-
#1260 by wicoe on 06 Sep, 2017 17:11
-
9. Thrust measurement requires a clear understanding of Newtonian principles, as applied to a propellantless thruster. Expecting to measure thrust as if EmDrive is a conventional propulsion system will lead to ambiguous results. Ideally, thrust should be calculated by measuring the acceleration of a freely suspended thruster, and then applying Newton’s laws.
Agreed, this is not even funny... well, maybe a little bit...
1st law: "In an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force".
- a "clear understanding" of this principle leads to the following conclusion: an "EmDrive" will not accelerate unless acted upon by a force.
2nd law: "In an inertial reference frame, the vector sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration a of the object: F = ma" (note that this is a vector equation, i.e. the object accelerates in the same direction as the vector sum of the forces acting upon it).
- a "clear understanding" of this principle leads to the following conclusion: if an "EmDrive" accelerates, it does so in the direction of the force acting upon it, not in the opposite direction. If the acceleration is caused by radiation pressure force, it will accelerate in the direction of the radiation pressure.
3rd law: "When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body".
- a "clear understanding" of this principle leads to the following conclusion: if a force is applied to "EmDrive" by some "body", the "EmDrive" will exert an equal (but opposite in direction) reaction force upon that "body". A reaction force cannot be the cause of acceleration of the "EmDrive" since it is exerted by it upon other objects during interaction, and acts in the opposite direction. When the interaction is mediated by photons, the reaction force is what the source of the photons "feels" as it gets pushed back. If the source of the photons is attached to the object ("EmDrive"), it will "feel" the reaction force, which will cancel out the "action" force (radiation pressure).
What other "Newtonian principles" are there to understand?
-
#1261 by Jim Davis on 06 Sep, 2017 17:11
-
I can not stop thinking of preemptive defense. But it could only be me.
Face saving excuses was the phrase that came to my mind. -
#1262 by OnlyMe on 06 Sep, 2017 17:25
-
....
I am disappointed to see that Monomorphic "liked" this post, since it means we will never see his results. He already was on the verge of getting some good data with good calibration runs that brought the noise very low, before he stopped for months to completely change his setup.
For the last year and a half I have not been able to follow the detail in these discussions as well as I would have liked still...
I believe the above is an unjust criticism of Monomorphic's efforts. Yes, I agree there comes a point where it would be better to just go ahead with testing what he has. That said.., most of the changes to his setup have either been to address issues he observed in past tests or criticisms and suggestions others have offered.., and they seem all to have been while waiting to finish putting together the equipment needed to run a 30W test. Again... If his next goal is a 30W test, why shouldn't he do whatever he can and chooses to, to improve his setup, while waiting to put the 30W equipment together?
How many times has someone requested some change or addition and he responded by saying, yes that would be easy to do? And then made changes or additions, in an attempt to address the issue(s). Measure those against the more recent suggestion for a change/addition to his setup, where he explained that the cost would be beyond what he was comfortable with, right now.
.....
There is a difference between disputing the flawed theory that Shawyer continues to argue and assuming that "if" there is any possible force/thrust, some of what he says might be based on what he has seen rather than the flawed theory he believes.
Right now whether an EmDrive actually produces useable thrust has not been proven or disproven by any publicly published experimental data. While I am in the group that dismisses Shawyer's theory of operation, until someone has produced credible results that proves or disproves the underlying claim that thrust is produced, it would be negligent to discount any information/suggestion, which might be the result of even undocumented observation. Some of what wound up in that list TT posted would have discredited any claim that many of Shawyer's earlier builds produced any results. That may be the case and it may be that all results from all actors turn out to be systemic or experimental error.., or there may be something new and potentially useful to be explored. What we believe, each of us is of little consequence. Only what we come to know, from credible experimental results/data, will settle the issue, of whether there is an anomalous force, or not. -
#1263 by Bob012345 on 06 Sep, 2017 17:31
-
9. Thrust measurement requires a clear understanding of Newtonian principles, as applied to a propellantless thruster. Expecting to measure thrust as if EmDrive is a conventional propulsion system will lead to ambiguous results. Ideally, thrust should be calculated by measuring the acceleration of a freely suspended thruster, and then applying Newton’s laws.
