-
#1160 by PotomacNeuron on 02 Sep, 2017 16:21
-
I have to ask a question here since I have been locked out.
With reference to the Newton's cradle, if I have a five ball Newton's cradle and I lift two balls and then let them go, what will happen when the two balls collide with the three remaining balls?
If the balls are two on a side, it will go three-two-three-two until it stops and the energy is converted to heat and other losses. If the balls are on each end, they will each bounce while the three stand still until the energy is lost.
Exactly, two balls must come out. If one ball comes out at twice the velocity then we conserve momentum but not kinetic energy.
So next question: Is conservation of energy the stronger law or does nature treat momentum and energy as the same?
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/symmetry.html
"The conservation of momentum is related to the homogeneity of space. Invariance under translation in time means that the law of conservation of energy is valid. Such statements come from Noether's theorem..."
Seems it depends on which of space or time is more homogeneous.
-
#1161 by M.LeBel on 02 Sep, 2017 16:28
-
There is a lot of talk about a perfectly insulated cavity i.e “sealed” or as in a Faraday cage... The thing is that, if you release an object inside the cavity, it will fall to the bottom. We can’t insulate against earth’s gravity. Similarly, what we are trying to achieve inside the cavity will be essentially of the same nature as gravity. So, while the cavity will most likely contains/keep inside the electro-magnetic processes we use, the resulting gravity like field will effectively be permeating easily through any barrier or material making the cavity. Then, the question is about whether this resulting and permeating gravity like field will simply radiate away (useless) or whether it will remain attached to the E and M source/process confined inside the cavity. The latter possibility could allow for the shaping as an inertia wave attached to the cavity and in which the cavity would be “falling” into, i.e. move.
Food for thought,
-
#1162 by Bob012345 on 02 Sep, 2017 16:29
-
I have to ask a question here since I have been locked out.
With reference to the Newton's cradle, if I have a five ball Newton's cradle and I lift two balls and then let them go, what will happen when the two balls collide with the three remaining balls?
If the balls are two on a side, it will go three-two-three-two until it stops and the energy is converted to heat and other losses. If the balls are on each end, they will each bounce while the three stand still until the energy is lost.
Exactly, two balls must come out. If one ball comes out at twice the velocity then we conserve momentum but not kinetic energy.
So next question: Is conservation of energy the stronger law or does nature treat momentum and energy as the same?
All the laws of nature are equally valid so one is not stronger than the other. Energy is conserved in a single reference frame or separately in each frame. Kinetic energy is not a conserved quantity. We debated this exhaustively before regarding the gain in kinetic energy of a rocket doing a burn when it's already moving fast. An example which has real value is the Oberth maneuver or the gravity assist fly-by for space probes. Doing the burn at maximum velocity while zipping around a planet gives the probe multiple times the kinetic energy just doing the same burn in free space but the energy comes from the planet.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect
-
#1163 by PotomacNeuron on 02 Sep, 2017 16:46
-
Exactly, two balls must come out. If one ball comes out at twice the velocity then we conserve momentum but not kinetic energy.
So next question: Is conservation of energy the stronger law or does nature treat momentum and energy as the same?
All the laws of nature are equally valid so one is not stronger than the other. Energy is conserved in a single reference frame or separately in each frame. Kinetic energy is not a conserved quantity. We debated this exhaustively before regarding the gain in kinetic energy of a rocket doing a burn when it's already moving fast. An example which has real value is the Oberth maneuver or the gravity assist fly-by for space probes. Doing the burn at maximum velocity while zipping around a planet gives the probe multiple times the kinetic energy just doing the same burn in free space but the energy comes from the planet.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect
Mostly agree but the extra kinetic energy does not come from the planet. More kinetic energy gain or less, depends on how chemical energy is distributed between the spaceship and the exhaust (propellant). -
#1164 by chazemz on 02 Sep, 2017 16:57
-
Exactly, two balls must come out. If one ball comes out at twice the velocity then we conserve momentum but not kinetic energy.
So next question: Is conservation of energy the stronger law or does nature treat momentum and energy as the same?
