-
#2440 by meberbs on 25 Oct, 2017 02:36
-
Acceleration, as far as the accelerated mass is concerned, always starts from a rest frame. Mass knows no starting velocity.
False. Physics works just fine desribing objects that don't start from rest.What I described is valid from any frame and results in invarient calculations of work done and changed KE. Try it.
Mass = 10 kg
initial velocity = 1 m/s
Force = 20 N
time = 2 s
final velocity = 1+ (20/10)*2 = 5 m/s
initial kinetic energy = 0.5*10*1^2 = 5 J
final kinetic energy = 0.5*10*5^2 = 125 J
work done = 120 J
your equation:
(20^2*2^2)/(2*10) = 80 J
Conclusion: as I stated, your equation does not apply to other frames, as it clearly gives the wrong answer in them and thus cannot be used to demonstrate frame invariance.As I have described to you, during EmDrive acceleration, thrust drops as work is done to accelerate mass.
It appears you still did not read my previous post that explains why this is irrelevant, I'll quote it here for your convenience:EmDrive generated force decreases as acceleration continues. Generated force returns to initial value after acceleration stops and restarts.
And this creates a way to have a very obvious example of overunity. You spend a fixed amount of energy to run the drive for a fixed amount of time and gain a fixed velocity. Then you turn it off and repeat, using using the same amount of energy to get the same amount of delta V. The problem is then that the energy you spend is linearly proportional to the total velocity, but the kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity. Repeat the cycle enough times and you have free energy.EmDrive acceleration is not OU any more than an electrical motor spinning up a mass is OU.
And every time he has done so, he has been wrong, demonstrating that he either does not understand basic physics, or he is a fraud. The turn off and back on counter to the decreasing thrust you described that I explained above is obvious to people who know what they are talking about and nullifies any arguments you provide about thrust decreasing as it runs. It doesn't apply to anything else, because every other type of drive in the universe has something it pushes on which makes the energy balance (power consumption is variable with the velocity relative to what it is pushing on).
Roger has explained this many times, such as in this attachment. -
#2441 by WarpTech on 25 Oct, 2017 03:56
-
The problem the way I see it is that for the Schwarschild metric, the components have a singularity r^(-n). There are no spacetimes that can remove those singularities (the paper above was an effort to deal with the Schwarschild singularity). See p.78 of Choquet-Bruhat "GR and the Einstein Equations" http://bit.ly/2yQenju
In my engineering model; I start with the Lagrangian density for the refractive index as a scalar field. I solve the "radial", time independent equation of motion in spherical polar coordinates. No assumptions required. The value of K that solves the radial equation is;
K(r) = 1/(1 - 2Φ/r);
This solution is identical to the Schwarzschild coefficient, so all the same tests of GR which depend on this, (light bending, lensing, the perihelion of the planet Mercury, Time dilation and Length contraction) are all identical to GR. It is the interpretation of the physical nature of the system that is different.
In my model, the singularity at (r=2Φ), has a clear, unambiguous interpretation as follows:
1. Atoms outside this event horizon, (r>2Φ) are Under-damped oscillators.
2. Atoms at this event horizon, (r=2Φ) are Critically damped oscillators.
3. Atoms below this event horizon, (r<2Φ) are Over-damped oscillators.
The singularity at r=0 is quite frankly, irrelevant for all practical "engineering" purposes.
The model is Machian in that, where Radiation Reaction (RR) is referred to in QED, I simply interpret this effect as being the field derived from all the rest of the matter in the Universe, as described by Dr. Fearn.
The Quantum Vacuum is the EM ZPF + the RR field of the Universe, superimposed upon each other. The ZPF being the ground state, and everything else is an excitation above the ground state.
The ZPF Drives the oscillators to their maximum ground state energy, and the RR field damps them to create the effects of gravity. In flat space-time the two fields are in equilibrium. Gravity is a gradient in this equilibrium due to the proximity of matter, increasing the damping side of the equation.
