-
#1580 by Rodal on 14 Sep, 2017 03:09
-
??Does a gravity wave/space-time ripple transfer momentum?
....gravity waves are reciprocating and the momentum they transfer must necessarily sum almost to zero over time, due to their own contra-acting dichotomy. Assuming that this was just assumed but thought I might mention it anyhoo
what?
When I move my leg, I can only rotate it so much, eventually the movement of my leg around the leg joint must average zero over time, yet I can assure you that my leg can give a heck of a kick !
Gravitational waves are powerful enough to kick a black hole together with a star cluster out of its own galaxy, for example.
Gravity waves do carry momentum, including linear momentum. For example emission of linear momentum from 2 coalescing black holes can produce a "kick." See for example papers by Bekenstein The "kick" can be extremely powerful.
As a dramatic demonstration of this, the amplitude of the kick has been estimated as large as 4000 km/s (1.3% of the speed of light, or about 364 times the escape velocity from the Earth) for maximally spinning, equal mass black holes on initially circular orbits , which is fast enough to eject the coalesced black hole completely from its host galaxy.
No summing to zero about over time, when you are kicked out of your own galaxy. This has been verified by elaborate numerical relativity calculations.
The black hole that was kicked out of the galaxy can also carry a star cluster with it !, forming another stellar system.
See: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1690/meta
Kicking a black hole out of a galaxy, carrying a star cluster with it, is an extremely powerful, irreversible, transfer of linear momentum !
See: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/H-12-182.html
-
#1581 by WarpTech on 14 Sep, 2017 17:06
-
Which can also be explained by a number of experimental artifacts that include significant time delays: thermal diffusion through the materials involved (an effect which would also be present in vacuum, governed by the density and thermal conductivity of the materials involved) and thermal convection (not present in high vacuum, and governed by the gas density and thermal conductivity as well as any latent heat of vaporization of liquid, for example humid air) being notorious among them. It has also been discussed that the EM Drive may just be a multipactor artifact, and if so time delays due to random secondary emission velocities and other effects may be involved.Guys,
This experimental data from Jamie, Monomorphic, clearly shows the "stop accelerating or stop moving then stop generating force" operational characterists of EmDrives.
Here the start of acceleration is delayed as Jamie manually adjust his freq gen to obtain resonant lock. Grey area is when Rf was applied to the EmDrive. Any Lorentz force would have been measured during the entire Rf power on time, yet there is no such force measured.
Then once freq lock was obtained, his EmDrive started to generate an accelerative force and it moved forward. Yes it initially needed some very small vibratory external accelerative force to be applied to initiate the EmDrive self sustained and generated internal accelerative force generation.
Finally it stopped accelerating, moving forward, when the continually increasing stored back torque in the torsion wire finally equalled the Emdrive generated forward torque.
When it stopped accelerating, the EmDrive dropped out of what Roger calls Motor mode and stopped producing accelerative force.
Then the back torque stored in the torsion wire drove the EmDrive back to it's pre acceleration start position, even though Rf was still applied.
Phil
I've made no secret of my distress over the unsubstantiated claims of thrust to power ratios, but this is one of the ideas that I think is actually credible; it's one of the most consistent anomalies across EM drive experiments.
So the clarity ofQuoteclearly shows the "stop accelerating
is in the eye of the beholder and willingness to look for other explanations, unless this is verified by other independent means.
Jose,
Rf power was 2 watt so not much cavity heating there.
Need to also answer why, with constant Rf power, the positive displace force apparently completely stopped, disappeared, as observed from the stored torque in the torsion wire driving the total accelerated mass backward, through the pre acceleration displacement and then to a somewhat same negative displacement until Jamie's dampers finslly absorbed and thermalised the stored energy in the torsion wire.
I repeat again, this is the characterists of an EmDrive.
What EW observed, with constant, non accelerating static force is NOT characterist of an EmDrive. It maybe was the characterist of the QV thruster Dr. White tried to build.
