophic meltdown happens due to the use of PLA and overheating ? (low glass transition temperature). That is a part that worries me a lot when thinking about 3d printed EMdrives...
I would have waited for some repeated tests to see how the PLA 3dprint holds up to make sure it cant do any immidiate harm to over enthusiastic DIY's...
First, thank you Monomorphic.
My view: Giving it to the community and allowing many to build and test the device is the best thing to do. The sooner the better. A very clear warning and non-responsibility disclosure should be sufficient. Also, perhaps a "Safety Guide" to the "over enthusiastic DIY's . . ." may help mitigate concerns. -
#1094 by rhubley on 29 Aug, 2017 16:54
-
Thingiverse post is up. Anyone with a 3D printer can now download and print the parts for a 2.404GHz TE013 EmDrive.
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2505612
You are one of the individuals who make this forum great. Thanks! -
#1095 by Bob012345 on 29 Aug, 2017 16:57
-
I have to add that I have no problem with discussions about scientifically controversial topics, like the respect of COE/COM or lack thereof of any new physics applied to the subject of space propulsion.
I'm not sure I understood this correctly, but how is the respect of COE/COM considered controversial? Isn't this one of the least controversial topics in the scientific community?
The emdrive has asymmetric Lorentzian forces within its asymmetric frustum due to the resonance of electron motion on its inside surface. We are then at an impasse when we try to use this to explain its acceleration because the frustum is also a Faraday cage. We must take care not to grasp at wild ideas in attempting a resolution but we can consider alternatives which fit the rest of the evidence we have.
I mentioned a few days ago that net Lorentzian forces could be generated and showed support from the literature. No wild physics necessary. I suspect that is inadvertently the cause of the small thrust reported in classic EMDrive cavities. If devices were designed with Lorentz forces in mind, much greater forces may be achievable. Consider the forces involved in an electric motor. They are huge. Think of the thrust if these forces added instead of canceling. I hope more people look in that direction. Also, a Faraday cage doesn't block magnetic fields. Mu metal will block magnetic fields.
-
#1096 by ChrML on 29 Aug, 2017 18:56
-
As much as I want this engine to work, I find it very suspect that there is no video of any recent experiment of significance. Despite claims of being able to hover a 3.2 metric ton car using just 1kW effect.
I would not get hopes up too much until something actually is shown. But if it actually is real, we live in a really interesting time. Would solve flying cars, electric planes, electric spacetravel etc.. -
#1097 by WarpTech on 29 Aug, 2017 19:44
-
I have to add that I have no problem with discussions about scientifically controversial topics, like the respect of COE/COM or lack thereof of any new physics applied to the subject of space propulsion.
I'm not sure I understood this correctly, but how is the respect of COE/COM considered controversial? Isn't this one of the least controversial topics in the scientific community?
The emdrive has asymmetric Lorentzian forces within its asymmetric frustum due to the resonance of electron motion on its inside surface. We are then at an impasse when we try to use this to explain its acceleration because the frustum is also a Faraday cage. We must take care not to grasp at wild ideas in attempting a resolution but we can consider alternatives which fit the rest of the evidence we have.
I mentioned a few days ago that net Lorentzian forces could be generated and showed support from the literature. No wild physics necessary. I suspect that is inadvertently the cause of the small thrust reported in classic EMDrive cavities. If devices were designed with Lorentz forces in mind, much greater forces may be achievable. Consider the forces involved in an electric motor. They are huge. Think of the thrust if these forces added instead of canceling. I hope more people look in that direction. Also, a Faraday cage doesn't block magnetic fields. Mu metal will block magnetic fields.
What you're asking about will simply result in EM waves moving off in one direction, and the 1/4-wave broadcasting antenna being pushed in the opposite direction. Theoretically, this should not have any more thrust in vacuum than a photon rocket. -
#1098 by wicoe on 29 Aug, 2017 22:36
-
I mentioned a few days ago that net Lorentzian forces could be generated and showed support from the literature. No wild physics necessary. I suspect that is inadvertently the cause of the small thrust reported in classic EMDrive cavities. If devices were designed with Lorentz forces in mind, much greater forces may be achievable. Consider the forces involved in an electric motor. They are huge. Think of the thrust if these forces added instead of canceling. I hope more people look in that direction. Also, a Faraday cage doesn't block magnetic fields. Mu metal will block magnetic fields.
Any force (including Lorentz forces) acts in two opposing directions between the source(s) of the field(s) and the object (action and reaction), so the resulting momentum will be equally distributed between the source and the target and will cancel out due to opposing directions. If the source of the field and the object you're looking at are co-moving, the center of mass will get zero momentum change. -
#1099 by dustinthewind on 30 Aug, 2017 07:11
-
I have to add that I have no problem with discussions about scientifically controversial topics, like the respect of COE/COM or lack thereof of any new physics applied to the subject of space propulsion.
I'm not sure I understood this correctly, but how is the respect of COE/COM considered controversial? Isn't this one of the least controversial topics in the scientific community?
The emdrive has asymmetric Lorentzian forces within its asymmetric frustum due to the resonance of electron motion on its inside surface. We are then at an impasse when we try to use this to explain its acceleration because the frustum is also a Faraday cage. We must take care not to grasp at wild ideas in attempting a resolution but we can consider alternatives which fit the rest of the evidence we have.
I mentioned a few days ago that net Lorentzian forces could be generated and showed support from the literature. No wild physics necessary. I suspect that is inadvertently the cause of the small thrust reported in classic EMDrive cavities. If devices were designed with Lorentz forces in mind, much greater forces may be achievable. Consider the forces involved in an electric motor. They are huge. Think of the thrust if these forces added instead of canceling. I hope more people look in that direction. Also, a Faraday cage doesn't block magnetic fields. Mu metal will block magnetic fields.
There is a concept I was playing with that I thought maybe you were referring to... possibly. It was a modified phased array that I was calling a reverse magnetic phased array. It was based on the fact that in a phased array that projects light in one direction the time retarded magnetic force opposes the static electric force. The static electric force does change in time but I am talking about charge separation electric fields which are different than magnetic fields. They work against each other. If you flip the magnetic signature you can make them work together. I have wondered if the force would be greater if they work together instead of against each other but I had my doubts it applied to the EM drive.
It could apply to the EM drive possibly if for some reason there was a proper phase delay between currents (above and below) separated by distance such that it acted as a phased array but with no charge separation. No charge separation occurs in the transverse electric mode of the EM Drive but I have no idea what would cause the phased delay between the currents. With no charge separation with a TE (Transverse Electric Mode) and a phased delay there would be no static electric force to work against the magnetic force. "if" it did work it would probably have to work on something other than light projection - possibly quadruple radiation or magnetic dipole radiation? (grav waves)
With out a plausible explanation for such a phase delay in the EM drive I had to put it on the shelf as an explanation.
However, I still want to test the reverse magnetic phased array some day and see if it behaves differently than a normal phased array. Here is the link to it. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.40 see image "Reverse mag phased array.png" uploaded imaga again because of image clarity - very small file
I was also pondering if for some reason phase delayed transverse currents in two separate cavities could possibly give similar behavior. Seen below that post I referred to.