Since Time Dilation and Length Contraction are physical effects caused by increased damping of the oscillators, the cause must be the same in SR as well. With this interpretation, the FTL paradox of SR goes away. Reciprocity in SR is broken, just as it is in GR and it is all self-consistent. This is where a test could be done of the model. There are currently no experiments of SR that prove Reciprocity.
It's very simple IMO!
-
#2442 by TheTraveller on 25 Oct, 2017 04:49
-
For a drive to accelerate a vehicle in space it needs to either obtain its acceleration from the ejection of propellants, or otherwise it needs to attain such acceleration from an external field.
Or it needs to generate an internal axial force imbalance, producing a dynamic change in the centre of mass, which causes acceleration opposite to the mass change direction. -
#2443 by TheTraveller on 25 Oct, 2017 05:07
-
Acceleration, as far as the accelerated mass is concerned, always starts from a rest frame. Mass knows no starting velocity.
False. Physics works just fine desribing objects that don't start from rest.What I described is valid from any frame and results in invarient calculations of work done and changed KE. Try it.
Mass = 10 kg
initial velocity = 1 m/s
Force = 20 N
time = 2 s
final velocity = 1+ (20/10)*2 = 5 m/s
initial kinetic energy = 0.5*10*1^2 = 5 J
final kinetic energy = 0.5*10*5^2 = 125 J
work done = 120 J
your equation:
(20^2*2^2)/(2*10) = 80 J
Conclusion: as I stated, your equation does not apply to other frames, as it clearly gives the wrong answer in them and thus cannot be used to demonstrate frame invariance.As I have described to you, during EmDrive acceleration, thrust drops as work is done to accelerate mass.
It appears you still did not read my previous post that explains why this is irrelevant, I'll quote it here for your convenience:EmDrive generated force decreases as acceleration continues. Generated force returns to initial value after acceleration stops and restarts.
And this creates a way to have a very obvious example of overunity. You spend a fixed amount of energy to run the drive for a fixed amount of time and gain a fixed velocity. Then you turn it off and repeat, using using the same amount of energy to get the same amount of delta V. The problem is then that the energy you spend is linearly proportional to the total velocity, but the kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity. Repeat the cycle enough times and you have free energy.EmDrive acceleration is not OU any more than an electrical motor spinning up a mass is OU.
And every time he has done so, he has been wrong, demonstrating that he either does not understand basic physics, or he is a fraud. The turn off and back on counter to the decreasing thrust you described that I explained above is obvious to people who know what they are talking about and nullifies any arguments you provide about thrust decreasing as it runs. It doesn't apply to anything else, because every other type of drive in the universe has something it pushes on which makes the energy balance (power consumption is variable with the velocity relative to what it is pushing on).
Roger has explained this many times, such as in this attachment.
Mass knows no velocity as that requires a rest frame from which to measure velocity.
What mass obeys is a = N / m.
In your example dV = 4 m/s & mass = 10 kg. Change in KE = 10 × 4^2 / 2 = 80 J & using work energy equivalence, work done = 80 J.
The 120 J is based not on the mass but on what an observer would incorrectly calculate from his 1m/sec vs the mass frame. Had he calculated the KE change and work done based on the observed dV, then the result would be 80 J and be frame invarient.
Roger's explanation is not incorrect. The same KE export from the stored cavity energy, dropping cavity Q, dropping e field gradient, happens when accelerator cavities accelerate mass via the e field gradient created through the middle of their donut shaped cavity.
QED -
#2444 by ThinkerX on 25 Oct, 2017 05:44
-
Traveler, a while back you posted a list of observations about your own experiments, including two or three you had no explanation for. Does that not imply that the EM Drive theory you are using is, at an absolute minimum, incomplete, and more likely badly flawed? Would it not be better for you to address your efforts towards discovering and properly accounting for this incompleteness/flaw rather than continually asserting without foundation concepts that nobody else here agrees with?