All the laws of nature are equally valid so one is not stronger than the other. Energy is conserved in a single reference frame or separately in each frame. Kinetic energy is not a conserved quantity. We debated this exhaustively before regarding the gain in kinetic energy of a rocket doing a burn when it's already moving fast. An example which has real value is the Oberth maneuver or the gravity assist fly-by for space probes. Doing the burn at maximum velocity while zipping around a planet gives the probe multiple times the kinetic energy just doing the same burn in free space but the energy comes from the planet.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect
Mostly agree but the extra kinetic energy does not come from the planet. More kinetic energy gain or less, depends on how chemical energy is distributed between the spaceship and the exhaust (propellant).
Ok, so is it reasonable to say that when nature conserves, "it accounts for" -
#1165 by Bob012345 on 02 Sep, 2017 17:10
-
Exactly, two balls must come out. If one ball comes out at twice the velocity then we conserve momentum but not kinetic energy.
So next question: Is conservation of energy the stronger law or does nature treat momentum and energy as the same?
All the laws of nature are equally valid so one is not stronger than the other. Energy is conserved in a single reference frame or separately in each frame. Kinetic energy is not a conserved quantity. We debated this exhaustively before regarding the gain in kinetic energy of a rocket doing a burn when it's already moving fast. An example which has real value is the Oberth maneuver or the gravity assist fly-by for space probes. Doing the burn at maximum velocity while zipping around a planet gives the probe multiple times the kinetic energy just doing the same burn in free space but the energy comes from the planet.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect
Mostly agree but the extra kinetic energy does not come from the planet. More kinetic energy gain or less, depends on how chemical energy is distributed between the spaceship and the exhaust (propellant).
If a probe going a certain speed v falls into a gravity well and gains a delta v, without burning any fuel, there is a gain in kinetic energy which cannot be explained by borrowing kinetic energy from the fuel since no fuel was burned and kinetic energy is based on the total velocity squared. Essentially, the planet dumped energy into the probes reference frame which was already in motion. In this case, that occurs before our problem starts but we might consider some of the gain must come from the planet since two velocities contribute to the gain term. One is the total velocity it has before the burn which does partly depend on the planet, and the second which depends on the burn. So the gain cannot completely be explained by the fuel exhaust.
-
#1166 by WarpTech on 02 Sep, 2017 18:06
-
I worked all this out for myself using MathCAD about 20 years ago. Based on this sheet, they are only considering the current in the pair of wires "I1I2". What is not shown is the voltage, capacitance, charge and electric field at the ends of those wires when the current goes to zero. The force due to charges and electric fields will oppose the force due to currents and magnetic fields. When both are included, the 2N of force is suddenly < 2uN and we are back to the thrust of a photon rocket. If the system is large, it could oscillate back and force at a relatively low frequency with much greater force, but the CM will not move except for the asymmetry in the EM radiation, (aka photon rocket).
I don't know your setup and your assumptions for that calculation but if you are trying to say anytime you switch it off it exactly must cancel out the well known Lorentz force, and under any conceivable configuration of times and currents and geometries, I'm very dubious and would have to see the details. I'm not saying your calculation didn't do that but were you specifically messing with conditions to make the events in each wire spacelike wrt each other?
Specifically, the Third Law can break down in specific circumstances precisely because the speed of light is finite and events can have a spacelike separation even while they are being independently controlled faster than light can mediate between the interaction between them. Pulses can be independently designed and arranged that compliment the net forces and counter unwanted forces. For example, the field from pulse in one wire might cause a force in a distant wire in such a way that there is no ability for a counter force to even exist on the first wire. That spacelike separation and control could include unwanted electrical effects through proper design. Though technically challenging, that breaks the symmetry and opens up new possibilities.
A couple more points. The wires here are loops so they have no ends. If you are saying switching on and off counters the Lorentz force, I believe the switching times can be engineered much smaller than the steady pulse times where the Lorentz force acts to mitigate those forces while preserving the criteria suggested above.
