-
#1200
by
spupeng7
on 05 Sep, 2017 02:32
-
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).
RERT,
if this is worth doing then would it not be worth taking data from three points and recording the motion of the beam completely.
-
#1201
by
dustinthewind
on 05 Sep, 2017 02:45
-
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.
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.
That's right. Were looking for new physics. Something that hasn't been noticed before. Bringing up an existing experiment (even unintentional) and its results would be paramount to proving such a thing does/doesn't exist, or if it hasn't been done then it is an experiment that hasn't been done yet.
Maybe my diagrams are not clearly indicating how a normal phased array opposes it self. Let us say the time retarded fields from charge separation create a force on a straight antenna phased array. Charge separation is a different animal than magnetic currents it turns out. When analyzing the magnetic force on the same phased array this force happens to act in the opposite direction. Apparently time retarded magnetic force opposes the time retarded charge separation forces.
This is strange but maybe it could indicate the very small force we get from a phased array if the magnetic force were smaller than the electric. So what happens when we eliminate one of these (time retarded charge separation or magnetic). Does the force become larger? Looking at it one way seems to indicate it should experience a larger force but looking at the light seems to contradict that.
This paper, they only analyzes the magnetic, which is why it is interesting. The patent I have cited focuses on both (charge separation and magnetic) and makes them work together to improve efficiency, which may be possible but, I can't see that kind of momentum being carried away by light. If not light, what else could carry away such momentum? It seems to beg an experiment. But aren't we wondering the same thing about the EM drive cavity? (How could so much momentum be carried away and from a cavity.)
It's another approach from a different angle.
-
#1202
by
dustinthewind
on 05 Sep, 2017 04:09
-
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:
Asuming 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.
flux_capacitor & dustinthewind
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 
This decelerating charge emits light via the transverse E field centered on its position. For a cavity with antenna inside in the shape of a current loop we get such an electric field all around the loop pointing in the direction of charge acceleration. This propagates out at c exciting the charges in the cavity to flow in a similar pattern.
For a superconducting cavity if we excite a permanent current in the loop antenna, this change radiates to the cavity surface, but with no resistance and no further change in the magnetic field we have no reflection. Just a permanently contained magnetic field inside the cavity.
In a normal cavity we have resistance (related to Q) so exciting the charges in the loop changes the current in the cavity, but via resistance, charge in the cavity walls will decelerate causing further charge acceleration and change in the magnetic field, which propagates from the cavity walls - seeming more like a reflection. This is really just information propagating about changes in the magnetic field via accelerating charges.
some interesting information on the birth and death of a photon I found:
When it comes to practical issue, it's even more impressive: the superconducting mirror was the key experimental ingredients in the Haroche, Raymond and Brune experiment, see e.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0612031 and http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.3880 for the first experimental proofs of the birth and death of a photon inside a cavity made with superconducting mirror. This experiment earned the 2012 Nobel Prize, see http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2012/. Without the ultra-high reflexion coefficient of the superconducting mirror (for microwave radiations), these experiments would not have been possible.
...
By FraShelle
-
#1203
by
meberbs
on 05 Sep, 2017 04:15
-
That's right. Were looking for new physics. Something that hasn't been notice before. Bringing up an existing experiment (even unintentional) and its results would be paramount to proving such a thing does/doesn't exist, or if it hasn't been done then it is an experiment that hasn't been done yet.
But what you have provided discussing electromagnetic forces is not new physics. It is well known physics that does not lead to anything better than a photon rocket. No amount of reconfiguring the design of an electromagnetic system will change the general results, which hold for any electromagnetic system.
-
#1204
by
dustinthewind
on 05 Sep, 2017 04:31
-
That's right. Were looking for new physics. Something that hasn't been notice before. Bringing up an existing experiment (even unintentional) and its results would be paramount to proving such a thing does/doesn't exist, or if it hasn't been done then it is an experiment that hasn't been done yet.
But what you have provided discussing electromagnetic forces is not new physics. It is well known physics that does not lead to anything better than a photon rocket. No amount of reconfiguring the design of an electromagnetic system will change the general results, which hold for any electromagnetic system.
What experiment conducted might that be that has already eliminated the possibility? This one perhaps?