-
#2445 by TheTraveller on 25 Oct, 2017 06:55
-
Traveler, a while back you posted a list of observations about your own experiments, including two or three you had no explanation for. Does that not imply that the EM Drive theory you are using is, at an absolute minimum, incomplete, and more likely badly flawed? Would it not be better for you to address your efforts towards discovering and properly accounting for this incompleteness/flaw rather than continually asserting without foundation concepts that nobody else here agrees with?
Hi ThinkerX,
What is it you disagee with?
You disagee that the change in KE = m * dV^2 / 2 is not frame invarient?
Or do you disagree that the work done to cause the dV is not equal to the change in KE?
Or that the force generated by an EmDrive drops as the cavity Q drops, as the constantly increasing KE drain on stored cavity energy increases cavity energy loss per cycle?
The SPR theory and Roger's expanded explanations, in all his papers, videos & presentations does explain one way the "Shawyer Effect" could work. When you follow all Roger has shared and build a thruster, it works as expected.
What I can't prove is if the SPR theory + explanations is what is producing the force.
You should consider what happens when a resonant cavity accelerates vs the doppler effects that occur at each end. Consider what happens as the leading small end experiences a red shift and the trailing big end experiences a blue shift. -
#2446 by meberbs on 25 Oct, 2017 07:26
-
Mass knows no velocity as that requires a rest frame from which to measure velocity.
What mass obeys is a = N / m.
In your example dV = 4 m/s & mass = 10 kg. Change in KE = 10 × 4^2 / 2 = 80 J & using work energy equivalence, work done = 80 J.
The 120 J is based not on the mass but on what an observer would incorrectly calculate from his 1m/sec vs the mass frame.
You just said that kinetic energy is not equal to 0.5*m*v^2.
This is so fundamentally wrong, there is no point in me writing my own explanation, instead, I'll just point you to a derivation of kinetic energy from the basic definition of work:
https://physics.info/energy-kinetic/Had he calculated the KE change and work done based on the observed dV, then the result would be 80 J and be frame invarient.
Kinetic energy is not frame invariant, it is a function of velocity which is obviously not frame invariant. It is also not a linear function of velocity, so differences in kinetic energy also cannot be frame invariant.Roger's explanation is not incorrect.
Yes it is and I just demonstrated it again.
As ThinkerX pointed out, you yourself even found a major flaw in Shawyer's theory, namely that it predicts the opposite direction of force than what has been observed, and the direction he claims it predicts. (I actually tried to point this out to you a year ago, and you refused to listen to me, I am glad you figured it out eventually though.) -
#2447 by spupeng7 on 25 Oct, 2017 09:12
-
Hi TheTraveller. I think I recall someone or Roger himself saying Roger thinks that before the end of 2017 he expects to have a superconducting Emdrive to demonstrate. If that recollection was right, have you heard any news relating to it?
Hi Mark,
I know Roger is working with Gilo Industries on a wingless and propless drone. Have confirmed with Gilo Cardozo that Roger is working with Gilo Industries. Gilo Industries now owns a controlling shareholding in Universal Propulsion, the JV created by Roger and Gilo. Roger has been working with Gilo Industries since 2015. Plus there is a world patent application on the cryo thruster with Gilo Cardozo as the co-inventor.
So there is movement at the station.
Uh, now I'm wondering how, a document dating back to February 2017 (I mean THIS document) may indicate that as of today there's "movement at the station"
Hi TOG,
What I shared clearly shows there is activity occurring, based on SPR statements and changes in the effective ownership of the Universal Propulsion JV. I mean why would Gilo Industries Group acquire the controlling shares in the JV, if there was not value in doing so?
Likewise why would Gilo Cardozo be listed as the co-inventor on the world patent application?
TT,
I hope you are right that their work is ongoing. My question is, is Gilo the right type of company to maximize the progress made or are they just the only ones with enough courage to give it a try?
Nevil Shute wanted to develop a new aircraft with retractable wheels (then thought to complex to be made functional). He could not find the right one so he started one himself. He was able to do this because it made sense to the bank that it could be a winner if the company was tailored to the job.