I have my own configuration in mind which I would like to simulate with a 3D dynamic simulator that has the full Maxwell equations. It should be able to handle picosecond resolution in a volume of a few cubic cm. Do you have any thoughts about that? Thanks.
The current in the wire will depend on the time duration the voltage is applied.
dI/dt = V/L, where V is voltage and L is the inductance which depends on the dimensions of the loop. The smaller we make the switching time, the less current gain we will get in that time for a given size loop.
In the case of the resonant frequency of the loops, even if it has no ends, there will be at least 2 nodes in the current, where the voltage is at a maximum/minimum. This represents the charge density at these locations, which radiate an electric field which must be accounted for.
If there were constant current in the loops, we still need to break the loop to stop the current. Charge has to be dumped into some capacitor and that will take time. To reduce the time, we use a smaller capacitor, which results in a much higher peak voltage. Before we know it, realistic N size forces require 100's of MV on the capacitor, resulting in MW -> GW of power being radiated at relatively low currents and high frequency.
I estimated, to lift it's own weight without dielectric breakdown using today's technology, it would need to be at least the size of a football stadium. Like the alien ships in Independence day, covering Manhattan island. At the end of the day, it's just a photon rocket and we underestimate the actual power that is required to make it go when we go down this path, and there are more efficient methods of creating a photon rocket.
-
#1167 by Bob Woods on 02 Sep, 2017 18:07
-
It could be some splatter from something you used, or oxidation to cuprous oxide. There is also the point that in working with the foil you are continually exhaling micro particles of liquid from your breath, a cough, sneeze or even house flies that may have landed on the parts and left a calling card. You have a wide dispersion of very small spots that seem roughly uniform with the much bigger ones that do look like droplets spreading.One question - and I may have missed this in speed reading the last month or so of threads, if I did my apologies - are you planning on opening the thruster up and inspecting the copper coating between power levels as you go through your test program. I am hoping your approach for coating the inside of the printed frustum is successful but if it does have problems it will be useful to know the power level where said problems appeared.
I will definitely open up the cavity for inspections. That is a pretty simple task since the end-plates are bolted on, not soldered. In fact, I did open up the flat end-plate frustum recently and noticed some strange markings on the large end-plate copper. First thought was arcing, but I have so far only put 5W into that cavity. Second thought is a splatter of some liquid chemical that etched the pattern. I'm not sure how to tell the difference. -
#1168 by PotomacNeuron on 02 Sep, 2017 18:10
-
It could be some splatter from something you used, or oxidation to cuprous oxide. There is also the point that in working with the foil you are continually exhaling micro particles of liquid from your breath, a cough, sneeze or even house flies that may have landed on the parts and left a calling card. You have a wide dispersion of very small spots that seem roughly uniform with the much bigger ones that do look like droplets spreading.One question - and I may have missed this in speed reading the last month or so of threads, if I did my apologies - are you planning on opening the thruster up and inspecting the copper coating between power levels as you go through your test program. I am hoping your approach for coating the inside of the printed frustum is successful but if it does have problems it will be useful to know the power level where said problems appeared.
I will definitely open up the cavity for inspections. That is a pretty simple task since the end-plates are bolted on, not soldered. In fact, I did open up the flat end-plate frustum recently and noticed some strange markings on the large end-plate copper. First thought was arcing, but I have so far only put 5W into that cavity. Second thought is a splatter of some liquid chemical that etched the pattern. I'm not sure how to tell the difference.
That's right. It is another mechanism at work parallel to the chemical one. It is like a ball being hit by a bat and gaining kinetic energy as the result. -
#1169 by dustinthewind on 02 Sep, 2017 21:47
-
You don't want high frequency. You want low frequency. This maximizes the current. Problem is the wavelength increases. This is why in the patent they use the barium titanate or meta material which slows the propagation speed of the magnetic field at a set frequency and shortens the wavelength. I am not convinced the time retarded magnetic field passing through the dielectric would significantly cancel any propulsion benefits but am curious if anything else will be stirred up to move other than the magentic field (what else could carry such momentum).I worked all this out for myself using MathCAD about 20 years ago. Based on this sheet, they are only considering the current in the pair of wires "I1I2". What is not shown is the voltage, capacitance, charge and electric field at the ends of those wires when the current goes to zero. The force due to charges and electric fields will oppose the force due to currents and magnetic fields. When both are included, the 2N of force is suddenly < 2uN and we are back to the thrust of a photon rocket. If the system is large, it could oscillate back and force at a relatively low frequency with much greater force, but the CM will not move except for the asymmetry in the EM radiation, (aka photon rocket).