What it implies to me supports what I said years ago; there is a transient affect as the cavity is charging. Once it reaches steady state, there is no thrust. -
#1582 by dustinthewind on 14 Sep, 2017 19:27
-
Which can also be explained by a number of experimental artifacts that include significant time delays: thermal diffusion through the materials involved (an effect which would also be present in vacuum, governed by the density and thermal conductivity of the materials involved) and thermal convection (not present in high vacuum, and governed by the gas density and thermal conductivity as well as any latent heat of vaporization of liquid, for example humid air) being notorious among them. It has also been discussed that the EM Drive may just be a multipactor artifact, and if so time delays due to random secondary emission velocities and other effects may be involved.Guys,
This experimental data from Jamie, Monomorphic, clearly shows the "stop accelerating or stop moving then stop generating force" operational characterists of EmDrives.
Here the start of acceleration is delayed as Jamie manually adjust his freq gen to obtain resonant lock. Grey area is when Rf was applied to the EmDrive. Any Lorentz force would have been measured during the entire Rf power on time, yet there is no such force measured.
Then once freq lock was obtained, his EmDrive started to generate an accelerative force and it moved forward. Yes it initially needed some very small vibratory external accelerative force to be applied to initiate the EmDrive self sustained and generated internal accelerative force generation.
Finally it stopped accelerating, moving forward, when the continually increasing stored back torque in the torsion wire finally equalled the Emdrive generated forward torque.
When it stopped accelerating, the EmDrive dropped out of what Roger calls Motor mode and stopped producing accelerative force.
Then the back torque stored in the torsion wire drove the EmDrive back to it's pre acceleration start position, even though Rf was still applied.
Phil
I've made no secret of my distress over the unsubstantiated claims of thrust to power ratios, but this is one of the ideas that I think is actually credible; it's one of the most consistent anomalies across EM drive experiments.
So the clarity ofQuoteclearly shows the "stop accelerating
is in the eye of the beholder and willingness to look for other explanations, unless this is verified by other independent means.
Jose,
Rf power was 2 watt so not much cavity heating there.
Need to also answer why, with constant Rf power, the positive displace force apparently completely stopped, disappeared, as observed from the stored torque in the torsion wire driving the total accelerated mass backward, through the pre acceleration displacement and then to a somewhat same negative displacement until Jamie's dampers finslly absorbed and thermalised the stored energy in the torsion wire.
I repeat again, this is the characterists of an EmDrive.
What EW observed, with constant, non accelerating static force is NOT characterist of an EmDrive. It maybe was the characterist of the QV thruster Dr. White tried to build.
What it implies to me supports what I said years ago; there is a transient affect as the cavity is charging. Once it reaches steady state, there is no thrust.
This reminds me of one of my earlier posts where I responded to mberbs. I paraphrase, that "measuring a force that induces vacuum drift may lead to strange results" or something like that. Can't look it up exactly at the moment. Basically what happens if an object your inducing force on via something that couples/uncouples to the vacuum and the object experiences a force in one direction and the vacuum it exists in is accelerated in the opposite direction.
The object may accelerate but it would be accelerating in an accelerating vacuum. Null force? I don't know, it really seems too good to be true. My hypothesis was well give this object more mass and maybe the vacuum wins out, but I have no idea how this applies to energy conservation.
We do know the earth rotating induces a drift in the vacuum of very small magnitude. Frame dragging. How is it even possible to induce a drift in the vacuum of that magnitude. Still it seems more desirable to me to see some drift induced in the vacuum than the induction of gravity waves. If you can induce your vacuum to carry you along it might be possible to some how circumnavigate the set backs of relativity that keep us from exceeding the speed of light. I.e. not actually traveling at near c in the local vacuum.
-
#1583 by OnlyMe on 14 Sep, 2017 21:26
-
Which can also be explained by a number of experimental artifacts that include significant time delays: thermal diffusion through the materials involved (an effect which would also be present in vacuum, governed by the density and thermal conductivity of the materials involved) and thermal convection (not present in high vacuum, and governed by the gas density and thermal conductivity as well as any latent heat of vaporization of liquid, for example humid air) being notorious among them. It has also been discussed that the EM Drive may just be a multipactor artifact, and if so time delays due to random secondary emission velocities and other effects may be involved.Guys,
This experimental data from Jamie, Monomorphic, clearly shows the "stop accelerating or stop moving then stop generating force" operational characterists of EmDrives.
