-
#2140 by WarpTech on 13 Oct, 2017 17:28
-
snip...
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.
I implied that since atoms cannot radiate when confined in a Casimir cavity, that Moddel's experiment was flawed from the get-go. That "method" will not work. IMO, extracting energy from the ZPF is the same as extracting energy from any other temperature difference. There is nothing to be gained by concentrating on the lowest temperature, where the atom is in equilibrium with the vacuum. There is no temperature difference to exploit, therefore nothing to be extracted.
-
#2141 by Bob012345 on 13 Oct, 2017 17:33
-
snip...
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.
I implied that since atoms cannot radiate when confined in a Casimir cavity, that Moddel's experiment was flawed from the get-go. That "method" will not work. IMO, extracting energy from the ZPF is the same as extracting energy from any other temperature difference. There is nothing to be gained by concentrating on the lowest temperature, where the atom is in equilibrium with the vacuum. There is no temperature difference to exploit, therefore nothing to be extracted.
I'm not promoting Moddel's device at all, I'm skeptical of it too. But I'm skeptical of quantum fluctuations being the root of all physics as some suggest. But that's not the point of this thread. Let's move on. Thanks. -
#2142 by tchernik on 13 Oct, 2017 17:40
-
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.
Didn't Kurt's experiment with a cylindrical cavity show negative results? all experiments showing some effect are frustum shaped or asymmetric. Guido Fetta's cavities are asymmetric AFAIK.
That's why I can't understand the rationale behind Chen Yue's cylindrical cavities. The geometry of the cavity may be relevant.
-
#2143 by sghill on 13 Oct, 2017 21:20
-
That's why I can't understand the rationale behind Chen Yue's cylindrical cavities. The geometry of the cavity may be relevant.
It certainly is with any sort of wind instrument.... -
#2144 by spupeng7 on 14 Oct, 2017 00:52
-
Rodal,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 apparently 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.
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.
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.
I have attached a .pdf of the article from a national daily, the other is just the following link as I cannot get my machine to copy the Chinese text.
http://www.sohu.com/a/190651267_349044 see half way down the page.
http://digitalpaper.stdaily.com/http_www.kjrb.com/kjrb/html/2016-12/11/content_357004.htm?div=-1 is the source of the .pdf below.
Hoping I have not led you all astray, jmn..
-
#2145 by spupeng7 on 14 Oct, 2017 01:13
-
tchernik,
(...)
Didn't Kurt's experiment with a cylindrical cavity show negative results? all experiments showing some effect are frustum shaped or asymmetric. Guido Fetta's cavities are asymmetric AFAIK.
That's why I can't understand the rationale behind Chen Yue's cylindrical cavities. The geometry of the cavity may be relevant.
in George Smoot's COBE satellite, the two sensor inlets had deep radial ridges which extended the electrical path of the receptor ground (please forgive my terminology). I think the concentric walls inside one of the flat ends of Chen Yue's cylindrical emengine serve the same purpose, effectively making that end wider without having to have conical walls. This technique is sometimes adopted in RADAR feed horns if memory serves, its main advantage to Chen's emengine being simplicity. -
#2146 by WarpTech on 14 Oct, 2017 02:03
-
snip...
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.
I implied that since atoms cannot radiate when confined in a Casimir cavity, that Moddel's experiment was flawed from the get-go. That "method" will not work. IMO, extracting energy from the ZPF is the same as extracting energy from any other temperature difference. There is nothing to be gained by concentrating on the lowest temperature, where the atom is in equilibrium with the vacuum. There is no temperature difference to exploit, therefore nothing to be extracted.
I'm not promoting Moddel's device at all, I'm skeptical of it too. But I'm skeptical of quantum fluctuations being the root of all physics as some suggest. But that's not the point of this thread. Let's move on. Thanks.
Have you read my paper on Quantum Gravity? It clearly explains how Power fluctuations between matter and the vacuum lead to a gravitational field. Space-time curvature is simply an alternate interpretation of the natural effects, resulting from this QED/SED process.