I don't know your setup and your assumptions for that calculation but if you are trying to say anytime you switch it off it exactly must cancel out the well known Lorentz force, and under any conceivable configuration of times and currents and geometries, I'm very dubious and would have to see the details. I'm not saying your calculation didn't do that but were you specifically messing with conditions to make the events in each wire spacelike wrt each other?
Specifically, the Third Law can break down in specific circumstances precisely because the speed of light is finite and events can have a spacelike separation even while they are being independently controlled faster than light can mediate between the interaction between them. Pulses can be independently designed and arranged that compliment the net forces and counter unwanted forces. For example, the field from pulse in one wire might cause a force in a distant wire in such a way that there is no ability for a counter force to even exist on the first wire. That spacelike separation and control could include unwanted electrical effects through proper design. Though technically challenging, that breaks the symmetry and opens up new possibilities.
A couple more points. The wires here are loops so they have no ends. If you are saying switching on and off counters the Lorentz force, I believe the switching times can be engineered much smaller than the steady pulse times where the Lorentz force acts to mitigate those forces while preserving the criteria suggested above.
I have my own configuration in mind which I would like to simulate with a 3D dynamic simulator that has the full Maxwell equations. It should be able to handle picosecond resolution in a volume of a few cubic cm. Do you have any thoughts about that? Thanks.
The current in the wire will depend on the time duration the voltage is applied.
dI/dt = V/L, where V is voltage and L is the inductance which depends on the dimensions of the loop. The smaller we make the switching time, the less current gain we will get in that time for a given size loop.
In the case of the resonant frequency of the loops, even if it has no ends, there will be at least 2 nodes in the current, where the voltage is at a maximum/minimum. This represents the charge density at these locations, which radiate an electric field which must be accounted for.
If there were constant current in the loops, we still need to break the loop to stop the current. Charge has to be dumped into some capacitor and that will take time. To reduce the time, we use a smaller capacitor, which results in a much higher peak voltage. Before we know it, realistic N size forces require 100's of MV on the capacitor, resulting in MW -> GW of power being radiated at relatively low currents and high frequency.QuoteI estimated, to lift it's own weight without dielectric breakdown using today's technology, it would need to be at least the size of a football stadium. Like the alien ships in Independence day, covering Manhattan island. At the end of the day, it's just a photon rocket and we underestimate the actual power that is required to make it go when we go down this path, and there are more efficient methods of creating a photon rocket.
A photon generator or phased array uses the time retarded magnetic field competing against the time retarded electric field. These forces work against each other. In the patent they flip the forces so they work together or if you eliminate the static electric force by putting the static electric nodes in the LC circuit capacitor then the static electric force is not allowed to work against the time retarded magnetic forces.
I am not convinced when the forces work together or you eliminate one of the opposing forces that the force is exactly the same as a photon rocket. This is why I propose a test of it.
-
#1170 by mwvp on 02 Sep, 2017 21:53
-
...
I will definitely open up the cavity for inspections. That is a pretty simple task since the end-plates are bolted on, not soldered. In fact, I did open up the flat end-plate frustum recently and noticed some strange markings on the large end-plate copper. First thought was arcing, but I have so far only put 5W into that cavity. Second thought is a splatter of some liquid chemical that etched the pattern. I'm not sure how to tell the difference.
If its not too much bother, perhaps you could keep a dated log with photos of the Q or return loss over time? It may be helpful to know how quickly oxidation degrades tuned cavities.