Hi Spurpeng,
Roger and Gilo have a similar mindset and don't have an issue with paddling against the current, plus both want to build flying cars.
As I understand it, Gilo approached Roger.
They then formed the Universal Propulsion JV, of which Gilo held 60% of the shares and SPR the other 40%.
Next event was Gilo being listed as the co-inventor on the world patent application.
Next Roger outed his work with Gilo Industries in the Shrivenham Presentation and in an interview with Mary Ann on IBT.
Then Gilo Industries received $40m in investment funds from a Chinese partner.
Next Gilo Industries took control of the Universal Propulsion JV.
Should point out that Gilo Industries CEO is a UAE citizen and resident, who runs a Abu Dhabi royal family investment fund that has more shares in Gilo Industries than do the Chinese.
So we have a major declared Chinese investment in Gilo Industries plus probably some off book investment by the Adu Dhabi royal family, with the company CEO being the guy who runs that fund.
So ask yourself if all this has happened because these 2 major shareholders have an interest in powered hang gliders or small rotary engines?
I suggest this all happened because of Roger's work with Gilo, plus Gilo has brought money to the table to fund the superconducting EmDrive R&D.
Also interesting is the UAE has established a NASA like and better funded space agency tasked with building UAE satellites, sending them to Mars, training UAE astronauts, building a test Mars city in the UAE desert and planing to build a UAE city on Mars. I suggest there is a place for a 1g EmDrive propelled UAE built space ship in those plans.
Thanks TT
-
#2448 by Rodal on 25 Oct, 2017 13:24
-
...
Nowadays, the consensus is that the behavior at Schwarzschild radius is not a true mathematical singularity. The only true singularity is at r=0.
In my model, the singularity at (r=2Φ), has a clear, unambiguous interpretation as follows:
1. Atoms outside this event horizon, (r>2Φ) are Under-damped oscillators.
2. Atoms at this event horizon, (r=2Φ) are Critically damped oscillators.
3. Atoms below this event horizon, (r<2Φ) are Over-damped oscillators.
...
Apparently your model still has the singularity at r=0?...
By being irrelevant you must mean for r>>0 that at far enough radial distance "r" from r=0 it doesn't matter. Certainly irrelevant for r> Schwarzschild radius. But the singularity at r=0 made all these singular vacuum solutions suspect in the eyes of Einstein and several other scientists that considered them therefore to be non-physical. They considered them to approximate some true solution for a matter source. Vacuum solutions that show curvature of spacetime without the presence of any matter, as the solution you present were quite disturbing to Einstein, and he explained them away as being intrinsically unphysical. It was thought then that the existence of spacetime curvature without any matter was an artifact of the singularity. Something not real, because singularities are not physical.
The singularity at r=0 is quite frankly, irrelevant for all practical "engineering" purposes.
...
So Einstein and many other scientists construed the Schwarzschild singularity as hiding a true mass.
In that interpretation, although you may validly think that the singularity does not matter for "engineering" purposes, many physicists interpreted the Schwarzschild singularity as hiding a true mass, and thus explaining why it was not "physically" a vacuum solution.
When people considered the Schwarzschild solution they considered that there was a true mass there responsible for the singularity. Yes it is a vacuum solution because T=0, but it is a vacuum solution with a singularity, and the singularity has been interpreted as hiding a mass, so the curvature is really due to a non-zero T. So went the explanation.
The final blow was in 1962, seven years after Einstein had died, that Ozsváth and Schücking published their anti-Machian metric solution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozsv%C3%A1th%E2%80%93Sch%C3%BCcking_metric . The first known solution to Einstein's General RelativityQuotethat is stationary, globally defined, and singularity-free but nevertheless not isometric to the Minkowski metric. This stands in contradiction to a claimed strong Mach principle, which would forbid a vacuum solution from being anything but Minkowski without singularities, where the singularities are to be construed as mass as in the Schwarzschild metric.
This was the death blow to any pretension that Einstein's General Relativity necessarily implied Mach's principle (it doesn't).
