-
#1280
by
Rodal
on 07 Sep, 2017 12:35
-
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?
It is another step on the road to develop a formal theoretical model but as in everything physical, the ultimate word as to whether it is an experimental artifact from "Roger" or something that can be useful lies with experiments and the ability to replicate them:
1)
Monomorphic reporting at NSF: he has set a deadline by the end of this October 2017, in preparation for a formal presentation of his work at a workshop early November 2017.
2) Prof. Tajmar's group at
TU Dresden: they have been working all this year on a new torsional pendulum instrument that promises to be more accurate than his previous instruments. Eliminating electromagnetic Lorentz-type interactions, they even removed the old floor and constructed a large isolated concrete block that is the new foundation for their vacuum chamber. He also has procured major funding for a Ph.D. student.
3) Mike McDonald's group at the
USNAVY:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdfIt appears that all four of them (including Montillet) will be reporting at the same workshop, Nov. 2017.
-
#1281
by
Peter Lauwer
on 07 Sep, 2017 12:37
-
Thank you Dr. Rodal for the link! Late night reading is called for!
Shell
...
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.
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)"
I like the statement about imagination. However, it is probably not from dear old Albert.
https://www.quora.com/What-quotes-are-most-commonly-misattributed-to-Albert-Einstein' “Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.”
This is another fake motivational/inspirational quote attributed to Einstein. The first recorded instance I found of this quote is from The Ultimate Quotable Einstein (2010) by Alice Calaprice and Freeman Dyson on p. 481, however Alice lists the quote under the “Probably Not By Einstein” section.
There is no evidence Einstein ever said this quote, and frankly it doesn't sound like something Einstein would say, as he was a highly logical individual.'
-
#1282
by
Flyby
on 07 Sep, 2017 13:06
-
-
#1283
by
meberbs
on 07 Sep, 2017 14:37
-
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.
I was concerned about a good experimenter paying too much attention to a list that seems intended to delay publication of or preemptively dismiss any null results (and it appears I am not the only one that reads the list that way).
Monomorphic did an excellent job responding to this concern. Maybe I should have worded it a little differently, but I do not regret bringing it up.
-
#1284
by
Flyby
on 07 Sep, 2017 14:45
-
1) Monomorphic reporting at NSF: he has set a deadline by the end of this October 2017, in preparation for a formal presentation of his work at a workshop early November 2017.
I've been eagerly following Jamie's work, but I am a bit worried he keeps changing his setup (for ever?), without producing some data.
I'm also looking forward to what results Michelle Broyles and Paul March will produce.
2) Prof. Tajmar's group at TU Dresden: they have been working all this year on a new torsional pendulum instrument that promises to be more accurate than his previous instruments. Eliminating electromagnetic Lorentz-type interactions, they even removed the old floor and constructed a large isolated concrete block that is the new foundation for their vacuum chamber. He also has procured major funding for a Ph.D. student.
I hope that Prof. Tajmar has updated his EMdrive design, because when comparing it with all other designs, there was most definitely something wrong with the dimensions (proportion cavity compared to waveguide)
3) Mike McDonald's group at the USNAVY:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf
It appears that all four of them (including Montillet) will be reporting at the same workshop, Nov. 2017.
I've been reading the paper and could not find anything more then a "letter of intend" to replicate the Eaglework experiment.
However, I do recall Paul March saying he was not allowed to optimize their setup, due to budgetary restriction (dr White wanting direct results, supporting his Quantum Vacuum Virtual Plasma theory).
I can only hope that they (Mcdonald's group) DO take time to attempt optimization...
Like many of us here, we're all sitting on the edge of our seats, hoping to get conclusive results someday, be them negative or positive...
-
#1285
by
Rodal
on 07 Sep, 2017 15:02
-
1) Monomorphic reporting at NSF: he has set a deadline by the end of this October 2017, in preparation for a formal presentation of his work at a workshop early November 2017.
I've been eagerly following Jamie's work, but I am a bit worried he keeps changing his setup (for ever?), without producing some data.
I'm also looking forward to what results Michelle Broyles and Paul March will produce.
My understanding is that neither Michelle nor Paul plan to formally report any experimental results by this Nov 2017, unlike the others.