Here the start of acceleration is delayed as Jamie manually adjust his freq gen to obtain resonant lock. Grey area is when Rf was applied to the EmDrive. Any Lorentz force would have been measured during the entire Rf power on time, yet there is no such force measured.
Then once freq lock was obtained, his EmDrive started to generate an accelerative force and it moved forward. Yes it initially needed some very small vibratory external accelerative force to be applied to initiate the EmDrive self sustained and generated internal accelerative force generation.
Finally it stopped accelerating, moving forward, when the continually increasing stored back torque in the torsion wire finally equalled the Emdrive generated forward torque.
When it stopped accelerating, the EmDrive dropped out of what Roger calls Motor mode and stopped producing accelerative force.
Then the back torque stored in the torsion wire drove the EmDrive back to it's pre acceleration start position, even though Rf was still applied.
Phil
I've made no secret of my distress over the unsubstantiated claims of thrust to power ratios, but this is one of the ideas that I think is actually credible; it's one of the most consistent anomalies across EM drive experiments.
So the clarity ofQuoteclearly shows the "stop accelerating
is in the eye of the beholder and willingness to look for other explanations, unless this is verified by other independent means.
Jose,
Rf power was 2 watt so not much cavity heating there.
Need to also answer why, with constant Rf power, the positive displace force apparently completely stopped, disappeared, as observed from the stored torque in the torsion wire driving the total accelerated mass backward, through the pre acceleration displacement and then to a somewhat same negative displacement until Jamie's dampers finslly absorbed and thermalised the stored energy in the torsion wire.
I repeat again, this is the characterists of an EmDrive.
What EW observed, with constant, non accelerating static force is NOT characterist of an EmDrive. It maybe was the characterist of the QV thruster Dr. White tried to build.
What it implies to me supports what I said years ago; there is a transient affect as the cavity is charging. Once it reaches steady state, there is no thrust.
For this to be entirely accurate, it would seem that you would have to be rejecting the results seen in Shawyer's turntable demonstration as the result of forces other than any associated with a functioning EmDrive. That's OK I guess because Shawyer never released sufficient data or detail to know one way or the other, what was generating the force seen.
I also don't see it as consistent with the operation of an EmDrive, as described by TT.., because even if the drive stops producing thrust as the test rig resistance matches or exceeds the initial drive pulsed thrust, when the torsion device rebounds there should be a portion of the cycle where it actually provides that external acceleration, it is said is necessary for the drive to produce thrust. If power and resonance is maintained the drive should be producing power in a cyclical manner, as the "pendulum" swings so to speak.
If you can develop thrust at all and you could actively monitor and adjust power and resonance, you should be able to maintain the production of thrust for a sustained period of time. Even against a constant load or resistance. That being a difficult task, it might be easier to cycle power through a series of frustums like a pulsed array, but then you would be increasing the mass to force ratio, and so decreasing the available payload mass.
-
#1584 by Mulletron on 14 Sep, 2017 22:30
-
Does a gravity wave/space-time ripple transfer momentum?
Yes, but the issue is not whether it does or does not. The issue is how big it is and whether it would make sense. An electron has mass. The whole Universe has mass. However it does not make sense to say that something that one observes happening in the whole Universe also must similarly happen to an electron. One has to take into account the scale of the phenomenon.
People should compare the extremely small amplitude of the gravitational wave measured from the plunge and coalescence of two big black holes vs. what would be the amplitude of a gravitational field produced by an electromagnetically resonant cavity. It is evident that the gravitational wave from an EM Drive is so extremely small that is nothing compared to the momentum from any other disturbance present in the experimental environment. When people discuss gravitational waves from the EM Drive they just write words: I invite them to make a calculation of its magnitude so that they understand how negligibly small it is. Engineers and scientists use numbers rather than words. At least let's compare orders of magnitudes.