This in itself is enough reason to ignore everything Shawyer says. Shawyer has demonstrated that he can't even do the most basic of force balances, and simply makes logically contradictory claims. Shawyer fails his own criteria so hard here, it can't even be used as a joke.
This list seems intended to do a run around to make sure that no one can ever do a competent experiment that demonstrates once and for all that the emDrive does not work. You can bet that if someone ever met all of those criteria, Shawyer would change the statement "thrust is proportional to Q, but Q < 50000 is a cutoff below which it doesn't work" to raise this cutoff to something physically impossible to build.
I am disappointed to see that Monomorphic "liked" this post, since it means we will never see his results. He already was on the verge of getting some good data with good calibration runs that brought the noise very low, before he stopped for months to completely change his setup.
Your opinions of Mr. Shawyer aside, are you saying measuring the acceleration of a freely suspended cavity is not a reasonable way to measure the thrust? If not exactly why not? -
#1264 by meberbs on 06 Sep, 2017 17:37
-
Your opinions of Mr. Shawyer aside, are you saying measuring the acceleration of a freely suspended cavity is not a reasonable way to measure the thrust? If not exactly why not?
No, but it is certainly not the only way, and claiming it is demonstrates that Shawyer does not understand Newtonian principles, right after he says it is important. -
#1265 by Bob012345 on 06 Sep, 2017 17:54
-
Your opinions of Mr. Shawyer aside, are you saying measuring the acceleration of a freely suspended cavity is not a reasonable way to measure the thrust? If not exactly why not?
No, but it is certainly not the only way, and claiming it is demonstrates that Shawyer does not understand Newtonian principles, right after he says it is important.
Somewhere here I thought I read that seeing a suspended cavity move to one side was perhaps the most unambiguous test of a real force. My suggestion for you is that you go talk to Shawyer and see what he really understands or doesn't since parsing written statements isn't always definitive to completely understanding a person's mind. -
#1266 by meberbs on 06 Sep, 2017 18:01
-
I have generally avoided providing much advice to experimenters on how to run their setups. I never understood why Monomorphic didn't run more tests before making the changes, since more data is extremely helpful, and changing one thing at a time, while it may slow things down overall will result in much more useful data. That is fine though, and is his choice, and it may be has simple as him underestimating how long before more data could be taken.....
I am disappointed to see that Monomorphic "liked" this post, since it means we will never see his results. He already was on the verge of getting some good data with good calibration runs that brought the noise very low, before he stopped for months to completely change his setup.
For the last year and a half I have not been able to follow the detail in these discussions as well as I would have liked still...
I believe the above is an unjust criticism of Monomorphic's efforts. Yes, I agree there comes a point where it would be better to just go ahead with testing what he has.
My post wasn't intended to criticize Monomorphic's choices up until now, but that it is misguided to try and follow Shawyer's advice relayed by TT.There is a difference between disputing the flawed theory that Shawyer continues to argue and assuming that "if" there is any possible force/thrust, some of what he says might be based on what he has seen rather than the flawed theory he believes.
Shawyer's lack of ability to follow Newtonian mechanics means that advice from him is just as likely to be advice on how to amplify noise or other errors.Right now whether an EmDrive actually produces useable thrust has not been proven or disproven by any publicly published experimental data. While I am in the group that dismisses Shawyer's theory of operation, until someone has produced credible results that proves or disproves the underlying claim that thrust is produced, it would be negligent to discount any information/suggestion, which might be the result of even undocumented observation. Some of what wound up in that list TT posted would have discredited any claim that many of Shawyer's earlier builds produced any results. That may be the case and it may be that all results from all actors turn out to be systemic or experimental error.., or there may be something new and potentially useful to be explored. What we believe, each of us is of little consequence. Only what we come to know, from credible experimental results/data, will settle the issue, of whether there is an anomalous force, or not.
There has been little given on what would be required to prove the emDrive does not work. The Navy experiment if it meats its goals for sensitivity, noise floor, and power level would detect down to a few times a photon rocket worth of thrust. This recent list from Shawyer is a combination of things that are either illogical, redundant, or clearly excessive as a benchmark for operation. Some have to do with design methodology that is irrelevant if you have a good constant frequency variable RF source. This list is clearly a bad basis as a threshold for an experiment to disprove the emDrive. What has been seen from Shawyer is constantly moving goalposts, and following them will result in never doing an experiment....
