-
#2120 by Mulletron on 12 Oct, 2017 12:54
-
This seems like a pretty big deal. This is a screenshot from the paper we briefly discussed about atomic friction.
-
#2121 by M.LeBel on 12 Oct, 2017 14:22
-
Natural Metaphysics for Dummies
(for entertainment purposes only)
But also, on a more serious level - those Vacuum Fluctuations are real - they're not some mere accounting error - they're as real as anything in our universe. Not only can they be interacted with, but interaction with them is the whole reason our universe even exists. They are responsible for all the quantum phenomena that characterize our universe.
Each individual Vacuum Fluctuation may seem tiny and insignificant - they're measured on the Planck scale after all - but together they add up to a lot. The frustrum resonant cavity doesn't interact with all the Vacuum Fluctuations spanning across the entire universe - the frustrum and its applied field are interacting only with just the fluctuations occurring inside the space of the cavity. But together, all those Vacuum Fluctuations inside the cavity are something to push off of.
So far we've been used to just pushing off of other matter. You push off the ground when you jump, you push off the water when you swim - and rocket is pushing off its own onboard mass expelled by it to move forward. But now pushing off all those tiny Vacuum Fluctuations is the name of the game.
The tiny subatomic particles - electrons, protons, neutrons, etc - are all small enough to manifestly interact with those Vacuum Fluctuations. They do it all the time, and that's what makes these particles behave the way they do - even photons. Interaction with the Vacuum Fluctuations is even what makes Tunneling possible.
But now the trick is to make macroscopic objects, like the frustrum, interact with a whole bunch of Vacuum Fluctuations and effectively push off them. The field produced inside the resonant cavity is the mediator or intermediary by which the frustrum can push off the Vacuum Fluctuations.
While the optimal geometry is still under investigation, is there a consensus on what the optimal material composition of the resonant cavity should be? People are working in copper as the material of convenience, but I've read that if a resonant cavity could be constructed from superconducting materials, it would have an idealized Q far higher than that of copper, which would maximize internal reflection while minimizing losses.
I was also imagining that the larger the resonant cavity, then the more Vacuum Fluctuations in the interior could be pushed off of. Likewise, the bigger the fields inside the resonant cavity, then the bigger the push would be. An hypothetical interstellar spaceship using EMdrive propulsion would then benefit from having a huge frustrum/bell with intense fields inside, to push it through the cosmos. That huge frustrum/bell would have to be engineered to wavelength-precision.
Why the quote, just to add “..on a more serious level..” followed by gibberish? When the defense lawyer draws your attention away from B and toward A, you can be sure his interest or weakness in under B. The talmudic bargaining technique and the ego challenge has been overused by your team.
This is one of many global brainstorming operations. Many teams compete and fight over for the milking of this thread. You have aerospace industry interests, Israeli interests, Russian interests, Chinese interests etc. Everyone’s problem is hiding his interest, not showing his hand. It is not perfect, but it is the closest thing we have to a plain field; all sitting at the same table ... but still fighting.
Work together, for the benefit of all, or face the consequences.
-
#2122 by sanman on 12 Oct, 2017 16:23
-
Anyway, if nobody minds me asking once again - why is the Little End more important? Why is it better to have the EM or energy concentrated closer to the Little End? What's the physical significance of that?
-
#2123 by Kenjee on 12 Oct, 2017 16:40
-
On the fist pic I was trying to squash bell`s small end.
On second pic is one of the bell shapes but with different mode.
-
#2124 by Mulletron on 12 Oct, 2017 16:40
-
Anyway, if nobody minds me asking once again - why is the Little End more important? Why is it better to have the EM or energy concentrated closer to the Little End? What's the physical significance of that?