Comparing both would be like comparing the mass of a big black hole to the mass of the EM Drive
mass of black holes involved in recent gravitational wave measurements: 36 and 29 solar masses
3*1031 kg
so comparing the mass of the black holes involved in the recent gravitational wave experiments to the mass of the EM Drive is like comparing the mass of the proton to your mass
or like comparing your mass to the mass of the Sun. Both you and the Sun have mass. The Sun attracts all the planets: it is responsible for us being here. Neither you or I appreciable attract any planets, and we should not make arguments that because the Sun makes the planets go into orbits we should similarly make particles go into orbits around us.
Jose':
For locally derived gravitational effects I concur that E&M generated gravitational effects are extremely small in magnitude. However for globally derived inertial reaction forces that come about from the gravitational interactions of all the mass/energy in the causally connected universe, these E&M driven transient inertial forces can be as large as normal Newtonian reaction forces per Woodward's Mach-Effect conjecture.
Best, Paul M.
I'm liking the discussion of Rodal, Star-Drive, and S.Paulissen. This is a very necessary discussion to be having. Rodal, you're right on all counts and the problem isn't lost on me. That's why I was doing crazy sounding things like trying to figure out how the gravitational equivalent of a ferromagnetic core might work several months ago. I know the gravitational effects from an EMdrive are weak. I want it to be strong. I want to be able to describe why it appears to be stronger than it's supposed to be (as predicted by theory), if I'm going to say with zero uncertainty that a gravitational interaction is behind the anomalous thrust. I understand how stiff spacetime is as described by the 8piG/c4 part of the Einstein field equation. I want things to hover, which would mean that an EMdrive would have to induce more gravity than the entire Earth. That's absurd to even think possible (waving hands around and getting vocal like Walter Lewin lol). I get the problem. Even if I had the ability or resources to successfully deploy such a crazy sounding thing and it worked, it still doesn't answer the question of why? Why is more important. The last thing I want to see is something doing an amazing thing and not understanding why. That drives me crazy. I tend to use thinking in extreme cases, be it the very large or the very small, to help figure out problems. Not black and white thinking, I'm talking about the problem solving tool. I like abstraction and intuition to think about things. That's just how I'm wired as an INTJ. It's a strength and a weakness. In this case, I believe it may be helpful to limit the scale to the very, very small. I choose to limit my scale to that of one electron, and focus on the gravitational interaction of one measly electron, combined with the measly, paltry, infinitesimally insultingly small gravitational effects created by an EMdrive, if there even are any. Now I will go bigger again, while keeping in mind the very small. Can an extremely weak changing gravitational disturbance (that is localized to a very small region and also falls off in amplitude as 1/r) be causally connected to, and able to interact with a much stronger gravitational field (say from the electron, or the Earth and the rest of the universe that falls off as 1/r2), I say it can. How could it not? They occupy the same space, and gravity interacts with itself. If I am able to induce an alternating gravitational field, does it necessarily need to have a wide range of influence? No. It (as in some measurable influence on a gravitational wave detector able to see the wave, which doesn't exist yet anyway) doesn't necessarily have to be having an influence near an EMdrive, or be detectable near an EMdrive, it can be happening inside just the same. 1/r falls off more slowly than 1/r2 anyway.
I definitely think there's something we don't understand about how dynamic systems work in GR (I ultimately want this to be understandable in the full theory), and it must be related to changing energy density and changing energy flux over time. I'm intentionally exposing my ignorance here because the answer may be out there but what did Einstein teach us about such things? What did Einstein teach us about the induction of nonconservative gravitational fields? What does Einstein's coupling coefficient tell us about changes in energy density over time? Nothing I can see, and I'll get to this later. What is special or different (if anything) about a changing energy density that's being accelerated or being jerked? We've seen this before in history. I don't believe these things. I know of them. Remember Tajmar's results that were 20 orders of magnitude greater than what was predicted? Or the Podknetnov debacle? Or the Ning Li story? These are all really controversial stories, and for good reason. I treat them as useful fiction. I use useful fiction as part of my thinking too. I think there's value in finding the grain of truth in things that aren't necessarily even real, by aggregating information in an objective way by cutting out the crap and looking at the objective commonalities. It's easy for me to boil down lots of noise into something useful because of how my brain happens to work. What's really behind all of this craziness that's not predicted by accepted theory and is (rightfully) generally dismissed? There's a mystery to be solved here. There's a problem. What limits does Nature place on the curvature of space besides the ones we know? What are the boundary conditions for a dynamic system?