Anyone have any literature references on this?
What would be more of a bother but perhaps worthwhile would be minimal sealing around connections with silicone/RTV, and when not testing, slowly (very slowly) letting freon (duster spray) bleed through the frustrum at low pressure just to keep out oxygen. That could help keep the Q higher over time by preventing oxidation.
Maybe a desiccant packet (as found in pill bottles, electronics) by reducing humidity would slow oxidation of copper too? I don't know. -
#1171 by dustinthewind on 02 Sep, 2017 22:01
-
Exactly, two balls must come out. If one ball comes out at twice the velocity then we conserve momentum but not kinetic energy.
So next question: Is conservation of energy the stronger law or does nature treat momentum and energy as the same?
All the laws of nature are equally valid so one is not stronger than the other. Energy is conserved in a single reference frame or separately in each frame. Kinetic energy is not a conserved quantity. We debated this exhaustively before regarding the gain in kinetic energy of a rocket doing a burn when it's already moving fast. An example which has real value is the Oberth maneuver or the gravity assist fly-by for space probes. Doing the burn at maximum velocity while zipping around a planet gives the probe multiple times the kinetic energy just doing the same burn in free space but the energy comes from the planet.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect
Mostly agree but the extra kinetic energy does not come from the planet. More kinetic energy gain or less, depends on how chemical energy is distributed between the spaceship and the exhaust (propellant).
If a probe going a certain speed v falls into a gravity well and gains a delta v, without burning any fuel, there is a gain in kinetic energy which cannot be explained by borrowing kinetic energy from the fuel since no fuel was burned and kinetic energy is based on the total velocity squared. Essentially, the planet dumped energy into the probes reference frame which was already in motion. In this case, that occurs before our problem starts but we might consider some of the gain must come from the planet since two velocities contribute to the gain term. One is the total velocity it has before the burn which does partly depend on the planet, and the second which depends on the burn. So the gain cannot completely be explained by the fuel exhaust.
There are two types of gravity sling shots.
#1 is passing the ship by a planets gravitational well such that the ships mutual attraction slows the planet down and as a result the space ship speeds up. In this case the planet is the ships propellant.
#2 is using a ship engines in a gravitational well. In this case by falling into the gravitational well you reduce the ships propellants potential energy. If you fire off propellant far away you leave the propellant with a lot of potential energy to fall into the planet. For maximum efficiency you fire off the propellant at your exact velocity such that the exiting propellant comes to an exact stop. This way the propellant loses all kinetic energy and gains no potential energy upon exiting the engines. This may not always be ideal however. So falling into a gravitational well to use your ships engines increases how much energy you can get from them w.r.t. the grav source.
Two separate mechanisms. -
#1172 by WarpTech on 02 Sep, 2017 22:16
-
The current in the wire will depend on the time duration the voltage is applied.
You don't want high frequency. You want low frequency. This maximizes the current. Problem is the wavelength increases. This is why in the patent they use the barium titanate or meta material which slows the propagation speed of the magnetic field at a set frequency and shortens the wavelength. I am not convinced the time retarded magnetic field passing through the dielectric would significantly cancel any propulsion benefits but am curious if anything else will be stirred up to move other than the magentic field (what else could carry such momentum).
dI/dt = V/L, where V is voltage and L is the inductance which depends on the dimensions of the loop. The smaller we make the switching time, the less current gain we will get in that time for a given size loop.
In the case of the resonant frequency of the loops, even if it has no ends, there will be at least 2 nodes in the current, where the voltage is at a maximum/minimum. This represents the charge density at these locations, which radiate an electric field which must be accounted for.
If there were constant current in the loops, we still need to break the loop to stop the current. Charge has to be dumped into some capacitor and that will take time. To reduce the time, we use a smaller capacitor, which results in a much higher peak voltage. Before we know it, realistic N size forces require 100's of MV on the capacitor, resulting in MW -> GW of power being radiated at relatively low currents and high frequency.QuoteI estimated, to lift it's own weight without dielectric breakdown using today's technology, it would need to be at least the size of a football stadium. Like the alien ships in Independence day, covering Manhattan island. At the end of the day, it's just a photon rocket and we underestimate the actual power that is required to make it go when we go down this path, and there are more efficient methods of creating a photon rocket.