There is no need to have the "best" design when we don't even know if the effect is real. In fact, there is no way to even know what "best" would be at this point. It just has to be enough to be clearly above the noise, sensitivity, and expected systematic errors of the setup. Proving a negative experimentally is impossible without some constraints.
While it is true that the Eagle Works effort has been the best documented and peer reviewed experimental test of the involved design concepts, their specific design and resulting resonant mode may not represent the best case basic design. -
#1267 by meberbs on 06 Sep, 2017 18:07
-
If you mean move to one side and stay there that would be unambiguous, but torsion pendulums should be even more sensitive.Your opinions of Mr. Shawyer aside, are you saying measuring the acceleration of a freely suspended cavity is not a reasonable way to measure the thrust? If not exactly why not?
No, but it is certainly not the only way, and claiming it is demonstrates that Shawyer does not understand Newtonian principles, right after he says it is important.
Somewhere here I thought I read that seeing a suspended cavity move to one side was perhaps the most unambiguous test of a real force. My suggestion for you is that you go talk to Shawyer and see what he really understands or doesn't since parsing written statements isn't always definitive to completely understanding a person's mind.
I guess you haven't read his papers where he fails miserably at high school physics. There is no need to completely understand his mind, but repeated statements self contradictory statements also contrary to the most basic concepts in physics demonstrate that he either has no capacity at performing force measurements, or he is simply a scam artist. -
#1268 by dustinthewind on 06 Sep, 2017 18:18
-
If you mean move to one side and stay there that would be unambiguous, but torsion pendulums should be even more sensitive.Your opinions of Mr. Shawyer aside, are you saying measuring the acceleration of a freely suspended cavity is not a reasonable way to measure the thrust? If not exactly why not?
No, but it is certainly not the only way, and claiming it is demonstrates that Shawyer does not understand Newtonian principles, right after he says it is important.
Somewhere here I thought I read that seeing a suspended cavity move to one side was perhaps the most unambiguous test of a real force. My suggestion for you is that you go talk to Shawyer and see what he really understands or doesn't since parsing written statements isn't always definitive to completely understanding a person's mind.
I guess you haven't read his papers where he fails miserably at high school physics. There is no need to completely understand his mind, but repeated statements self contradictory statements also contrary to the most basic concepts in physics demonstrate that he either has no capacity at performing force measurements, or he is simply a scam artist.
There is something that you may not have thought of. If for some reason the vacuum is accelerated in the opposite direction as some force on the cavity then the two may actually oppose each other (accelerating via some coupling to a vacuum and using it as a propellant while existing in an accelerating vacuum). That would be very strange for that to happen but that possibility has remained in my mind for a while. It could give some strange results for force measurements (locally and non-locally).
It may be possible if this were the case that it is needed to tread water properly to propel oneself rather than thrashing around in the water. -
#1269 by Bob Woods on 06 Sep, 2017 18:22
-
One of the great things about this thread was when folks were openly sharing data and conjecture. More data is what we seek. Tons of data from the experimenters would be a great present for the coming holiday system. As for arguing over who's right, wrong or meets a standard of assumed competency, I offer you this from Star Trek: The Next Generation:
Lt. Cmdr. Data: Of more immediate importance is your ability to work within groups.
Q of the Continuum: I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. -
#1270 by WarpTech on 06 Sep, 2017 18:24
-
If you mean move to one side and stay there that would be unambiguous, but torsion pendulums should be even more sensitive.Your opinions of Mr. Shawyer aside, are you saying measuring the acceleration of a freely suspended cavity is not a reasonable way to measure the thrust? If not exactly why not?
No, but it is certainly not the only way, and claiming it is demonstrates that Shawyer does not understand Newtonian principles, right after he says it is important.
Somewhere here I thought I read that seeing a suspended cavity move to one side was perhaps the most unambiguous test of a real force. My suggestion for you is that you go talk to Shawyer and see what he really understands or doesn't since parsing written statements isn't always definitive to completely understanding a person's mind.
I guess you haven't read his papers where he fails miserably at high school physics. There is no need to completely understand his mind, but repeated statements self contradictory statements also contrary to the most basic concepts in physics demonstrate that he either has no capacity at performing force measurements, or he is simply a scam artist.