Now I will get to the "get to this later part" and this is going to be ugly. In order to answer your question Dr. Rodal, first I must be able to find the reason why I cannot offer you an answer in the first place. I have to ask myself, and all of you why is it that it is not possible for a copper can to be able to overcome the stiffness of spacetime? What is it about the equations, that prevents an EMdrive from having any noticeable effects on the curvature of spacetime. Put another way, why isn't EMdrive's behavior not predicted by the equations of General Relativity, which I know are true and tested and proven to describe most of our universe (except for the "dark" stuff and things like EMdrive). I must challenge my assumptions. I must ask difficult questions. I must dare to commit heresy. I'm interested in the oldest assumption, which came from a great thinker hundreds of years ago, who lived in a time where the axioms of physics were very different from today. So I present you with the Einstein field equation. You are all familiar with this, many more so than I. We know now that gravity really has nothing to do with mass at all, it's about energy density (and the other components of the stress energy tensor). The more general concept is energy. Energy is more fundamental than mass, as mass is a property of confined energy.
Of interest is the Einstein constant, which is the coupling coefficient in the above field equation:
Within is Newton's gravitational constant G.
Of particular interest to me is the capital M in the denominator. I have a hunch that this can be generalized further to take into account time dependent systems where energy density and energy flux changes over time. I'm uncertain if G is applicable in systems where velocities are high with respect to c too. I think this M is a problem. I don't think this is general enough. I want to explore this and figure out why and what it all means. I think it's important to eradicate the use of the word "mass" wherever possible, with the understanding that the concept of mass is useful, and incorporating the idea of mass into our equations is useful and does make accurate predictions in the Newtonian limit, the idea of mass assumes a time independent invariant, which is true for matter, but it's not true for all systems. So this is where I've gone, and I honestly don't feel very good about what I'm thinking about yet, and it may not survive my own scrutiny or of others, but I will explore this and I invite other brave thinkers to do so. I've identified a problem in my own mind and not yet a solution because I'm unsure as if yet I'm asking the right questions. If I'm off the rails right now, which I may very well be, what happened?
Paul, I think it's a mistake to take it as a given, or an axiom that inertia is Machian in origin. I don't wholly discount the idea however. Can you tell us more about what you presented in that slide or have some links to more about that? -
#1585 by TheTraveller on 14 Sep, 2017 22:41
-
What it implies to me supports what I said years ago; there is a transient affect as the cavity is charging. Once it reaches steady state, there is no thrust.
Hi WT,
Cavity charge time is 5x cavity TC being TC = Q / 2 Pi Freq.
For a 2.45GHz 50k Q the cavity fill time is 162usec.
For Jamie's 5k cavity that reduces to 16.2usec.
Don't see how Jamie's result relates to a 16.2usec cavity fill time. -
#1586 by demofsky on 15 Sep, 2017 04:57
-
What it implies to me supports what I said years ago; there is a transient affect as the cavity is charging. Once it reaches steady state, there is no thrust.
Hi WT,
Cavity charge time is 5x cavity TC being TC = Q / 2 Pi Freq.
For a 2.45GHz 50k Q the cavity fill time is 162usec.
For Jamie's 5k cavity that reduces to 16.2usec.
Don't see how Jamie's result relates to a 16.2usec cavity fill time.
WarpTech is there something else you have in mind when you say "cavity charging"? -
#1587 by spupeng7 on 15 Sep, 2017 05:57
-
Doc,
??Does a gravity wave/space-time ripple transfer momentum?
....gravity waves are reciprocating and the momentum they transfer must necessarily sum almost to zero over time, due to their own contra-acting dichotomy. Assuming that this was just assumed but thought I might mention it anyhoo
what?
(...)