My paper was published in the Estes Park BPW Proceedings.
http://ssi.org/2016-breakthrough-propulsion-proceedings/
The Mach effects are caused by the time derivative of the Power. So there is an obvious connection between my model of quantum gravity and the Mach effects. There is also asymmetrical power dissipation in the EM Drive, as Mulletron has pointed out as well. The notes I've posted previously;
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1729655#msg1729655
...show how a gradient in the power dissipation will result in an acceleration, and the divergence of this leads to the same Mach effect equation except, it is the vacuum-power field represented by "K" that is fluctuating in opposition to the fluctuating mass. -
#2147 by sanman on 14 Oct, 2017 02:53
-
I'm not promoting Moddel's device at all, I'm skeptical of it too. But I'm skeptical of quantum fluctuations being the root of all physics as some suggest. But that's not the point of this thread. Let's move on. Thanks.
Sorry to dwell, but like WarpTech, I too felt the word "equilibrium" well up in me while reading your discussion.
We know that matter is condensed energy -- E=MC^2 tells us that. We also know that Blackbody Radiation is real. So what keeps any body from radiating itself down to nothing? It's the constant dynamic exchange with the vacuum that it's in equilibrium with. If a body at absolute zero is radiating energy - are we really extracting net energy from that body? No, certainly not - it's just part of the dynamic exchange with the vacuum - the vacuum is giving back what is being radiated out.
So I don't understand why you see some net energy extraction being alleged, when it's not.
Particles have the lifespans they do, because of their disposition relative to the vacuum they're in equilibrium with. -
#2148 by WarpTech on 14 Oct, 2017 03:33
-
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?
Integrate the product of the energy density and the adjacent element of the surface area over the whole inner surface. The NET result will be the force. Is it zero? If the walls are perfectly conducting, it should be. However, since there are asymmetrical non-zero losses in the warm copper, maybe not.
-
#2149 by M.LeBel on 14 Oct, 2017 04:03
-
I was thinking. Since the cavity is not evacuated, those energy density spots will interact with the gas inside. We get convection currents and other effects. Is this not like trying to make a rocket motor inside a can? Should we not work on a “clean” fabric of space-time? -
#2150 by sanman on 14 Oct, 2017 04:16
-
Integrate the product of the energy density and the adjacent element of the surface area over the whole inner surface. The NET result will be the force. Is it zero? If the walls are perfectly conducting, it should be. However, since there are asymmetrical non-zero losses in the warm copper, maybe not.
Alright, but how would that be inherently better than the collimated Photon Rocket? -
#2151 by flux_capacitor on 14 Oct, 2017 09:45
-
IMO – We should not have any standing waves regime; they are self cancellations. We need to develop a stable E field within a variable B field. This way, we should be able to squeeze out a resultant time rate gradient which can escape/envelop the device. In turn, the time rate gradient would impart a stochastic differential to all particles (Croca) of the device and motion.
Here is the “squeezing” rational. A variation of B in dt induces a specific E. If we produce a variation B in a higher E than the specific one, we are then forcing or squeezing the dt into matching the B and E we control. A proper dt gradient would effectively produce a time vector for motion.
In this case why use a microwave cavity? Why not use a powerful electromagnetic coil inducing a variable B-field inside the volume of an asymmetric HV capacitor instrad? Seems the E-field, and especially the B-field, would be much larger.
BTW the same idea applies for Harold White's Q-thruster, which relies on E×B Lorentz force acting upon "real or almost real charged virtual particles". -
#2152 by flux_capacitor on 14 Oct, 2017 10:19
-
But having played trumpet for over 20 years, I know a little about tuning and instrument design. When you make an instrument, you want resonance, but you don't want harmonics. When we look at simulations with multi modes, I say to myself: "That would sound horrible (like a Japanese car horn), you'd have multiple notes robbing each other of the purity and power of one note (like a brass instrument)." To continue the analogy, I don't think it is a stretch to say that multiple points of high energy density are robbing energy from a potential clear single "note". And because other points of discussion are making a connection between the energy density and quality within the resonant chamber with thrust potential, 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.