I object to the word "artist".
-
#1271 by OnlyMe on 06 Sep, 2017 19:01
-
9. Thrust measurement requires a clear understanding of Newtonian principles, as applied to a propellantless thruster. Expecting to measure thrust as if EmDrive is a conventional propulsion system will lead to ambiguous results. Ideally, thrust should be calculated by measuring the acceleration of a freely suspended thruster, and then applying Newton’s laws.
This in itself is enough reason to ignore everything Shawyer says. Shawyer has demonstrated that he can't even do the most basic of force balances, and simply makes logically contradictory claims. Shawyer fails his own criteria so hard here, it can't even be used as a joke.
This list seems intended to do a run around to make sure that no one can ever do a competent experiment that demonstrates once and for all that the emDrive does not work. You can bet that if someone ever met all of those criteria, Shawyer would change the statement "thrust is proportional to Q, but Q < 50000 is a cutoff below which it doesn't work" to raise this cutoff to something physically impossible to build.
I am disappointed to see that Monomorphic "liked" this post, since it means we will never see his results. He already was on the verge of getting some good data with good calibration runs that brought the noise very low, before he stopped for months to completely change his setup.
Your opinions of Mr. Shawyer aside, are you saying measuring the acceleration of a freely suspended cavity is not a reasonable way to measure the thrust? If not exactly why not?
Unless you are dealing with a rotary setup, free to continue rotating, you are not measuring acceleration, except in the most limited sense. The test setups currently being discussed can measure an initial force. That is any force greater than the basic resistance of the testbed. But as soon as the resistance of the setup matches or exceeds the annomolous force, at best you could measure a static force if any.
If there is any truth to the idea that an EmDrive will only truly produce acceleration or force while it is free to accelerate, there may be a kick of sorts as the EmDrive is initially turned on and any initial force would end as soon as the resistance of the tortion pendulum testbed or real world conditions, equals or exceeds the initial force produced. If it is accepted that there is any truth to this... What it really suggests is that the motion of the frustum relative to the resonant EM field inside the frustum is a necessary component for continued production of thrust... and just maybe that if any thrust is produced it is the result of the interaction between the resonant EM field inside the frustum and the induced electric and magnetic fields in the frustum walls (and end caps as a whole).., and the frustum's freedom to move/accelerate.
...
Just to throw a different wrench into the works...
Most of the theoretical open discussion, so far focuses either on bouncing photons or similarities between EM fields and gravitational fields and so on... many of these present very sexy possibilities, but really really slide into the void of extreme new physics.
From a more classical intuitive perspective and yet still requiring New Physics, even if only in interpretation... Even though the EM field originates from an introduction of EM radiation into the frustum, by an antenna or wave guide, as soon as the EM radiation is introduced it can no longer be thought of as propagating relative to the frustum in a physical sense. EM radiation always propagates at the speed of light without respect to the velocity of the frustum, antenna and/or waveguide. This means that even though the density distribution of any associated resonant EM field, is defined in part by the physical structure and shape of the frustum.., as a whole the EM field would move with the frustum at the speed of light, even where the frustum moves at classical velocities. Still the resonating EM field will interact with the frustum as a whole, inducing both electric and magnetic fields in the frustum walls, which do propagate through the frustum wall material at both, less than the speed of light and always relative to the frustum, whether it is inertially at rest or accelerating.
If the frustum is rigidly fixed in place a fixed resonant relationship would exist between the frustum and the resonant EM field within. If the frustum is allowed to move, and for arguments sake in the direction of theoretical thrust, the interaction between the EM field inside the frustum and the induced electric and magnetic fields in the frustum walls would fall out of resonance (or synchronization) by an amount determined by the difference in the speed of light and the speed that the currents and fields in the walls of the frustum, propagate though the conductive material the frustum incorporates. This might just result, in a very small Lentz law like effect, resulting in the frustum essentially attempting to slide off of or be pulled along by the resonant EM field within,
This would satisfy COM in that the push would be between the Resonant EM field within the frustum and the induced electric and magnetic fields in the frustum walls, based in the difference in the speed of light and the speed that the electric and magnetic fields can move through the frustum walls. This would also explain why the forces measured in credible tests to date have all been very small. It would also suggest that once a functional design is developed, the annomolus force/thrust produced should be dependent predominantly on the absolute field intensity and density of the resonant EM field inside the frustum, how well it induces electric and magnetic counterparts in the frustum walls and the affect that any motion of the frustum has on the balance between the two.