2) Prof. Tajmar's group at TU Dresden: they have been working all this year on a new torsional pendulum instrument that promises to be more accurate than his previous instruments. Eliminating electromagnetic Lorentz-type interactions, they even removed the old floor and constructed a large isolated concrete block that is the new foundation for their vacuum chamber. He also has procured major funding for a Ph.D. student.
I hope that Prof. Tajmar has updated his EMdrive design, because when comparing it with all other designs, there was most definitely something wrong with the dimensions (proportion cavity compared to waveguide)
The group at TU Dresden is self-aware of the fabrication issues and extremely low Q=48 that plagued their initial experimental replication, which was performed under the advice of "Roger" years ago. They plan to thoroughly address these shortcomings under present funding, new instrumentation, design and fabrication. They plan to report on their progress in Nov 2017.
3) Mike McDonald's group at the USNAVY:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf
It appears that all four of them (including Montillet) will be reporting at the same workshop, Nov. 2017.
I've been reading the paper and could not find anything more then a "letter of intend" to replicate the Eaglework experiment.
However, I do recall Paul March saying he was not allowed to optimize their setup, due to budgetary restriction (dr White wanting direct results, supporting his Quantum Vacuum Virtual Plasma theory).
I can only hope that they (Mcdonald's group) DO take time to attempt optimization...
Like many of us here, we're all sitting on the edge of our seats, hoping to get conclusive results someday, be them negative or positive...
The work at the USNAVY by McDonald is focused on an
initial scientific,
rigorous, experimental verification to see whether the EM Drive is an experimental artifact or whether there is anything that can be useful for space propulsion.
-
#1286
by
Mulletron
on 07 Sep, 2017 16:08
-
I believe that a healthy dose of imagination coupled with disciplined intuition is absolutely necessary for figuring out new things. Having a rock solid understanding of the basics and building on what we already know, in my view is more important than cracking the mathematical whip straight away on what is essentially a black box. You have to know what to calculate first, otherwise your ship has no rudder. I know that Einstein didn't have the math to describe his key insights at first. His thought experiments and intuitive mind led to his key insights, which were later put through the mathematical crank that already existed, and changed the world.
-
#1287
by
Bob012345
on 07 Sep, 2017 17:04
-
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?
Yes, the earth would move as it's being vaporized. A photon has no "rest mass" but has an effective mass equal to its energy/c^2 thus a beam will get bent by gravity. Right now, I think our best bet to get to the stars is probably the Mach effect which is certainly exotic enough.
Good luck to the Fearn/Rodal/Eubanks/Long/Woodward/March/Hudson team trying to maximize the effect
-
#1288
by
tchernik
on 07 Sep, 2017 17:20
-
I agree. The fact these devices exist and some show fairly good theoretical and experimental tracks (the MEGA is low thrust but very consistent) is exciting indeed.
And things are improving for the Emdrive too, with several new well funded institutional results upcoming. If they are negative doesn't matter in the great scheme of things, because knowledge and certitude is always better than incertitude and not knowing. But if there's something still there after careful scrubbing of the experimental data, this period of time we are living will go down in history.
We are understandably weary of waiting and that may take a toll on our patience and dealings with other points of view than our own, but science is most often a slow, grueling and deliberate dialectic process.
Nevertheless we do know more than before and things are finally happening as they should: letting experiments and data do the talking.
-
#1289
by
dustinthewind
on 07 Sep, 2017 18:23
-
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?
Yes, the earth would move as it's being vaporized. A photon has no "rest mass" but has an effective mass equal to its energy/c^2 thus a beam will get bent by gravity. Right now, I think our best bet to get to the stars is probably the Mach effect which is certainly exotic enough.
Good luck to the Fearn/Rodal/Eubanks/Long/Woodward/March/Hudson team trying to maximize the effect
An electron-positron pair can be created from two photons. Effective mass becoming rest mass. If both anti-matter and matter have gravity then one might ask why the photons don't. I don't think it has been tested if anti-matter has gravity/anti-gravity or not. Probably just normal gravity else some strange effects.
Edit: The bending of light is actually twice that Einstein predicted at first via gravity. Turns out there is another relativistic effects that increases the bending. Bending of space+time. (It should be mentioned that many subsequent observations, summarized below, have independently confirmed the angular deflection predicted by general relativity, i.e., twice the "Newtonian" value.)