It's not. Some modes apparently make the drive thrust in reverse. That is somewhere in the earlier threads. Yes the small end has less surface area than the larger end, but you have to take into consideration how each resonant mode's energy density at the highest point is in proximity to the metal. I think it's the losses that are important.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1331686#msg1331686 -
#2125 by Bob012345 on 12 Oct, 2017 17:39
-
Thanks but I prefer to say that I don't agree with your statement and a more fair statement is that I have looked at it and I don't buy that interpretation. But I'm not claiming to be the worlds expert on the subject. It's been a few years since grad school. I think that interpretation is funny because it directly suggests vacuum energy 'props up' all atoms continuously while the author and those who are of that view generally are adamant that vacuum energy cannot be exploited for energy. I agree because I'm skeptical of vacuum energy and am less enthusiastic of EMDrive theories that resort to it.
See attached. This is virtually identical to the SED results by Puthoff.
Garett Moddel proposed an energy technology based on this concept, that the quantum vacuum supports the electron stability as explained here;
http://ecee.colorado.edu/~moddel/QEL/ZPE.html
http://ecee.colorado.edu/~moddel/QEL/Papers/DmitriyevaModdel12.pdf
Experiments showed nothing conclusive.
Just because one can 'model' a real effect with assumed vacuum fluctuations is not proof the vacuum really acts like the model. If it was so clear, Moddel's idea should easily work. -
#2126 by Monomorphic on 12 Oct, 2017 18:19
-
Looks like having an adjustable end-plate is definitely an advantage. -38.4dB return loss after adjusting all four of the knobs shown for a bit. This is better than I could achieve with the end-plates bolted directly to the side-walls. This is very close, yet better than the -37.1dB return loss for the flat end_plates made of polished 1mm solid copper.
I also converted the 16.5V 10Ah lipo battery into a 12.6V 10Ah battery. This should allow me to more than double the capacity of the current 12.6V 4Ah lipo.
-
#2127 by meberbs on 12 Oct, 2017 20:05
-
It is entirely unclear what you expect him to say. He is producing simulations showing the field strength and energy density for carious modes in various shapes. These will almost certainly be relevant to how the emDrive works if it is ever found that the emDrive works. Most proposed theories however do not even try to figure out what field patterns are the most useful. If the emDrive does not work they are just pretty pictures showing the patterns that can exist in nature.On the fist pic I was trying to squash bell`s small end.
On second pic is one of the bell shapes but with different mode.
Very nice looking plots but please include a short explanation of the significance of what you are showing so we all know what point you are making. Thanks.
Thanx, of course I`ll try to explain. You see, we have this rainbow elastic balls that are in some volume. I`m trying to maximally strech them at one end and squash them at the other end. I think that significance of this is in fact that if something is elastic it needs to be streched or squashed. I know I would, if I was elastic.
I hope it was helpful.
Here is another shape for you.
I asked a sincere question and would like a sincere answer. Why is that too much to ask? -
#2128 by Kenjee on 12 Oct, 2017 20:51
-
Same for Bell
Thank you, thank you, thank you !
Sorry for begging you some more, but... if/when you'll have some time, could you redo the calculations/drawings for the bell but reversing the bottom curve (pointing inside) ? See, I was looking at the pic shown here http://vixra.org/pdf/1706.0283v1.pdf (fig 3.2, page 11) and I wonder how reversing the bottom curve affects the distribution of fields; maybe it's a crazy line of thought (again, as I already wrote, this isn't my "cup of coffee") but I'm curious to see what happens if we shape the cavity to attempt maximizing reflections from the bottom (larger) pane toward the side walls and, at the same time, maximize the reflections from the top (smaller) pane toward the larger pane (minimizing the ones going to side walls)
I think that you were looking for this. Sorry for delay.
Bell with inversed big end.
-
#2129 by sghill on 12 Oct, 2017 22:44
-
I believe I can say that a single clear note targeted properly in the chamber by the geometry of the chamber will result in a more powerful effect than many points of high energy density.
So my question for Kenjee is can you further play with the geometry to clean up the note and eliminate the remaining harmonics?
Woah! Thanks Kenjee!!!!
