-
#1180 by otlski on 04 Sep, 2017 01:14
-
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.
Would you provide a link to the discussion? I'd like to read it. -
#1181 by dustinthewind on 04 Sep, 2017 01:48
-
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!
I'm not sure what your getting at. I'm talking about a phased array not a cavity necessarily (trying to keep it simple to begin with). Now its possible to extend this to a cavity but I wasn't going there. Here is an image of a time retarded phased array field and the forces induced on the phased array when the field was created. Notice how in a normal phased array the time retarded creation of the "charge separation fields" and "magnetic fields" create opposite forces on the phased array. Obviously magnetic or charge separation fields are stronger and the difference probably gives us the photon force.
Now the pure magnetic phased array no longer has this opposing electric force from charge separation. What happens?
If image of why such forces are induced in a phased array are needed I can link those. They are in my previous posts. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1459290#msg1459290
-
#1182 by spupeng7 on 04 Sep, 2017 03:26
-
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.
Marcel,
Food for thought,
when I used the term 'sealed' it was in the virtual sense used in thermodynamics whereby a boundary is defined for the purposes of specifying and measuring energy flow.
Attempting to further define complex time...
The notion of complex time may enable us to visualize what occurs within the emdrive frustum. It may also provide clues as to how the motion of charges within the frustum can cause its acceleration relative to the wider universe. We know that,
c = 3 x 10^8 [m/s] = infinity
for any point travelling at the speed of light because clock time is infinitely dilated at that velocity. It is only from a remote perspective, not travelling at the speed of light, that that point appears to have a finite velocity.
Maybe it is not our concept of velocity which is at fault when we struggle to imagine that 3 x 10^8 m/s as an infinite speed, maybe it is our concept of distance which is at fault. The speed of light is infinite because that is the velocity at which all distances are equal and equal to zero, in complex time.
From a point perspective time ceases to pass when it reaches the speed of light but from the covariant (diverse) perspective, light speed is a single location in complex time within which displacement can only be measured by its clock time component.
Complex time,
t + ict
is the reality necessitated by relativity. Emission and absorption of a photon is the occasional interaction between a pair of charges across an instant of complex time but all charges may constantly interact by the mechanisms of gravity and inertia.
This being so, there exists a mechanism by which the force imposed upon all charges by the presence of a charge conducting current at the inside surface of the emdrive frustum, constitutes a connection between that charge and the remote universe. If charges are retained longer at the large end of the frustum, during the process of reflection, then there is a simple explanation for the emdrive thrust apparent.
Recall that current emits radiation when diverted and that the frequency which appears to excite an emdrive frustum to acceleration is a similar wavelength to the dimensions of its endplates. Could the asymmetry of the endplates be all that is required to produce acceleration when the contained radiation becomes resonant? -
#1183 by Rodal on 04 Sep, 2017 03:27
-
It was a face to face discussion, but you can see this published document: http://erps.spacegrant.org/uploads/images/2015Presentations/IEPC-2015-261_ISTS-2015-b-261.pdfBy 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.
Would you provide a link to the discussion? I'd like to read it.
See Fig. 1 on page 2 for placement of optical sensor and Table 1 on page 6 for a discussion of the sources of noise. -
#1184 by chongma on 04 Sep, 2017 08:20
-
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.
does this mean people travelling inside an EMDrive driven spacecraft will have to sit still for the whole journey
-
#1185 by RERT on 04 Sep, 2017 08:25
-
Round of applause for the suggestion from Dr.Rodal of more measurement points. The balance has 5 degrees of freedom, even if the beam is completely rigid. Two measurements are not comprehensive.
To be more specific, you can construct a better estimate of the torsional motion from a lever-weighted average of (signed) differences of horizontal displacements at each end, factoring out non-torsional motion of the CoG.