A photon generator or phased array uses the time retarded magnetic field competing against the time retarded electric field. These forces work against each other. In the patent they flip the forces so they work together or if you eliminate the static electric force by putting the static electric nodes in the LC circuit capacitor then the static electric force is not allowed to work against the time retarded magnetic forces.
I am not convinced when the forces work together or you eliminate one of the opposing forces that the force is exactly the same as a photon rocket. This is why I propose a test of it.
How could it be otherwise? There is an asymmetrical EM field around the device, describable as photons. There's nothing else in the equation coming out the back to conserve momentum.
To make it something more, a gravitational potential must be added. There are configurations where the intensity of the oscillating field of an antenna array is very asymmetrical. If the energy density differential were large enough, it could create a gravitational dipole (Gravitoelectric field) across the device, but that requires an enormous amount of "stored" energy to warp space-time. There are still only photons in the field.
-
#1173 by dustinthewind on 02 Sep, 2017 22:47
-
The current in the wire will depend on the time duration the voltage is applied.
You don't want high frequency. You want low frequency. This maximizes the current. Problem is the wavelength increases. This is why in the patent they use the barium titanate or meta material which slows the propagation speed of the magnetic field at a set frequency and shortens the wavelength. I am not convinced the time retarded magnetic field passing through the dielectric would significantly cancel any propulsion benefits but am curious if anything else will be stirred up to move other than the magentic field (what else could carry such momentum).
dI/dt = V/L, where V is voltage and L is the inductance which depends on the dimensions of the loop. The smaller we make the switching time, the less current gain we will get in that time for a given size loop.
In the case of the resonant frequency of the loops, even if it has no ends, there will be at least 2 nodes in the current, where the voltage is at a maximum/minimum. This represents the charge density at these locations, which radiate an electric field which must be accounted for.
If there were constant current in the loops, we still need to break the loop to stop the current. Charge has to be dumped into some capacitor and that will take time. To reduce the time, we use a smaller capacitor, which results in a much higher peak voltage. Before we know it, realistic N size forces require 100's of MV on the capacitor, resulting in MW -> GW of power being radiated at relatively low currents and high frequency.QuoteI estimated, to lift it's own weight without dielectric breakdown using today's technology, it would need to be at least the size of a football stadium. Like the alien ships in Independence day, covering Manhattan island. At the end of the day, it's just a photon rocket and we underestimate the actual power that is required to make it go when we go down this path, and there are more efficient methods of creating a photon rocket.
A photon generator or phased array uses the time retarded magnetic field competing against the time retarded electric field. These forces work against each other. In the patent they flip the forces so they work together or if you eliminate the static electric force by putting the static electric nodes in the LC circuit capacitor then the static electric force is not allowed to work against the time retarded magnetic forces.
I am not convinced when the forces work together or you eliminate one of the opposing forces that the force is exactly the same as a photon rocket. This is why I propose a test of it.
How could it be otherwise? There is an asymmetrical EM field around the device, describable as photons. There's nothing else in the equation coming out the back to conserve momentum.
To make it something more, a gravitational potential must be added. There are configurations where the intensity of the oscillating field of an antenna array is very asymmetrical. If the energy density differential were large enough, it could create a gravitational dipole (Gravitoelectric field) across the device, but that requires an enormous amount of "stored" energy to warp space-time. There are still only photons in the field.
But then how do you explain where two forces that were working against each other, are now working with each other, and you still have a photon rocket? What mechanism makes them both photon rockets?
With the opposing forces at least we have time retarded E and M fields propagating through space that oppose each other but when the propagating fields that propagate no longer oppose each other, that is a different kind of propagating field isn't it?