It also suggest that there should be a jerk when first turning an EmDrive on and that any further thrust would depend on whether the frustum is free to move at a rate sufficient to optimize the polarity difference between the resonant EM field and the induced electric and magnetic fields in the frustum walls... Or developing an array where power can be cycled on and off to a number of drives in a manner that can take advantage of the jerk occurring at turn on.
Great news for use in space from at least LEO where very small thrust levels would be valuable...., or even perhaps naval applications where power and cooling are not significant hurtles.
BTW this completely ignores this issue of over unity based on any king of constant uniform acceleration, because for a whole set of different arguments, I don't believe it is possible. -
#1272 by Monomorphic on 06 Sep, 2017 19:27
-
I am disappointed to see that Monomorphic "liked" this post, since it means we will never see his results. He already was on the verge of getting some good data with good calibration runs that brought the noise very low, before he stopped for months to completely change his setup.
I liked the post simply because I am able to check off most of the requirements. As pointed out, I am still absent items 5 and 6. Item 9 is arguable since the torsion spring constant of my stand is very low compared to flexure bearing thrust balances.
As for item 6, I do have a design for a new small end-plate that can be aligned. All I need to do is send it to print. I have concerns that it may leak too much RF, so I am on the fence about working on that for this round. Item 5 will not be accomplished any time soon, so I don't plan on getting bogged down there. The current 0.15mm tolerance will have to do.
I have a hard deadline of Nov. 1 as I am scheduled to be presenting at a workshop. I'm trying to get as much accomplished before Oct 1, when I will stop modifying and start testing. Plan is to spend the month of October testing and analyzing the data.
I expect to have the 30W amp working tomorrow. Then I need to work on the calibration coils. Then the new RF on/off logging system. Then I need to get the signal generator working via serial com.
-
#1273 by graybeardsyseng on 06 Sep, 2017 19:35
-
9. Thrust measurement requires a clear understanding of Newtonian principles, as applied to a propellantless thruster. Expecting to measure thrust as if EmDrive is a conventional propulsion system will lead to ambiguous results. Ideally, thrust should be calculated by measuring the acceleration of a freely suspended thruster, and then applying Newton’s laws.
This in itself is enough reason to ignore everything Shawyer says. Shawyer has demonstrated that he can't even do the most basic of force balances, and simply makes logically contradictory claims. Shawyer fails his own criteria so hard here, it can't even be used as a joke.
This list seems intended to do a run around to make sure that no one can ever do a competent experiment that demonstrates once and for all that the emDrive does not work. You can bet that if someone ever met all of those criteria, Shawyer would change the statement "thrust is proportional to Q, but Q < 50000 is a cutoff below which it doesn't work" to raise this cutoff to something physically impossible to build.
I am disappointed to see that Monomorphic "liked" this post, since it means we will never see his results. He already was on the verge of getting some good data with good calibration runs that brought the noise very low, before he stopped for months to completely change his setup.
Monomophic's experiment has already violated item 5,6,9. This means his experiment can not be used to invalidate EmDrive, even if he measure zero thrust with precision. So is Navy's new experiment. I can not stop thinking of preemptive defense. But it could only be me.
PM -
I tend to agree that this list seems like a preemptive defense. Regardless of an experiment's results this list can be used to discredit those results or at least open them to criticism. We are already seeing some of that in the responses to Shawyer's original list.
However, I was troubled by some posts (NOT yours) which called in to question one DIYers intentions simply because he had "liked" the original post. "Liking" a post does not necessarily mean agreement. I was debating "liking" the original list post myself as I thought it provided valuable insight into Shawyer's opinions of what would be necessary for a working EMDrive and what might affect its performance.. Not that I agreed with the points in the post or thought all (or any) were particularly useful or correct, but rather they provide a window into his thinking and possible approaches for "preemptive" defense.