Similarly, antiparallel (opposite direction) light beams attract each other by four times the naive (pressureless or Newtonian) expectation, while parallel (same direction) light beams do not attract each other at all. A good paper to start with is: Tolman R.C., Ehrenfest P., and Podolsky B., Phys. Rev. 37 (1931) 602.
-
#1290
by
kamill85
on 07 Sep, 2017 18:57
-
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?
Yes, the earth would move as it's being vaporized. A photon has no "rest mass" but has an effective mass equal to its energy/c^2 thus a beam will get bent by gravity. Right now, I think our best bet to get to the stars is probably the Mach effect which is certainly exotic enough.
Good luck to the Fearn/Rodal/Eubanks/Long/Woodward/March/Hudson team trying to maximize the effect
Thanks. By the way, did you mean beam would by bent in the presence of a gravity or the Earth would be attracted to the beam because the beam generated gravitational pull while passing by?
-
#1291
by
X_RaY
on 07 Sep, 2017 19:00
-
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?
Yes, the earth would move as it's being vaporized. A photon has no "rest mass" but has an effective mass equal to its energy/c^2 thus a beam will get bent by gravity. Right now, I think our best bet to get to the stars is probably the Mach effect which is certainly exotic enough.
Good luck to the Fearn/Rodal/Eubanks/Long/Woodward/March/Hudson team trying to maximize the effect
An electron-positron pair can be created from two photons. Effective mass becoming rest mass. If both anti-matter and matter have gravity then one might ask why the photons don't. I don't think it has been tested if anti-matter has gravity/anti-gravity or not. Probably just normal gravity else some strange effects.
http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/67455https://arxiv.org/abs/1308.1079Antimatter interferometry for gravity measurements
Paul Hamilton, Andrey Zhmoginov, Francis Robicheaux, Joel Fajans, Jonathan Wurtele, Holger Mueller
We describe a light-pulse atom interferometer that is suitable for any species of atom and even for electrons and protons as well as their antiparticles, in particular for testing the Einstein equivalence principle with antihydrogen. The design obviates the need for resonant lasers through far-off resonant Bragg beam splitters and makes efficient use of scarce atoms by magnetic confinement and atom recycling. We expect to reach an initial accuracy of better than 1% for the acceleration of free fall of antihydrogen, which can be improved to the part-per million level.
http://matterwave.physics.berkeley.edu/publications/
-
#1292
by
PotomacNeuron
on 07 Sep, 2017 19:04
-
I agree. The fact these devices exist and some show fairly good theoretical and experimental tracks (the MEGA is low thrust but very consistent) is exciting indeed.
You said MEGA produces consistent thrust among experiments. I am curious to take a look. Which experiment is the most detailed with photos and descriptions? Would you suggest one? Thank you!
-
#1293
by
RERT
on 07 Sep, 2017 19:14
-
Dr. Rodal - As flyby asked a few posts back, most of us will need a summary of what the Montillet paper concludes a propos the EM drive.
I having read the text of the section relevant to the frustrum, it appears to be saying that the fluctuations in energy density within the conducting 'skin' of the copper are suitable to make the device a MET. Is that a reasonable one sentence summary?
-
#1294
by
Rodal
on 07 Sep, 2017 19:20
-
Dr. Rodal - As flyby asked a few posts back, most of us will need a summary of what the Montillet paper concludes a propos the EM drive.
I having read the text of the section relevant to the frustrum, it appears to be saying that the fluctuations in energy density within the conducting 'skin' of the copper are suitable to make the device a MET. Is that a reasonable one sentence summary?
That's a short summary of Montillet's theory. Observe that Montillet distinguishes the Lorentz force from the triggering of the effect due to fluctuation of the energy density within the conducting 'skin' of the copper.
-
#1295
by
TheTraveller
on 07 Sep, 2017 20:28
-
My thoughts on Roger's list are:
1) a quality Cu thruster build should show, at room temperature, a Q loaded of at least 50,000,
2) the coupler location & design should deliver an impedance match with the Rf amp and a coupler coefficient very close to 1,
3) both end plates should allow alignment so they are orthogonal to the axis of the cavity and are parallel with each other,
4) surface polish and smoothness should be to professional astronomical standards, with no pits nor scratches,
5) small end diameter should not be cut off, using standard microwave cutoff equations for a circular waveguide,
6) dielectrics should be avoided as they reduce Q and Force as proven by EW experimental data,
7) end plates should be spherical and have a common radius from the vertex of the frustum side walls,
8) interior surface must be protected from oxidation.