Look at that energy density when you tuned out the harmonics! You nearly tripled it!!!
A little more tuning and you're there! For this shape and frequency. Play with the bottom plate curve to focus the harmonics up into the center of the energy density.
Please also try two more shapes. If you position two parabolic arcs like a football you should get one very dense area in the center. If you have two catenary arcs in the same direction, but one longer than the other (like a smiley face) you should get a less dense effect, but nicely offset from the center if you shape it right, which may be better for creating thrust (assuming there is a connection).
If conversations on this thread are to be believed, you want the energy density as focused as possible, but offset from the center of the chamber.
-
#2130 by spupeng7 on 13 Oct, 2017 00:54
-
My neighbor Wei is translating some of the Chinese papers that have already been linked here. While discussing them over tea yesterday afternoon he discovered an article aparently from the China National Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation detailing some of Dr Chen Yue's work which they fund. Chen is an RF engineer who completed his PhD in 2008.
Chen claims that his 80W flat cylindrical emengine, with concentric walls inside one end and co-ax signal induction half way up the cylinder section, produces 0.124mN (about 1.5mN/kW) of thrust. Wei tells me the article says that Chen has constructed several devices and that one of them is currently under test in orbit aboard the Dong Fang Hong #5 satellite, if that makes sense.
In closing Chen lists its advantages over total loss propellant thrusters. He says the emengine is too big and that its thrust is too small but that it can be improved (presumably for output) and made more efficient. He has a team working on the control system design and he is going ahead with this work despite the lack of theoretical cover because to wait would be to lose the opportunity. Lastly he mentions that Cannae P/L plans to launch a test aboard a 6U satellite in 2018.
Hoping that this is an accurate translation as we muddled through it. I will post the translations of the reports already linked here, as they become available.
-
#2131 by Rodal on 13 Oct, 2017 01:05
-
...
I would appreciate it if you could also post the originals in Chinese or the links again (particularly for the one you say they write that the experiment is already in space). Thanks.
Hoping that this is an accurate translation as we muddled through it. I will post the translations of the reports already linked here, as they become available. -
#2132 by sanman on 13 Oct, 2017 01:48
-
It's not. Some modes apparently make the drive thrust in reverse. That is somewhere in the earlier threads. Yes the small end has less surface area than the larger end, but you have to take into consideration how each resonant mode's energy density at the highest point is in proximity to the metal. I think it's the losses that are important.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1331686#msg1331686
Hi, thanks for this. So some modes are reversing the thrust, even though the geometry of the cavity is unchanged.
As sghill said on the previous page, does the sharpness/definition of the energy density zone matter? I associate sharpness/definition with local sharper gradient.
Analogy: you know how some of these nuclear fusion experiments use a very short pulse of power that qualifies as some ridiculously high wattage? A moderate amount of energy crammed into an extremely short timespan then amounts to extremely high power.
Likewise, I'm imagining that a moderate amount of energy in the frustrum, if made into an extremely sharply defined shape, could likewise have a very high local gradient around its borders. That very high local gradient could result in a "bump-dip"(crest-trough waveform, like in AlcubierreDrive pic I posted) which would "jumpstart" or "bootstrap" the motion of the frustrum.
You guys were saying that the exponential/Euler curvature of the bell shape could reduce jerk. It seems to me that you want jerk - but only in one direction - which is what that exponential/Euler/bell curvature helps to accomplish by suppressing it in the other direction. Jerk is what would bootstrap/jumpstart the motion. How to create that strong unidirectional Jerk?
One thing I was imagining was that higher frequencies of light (ie. higher than microwaves) would act as sharper waveforms to create sharper local gradients. But then there's the problem of engineering the frustrum to the precision/quality necessary to accommodate those shorter wavelengths and reflect them efficiently.
Another thing I was imagining was something I commented about in another thread: Squeezed Light
Could squeezed pulses of light (even microwave light) also be useful in creating sharper local gradients to help provide jerk? -
#2133 by sanman on 13 Oct, 2017 02:07
-
I believe I can say that a single clear note targeted properly in the chamber by the geometry of the chamber will result in a more powerful effect than many points of high energy density.