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/case1259607091/inlineA MAGNETIC PHASED ARRAY ANTENNA
FOR COMMUNICATION WITH IMPLANTED
BIOMEDICAL DEVICES IN SMALL ANIMALS
by
MICHAEL LEKAS
To get reasonable forces you would need to use the proper dielectric and they don't even mention a dielectric in theirs, much less the word force, which I don't think they intended to measure. Getting it just right would be tricky business and then an apparatus to measure the forces.
-
#1205
by
meberbs
on 05 Sep, 2017 05:58
-
That's right. Were looking for new physics. Something that hasn't been notice before. Bringing up an existing experiment (even unintentional) and its results would be paramount to proving such a thing does/doesn't exist, or if it hasn't been done then it is an experiment that hasn't been done yet.
But what you have provided discussing electromagnetic forces is not new physics. It is well known physics that does not lead to anything better than a photon rocket. No amount of reconfiguring the design of an electromagnetic system will change the general results, which hold for any electromagnetic system.
What experiment conducted might that be that has already eliminated the possibility? This one perhaps?
What do you mean by "the possibility" the possibility of what? Electrodynamics has been confirmed by countless experiments and simply does not allow anything better than a photon rocket, unless you have an external field, such as the Earth's magnetic field to push against.
An experiment can't disprove a hypothesis that doesn't exist, and you have not provided an alternate theory to test.
To get reasonable forces you would need to use the proper dielectric
No, to get reasonable forces you would need to use an alternate theory of electrodynamics.
-
#1206
by
RERT
on 05 Sep, 2017 07:05
-
Monomorphic -
I don't know how hard it would be to shift the vertical LDS to a horizontal LDS at the other end. If it were easy enough, you could try it on a test and estimate the non-torsional movement as above. If it turns out to be small enough to ignore, you could move it back. If not, you'd have to decide what to do next....
-
#1207
by
RERT
on 05 Sep, 2017 08:18
-
Re: back radiation
Isn't quantum mechanics a big challenge for back-radiation?
We know that accelerating charges within an atom don't radiate. That's the original motivation for the Bohr atom.
Perhaps then we want to say that those charges are not accelerating, they have a static wave function. But what about a piece of anything, constructed of atoms, which is accelerated in bulk? Theory then says that each of the positive and negative charges radiates. I guess the object 'glows' in the near field. Is that verified to happen?
Worse, apply the principle of equivalence. Then it would seem that the same object sitting still in a gravitational field also glows - essentially in perpetuity. Where does the energy come from to allow that?
Actually both of these radiative effects seem wildly unlikely, since they seem to imply atoms leaking energy, which clearly doesn't happen. Is there another way to interpret this, other than to say that sometimes back-radiation is blocked by quantum effects?
-
#1208
by
TheTraveller
on 05 Sep, 2017 15:01
-
-
#1209
by
PotomacNeuron
on 05 Sep, 2017 15:20
-
-
#1210
by
Bob012345
on 05 Sep, 2017 15:50
-
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?
Can you realistically imagine proposing gigawatt levels of power in meter sized coils carrying 100 amps of current? Wouldn't they just melt?
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.
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.
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.
I think it's clear I wasn't suggesting he simply believes this or that as an article if faith and not by a scientific argument. And he does calculate the energy of the fields here;
https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.2537v2Updated with a new title here;
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.2537v3.pdfI suggested to him by email that he explicitly compare his device to a photon rocket and he said that was a good idea and might be a future paper.
-
#1211
by
TheTraveller
on 05 Sep, 2017 16:01
-
A bit about the US Navy EmDrive work has surfaced:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf
Seems the project lead, Mike McDonald, is credible:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-mcdonald-36447050/
Roger's interesting comment on the attached was:
"It is good to see that the US Naval Research Lab has broken cover.
Happy to see that they are local. I am going to contact them to obtain access to their experiment to spot any problems. Not very positive though -- due to my foreign background. But will try.
Hi PN,
Mike McDonald's email is in the paper.
What I know about torsion test rigs is they must allow significant room for the cavity to accelerate, at least 20um, 50 um is better. Stiff test rigs that don't allow enough sufficient room to accelerate may fail to record any significant force.
As exampke, the EW test rig is much stiffer than Jamies, with Jamie's stiffer than Dave's. Giving the cavity room to accelerate and get into Motor Mode is very important.
Will be interesting to see the cavity they built, their Rf system and put their cavity numbers through my larest design tool.
Maybe McDonald or others on the team would be interested in discussion on NSF?