If these two images were a musical instrument! they would be nearly in tune, exhibiting just a bit of "splatter". The quality could be higher by changing the geometry a little more to achieve a nice single note by eliminating the remaining harmonics. I also notice the energy density is going way up compared to the multi mode simulations.
So my question for Kenjee is can you further play with the geometry to clean up the note and eliminate the remaining harmonics?
My question for others is should he (My analogy may be crap), and if so, where in the chamber should the high energy density be focused for Kenjee to tune the shape? I believe it should be near the top.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).
sghill, according to Kenjee's result after your suggestion, it seems you put your finger on an important analogy with musical instruments. Let's go further. Your idea of catenary curves is an example, I have another.
Remember Juan Yang's design adding parallel (cylindrical) wall extensions on both sides of the truncated conical shape? I think the "bell" could be refined and be shaped like… a real bell, with smoother transitions, taking Yang's idea of cylindrical extension near the wide end. See the cross-section profile below illustrating this idea.
-
#2153 by flux_capacitor on 14 Oct, 2017 10:30
-
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?
You mean, like this shape?
(same as the bell in my previous post, squeezed to 1/3 of original height).
Although you couldn't put any people in such a cavity without frying them with microwaves and disturbing the fields, nor control its direction, this is odd.
EDIT: this shape flatter than the bell may not well focus EM waves near small end, so a second proposal below. Has anyone tested the quality resonance of such shapes?
-
#2154 by sanman on 14 Oct, 2017 12:02
-
Hmm, at least we now have a way to explain why so many UFOs look the way they do
-
#2155 by WarpTech on 14 Oct, 2017 15:17
-
Integrate the product of the energy density and the adjacent element of the surface area over the whole inner surface. The NET result will be the force. Is it zero? If the walls are perfectly conducting, it should be. However, since there are asymmetrical non-zero losses in the warm copper, maybe not.
Alright, but how would that be inherently better than the collimated Photon Rocket?
Because a gravitational acceleration is created which is directly proportional to the time derivative of the power dissipation. -
#2156 by sanman on 14 Oct, 2017 15:55
-
Because a gravitational acceleration is created which is directly proportional to the time derivative of the power dissipation.
So the longer that field takes to dissipate without further power input into the cavity, the more propulsive this thing is? -
#2157 by dustinthewind on 14 Oct, 2017 17:07
-
Integrate the product of the energy density and the adjacent element of the surface area over the whole inner surface. The NET result will be the force. Is it zero? If the walls are perfectly conducting, it should be. However, since there are asymmetrical non-zero losses in the warm copper, maybe not.
Alright, but how would that be inherently better than the collimated Photon Rocket?
Because a gravitational acceleration is created which is directly proportional to the time derivative of the power dissipation.
What exactly is being dissipated. This sounds a lot like saying gravity exists because of increasing entropy or energy disipation via matter.
I am inclined to think that the energy dissipation is with regards to the vacuum energy. That is the vacuum loses energy when acting on matter in free-fall. So energy conservation free falling matter accelerates and gains energy and the vacuum loses energy.
(Not sure how this fits in but when that matter impacts the planet surface it loses its kinetic energy to entropy or thermal aspects much of which can escape the planets surface and travels into the solar system away from the planet. )
However, this energy loss of the vacuum seems permanent while the matter is gathered, (reducing the dance of the matter in equilibrium with it) the more matter is gathered. If energy is given to the matter to allow it to escape the gravity well, the well dissipates, and the matter separated speeds up in time. Almost like the separation of the matter allows the energy to be given back to the vacuum. (Red shift of light escaping a gravity well is light giving some of its energy to the vacuum?)
It seems tempting to view the vacuum in a gravity well as being devoid of energy similar to the Casimir force where plates are attracted via an energy defecit between them. However, this Casimir force is supposed to be different from gravity is it not?