So my question for Kenjee is can you further play with the geometry to clean up the note and eliminate the remaining harmonics?
Woah! Thanks Kenjee!!!!
Look at that energy density when you tuned out the harmonics! You nearly tripled it!!!
A little more tuning and you're there! For this shape and frequency....
Please try two more shapes. If you position two parabolic arcs like a football you should get one very dense area in the center. If you have two arcs in the same direction, but one longer than the other (like a smiley face) you should get a less dense effect, but offset from the center if you shape it right.
If conversations on this thread are to be believed, you want the energy density as focused as possible, but offset from the center of the chamber.
Ah, great post, man - I was so busy typing, I didn't see it.
Is it purely the energy density magnitude that matters? What about the sharpness of that energy density zone? Any comments on that? -
#2134 by WarpTech on 13 Oct, 2017 02:11
-
Thanks but I prefer to say that I don't agree with your statement and a more fair statement is that I have looked at it and I don't buy that interpretation. But I'm not claiming to be the worlds expert on the subject. It's been a few years since grad school. I think that interpretation is funny because it directly suggests vacuum energy 'props up' all atoms continuously while the author and those who are of that view generally are adamant that vacuum energy cannot be exploited for energy. I agree because I'm skeptical of vacuum energy and am less enthusiastic of EMDrive theories that resort to it.
See attached. This is virtually identical to the SED results by Puthoff.
Garett Moddel proposed an energy technology based on this concept, that the quantum vacuum supports the electron stability as explained here;
http://ecee.colorado.edu/~moddel/QEL/ZPE.html
http://ecee.colorado.edu/~moddel/QEL/Papers/DmitriyevaModdel12.pdf
Experiments showed nothing conclusive.
Just because one can 'model' a real effect with assumed vacuum fluctuations is not proof the vacuum really acts like the model. If it was so clear, Moddel's idea should easily work.
I suggest watching the first 5 minutes or so, of Dr. Fearn's video presentation from last year's Estes Park BPW. She does a very good job of explaining why Moddel's idea won't work, but in the context of an excited atom between two mirrors.
Seriously, the ZPF is just that. It is the limit of the field mode energy at zero "Temperature". If you want to extract energy from a heat source, you need a temperature difference. Why play in the mud around the zero point, when there are plenty of much hotter, inexhaustible heat sources available, such as Geothermal and Concentrated Solar energy. It's the same principle, just done at practical temperature differences that can be exploited cost effectively.
-
#2135 by sanman on 13 Oct, 2017 03:24
-
Gentlemen,
Is it possible that a bell cavity which is wider and squatter (ie. lower aspect ratio) would produce a zone of energy-density that is more lenticular/pancake shaped, and more proximately aligned with the Small End?
Wouldn't such an energy-dense zonal shape be more suited for the desired flux?
-
#2136 by PotomacNeuron on 13 Oct, 2017 12:48
-
My neighbor Wei is translating some of the Chinese papers that have already been linked here. While discussing them over tea yesterday afternoon he discovered an article aparently from the China National Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation detailing some of Dr Chen Yue's work which they fund. Chen is an RF engineer who completed his PhD in 2008.
Chen claims that his 80W flat cylindrical emengine, with concentric walls inside one end and co-ax signal induction half way up the cylinder section, produces 0.124mN (about 1.5mN/kW) of thrust. Wei tells me the article says that Chen has constructed several devices and that one of them is currently under test in orbit aboard the Dong Fang Hong #5 satellite, if that makes sense.
In closing Chen lists its advantages over total loss propellant thrusters. He says the emengine is too big and that its thrust is too small but that it can be improved (presumably for output) and made more efficient. He has a team working on the control system design and he is going ahead with this work despite the lack of theoretical cover because to wait would be to lose the opportunity. Lastly he mentions that Cannae P/L plans to launch a test aboard a 6U satellite in 2018.