So, if horizontal displacements are A and B, distances a and b on opposite sides of the pivot wire, the estimate for the torsional angular displacement of the beam is (A-B)/(a+b) for small angles. The estimate for the non-torsional horizontal displacement of the pivot point is (bA+aB)/(a+b).
Estimating with one horizontal measurement, you are using A/a for the angle. But if B=A there is actually no torsion at all, the beam is just displaced horizontally (picture rocking side to side). -
#1186 by Monomorphic on 04 Sep, 2017 12:52
-
Round of applause for the suggestion from Dr.Rodal of more measurement points. The balance has 5 degrees of freedom, even if the beam is completely rigid. Two measurements are not comprehensive.
To be more specific, you can construct a better estimate of the torsional motion from a lever-weighted average of (signed) differences of horizontal displacements at each end, factoring out non-torsional motion of the CoG.
So, if horizontal displacements are A and B, distances a and b on opposite sides of the pivot wire, the estimate for the torsional angular displacement of the beam is (A-B)/(a+b) for small angles. The estimate for the non-torsional horizontal displacement of the pivot point is (bA+aB)/(a+b).
Estimating with one horizontal measurement, you are using A/a for the angle. But if B=A there is actually no torsion at all, the beam is just displaced horizontally (picture rocking side to side).
I only have two laser displacement sensors (LDS) at the moment - one to measure horizontal displacement and one to measure vertical displacement. I suppose the vertical measurement is not critical for our purposes, but I have been using it to detect any thermal "balloon-like" lifting. I could move that LDS to the same side as the frustum and take measurements from both sides, but then I would lose the ability to detect thermal lift.
I could add another LDS. Ideally I would purchase a Philtec LDS with higher resolution and use the current Omron LDS as back-up. But the Philtec LDS I want is very pricey!
-
#1187 by flux_capacitor on 04 Sep, 2017 13:05
-
It may also provide clues as to how the motion of charges within the frustum can cause its acceleration relative to the wider universe.
{…}
Emission and absorption of a photon is the occasional interaction between a pair of charges across an instant of complex time but all charges may constantly interact by the mechanisms of gravity and inertia.
This being so, there exists a mechanism by which the force imposed upon all charges by the presence of a charge conducting current at the inside surface of the emdrive frustum, constitutes a connection between that charge and the remote universe. If charges are retained longer at the large end of the frustum, during the process of reflection, then there is a simple explanation for the emdrive thrust apparent.
Recall that current emits radiation when diverted and that the frequency which appears to excite an emdrive frustum to acceleration is a similar wavelength to the dimensions of its endplates. Could the asymmetry of the endplates be all that is required to produce acceleration when the contained radiation becomes resonant?
You have the same (more or less) line of thought as an engineer who said on TT's own google group, July 22, 2017:Quote from: Hauke HeinAsuming the H field moves the free elektron mass in the skindept available space between bigplate and smallplate my impression is it would generate a higher energy density around the smallplate area and a slightly lower around the big plate area just looking at the available space for the free elektrons in those spaces. Could this result in an inertia difference causing the Mach effect by shuttling those elektrons back and forth a tiny amount parallel to the z-axis in the conical walls of the frustum, causing a current between the capacitor plates?
This also seems connected to the ideas presented in Jean-Philippe Montillet's Estes Park paper. -
#1188 by graybeardsyseng on 04 Sep, 2017 14:54
-
Round of applause for the suggestion from Dr.Rodal of more measurement points. The balance has 5 degrees of freedom, even if the beam is completely rigid. Two measurements are not comprehensive.
To be more specific, you can construct a better estimate of the torsional motion from a lever-weighted average of (signed) differences of horizontal displacements at each end, factoring out non-torsional motion of the CoG.
So, if horizontal displacements are A and B, distances a and b on opposite sides of the pivot wire, the estimate for the torsional angular displacement of the beam is (A-B)/(a+b) for small angles. The estimate for the non-torsional horizontal displacement of the pivot point is (bA+aB)/(a+b).