Earlier on (1949) Goedel had presented to Einstein for his 70th birthday a birthday present he hated: an anti-Machian solution to GR of a rotating Universe. Although this was anti-Machian, it was explained away for a short while with several arguments as to why the Universe could not be rotating (including closed time-loops).
So it is clear now that Einstein's General Relativity admits both Machian solutions (Friedman-Robertson-Walker) and very anti-Machian solutions.
The question is are these anti-Machian solutions really present in Nature? or are they mathematical artifacts.?
The singularity (at r=0) in Schwarzschild 's solution cannot be a true singularity. It must be an approximation. It must be hiding a true mass source [alternatively, flux-capacitor posted a solution by Andrei Sakharov (?) positing that it hides a wormhole]. We are not going to know until experiments show a successful quantum gravity theory that matches experimental results.
PS: By the way, StrongGR posted a solution to the EM Drive a long time ago examining the singularity at the vertex of the cone. However, this cannot explain the claims of the EM Drive since the construction pursued by Shawyer and his followers does not have this singularity: they stop the truncated cone well short of reaching any singularity. And the energy in the EM Drive is so small that the Schwarzschild radius for the EM Drive is close to zero (a very infinitesimal value).
-
#2449 by Bob012345 on 25 Oct, 2017 17:42
-
First, you seem to have forgotten that that equation you keep throwing around is derived assuming the object starts from rest. It simply does not apply in anything other than the initial rest frame.All I'm really saying is that I believe the benefit of these devices is that they allow manipulation of kinetic energy between different reference frames, which is a fundamental aspect of classical physics, for attaining either great velocity or useful energy or both.
Hi Bob,
Choose any frame you wish.
Knowing the force and mass, measure the time of acceleration. Work done is then invarient using Work = (N^2 t^2) / 2 m.
Or measure dV, then knowing mass, KE change is invarient.
Second, you seem to have missed my recent post explaining to you that if the emDrive acts as you describe it clearly violates conservation of energy.
I agree with Meberbs here. If you pick a random frame to observe the device, the work is always force integrated over distance. Assuming a constant force and acceleration, distance is x0 + v0*t + 0.5*a*t^2. We can drop the x0 term but not the v0*t term. All observers see the same change in velocity. Work equates to the change in kinetic energy to each observer; 0.5*m*(v0 + a*t)^2 - 0.5*m*v0^2 which reduces to m*v0*a*t + 0.5*m*a^2*t^2 for each observer. Part of the work is invariant but there is another term. All see different amounts of work and that difference is exactly the mass times the differences in initial velocities of two observers times the change in velocity they both agree on m*(v2-v1)*a*t where a*t is just the delta_v.
-
#2450 by wicoe on 25 Oct, 2017 18:07
-
I agree with Meberbs here. If you pick a random frame to observe the device, the work is always force integrated over distance. Assuming a constant force and acceleration, distance is x0 + v0*t + 0.5*a*t^2. We can drop the x0 term but not the v0*t term. All observers see the same change in velocity. Work equates to the change in kinetic energy to each observer; 0.5*m*(v0 + a*t)^2 - 0.5*m*v0^2 which reduces to m*v0*a*t + 0.5*m*a^2*t^2 for each observer. Part of the work is invariant but there is another term. All see different amounts of work and that difference is exactly the mass times the differences in initial velocities of two observers times the change in velocity they both agree on m*(v2-v1)*a*t where a*t is just the delta_v.
The above quote (emphasis mine) describes perfectly why you cannot have an object accelerate without pushing against something else. If different observers see different amounts of work, but the amount of fuel (or potential/electrical energy) expended to do this work is the same (as it does not depend on the frame of reference), you have a problem. To satisfy CoE, these amounts must be equal. To make them equal, you need to involve work done on/by some other object/field, so that the sum is frame-invariant. -
#2451 by Peter Lauwer on 25 Oct, 2017 19:26
-
100 W/4 GHz dummy load from ebay
turns out to be not so good. An SWR of <1.2 was given.
Measured with the Windfreak Techn. SynthNV + directional coupler, relative to a 2 W termination of MiniCircuits.