I was not disputing anything you have said about gravity waves, just adding the obvious observation that their net influence upon very distant objects must necessarily be smaller than the purely gravitational influence of the binary systems producing them.
And while we are on the subject, would it not be logical within GR that a heavy enough black hole would accelerate relative to its home galaxy, as a consequence of the dilation of time caused by the agglomeration of its mass? Assuming that it has some velocity relative to its galaxy to start with. -
#1588 by Propylox on 15 Sep, 2017 08:37
-
Does a gravity wave/space-time ripple transfer momentum?
"Gravity wave" is a misnomer so it's nice you mentioned "space-time ripple", an accurate description. According to current theories, gravity is instantaneous - if the Sun blinked out of existence we'd fly off our orbit immediately while light continued shining for ~8min. But a sudden change in localized mass, and the distortion of spacetime it creates, would propagate at a defined rate. This distortion wave does not transfer momentum, but temporarily effects the distance between objects as it passes them, sometimes enough to draw objects (black holes) together in the same way ripples in a marina can cause boats to harmonize and be drawn together.So are you endorsing Shawyer's "theory" here? Because he is the only one who claims the emDrive doesn't need new physics. The countless problems with Shawyer's claims have been thoroughly discussed here.
No, I'm saying no new science or violation of existing science is needed to describe the observations. (Didn't I say that?) There's plenty of theories about what's happening, not just Shawyer's, from dismissal to explanation to claims of new science or heresy. I mentioned it's half-century old science in a new wrapper. Specifically, my money's on it being an exceedingly inefficient electron gun. Bob makes a good argument along similar lines which I've quoted below.
As to the merits of the so-called EM Drive; Groundbreaking stuff [/sarcasm] that designers of in-space transmitters should be aware of to avoid unwanted thrust, but really nothing but a parlor trick for the uneducated with zero practical, use - just like maglev trains or a Jacob's ladder.I keep thinking about bosons as being force carriers and the resonant electromagnetic fields being created within the frustum. And as someone who forgot most of what I learned almost 50 years ago I know I'm woefully ignorant.
If bosons are electromagnetic "ghosts" that can induce particles to suddenly pop into material existence with mass, and which then disappear again back to an electromagnetic state, then the appearance of mass would move space-time ever slightly (telling it how to curve) thereby transferring momentum. It seems intuitive that the transfer of momentum from a created inertial mass might also be what causes the very tiny mass to dissipate and return to electromagnetism.
Any fleeting particle created that has true mass is unlike a photon. As a result productions of bosons might be a mechanism for creating momentum from transient mass that would exceed the proverbial photon rocket, wouldn't it?
If bosons/particles were produced, it would seem intuitive that it would occur in the regions of the highest energy density, nominally the small end in most of the meep runs shown here. Again, if bosons/particles occur, might their generated infinitesimal momentum transfer also potentially help push the injected energy towards the large end, creating the imbalance that might account for the thrust. If that thrust does exist. -
#1589 by wavelet on 15 Sep, 2017 08:47
-
It is indeed possible that the dielectric inside the em cavity may emit massive gravitons (a kind of gravitational wave):
http://www.tsijournals.com/articles/directions-for-gravitational--wave-propulsion.pdf
Obviously these gravitons can escape the cavity and provide propulsion.
What's the problem?
-
#1590 by TheTraveller on 15 Sep, 2017 09:04
-
It is indeed possible that the dielectric inside the em cavity may emit massive gravitons (a kind of gravitational wave):
http://www.tsijournals.com/articles/directions-for-gravitational--wave-propulsion.pdf
Obviously these gravitons can escape the cavity and provide propulsion.
What's the problem?
WL,
EW data measured:
1.2mN/kW with small end dielectric
3.9mN/kW with NO dielectric
Over 3 times higher specific force was measured without dielectrics inside the cavity. Does that data negate gravitons being involved?
-
#1591 by wavelet on 15 Sep, 2017 09:24
-
Vacuum, air, etc are dielectrics.