Estimating with one horizontal measurement, you are using A/a for the angle. But if B=A there is actually no torsion at all, the beam is just displaced horizontally (picture rocking side to side).
I only have two laser displacement sensors (LDS) at the moment - one to measure horizontal displacement and one to measure vertical displacement. I suppose the vertical measurement is not critical for our purposes, but I have been using it to detect any thermal "balloon-like" lifting. I could move that LDS to the same side as the frustum and take measurements from both sides, but then I would lose the ability to detect thermal lift.
I could add another LDS. Ideally I would purchase a Philtec LDS with higher resolution and use the current Omron LDS as back-up. But the Philtec LDS I want is very pricey!
Do you have a gofundme page or similar set up - I, for one, would love to contribute to making sure you have the instrumentation etc that you need. Your setup is outstanding and it deserves first rate data collection and recording.
I'm sure others would like to contribute as well.
graybeardsyseng
-
#1189 by dustinthewind on 04 Sep, 2017 15:01
-
It may also provide clues as to how the motion of charges within the frustum can cause its acceleration relative to the wider universe.
{…}
Emission and absorption of a photon is the occasional interaction between a pair of charges across an instant of complex time but all charges may constantly interact by the mechanisms of gravity and inertia.
This being so, there exists a mechanism by which the force imposed upon all charges by the presence of a charge conducting current at the inside surface of the emdrive frustum, constitutes a connection between that charge and the remote universe. If charges are retained longer at the large end of the frustum, during the process of reflection, then there is a simple explanation for the emdrive thrust apparent.
Recall that current emits radiation when diverted and that the frequency which appears to excite an emdrive frustum to acceleration is a similar wavelength to the dimensions of its endplates. Could the asymmetry of the endplates be all that is required to produce acceleration when the contained radiation becomes resonant?
You have the same (more or less) line of thought as an engineer who said on TT's own google group, July 22, 2017:Quote from: Hauke HeinAsuming the H field moves the free elektron mass in the skindept available space between bigplate and smallplate my impression is it would generate a higher energy density around the smallplate area and a slightly lower around the big plate area just looking at the available space for the free elektrons in those spaces. Could this result in an inertia difference causing the Mach effect by shuttling those elektrons back and forth a tiny amount parallel to the z-axis in the conical walls of the frustum, causing a current between the capacitor plates?
This also seems connected to the ideas presented in Jean-Philippe Montillet's Estes Park paper.
Thrust towards large end: If the electron becomes heavier at the narrow end because of increased current then the electron would receive less impulse from photons or energy exchanged because of the relative mass ratio. Photons having effective mass and in this case remaining constant. If this were the case the force would be towards the big end because the big end electrons (smaller effective mass) would recieve more energy from photons than the narrow end of the EM drive.
Thrust towards small end: On the other hand if photons effective mass some how change with respect to the electric charge changing in mass as if they are one unit (possibly by scattering away of virtual particles?) then it's possible the ratio of energy exchanged is always the same between the photon and electron. However, upon the heavier electron receiving the same impulse, it's now heavier, so it conveys more kinetic energy to the frustum. In this case the frustum would absorb more kinetic energy exchange from the heavier electrons at the front of the frustum. Could back scatter of virtual particles from those excited electrons increase both electron and photon effective mass?
Assuming this equation at low velocity: h*df/(h*f) = 2*c^2*[m_p] / ([m_e]*(c+v_e)^3) where h=planck's constant, f=photon frequency, c=speed of light, [m_p]=effective mass of photon=hf/c^2, m_e=total mass and effective mass of electron, and v_e=radial velocity of electron away from photon, effectively zero in this case. -
#1190 by bmcgaffey20 on 04 Sep, 2017 17:11
-
It may also provide clues as to how the motion of charges within the frustum can cause its acceleration relative to the wider universe.
{…}
Emission and absorption of a photon is the occasional interaction between a pair of charges across an instant of complex time but all charges may constantly interact by the mechanisms of gravity and inertia.