-
#1212
by
Bob012345
on 05 Sep, 2017 16:19
-
That's right. Were looking for new physics. Something that hasn't been notice before. Bringing up an existing experiment (even unintentional) and its results would be paramount to proving such a thing does/doesn't exist, or if it hasn't been done then it is an experiment that hasn't been done yet.
But what you have provided discussing electromagnetic forces is not new physics. It is well known physics that does not lead to anything better than a photon rocket. No amount of reconfiguring the design of an electromagnetic system will change the general results, which hold for any electromagnetic system.
"It is well known"
Yes, it certainly is and I'm not saying it isn't a correct understanding but being well known is not proof no exception will never be found since such proofs are always based on certain assumptions which would by definition be violated if an exception were found. It is in fact a belief grounded in the best understanding to date. And if we used such arguments to limit research which examined things already "well known", nobody would be looking at EMDrives. So it seems to me your statement "
No amount of reconfiguring the design of an electromagnetic system will change the general results, which hold for any electromagnetic system" is too dogmatic.
-
#1213
by
wicoe
on 05 Sep, 2017 16:44
-
"It is well known"
Yes, it certainly is and I'm not saying it isn't a correct understanding but being well known is not proof no exception will never be found since such proofs are always based on certain assumptions which would by definition be violated if an exception were found. It is in fact a belief grounded in the best understanding to date. And if we used such arguments to limit research which examined things already "well known", nobody would be looking at EMDrives. So it seems to me your statement "No amount of reconfiguring the design of an electromagnetic system will change the general results, which hold for any electromagnetic system" is too dogmatic.
How do you know where to stop? Do you consider claims that energy/momentum is always conserved (including that you cannot get free energy) dogmatic too?
-
#1214
by
meberbs
on 05 Sep, 2017 16:46
-
I think it's clear I wasn't suggesting he simply believes this or that as an article if faith and not by a scientific argument. And he does calculate the energy of the fields here;
https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.2537v2
Updated with a new title here;
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.2537v3.pdf
I suggested to him by email that he explicitly compare his device to a photon rocket and he said that was a good idea and might be a future paper.
In equation 26, they conclude that the mechanical energy is equal to the negative of the energy stored in the fields. Neither of these make sense to be negative, however. The issue is that they are ignoring the energy in the power supply (I assume it is a battery). As a result, the equation should actually read that the mechanical energy of the system plus the energy stored in the fields (external to the battery) is equal to the electrical energy lost by the battery. As a result, their conclusions from that point on are all incorrect.
Also, something seems wrong in general with their conclusions, because equation 15 shows that the mechanical momentum is simply a function of the current, which means an alternating current would lead to the mechanical momentum simply oscillating back and forth. In this case, what they have seems like it may be a situation where the wires may not even move at all, but there is "hidden momentum" which relates to relativistic effects and the velocities of the electrons in the current loops.
-
#1215
by
tchernik
on 05 Sep, 2017 16:48
-
A bit about the US Navy EmDrive work has surfaced:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf
Seems the project lead, Mike McDonald, is credible:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-mcdonald-36447050/
Roger's interesting comment on the attached was:
"It is good to see that the US Naval Research Lab has broken cover.
I like there are more well funded professional replications. That's always good.
Concerning Roger Shawyer's comment, it really depends (for him) if the result is a confirmation or a refutation. Which seems not to be clear from the abstract alone.
There is less motivation to publish a negative result, I admit, but it would be surprising to some people to know that some scientists still engage in due diligence and report whatever they find, be it positive or negative.
Personally, even if I'd be disappointed first, in the end I'd be thankful if we got a bullet-proof negative result. The truth is always better than lies and wishful thinking.
But of course, getting another peer reviewed confirmation would be even better.
-
#1216
by
Bob012345
on 05 Sep, 2017 16:52
-
I think it's clear I wasn't suggesting he simply believes this or that as an article if faith and not by a scientific argument. And he does calculate the energy of the fields here;
https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.2537v2
Updated with a new title here;
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.2537v3.pdf
I suggested to him by email that he explicitly compare his device to a photon rocket and he said that was a good idea and might be a future paper.
In equation 26, they conclude that the mechanical energy is equal to the negative of the energy stored in the fields. Neither of these make sense to be negative, however. The issue is that they are ignoring the energy in the power supply (I assume it is a battery). As a result, the equation should actually read that the mechanical energy of the system plus the energy stored in the fields (external to the battery) is equal to the electrical energy lost by the battery. As a result, their conclusions from that point on are all incorrect.