Hoping that this is an accurate translation as we muddled through it. I will post the translations of the reports already linked here, as they become available.
Dong Fang Hong #5 is not a satellite; It is a platform (or bare bone or framework) that Chinese future large GEO satellites will be based on. It's predecessor, Dong Fang Hong #4, is what several current Chinese GEO satellites built upon. Some new technologies that will be used in Dong Fang Hong #5 were tested on ShiJian 17 (and on some of its predecessors), which was a GEO and "technology experimental" satellite. I have said several times that Chen Yue's Emdrive was tested on ShiJian 17 and it failed to produce thrust. Chen blamed electrical or mechanical problems. oyzw, a user on this forum, first leaked this failure. -
#2137 by ThatOtherGuy on 13 Oct, 2017 15:00
-
I think that you were looking for this. Sorry for delay.
Bell with inversed big end.
Yes, THANK YOU A LOT, Kenjee !
Now head down to compare these simulations
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1734804#msg1734804
with the "inverted bottom" ones
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1453785;image
thank you again !
-
#2138 by D_Dom on 13 Oct, 2017 15:13
-
Just noticed the term "emengine". Sounds just right to my untrained ear.
...
Chen claims that his 80W flat cylindrical emengine, with concentric walls inside one end and co-ax signal induction half way up the cylinder section, produces 0.124mN (about 1.5mN/kW) of thrust...
In closing Chen lists its advantages over total loss propellant thrusters. He says the emengine is too big and that its thrust is too small but that it can be improved (presumably for output) and made more efficient.
Trying to stay at least caught up in my reading, woefully lacking comprehension. Many thanks to all who contribute -
#2139 by Bob012345 on 13 Oct, 2017 17:22
-
Thanks but I prefer to say that I don't agree with your statement and a more fair statement is that I have looked at it and I don't buy that interpretation. But I'm not claiming to be the worlds expert on the subject. It's been a few years since grad school. I think that interpretation is funny because it directly suggests vacuum energy 'props up' all atoms continuously while the author and those who are of that view generally are adamant that vacuum energy cannot be exploited for energy. I agree because I'm skeptical of vacuum energy and am less enthusiastic of EMDrive theories that resort to it.
See attached. This is virtually identical to the SED results by Puthoff.
Garett Moddel proposed an energy technology based on this concept, that the quantum vacuum supports the electron stability as explained here;
http://ecee.colorado.edu/~moddel/QEL/ZPE.html
http://ecee.colorado.edu/~moddel/QEL/Papers/DmitriyevaModdel12.pdf
Experiments showed nothing conclusive.
Just because one can 'model' a real effect with assumed vacuum fluctuations is not proof the vacuum really acts like the model. If it was so clear, Moddel's idea should easily work.
I suggest watching the first 5 minutes or so, of Dr. Fearn's video presentation from last year's Estes Park BPW. She does a very good job of explaining why Moddel's idea won't work, but in the context of an excited atom between two mirrors.
Seriously, the ZPF is just that. It is the limit of the field mode energy at zero "Temperature". If you want to extract energy from a heat source, you need a temperature difference. Why play in the mud around the zero point, when there are plenty of much hotter, inexhaustible heat sources available, such as Geothermal and Concentrated Solar energy. It's the same principle, just done at practical temperature differences that can be exploited cost effectively.
Please explain then in your view, how you can accept the idea that the ZPF continuously interacts with and actually supports atom stability. If order to do that it would, have to supply the loss by radiation on a continual basis. You can't claim energy cannot be extracted while simultaneously claim it's needed to stop radiative losses in electron orbitals. Electrons in orbitals would have to be less that zero to gain energy. Makes no sense unless the logic is inconsistent. The ZPF is not the source of everything in physics and very likely not the explanation of EMDrive nor is it likely the root cause of gravitation or the Mach effect.