This is what is required to obtain specific force values of 300-500mN/kW. Cavities of lesser quality will produce lower values of specific thrust.
-
#1296
by
rq3
on 07 Sep, 2017 22:16
-
My thoughts on Roger's list are:
1) a quality Cu thruster build should show, at room temperature, a Q loaded of at least 50,000,
2) the coupler location & design should deliver an impedance match with the Rf amp and a coupler coefficient very close to 1,
3) both end plates should allow alignment so they are orthogonal to the axis of the cavity and are parallel with each other,
4) surface polish and smoothness should be to professional astronomical standards, with no pits nor scratches,
5) small end diameter should not be cut off, using standard microwave cutoff equations for a circular waveguide,
6) dielectrics should be avoided as they reduce Q and Force as proven by EW experimental data,
7) end plates should be spherical and have a common radius from the vertex of the frustum side walls,
interior surface must be protected from oxidation.
This is what is required to obtain specific force values of 300-500mN/kW. Cavities of lesser quality will produce lower values of specific thrust.
So, if I follow this "recipe", you guarantee I'll see 300-500 mN/kW force values? Any other thoughts? I can easily fabricate a frustum to "surface polish and smoothness should be to professional astronomical standards, with no pits nor scratches",
if 1/10 wave of HeNe laser is good enough? If that isn't good enough, please define "professional astronomical standards".
I can easily provide sub-micron gold flash to ensure "interior surface must be protected from oxidation". Or will this interfere with the "recipe"?
I have access to fully I/Q programmable signal sources, so is there any particular modulation format you'd like to see? I'm fully qualified to write the code for any modulation required. FM, AM, phase, pulsed? All together at the same time? In sequence? Any particular order? I can provide up to 10 KW of microwave drive from the source after TWT amplification.
I also have access to a vacuum chamber capable of taking a Volkswagon Beetle down to 3x10-9 Torr, and am fully qualified to ensure that the Beetle is vacuum qualified as regards materials. Anything else you need?
I'm afraid I won't be using particle board shelving and nylon fishing line to build the torsion balance, since neither are particularly good vacuum materials, but at 300 mN I don't anticipate any issues with whipping up a space qualified force measurement device with donations from my friends in the industrial world.
All I need from you is emphatic proof of the claims you have been making, and I'll light off my build this week end!
-
#1297
by
Bob Woods
on 07 Sep, 2017 22:55
-
I also have access to a vacuum chamber capable of taking a Volkswagon Beetle down to 3x10-9 Torr, and am fully qualified to ensure that the Beetle is vacuum qualified as regards materials. Anything else you need?
I'm afraid you're too late....
-
#1298
by
ThinkerX
on 08 Sep, 2017 00:52
-
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?
It is another step on the road to develop a formal theoretical model but as in everything physical, the ultimate word as to whether it is an experimental artifact from "Roger" or something that can be useful lies with experiments and the ability to replicate them:
1) Monomorphic reporting at NSF: he has set a deadline by the end of this October 2017, in preparation for a formal presentation of his work at a workshop early November 2017.
2) Prof. Tajmar's group at TU Dresden: they have been working all this year on a new torsional pendulum instrument that promises to be more accurate than his previous instruments. Eliminating electromagnetic Lorentz-type interactions, they even removed the old floor and constructed a large isolated concrete block that is the new foundation for their vacuum chamber. He also has procured major funding for a Ph.D. student.
3) Mike McDonald's group at the USNAVY:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf
It appears that all four of them (including Montillet) will be reporting at the same workshop, Nov. 2017.
I must have missed something.
Is this a another Estes Workshop or something else?
Topics to be covered?
-
#1299
by
RonM
on 08 Sep, 2017 02:16
-
4) surface polish and smoothness should be to professional astronomical standards, with no pits nor scratches,
Maybe I'm missing something here from the world of waveguides, but why does the surface have to be smooth enough for professional optics when the EM drive uses microwaves?
interior surface must be protected from oxidation.