Also, something seems wrong in general with their conclusions, because equation 15 shows that the mechanical momentum is simply a function of the current, which means an alternating current would lead to the mechanical momentum simply oscillating back and forth. In this case, what they have seems like it may be a situation where the wires may not even move at all, but there is "hidden momentum" which relates to relativistic effects and the velocities of the electrons in the current loops.
You are free to discuss your objections with professor Yahalom if you wish like I did.
-
#1217
by
PotomacNeuron
on 05 Sep, 2017 16:53
-
A bit about the US Navy EmDrive work has surfaced:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf
Seems the project lead, Mike McDonald, is credible:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-mcdonald-36447050/
Roger's interesting comment on the attached was:
"It is good to see that the US Naval Research Lab has broken cover.
Happy to see that they are local. I am going to contact them to obtain access to their experiment to spot any problems. Not very positive though -- due to my foreign background. But will try.
Hi PN,
Mike McDonald's email is in the paper.
What I know about torsion test rigs is they must allow significant room for the cavity to accelerate, at least 20um, 50 um is better. Stiff test rigs that don't allow enough sufficient room to accelerate may fail to record any significant force.
As exampke, the EW test rig is much stiffer than Jamies, with Jamie's stiffer than Dave's. Giving the cavity room to accelerate and get into Motor Mode is very important.
Will be interesting to see the cavity they built, their Rf system and put their cavity numbers through my larest design tool.
Maybe McDonald or others on the team would be interested in discussion on NSF?
TT, I do not believe Mr. Shawyer's theory of accelerating cavity and force. After all, the earth is moving fast around the sun and the gravity is accelerating (Einstein's equivalence of gravity and acceleration) the cavity.
-
#1218
by
meberbs
on 05 Sep, 2017 17:00
-
That's right. Were looking for new physics. Something that hasn't been notice before. Bringing up an existing experiment (even unintentional) and its results would be paramount to proving such a thing does/doesn't exist, or if it hasn't been done then it is an experiment that hasn't been done yet.
But what you have provided discussing electromagnetic forces is not new physics. It is well known physics that does not lead to anything better than a photon rocket. No amount of reconfiguring the design of an electromagnetic system will change the general results, which hold for any electromagnetic system.
"It is well known"
Yes, it certainly is and I'm not saying it isn't a correct understanding but being well known is not proof no exception will never be found since such proofs are always based on certain assumptions which would by definition be violated if an exception were found. It is in fact a belief grounded in the best understanding to date. And if we used such arguments to limit research which examined things already "well known", nobody would be looking at EMDrives. So it seems to me your statement "No amount of reconfiguring the design of an electromagnetic system will change the general results, which hold for any electromagnetic system" is too dogmatic.
The relevant assumptions are Maxwell's equations, so as I said, you need to propose a new theory of electrodynamics, otherwise you will keep getting the same results. It is not "dogmatic" it is simply a fact of what current theories predict. It is also a fact that we have no experimental evidence that Maxwell's equations are violated. (They have done an excellent job predicting emDrive cavity mode shapes and frequencies for example)
-
#1219
by
Bob012345
on 05 Sep, 2017 17:05
-
"It is well known"
Yes, it certainly is and I'm not saying it isn't a correct understanding but being well known is not proof no exception will never be found since such proofs are always based on certain assumptions which would by definition be violated if an exception were found. It is in fact a belief grounded in the best understanding to date. And if we used such arguments to limit research which examined things already "well known", nobody would be looking at EMDrives. So it seems to me your statement "No amount of reconfiguring the design of an electromagnetic system will change the general results, which hold for any electromagnetic system" is too dogmatic.
How do you know where to stop? Do you consider claims that energy/momentum is always conserved (including that you cannot get free energy) dogmatic too?
I didn't say all science is dogma and is suspect. Don't think that!
the point is that one has to make a judgement call in each case. If some amateur inventor wants me to invest in his free energy machine I run away. If some well credited scientist associated with the Isaac Newton Institute at Cambridge University says something, I can at least listen with an open mind.
Regarding energy and momentum conservation, one can firmly hold that while at the same time not rushing to judgement as to how it exactly applies in a particular situation and thus risk rejecting a new idea prematurely.
the point is that one has to make a judgement call in each case. If some amateur inventor wants me to invest in his free energy machine I run away. If some well credited scientist associated with the Isaac Newton Institute at Cambridge University says something, I can at least listen with an open mind.