So how does this figure into your power dissipation? Is it power being dissipated from the vacuum, where this extra energy seems to be appearing via propellant-less acceleration? So if we keep harvesting it, creating our own black hole. Basically devoiding the vacuum of its energy? Dissipating the vacuum? -
#2158 by WarpTech on 14 Oct, 2017 19:14
-
Integrate the product of the energy density and the adjacent element of the surface area over the whole inner surface. The NET result will be the force. Is it zero? If the walls are perfectly conducting, it should be. However, since there are asymmetrical non-zero losses in the warm copper, maybe not.
Alright, but how would that be inherently better than the collimated Photon Rocket?
Because a gravitational acceleration is created which is directly proportional to the time derivative of the power dissipation.
What exactly is being dissipated. This sounds a lot like saying gravity exists because of increasing entropy or energy disipation via matter.
I am inclined to think that the energy dissipation is with regards to the vacuum energy. That is the vacuum loses energy when acting on matter in free-fall. So energy conservation free falling matter accelerates and gains energy and the vacuum loses energy.
(Not sure how this fits in but when that matter impacts the planet surface it loses its kinetic energy to entropy or thermal aspects much of which can escape the planets surface and travels into the solar system away from the planet. )
However, this energy loss of the vacuum seems permanent while the matter is gathered, (reducing the dance of the matter in equilibrium with it) the more matter is gathered. If energy is given to the matter to allow it to escape the gravity well, the well dissipates, and the matter separated speeds up in time. Almost like the separation of the matter allows the energy to be given back to the vacuum. (Red shift of light escaping a gravity well is light giving some of its energy to the vacuum?)
It seems tempting to view the vacuum in a gravity well as being devoid of energy similar to the Casimir force where plates are attracted via an energy defecit between them. However, this Casimir force is supposed to be different from gravity is it not?
So how does this figure into your power dissipation? Is it power being dissipated from the vacuum, where this extra energy seems to be appearing via propellant-less acceleration? So if we keep harvesting it, creating our own black hole. Basically devoiding the vacuum of its energy? Dissipating the vacuum?
I've expressed different interpretations over the years. In my EM QV Warp Drive paper, (2015) I wrote:
"It is proposed that gravitational fields may be interpreted as a variation in the relative available driving power (Watts) of the Electromagnetic, Zero-Point Field (ZPF)." -- Which is similar to what you are saying here. There is a loss of power in the ZPF.
However, in my Quantum Gravity paper, (2016) I added:
"It is hypothesized that the loss of power is due to increased radiative damping of matter, resulting from an increase in the local relative energy density which promotes this process."
I added this hypothesis because the ZPF "IS" the minimum energy state of the field. It can't go any lower than that, so a loss of power in the ZPF itself doesn't make sense but, we are not measuring the ZPF itself, we are measuring matter. As in, the length of a ruler and the rate of a clock. My hypothesis is then, that the local energy density enhances stimulated emission of atoms, which lowers the mean-square matter=vacuum equilibrium power.
As Dr. Fearn wrote, if we hypothesize that there is no Radiation Reaction of the atom, and that the effects of RR are due to all the rest of the matter in the Universe. Then, per QED, 1/2 the spontaneous emission probability amplitude is due to stimulated emission by the ZPF and the other 1/2 is due to stimulated emission by the rest of the matter in the Universe. That's where my hypothesis comes in.
Just a reminder, energy is observer dependent. In the frame of a distant observer, outside the gravity well. Energy appears to decrease, not increase, as matter approaches r=Rs. Time stops, so f⇒0, so h*f⇒0. Momentum on the other hand, does increase. Length contracts, so p⇒∞, so h/λ⇒∞. I didn't specify, but my model is "always" in the frame of the distant observer, observing the behavior of "matter", not the field itself.
-
#2159 by WarpTech on 14 Oct, 2017 20:10
-
Because a gravitational acceleration is created which is directly proportional to the time derivative of the power dissipation.
So the longer that field takes to dissipate without further power input into the cavity, the more propulsive this thing is?
No, it's a time derivative (a rate), not an integral. The higher the rate of change in power, the greater the acceleration, and thrust.