This being so, there exists a mechanism by which the force imposed upon all charges by the presence of a charge conducting current at the inside surface of the emdrive frustum, constitutes a connection between that charge and the remote universe. If charges are retained longer at the large end of the frustum, during the process of reflection, then there is a simple explanation for the emdrive thrust apparent.
Recall that current emits radiation when diverted and that the frequency which appears to excite an emdrive frustum to acceleration is a similar wavelength to the dimensions of its endplates. Could the asymmetry of the endplates be all that is required to produce acceleration when the contained radiation becomes resonant?
You have the same (more or less) line of thought as an engineer who said on TT's own google group, July 22, 2017:Quote from: Hauke HeinAsuming the H field moves the free elektron mass in the skindept available space between bigplate and smallplate my impression is it would generate a higher energy density around the smallplate area and a slightly lower around the big plate area just looking at the available space for the free elektrons in those spaces. Could this result in an inertia difference causing the Mach effect by shuttling those elektrons back and forth a tiny amount parallel to the z-axis in the conical walls of the frustum, causing a current between the capacitor plates?
This also seems connected to the ideas presented in Jean-Philippe Montillet's Estes Park paper.
Thrust towards large end: If the electron becomes heavier at the narrow end because of increased current then the electron would receive less impulse from photons or energy exchanged because of the relative mass ratio. Photons having effective mass and in this case remaining constant. If this were the case the force would be towards the big end because the big end electrons (smaller effective mass) would recieve more energy from photons than the narrow end of the EM drive.
Thrust towards small end: On the other hand if photons effective mass some how change with respect to the electric charge changing in mass as if they are one unit (possibly by scattering away of virtual particles?) then it's possible the ratio of energy exchanged is always the same between the photon and electron. However, upon the heavier electron receiving the same impulse, it's now heavier, so it conveys more kinetic energy to the frustum. In this case the frustum would absorb more kinetic energy exchange from the heavier electrons at the front of the frustum. Could back scatter of virtual particles from those excited electrons increase both electron and photon effective mass?
Assuming this equation at low velocity: h*df/(h*f) = 2*c^2*[m_p] / ([m_e]*(c+v_e)^3) where h=planck's constant, f=photon frequency, c=speed of light, [m_p]=effective mass of photon=hf/c^2, m_e=total mass and effective mass of electron, and v_e=radial velocity of electron away from photon, effectively zero in this case.
Just wanted to add, a year or so back I had made a post suggesting something similar. I suggested redshifted photons accumulated on either side, and more energetic photons are separated to the opposite side... causing an "effective heavier mass" on the side with more energy. Causing it to "Freefall through space". Basically my idea was mocked and I was told to define "effective mass" because they had no idea what this meant. At the time I got all excited about the idea, because I felt that it had potential to address the CoE or OU of the EmDrive, as well as the thrust/noise experimental measurements. How? Terminal Velocity. I felt the effective mass of the accumulated photons is actually very small and in result the terminal velocity of the current engineering and design of EmDrive is very low. Perhaps a much larger EmDrive engineered to have a much larger differential in the mass of the accumulated / Doppler effected photons.
According to the responses I got, way off.
Disclaimer: Obviously I am not a physicist, nor a mathematician. Terminology maybe flawed in the idea, but I feel its possible to understand the idea based on what I said. -
#1191 by Monomorphic on 04 Sep, 2017 17:20
-
Do you have a gofundme page or similar set up - I, for one, would love to contribute to making sure you have the instrumentation etc that you need. Your setup is outstanding and it deserves first rate data collection and recording.