The recipe seems to be:
1) "accelerated masses" or equivalent "energy densities" E=mc^2 to generate gravitational waves.
higher dielectric constants will produce higher stress
2) Energy density to give mass to the gravitons. Adding a DC field to the em waves would be interesting.
3) Asymmetry to provide direction.
4) High Q to amplify the fields. If an added dielectric reduces the Q it may not be beneficial...
5) The theoretical directions provided by the above paper.
It is indeed possible that the dielectric inside the em cavity may emit massive gravitons (a kind of gravitational wave):
http://www.tsijournals.com/articles/directions-for-gravitational--wave-propulsion.pdf
Obviously these gravitons can escape the cavity and provide propulsion.
What's the problem?
WL,
EW data measured:
1.2mN/kW with small end dielectric
3.9mN/kW with NO dielectric
Over 3 times higher specific force was measured without dielectrics inside the cavity. Does that data negate gravitons being involved? -
#1592 by TheTraveller on 15 Sep, 2017 09:59
-
Vacuum, air, etc are dielectrics.
The recipe seems to be:
1) "accelerated masses" or equivalent "energy densities" E=mc^2 to generate gravitational waves.
higher dielectric constants will produce higher stress
2) Energy density to give mass to the gravitons. Adding a DC field to the em waves would be interesting.
3) Asymmetry to provide direction.
4) High Q to amplify the fields. If an added dielectric reduces the Q it may not be beneficial...
5) The theoretical directions provided by the above paper.
It is indeed possible that the dielectric inside the em cavity may emit massive gravitons (a kind of gravitational wave):
http://www.tsijournals.com/articles/directions-for-gravitational--wave-propulsion.pdf
Obviously these gravitons can escape the cavity and provide propulsion.
What's the problem?
WL,
EW data measured:
1.2mN/kW with small end dielectric
3.9mN/kW with NO dielectric
Over 3 times higher specific force was measured without dielectrics inside the cavity. Does that data negate gravitons being involved?
WT,
OK, listening.
Feed me the operational characterists you see occuring from that theory. Lets see if they fit observed operational characterists.
1st: no cavity acceleration relative to trapped photons = no self accelerative force is generated.
2nd: Cavity needs small and short time external force in direction small end forward to tigger internal small end forward self accelerating force.
3rd: Once internally generated small end forward accelerative force is generated, it continues until either Rf input is stopped or enough opposite force is applied to stop cavity acceleration, such as can be generated by a torsion wire based test rig. -
#1593 by wavelet on 15 Sep, 2017 10:24
-
For what I can learn from the above paper, those that have running experiments could add a grid inside the cavity and polarize it with the maximum possible DC field before breakdown (now we have resonant radio frequency energy + DC in the cavity). If the effect increases as a function of DC voltage the phenomenon is due to massive gravitons.....
Vacuum, air, etc are dielectrics.
The recipe seems to be:
1) "accelerated masses" or equivalent "energy densities" E=mc^2 to generate gravitational waves.
higher dielectric constants will produce higher stress
2) Energy density to give mass to the gravitons. Adding a DC field to the em waves would be interesting.
3) Asymmetry to provide direction.
4) High Q to amplify the fields. If an added dielectric reduces the Q it may not be beneficial...
5) The theoretical directions provided by the above paper.
It is indeed possible that the dielectric inside the em cavity may emit massive gravitons (a kind of gravitational wave):
http://www.tsijournals.com/articles/directions-for-gravitational--wave-propulsion.pdf
Obviously these gravitons can escape the cavity and provide propulsion.
What's the problem?
WL,
EW data measured:
1.2mN/kW with small end dielectric
3.9mN/kW with NO dielectric
Over 3 times higher specific force was measured without dielectrics inside the cavity. Does that data negate gravitons being involved?
WT,
OK, listening.
Feed me the operational characterists you see occuring from that theory. Lets see if they fit observed operational characterists.
1st to fit is: no cavity acceleration relative to trapped photons = no self accelerative force is generated.