It can be good, see for comparison the (lack of) reflection of the Centric RF 20 W termination, measured in the same setup.
Anyone with suggestions for a affordable 100 W / 4 GHZ termination?
Peter
-
#2452 by wicoe on 25 Oct, 2017 19:28
-
The amount of fuel burned or energy released in the rocket frame is the same for all observers but the total work seen is different to observers with different velocities.
This is incorrect. If you calculate the total work (the force acting between the rocket and the propellant is bidirectional, so there is work done on/by the propellant as well), you get a total amount that is independent of the reference frame, and this amount equals the amount of energy burnt (actually, it's a bit less due to losses). This constitutes CoE. -
#2453 by X_RaY on 25 Oct, 2017 19:45
-
100 W/4 GHz dummy load from ebay
Peter,
turns out to be not so good. An SWR of <1.2 was given.
Measured with the Windfreak Techn. SynthNV + directional coupler, relative to a 2 W termination of MiniCircuits.
It can be good, see for comparison the (lack of) reflection of the Centric RF 20 W termination, measured in the same setup.
Anyone with suggestions for a affordable 100 W / 4 GHZ termination?
Peter
at which plane (connector) the calibration of the vna was done? Is it the connector at which the load is connected right now with inclusive the additional device shown in the picture? If not please try to calibrate at this connector. The SMA to N interface may also increase the VSWR level. -
#2454 by Bob012345 on 25 Oct, 2017 19:57
-
The amount of fuel burned or energy released in the rocket frame is the same for all observers but the total work seen is different to observers with different velocities.
This is incorrect. If you calculate the total work (the force acting between the rocket and the propellant is bidirectional, so there is work done on/by the propellant as well), you get a total amount that is independent of the reference frame, and this amount equals the amount of energy burnt (actually, it's a bit less due to losses). This constitutes CoE.
Your statement is true by itself, but I was talking about work done on the rocket or cavity, not the exhaust in the context of TT's argument that the cavity provides all the kinetic energy. I probably shouldn't have used the word 'total' though which was confusing. The question you are answering is what is total change in the system KE and what you stated is true but not what I was discussing. It's also true for all systems including EMDrive (and that other drive) or any propellent-less propulsion technique where the universe or some field is the exhaust. In those cases you don't care about having to supply the energy for the "exhaust". In any event I felt my post was poorly worded so I removed it. -
#2455 by wicoe on 25 Oct, 2017 20:20
-
The question you are answering is what is total change in the system KE and what you stated is true but not what I was discussing. It's also true for all systems including EMDrive (and that other drive) or any propellent-less propulsion technique where the universe or some field is the exhaust. In those cases you don't care about having to supply the energy for the "exhaust". In any event I felt my post was poorly worded so I removed it.
My point is that one cannot satisfy the frame-invariance of the total change in KE if they do not include other interacting objects/fields (some external objects, or perhaps "the rest of the universe", although I'm a bit skeptical regarding this). In other words, the Shawyer's description (which claims to not involve "new physics" or any interactions with external objects/fields) cannot satisfy CoE. -
#2456 by WarpTech on 26 Oct, 2017 05:15
-
Apparently your model still has the singularity at r=0?
Yes, but so does an electron. It doesn't stop us from using electricity....
The final blow was in 1962, seven years after Einstein had died, that Ozsváth and Schücking published their anti-Machian metric solution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozsv%C3%A1th%E2%80%93Sch%C3%BCcking_metric . The first known solution to Einstein's General RelativityQuotethat is stationary, globally defined, and singularity-free but nevertheless not isometric to the Minkowski metric. This stands in contradiction to a claimed strong Mach principle, which would forbid a vacuum solution from being anything but Minkowski without singularities, where the singularities are to be construed as mass as in the Schwarzschild metric.
This was the death blow to any pretension that Einstein's General Relativity necessarily implied Mach's principle (it doesn't).
...