Jamie - Monomorphic - has been doing excellent work and while of course I along with everyone else would love to see lots of runs and data, building a test rig of that quality on a shoestring budget of time and money is nearly incredible. I respect and admire both his efforts and his desire to build the best test fixture and DUT(s) possible. Careful work takes time, thought, more time, input from a , more time and money etc. I particularly think it is in-appropriate to imply that he might not publish results based on his "Liking" this list of attributes from Shawyer.
graybeardsyseng -
#1274 by rfmwguy on 06 Sep, 2017 20:20
-
Nice to see you at it again. Pardon my silence these past few months. Will try to keep up with things a little more than I have been....which has been near null...or within the margin of uncertainty.I am disappointed to see that Monomorphic "liked" this post, since it means we will never see his results. He already was on the verge of getting some good data with good calibration runs that brought the noise very low, before he stopped for months to completely change his setup.
I liked the post simply because I am able to check off most of the requirements. As pointed out, I am still absent items 5 and 6. Item 9 is arguable since the torsion spring constant of my stand is very low compared to flexure bearing thrust balances.
As for item 6, I do have a design for a new small end-plate that can be aligned. All I need to do is send it to print. I have concerns that it may leak too much RF, so I am on the fence about working on that for this round. Item 5 will not be accomplished any time soon, so I don't plan on getting bogged down there. The current 0.15mm tolerance will have to do.
I have a hard deadline of Nov. 1 as I am scheduled to be presenting at a workshop. I'm trying to get as much accomplished before Oct 1, when I will stop modifying and start testing. Plan is to spend the month of October testing and analyzing the data.
I expect to have the 30W amp working tomorrow. Then I need to work on the calibration coils. Then the new RF on/off logging system. Then I need to get the signal generator working via serial com.
p.s. Retirement is fun -
#1275 by Bob Woods on 06 Sep, 2017 20:27
-
Welcome back Dave. You have been missed. NIAC Symposium in Denver at the end of the month. A few of us will be there.
Nice to see you at it again. Pardon my silence these past few months. Will try to keep up with things a little more than I have been....which has been near null...or within the margin of uncertainty.
p.s. Retirement is fun
PS: Retirement is the perfect antidote to an excess of entropy. -
#1276 by Rodal on 06 Sep, 2017 22:17
-
...
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.
Talking about Jean-Philippe Montillet
New published mathematical paper referencing the EM Drive "asymmetric resonant cavity (frustum)" by Jean-Philippe Montillet:
https://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=78934
p.1713 and following pages on "asymmetric resonant cavity (frustum)" -
#1277 by SeeShells on 06 Sep, 2017 23:51
-
Thank you Dr. Rodal for the link! Late night reading is called for!
Shell...
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.
Talking about Jean-Philippe Montillet
New published mathematical paper referencing the EM Drive "asymmetric resonant cavity (frustum)" by Jean-Philippe Montillet:
https://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=78934
p.1713 and following pages on "asymmetric resonant cavity (frustum)"
-
#1278 by Flyby on 07 Sep, 2017 07:58
-
did notice a small detail there
QuoteAcknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the important discussions with Dr. José Rodal and Prof. Heidi Fearn (California State University Fullerton, physics department) on the Woodward effect and its derivation from general relativity.
I admit I'm in great distress here, when trying to make sense of the tsunami wave of formula's...
But somehow i get the feeling this paper is a major keystone.. Can some1 explain in a more comprehensive way what is going on there? -
#1279 by kamill85 on 07 Sep, 2017 11:35
-
I have a question related to the basic concept of the EMDrive. Lets assume standard physics, EM waves bound around, pressure evens out from A to B, drive does not produce any thrust. Now, in theory, if there placed inside the cavity a space distortion effect, similar to gravitational lensing, would that make the forces uneven?
The question is a direct outcome from another question that I had: If we could convert our Sun, completely into a pure energy in form of a photon-laser-beam, say 1 meter in diameter, 0% dispersion, being completely released in 10 seconds from point A towards point B and somewhere between those points was Earth, maybe 300km away from where the beam was passing by - would the Earth move? Do photons have any mass "in transit"? If they don't, wouldn't it be possible, in "theory", to make a mini black-hole in a box, place a high Q mirror (double-sided) behind it (vertical towards BH), and a mirror in front of it (horizontal towards BH), then some lasers that would shoot the beam so it bounces off both mirrors, via BH space-curvature/lensing? Wouldn't that null out the force at vertical mirror and generate thrust at horizontal one?