No, nothing like a gofundme page. I've been fortunate enough to be able to afford all the materials so far. But my understanding is the Philtec D63 LDS is ~$3,500. Excluding the 3D printer as it can be used for other things, thus far the most expensive component has been the $600 Windfreak signal generator, so that would be a huge increase and take some "explaining to do." Let me get things working again with the 30W amplifier and see where we are. My biggest problem has been noise reduction, not necessarily LDS resolution. The Omron LDS I have currently has a resolution of 3um, while the Philtec D63 LDS is 0.5um so its resolution is 6 times better than what I currently have, but my torsional pendulum arm is several times longer so it has an advantage there since the LDS is further from the center pivot than on the smaller mach effect thrust balances (more displacement per radian at detection point). The Omron LDS are very expensive when purchased new, but I was able to find two never used ones on ebay for about $300 each. -
#1192 by OnlyMe on 04 Sep, 2017 19:07
-
Do you have a gofundme page or similar set up - I, for one, would love to contribute to making sure you have the instrumentation etc that you need. Your setup is outstanding and it deserves first rate data collection and recording.
No, nothing like a gofundme page. I've been fortunate enough to be able to afford all the materials so far. But my understanding is the Philtec D63 LDS is ~$3,500. Excluding the 3D printer as it can be used for other things, thus far the most expensive component has been the $600 Windfreak signal generator, so that would be a huge increase and take some "explaining to do." Let me get things working again with the 30W amplifier and see where we are. My biggest problem has been noise reduction, not necessarily LDS resolution. The Omron LDS I have currently has a resolution of 3um, while the Philtec D63 LDS is 0.5um so its resolution is 6 times better than what I currently have, but my torsional pendulum arm is several times longer so it has an advantage there since the LDS is further from the center pivot than on the smaller mach effect thrust balances. The Omron LDS are very expensive when purchased new, but I was able to find two never used ones on ebay for about $300 each.
Monomorphic, I believe that the following is your own best advice at present, "Let me get things working again with the 30W amplifier and see where we are.".
It is almost certain that there will always be something that can be improved and perhaps will be needed somewhere down the line. Right now your build seems more than sufficient to run the 30W tests you have planned. After which you will have a far better idea of what, where and if additions or changes to your test bed and build (frustum) are needed... And where any further investment might best fit the needs of further refinement and/or discovery.
-
#1193 by Bob012345 on 04 Sep, 2017 19:11
-
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.
It seems you have convinced yourself that there is absolutely no possible configuration whereby a useful net Lorentz force can be generated in any system at least without almost planetary scale engineering. Fine, I'm not convinced as GHz circuits exist with enormous charge derivatives already which combined with silicon wafer technology and clever delaying waveguides may produce suitable forces.
But I still want to know about full 3D simulation tools. Thanks.
-
#1194 by ThinkerX on 04 Sep, 2017 19:14
-
Quote
This also seems connected to the ideas presented in Jean-Philippe Montillet's Estes Park paper.
This paper keeps cropping up in both EM Drive and Woodward/Mach Drive discussions.
Probably way past time some of the math types here took a serious, in depth look at it. -
#1195 by Bob012345 on 04 Sep, 2017 19:22
-
You say I don't understand them and am going off half (maybe all) cocked. Do you really think they would write all those papers if all they were saying is "Hey, here's an interesting way to make a propellent-less propulsion device that works far far less efficiently than a simple photon rocket and is entirely useless!!!!!"? Or maybe, "Hey, this would work but you need gigawatts of power!!!! Maybe that's the academic world but somehow, I doubt that. So, what do you think they are really trying to say with these papers?
I have no idea why they haven't calculated the power requirements, especially since there is an easy way to do so since the energy flux is equal to c times the momentum flux. Them not calculating it in no way changes the fact that this is a ton of power, and yes it probably would melt something if you tried to build such a device.
Can you realistically imagine proposing gigawatt levels of power in meter sized coils carrying 100 amps of current? Wouldn't they just melt?
It does not matter why they aren't discussing the power numbers, because the power numbers are what they are. Do you have anything to add that is actually based on math or physics?