I am curious about a quadrupole phased array compared to a magnetic dipole phased array but need to look into it. A quadrupole phased array to me seems like using the time retarded electric field. I think there is some dipole magnetic parallel to using a quadrupole electric field. I thought I read some where there were some connections to quadropule electric radiation and and dipole magnetic radiation and pondered if they both were related to gravitational radiation. Need to look more into it. Quadrupole radiation being Something Dr. Rodal suggested a while back I think.
Here is something connecting dipole magnetic radiation and gravity waves I think.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=798782300321139015&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26
Gravitational waves from pulsars: emission by the magnetic field induced distortion
by S. Bonazzola, E. Gourgoulhon (DARC, CNRS, Observatoire de Paris)QuoteThe gravitational wave emission by a distorted rotating fluid star is computed. ...
It is found that the distortion at fixed magnetic dipole moment is very dependent of the magnetic field distribution; ... -
#1174 by Monomorphic on 03 Sep, 2017 21:20
-
I've managed to squeeze all the electronics, plus batteries onto one side of the torsional pendulum center of gravity. I still need to add the second 12.6V battery for the on-board PC and a breadboard to get the 30W amplifier working.
-
#1175 by Rodal on 03 Sep, 2017 22:39
-
I've managed to squeeze all the electronics, plus batteries onto one side of the torsional pendulum center of gravity. I still need to add the second 12.6V battery for the on-board PC and a breadboard to get the 30W amplifier working.
Where is your optical probe displacement measurement? Your optical probe measurement of displacement vs. time should also be performed looking at the same location as the EM Drive. Do not place it on the other side of the torsional pendulum arm (which would imply an assumption of rigidity and lack of thermal deformation of the pendulum arm that may be unwarranted at this scale of displacement measurement).
------------
By the way, last week I was discussing another experiment requiring a torsional pendulum involving microNewton forces (it was for a micro-thruster using classical physics, nothing to do with EM Drive or MEGA drives): a thorough study of noise sources showed that the number one source of noise was found to be people walking and moving near the experiment. -
#1176 by LowerAtmosphere on 03 Sep, 2017 22:44
-
The current in the wire will depend on the time duration the voltage is applied.
You don't want high frequency. You want low frequency. This maximizes the current. Problem is the wavelength increases. This is why in the patent they use the barium titanate or meta material which slows the propagation speed of the magnetic field at a set frequency and shortens the wavelength. I am not convinced the time retarded magnetic field passing through the dielectric would significantly cancel any propulsion benefits but am curious if anything else will be stirred up to move other than the magentic field (what else could carry such momentum).
dI/dt = V/L, where V is voltage and L is the inductance which depends on the dimensions of the loop. The smaller we make the switching time, the less current gain we will get in that time for a given size loop.
In the case of the resonant frequency of the loops, even if it has no ends, there will be at least 2 nodes in the current, where the voltage is at a maximum/minimum. This represents the charge density at these locations, which radiate an electric field which must be accounted for.
If there were constant current in the loops, we still need to break the loop to stop the current. Charge has to be dumped into some capacitor and that will take time. To reduce the time, we use a smaller capacitor, which results in a much higher peak voltage. Before we know it, realistic N size forces require 100's of MV on the capacitor, resulting in MW -> GW of power being radiated at relatively low currents and high frequency.QuoteI estimated, to lift it's own weight without dielectric breakdown using today's technology, it would need to be at least the size of a football stadium. Like the alien ships in Independence day, covering Manhattan island. At the end of the day, it's just a photon rocket and we underestimate the actual power that is required to make it go when we go down this path, and there are more efficient methods of creating a photon rocket.
A photon generator or phased array uses the time retarded magnetic field competing against the time retarded electric field. These forces work against each other. In the patent they flip the forces so they work together or if you eliminate the static electric force by putting the static electric nodes in the LC circuit capacitor then the static electric force is not allowed to work against the time retarded magnetic forces.
I am not convinced when the forces work together or you eliminate one of the opposing forces that the force is exactly the same as a photon rocket. This is why I propose a test of it.
How could it be otherwise? There is an asymmetrical EM field around the device, describable as photons. There's nothing else in the equation coming out the back to conserve momentum.