So it is clear now that Einstein's General Relativity admits both Machian solutions (Friedman-Robertson-Walker) and very anti-Machian solutions.
...
In the link above, it says that the Ozsváth and Schücking Metric is a parallel plane wave (pp-wave) solution. This is considered anti-Machian?
That seems strange to me, since pp-waves are known to be approximations of waves generated by a source, at distances much greater than a wavelength. We have recently seen what it takes to create gravitational waves.QuoteFurthermore, in general relativity, disturbances in the gravitational field itself can propagate, at the speed of light, as "wrinkles" in the curvature of spacetime. Such gravitational radiation is the gravitational field analogue of electromagnetic radiation. In general relativity, the gravitational analogue of electromagnetic plane waves are precisely the vacuum solutions among the plane wave spacetimes. They are called gravitational plane waves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pp-wave_spacetime
Also, the EM ZPF is a source-free solution of the EM field. I would interpret this Ozsváth and Schücking Metric as an analog to a source free gravitational field. It's not isomorphic to Minkowski space-time because it's wavy, but it has to be there as the ground state of the field.
In my model, this ground state of the field is the EM ZPF. Superimposed onto this, is the RR field matter interacts with, assuming it was generated by "everything else" in the Universe. A isomorphism to Minkowski space-time would be a vacuum where matter is in equilibrium and there are no spacial gradients. There are an infinite number of possible conformally invariant solutions to this. Then there is this Ozsváth and Schücking Metric, which I would interpret as an oscillation around the equilibrium point.
Maybe I'm missing something, but this doesn't seem very anti-Machian to me, IMO.
Also, I really like the FRW Metric. The scaling parameter "a" can be interpreted as the scale of the ruler used to measure the universe, rather than the scale of the Universe. That is how I ended up with the notion that the Hubble constant, equates to a 1-meter long ruler on Earth, shrinking by 6.8 nm/m/century relative to the distant galaxies. In agreement with how space-time curvature is interpreted in my model as a deformation of rulers and clocks.
-
#2457 by TheTraveller on 26 Oct, 2017 07:08
-
Kinetic energy is not frame invariant, it is a function of velocity which is obviously not frame invariant. It is also not a linear function of velocity, so differences in kinetic energy also cannot be frame invariant.
The change in KE and work done can be frame invarient as follows.
Acceleration causes a change in velocity, which is frame invarient. All frames observe the same change in velocity, the same dV.
Using the dV, the change in KE can be calculated as dKE = m dV^2 / 2. Work done is then equal to dKE.
Therefore dV, dKE & work done are now frame invarient.
QED
-
#2458 by LowerAtmosphere on 26 Oct, 2017 07:13
-
A tangent re De Broglie-Bohm and a relatively new paper of note:
Null point polarization at the intersection of wall segments may polarize the quantum flow of waveforms in the skin. This relates strongly to the chaos inherent in the systems evolution... a sign why thrust is not constant from observations? Alternatively null point generation may also vary due to the amount of flux tubes and arcing/short circuiting from wall defects.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.09810 -
#2459 by ThatOtherGuy on 26 Oct, 2017 12:49
-
100 W/4 GHz dummy load from ebay
Peter,
turns out to be not so good. An SWR of <1.2 was given.
Measured with the Windfreak Techn. SynthNV + directional coupler, relative to a 2 W termination of MiniCircuits.
It can be good, see for comparison the (lack of) reflection of the Centric RF 20 W termination, measured in the same setup.
Anyone with suggestions for a affordable 100 W / 4 GHZ termination?
Peter
at which plane (connector) the calibration of the vna was done? Is it the connector at which the load is connected right now with inclusive the additional device shown in the picture? If not please try to calibrate at this connector. The SMA to N interface may also increase the VSWR level.
Totally agreed; also, not sure but that dummy load seems the same used by Jamie and, apparently, he didn't have such an issue, so maybe he'll have something to add or a tip to share; at any rate, testing the load with a straight connection (putting together a length of cable with connector is fast/easy and will cost less than another dummy load) is for sure a way to start with a "clean room" condition