I emailed one of the authors, professor Yahalom, about the power levels for that 2.74N force and I'll let you know if he answers.
I got an answer. He said using his concept a 100 kg device should get to a speed of 1m/s with 50 Joules where a photon rocket requires 3E10 Joules to do the same. So he thinks it's not just in effect a photon rocket. But I did ask for further clarification that he specifically state the fields carry away more momentum than a simple photon rocket if that's what he believes. -
#1196 by meberbs on 04 Sep, 2017 21:58
-
Belief is irrelevant, and the math says he is very wrong. Clearly he just calculated the kinetic energy of the device and did not account for any of the energy in the fields.You say I don't understand them and am going off half (maybe all) cocked. Do you really think they would write all those papers if all they were saying is "Hey, here's an interesting way to make a propellent-less propulsion device that works far far less efficiently than a simple photon rocket and is entirely useless!!!!!"? Or maybe, "Hey, this would work but you need gigawatts of power!!!! Maybe that's the academic world but somehow, I doubt that. So, what do you think they are really trying to say with these papers?
I have no idea why they haven't calculated the power requirements, especially since there is an easy way to do so since the energy flux is equal to c times the momentum flux. Them not calculating it in no way changes the fact that this is a ton of power, and yes it probably would melt something if you tried to build such a device.
Can you realistically imagine proposing gigawatt levels of power in meter sized coils carrying 100 amps of current? Wouldn't they just melt?
It does not matter why they aren't discussing the power numbers, because the power numbers are what they are. Do you have anything to add that is actually based on math or physics?
I emailed one of the authors, professor Yahalom, about the power levels for that 2.74N force and I'll let you know if he answers.
I got an answer. He said using his concept a 100 kg device should get to a speed of 1m/s with 50 Joules where a photon rocket requires 3E10 Joules to do the same. So he thinks it's not just in effect a photon rocket. But I did ask for further clarification that he specifically state the fields carry away more momentum than a simple photon rocket if that's what he believes. -
#1197 by dustinthewind on 05 Sep, 2017 00:14
-
Belief is irrelevant, and the math says he is very wrong. Clearly he just calculated the kinetic energy of the device and did not account for any of the energy in the fields.You say I don't understand them and am going off half (maybe all) cocked. Do you really think they would write all those papers if all they were saying is "Hey, here's an interesting way to make a propellent-less propulsion device that works far far less efficiently than a simple photon rocket and is entirely useless!!!!!"? Or maybe, "Hey, this would work but you need gigawatts of power!!!! Maybe that's the academic world but somehow, I doubt that. So, what do you think they are really trying to say with these papers?
I have no idea why they haven't calculated the power requirements, especially since there is an easy way to do so since the energy flux is equal to c times the momentum flux. Them not calculating it in no way changes the fact that this is a ton of power, and yes it probably would melt something if you tried to build such a device.
Can you realistically imagine proposing gigawatt levels of power in meter sized coils carrying 100 amps of current? Wouldn't they just melt?
It does not matter why they aren't discussing the power numbers, because the power numbers are what they are. Do you have anything to add that is actually based on math or physics?
I emailed one of the authors, professor Yahalom, about the power levels for that 2.74N force and I'll let you know if he answers.
I got an answer. He said using his concept a 100 kg device should get to a speed of 1m/s with 50 Joules where a photon rocket requires 3E10 Joules to do the same. So he thinks it's not just in effect a photon rocket. But I did ask for further clarification that he specifically state the fields carry away more momentum than a simple photon rocket if that's what he believes.
Properly implemented, unlike a normal phased array, there is a lack of an opposing force (charge separation forces vs magnetic). https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1719074#msg1719074
Just because we can't explain away the momentum in the fields that propagate away doesn't mean it's not worth finding out what the difference is between the two.