To make it something more, a gravitational potential must be added. There are configurations where the intensity of the oscillating field of an antenna array is very asymmetrical. If the energy density differential were large enough, it could create a gravitational dipole (Gravitoelectric field) across the device, but that requires an enormous amount of "stored" energy to warp space-time. There are still only photons in the field.
But then how do you explain where two forces that were working against each other, are now working with each other, or not working against each other and you still have a photon rocket? What mechanism makes them both photon rockets?
With the opposing forces at least we have time retarded E and M fields propagating through space that oppose each other but when the propagating fields that propagate no longer oppose each other, that is a different kind of propagating field isn't it?
I am curious about a quadrupole phased array compared to a magnetic dipole phased array but need to look into it. A quadrupole phased array to me seems like using the time retarded electric field. I think there is some dipole magnetic parallel to using a quadrupole electric field. I thought I read some where there were some connections to quadropule electric radiation and and dipole magnetic radiation and pondered if they both were related to gravitational radiation. Need to look more into it. Quadrupole radiation being Something Dr. Rodal suggested a while back I think.
Here is something connecting dipole magnetic radiation and gravity waves I think.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=798782300321139015&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26
Gravitational waves from pulsars: emission by the magnetic field induced distortion
by S. Bonazzola, E. Gourgoulhon (DARC, CNRS, Observatoire de Paris)QuoteThe gravitational wave emission by a distorted rotating fluid star is computed. ...
It is found that the distortion at fixed magnetic dipole moment is very dependent of the magnetic field distribution; ...
You must prove asymmetric boundary conditions between endplates and consistent phase shift.
Napkin note regarding arcing:
flows balance w internal oscillating field however impurities and anomalous shapes may tangle waves or divert them. Arcing then occurs across discontinuity in otherwise congruous and internal field coherent metallic lattice.
As coherency increases and resonance locks, discontinuities will hinder charge distribution along sidewall creating conflicting field lines among B field lateral component. So E field and B field lines diverge in walls increasing stress and shearing if at micro level. This will encourage arc from all closed path waves impacting both points of shearing. It is the kinetic impact of plasma arc and the higher absorption which can occur more often (more discontinuities in bigger surface area) which determines direction of thrust perhaps?
If true as said is a plasma globe shaped like a tapered cylinder. Higher flux tube density in the discontinuity region in the skin is important since it alters boundary conditions! -
#1177 by Monomorphic on 03 Sep, 2017 22:47
-
Where is your optical probe displacement measurement? Your optical probe measurement of displacement vs. time should also be performed looking at the same location as the EM Drive. Do not place it on the other side of the torsional pendulum arm (which would imply an assumption of rigidity and lack of thermal deformation of the pendulum arm that may be unwarranted at this scale of displacement measurement)
Both laser displacement sensors are located on the opposite side of the DUT, just like the USC/ARC style thrust balance.
But at a quick glance, it would be fairly easy to make this change with the current design.
-
#1178 by Rodal on 03 Sep, 2017 23:33
-
I think that either you should put the optical displacement measurement in the same location as the EM Drive, or if you can afford it, it would be interesting to have measurements at both ends of the torsional pendulum arms and compare the two measurements.Where is your optical probe displacement measurement? Your optical probe measurement of displacement vs. time should also be performed looking at the same location as the EM Drive. Do not place it on the other side of the torsional pendulum arm (which would imply an assumption of rigidity and lack of thermal deformation of the pendulum arm that may be unwarranted at this scale of displacement measurement)
Both laser displacement sensors are located on the opposite side of the DUT, just like the USC/ARC style thrust balance.
But at a quick glance, it would be fairly easy to make this change with the current design. -
#1179 by PotomacNeuron on 04 Sep, 2017 00:59
-
I've managed to squeeze all the electronics, plus batteries onto one side of the torsional pendulum center of gravity. I still need to add the second 12.6V battery for the on-board PC and a breadboard to get the 30W amplifier working.
Thanks. Are circulator and signal generator grounded? If so, the grounding should be labeled on the schematic.