2nd. Cavity needs small and short time external force in direction small end forward to tigger internal small end forward self accelerating force. -
#1594 by TheTraveller on 15 Sep, 2017 11:07
-
For what I can learn from the above paper, those that have running experiments could add a grid inside the cavity and polarize it with the maximum possible DC field before breakdown (now we have resonant radio frequency energy + DC in the cavity). If the effect increases as a function of DC voltage the phenomenon is due to massive gravitons.....
WT,
While some try to say thete is one ring that controls all the others, I see at least 3 ways to do P-P (propellant less propulsion)
1) Shawyer EmDrive
2) Woodward MEGA drive
3) White QV thruster
Which says to me there may be more ways to do P-P.
Winner will be lowest $/N/kW force with highest KE/kWe efficiency.
Of course time will tell who is correct when making suggestions one theory covers all the observed experimental data of all P-P devices.
For sure what I have observed is not covered by MEGA drive or QV thruster theory or any other theory I have read. Which in no way negates experimental data that supports different theory.
Do I know why the EmDrive does what it does? No. However using SPR theory to drive design does seem to work. -
#1595 by flux_capacitor on 15 Sep, 2017 11:32
-
How can this (emphasis mine):
According to current theories, gravity is instantaneous - if the Sun blinked out of existence we'd fly off our orbit immediately while light continued shining for ~8min.
be compatible with:But a sudden change in localized mass, and the distortion of spacetime it creates, would propagate at a defined rate.
as the (almost) circular motion of planets around the Sun is due to spacetime being bent by the presence of our star?
In this thought experiment, if spacetime is still deformed locally around the Earth for several minutes after the disparition of the Sun, why would the Earth "immediately fly off its orbit" despite the gravitational potential making its motion circular has not gone yet? -
#1596 by TheTraveller on 15 Sep, 2017 11:33
-
Guys,
See attached.
Seems we have a SeeShell imposter on EmDrive Reddit making false claims. Jamie has told me neither claim are correct and Michelle has told me this is not her.
I can only suggest some folks will do anything to stop P-P thruster going big time, being accepted and commercially available.
No way do they have any capability to stop the comming propulsion revolution.
Phil
-
#1597 by Rodal on 15 Sep, 2017 13:23
-
Remember 1st post in each thread:Quote
Chris note: Please note all posts need to be useful and worthwhile or they will be removed via moderation. This subject has large interest, with over 5 million thread reads and 900,000 article reads. Most people are reading and not posting, so when you post it is in front of a very large audience.
EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications
-
#1598 by dustinthewind on 15 Sep, 2017 13:31
-
I was thinking time that it takes to induce an equilibrium drift in the vacuum if such a thing were possible. Maybe what I was thinking wasn't exactly what he was thinking.What it implies to me supports what I said years ago; there is a transient affect as the cavity is charging. Once it reaches steady state, there is no thrust.
Hi WT,
Cavity charge time is 5x cavity TC being TC = Q / 2 Pi Freq.
For a 2.45GHz 50k Q the cavity fill time is 162usec.
For Jamie's 5k cavity that reduces to 16.2usec.
Don't see how Jamie's result relates to a 16.2usec cavity fill time.
WarpTech is there something else you have in mind when you say "cavity charging"? -
#1599 by TheTraveller on 15 Sep, 2017 14:07
-
Remember 1st post in each thread:
QuoteChris note: Please note all posts need to be useful and worthwhile or they will be removed via moderation. This subject has large interest, with over 5 million thread reads and 900,000 article reads. Most people are reading and not posting, so when you post it is in front of a very large audience.
EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications
Jose,
It appears there are those that will make knowing false statements to stop any P-P drive tech from being accepted as reality. We both know, as do others, that P-P tech is a reality even if all the theory is not locked down.
So should we do nothing as others expand efforts to discredit what we know is a reality? A reality that will forever change propulsion tech. Giving us the P-P tech to explore and colonise our solar system and nearby star systems that no conventional propulsion system can ever deliver?
Isn't P-P the propulsion tech we have all dreamed of since tbe 1st time we read read our 1st SiFi novel? We all know that no conventional propulsion tech will ever deliver our dreams.
So lets unite and deny those that spin intention lies designed to mislead us that P-P will never be real. Especially as we both and others know P-P tech is very real.