We are trying to track down some invisible source of momentum with the EM drive. Belief that something might be possible for some reason is one reason there are those willing to experiment. I am reluctant to say that the momentum would be carried away by that particular field so I don't necessarily disagree, but am curious about what might happen in a properly conducted experiment. -
#1198 by meberbs on 05 Sep, 2017 00:48
-
Properly implemented, unlike a normal phased array, there is a lack of an opposing force (charge separation forces vs magnetic). https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1719074#msg1719074
Difference between what 2? Your linked post seems to talk about electric versus just magnetic, but most of the phased array concepts people have proposed here have been all magnetic. This doesn't change that they can't get extra force/power. The equations of electrodynamics are fully consistent. There are general proofs regarding the energy/momentum relationships, forces, and momentum carried away by the fields. If the claim is that the forces are larger than the rate momentum is carried away by the fields, either the math was done wrong, (or simply not done as Bob012345 has been referencing researchers who simply didn't calculate energy or power), or a new theory of electrodynamics was used. I have not seen anyone proposing a whole new theory of electrodynamics, and if they did, they would have to show their theory can explain countless other known electrodynamic results.
Just because we can't explain away the momentum in the fields that propagate away doesn't mean it's not worth finding out what the difference is between the two.
We are trying to track down some invisible source of momentum with the EM drive. Belief that something might be possible for some reason is one reason there are those willing to experiment. I am reluctant to say that the momentum would be carried away by that particular field so I don't necessarily disagree, but am curious about what might happen in a properly conducted experiment. -
#1199 by spupeng7 on 05 Sep, 2017 02:23
-
flux_capacitor & dustinthewindIt may also provide clues as to how the motion of charges within the frustum can cause its acceleration relative to the wider universe.
{…}
Emission and absorption of a photon is the occasional interaction between a pair of charges across an instant of complex time but all charges may constantly interact by the mechanisms of gravity and inertia.
This being so, there exists a mechanism by which the force imposed upon all charges by the presence of a charge conducting current at the inside surface of the emdrive frustum, constitutes a connection between that charge and the remote universe. If charges are retained longer at the large end of the frustum, during the process of reflection, then there is a simple explanation for the emdrive thrust apparent.
Recall that current emits radiation when diverted and that the frequency which appears to excite an emdrive frustum to acceleration is a similar wavelength to the dimensions of its endplates. Could the asymmetry of the endplates be all that is required to produce acceleration when the contained radiation becomes resonant?
You have the same (more or less) line of thought as an engineer who said on TT's own google group, July 22, 2017:Quote from: Hauke HeinAsuming the H field moves the free elektron mass in the skindept available space between bigplate and smallplate my impression is it would generate a higher energy density around the smallplate area and a slightly lower around the big plate area just looking at the available space for the free elektrons in those spaces. Could this result in an inertia difference causing the Mach effect by shuttling those elektrons back and forth a tiny amount parallel to the z-axis in the conical walls of the frustum, causing a current between the capacitor plates?
This also seems connected to the ideas presented in Jean-Philippe Montillet's Estes Park paper.
radiation pressure is the inevitable consequence of absorption at any frequency. It is our understanding of the mechanism of reflection which seems to me to be incomplete. If emission occurs during absorption, as appears to be the case with reflection of light from a mirror, then I have nothing. But if emission occurs as a consequence of the current engendered in the reflecting surface by absorption, encountering an edge or discontinuity within that surface, such as appears to be the case when RADAR is reflected from a convoluted conducting shape, then the retention of the current between absorption and emission also requires that the inertia engendered by the radiation pressure is also retained.
If that inertia is retained for longer in the larger surface, and is compounded by resonance, then we may have a mechanism for acceleration of the whole device IF and only if, all charges interact all the time. That can only be the case if photons are a special case of interaction involving just one pair of charges.
It surprises me not at all that my attempts to communicate this complex set of maybes have so far been indecipherable but I am convinced there is something worth considering here. Something which fits completely within a classical description of charge interactions.
Yes, I will have a read of Jean-Philippe's paper
