-
#360 by meberbs on 20 Jun, 2017 16:15
-
It is linear, so 100 g would equate to 1000 m/s. this would be 8kHz of Doppler (Doppler is still roughly linear this far from c) This is getting into the plausibly significant range, but only would would affect experimental results if you actually accelerated to 1 km/s. At this point, does it really matter if performance is limited to 100g acceleration? This is solving a non-problem.When I say g, I am talking about gravitational acceleration (about 10 m/s^2). The between 2 and 100g you refer to would make more sense as grams of force.
Sorry I was not precise enough, thank you for pointing this out. I was citing Shawyer's IAC 2013 paper and was talking about g as a gravitational acceleration, not grams. So when Shawyer talks about "high-acceleration devices" he indeed talks about accelerations of 2g (~20 m.s-2) to 100g (~1000 m.s-2). These are not practical devices of course, just theoretical ones. Do your numbers show any problems with a Q of 109 using those values with a cavity of say, 30 cm long? -
#361 by Bob012345 on 20 Jun, 2017 17:10
-
It is linear, so 100 g would equate to 1000 m/s. this would be 8kHz of Doppler (Doppler is still roughly linear this far from c) This is getting into the plausibly significant range, but only would would affect experimental results if you actually accelerated to 1 km/s. At this point, does it really matter if performance is limited to 100g acceleration? This is solving a non-problem.When I say g, I am talking about gravitational acceleration (about 10 m/s^2). The between 2 and 100g you refer to would make more sense as grams of force.
Sorry I was not precise enough, thank you for pointing this out. I was citing Shawyer's IAC 2013 paper and was talking about g as a gravitational acceleration, not grams. So when Shawyer talks about "high-acceleration devices" he indeed talks about accelerations of 2g (~20 m.s-2) to 100g (~1000 m.s-2). These are not practical devices of course, just theoretical ones. Do your numbers show any problems with a Q of 109 using those values with a cavity of say, 30 cm long?
Shawyer's ten tonne interstellar probe design uses an acceleration of 0.1g over ten years earth time to attain 2/3c at 4 light years distance as a flyby mission. An actual 1g probe could benefit from getting very near c since the nuclear power source acts in the slowed time frame of the highly relativistic probe, ten years of ship time at a continuous 1g lasts for about 11 millennia earth time and thus might cover distances at that scale in light years as we measure distances. My main point is that the time frame that matters for such an onboard power source is ship time, not earth time which brings basically the entire universe within reach since we already have multi decade nuclear power sources that could power a 1g ship and a 25 year ship time would reach anywhere in the known universe according to physicist Nick Herbert. Hopefully though, prof. Woodward's stargates or warp drives would obviate such extreme relativistic trips. -
#362 by meberbs on 20 Jun, 2017 18:04
-
You missed the entire point of my posts, as your "main point" has nothing to do with my post.
It is linear, so 100 g would equate to 1000 m/s. this would be 8kHz of Doppler (Doppler is still roughly linear this far from c) This is getting into the plausibly significant range, but only would would affect experimental results if you actually accelerated to 1 km/s. At this point, does it really matter if performance is limited to 100g acceleration? This is solving a non-problem.When I say g, I am talking about gravitational acceleration (about 10 m/s^2). The between 2 and 100g you refer to would make more sense as grams of force.
Sorry I was not precise enough, thank you for pointing this out. I was citing Shawyer's IAC 2013 paper and was talking about g as a gravitational acceleration, not grams. So when Shawyer talks about "high-acceleration devices" he indeed talks about accelerations of 2g (~20 m.s-2) to 100g (~1000 m.s-2). These are not practical devices of course, just theoretical ones. Do your numbers show any problems with a Q of 109 using those values with a cavity of say, 30 cm long?
Shawyer's ten tonne interstellar probe design uses an acceleration of 0.1g over ten years earth time to attain 2/3c at 4 light years distance as a flyby mission. An actual 1g probe could benefit from getting very near c since the nuclear power source acts in the slowed time frame of the highly relativistic probe, ten years of ship time at a continuous 1g lasts for about 11 millennia earth time and thus might cover distances at that scale in light years as we measure distances. My main point is that the time frame that matters for such an onboard power source is ship time, not earth time which brings basically the entire universe within reach since we already have multi decade nuclear power sources that could power a 1g ship and a 25 year ship time would reach anywhere in the known universe according to physicist Nick Herbert. Hopefully though, prof. Woodward's stargates or warp drives would obviate such extreme relativistic trips.
Also you seem to misunderstand that the velocities I used refer to the change in velocity between when a photon in the cavity is first emitted and when it is absorbed. The performance impacts would only occur with both absurdly high Q and absurdly high acceleration.
-
#363 by Bob012345 on 20 Jun, 2017 18:48
-
You missed the entire point of my posts, as your "main point" has nothing to do with my post.
It is linear, so 100 g would equate to 1000 m/s. this would be 8kHz of Doppler (Doppler is still roughly linear this far from c) This is getting into the plausibly significant range, but only would would affect experimental results if you actually accelerated to 1 km/s. At this point, does it really matter if performance is limited to 100g acceleration? This is solving a non-problem.When I say g, I am talking about gravitational acceleration (about 10 m/s^2). The between 2 and 100g you refer to would make more sense as grams of force.
Sorry I was not precise enough, thank you for pointing this out. I was citing Shawyer's IAC 2013 paper and was talking about g as a gravitational acceleration, not grams. So when Shawyer talks about "high-acceleration devices" he indeed talks about accelerations of 2g (~20 m.s-2) to 100g (~1000 m.s-2). These are not practical devices of course, just theoretical ones. Do your numbers show any problems with a Q of 109 using those values with a cavity of say, 30 cm long?
Shawyer's ten tonne interstellar probe design uses an acceleration of 0.1g over ten years earth time to attain 2/3c at 4 light years distance as a flyby mission. An actual 1g probe could benefit from getting very near c since the nuclear power source acts in the slowed time frame of the highly relativistic probe, ten years of ship time at a continuous 1g lasts for about 11 millennia earth time and thus might cover distances at that scale in light years as we measure distances. My main point is that the time frame that matters for such an onboard power source is ship time, not earth time which brings basically the entire universe within reach since we already have multi decade nuclear power sources that could power a 1g ship and a 25 year ship time would reach anywhere in the known universe according to physicist Nick Herbert. Hopefully though, prof. Woodward's stargates or warp drives would obviate such extreme relativistic trips.
Also you seem to misunderstand that the velocities I used refer to the change in velocity between when a photon in the cavity is first emitted and when it is absorbed. The performance impacts would only occur with both absurdly high Q and absurdly high acceleration.
I took your post as a jumping off point about 1g ships to the community. I didn't misunderstand you, I'm just not responding to your cavity argument at this time. I referred to them elsewhere. But my post does respond indirectly to your last sentences of your post which agrees with and emphasizes your argument that it's a non issue. -
#364 by Mark7777777 on 20 Jun, 2017 21:01
-
Can we take it then that you believe the Emdrive effect is real (however you explain it in your patent application) and can be used to power spacecraft? And flying cars
?
No, not that simple as a pushing or local fields....it's simply magnetism and the associated field control.
Pushing against other, local magnetic fields?
Shell -
#365 by ThinkerX on 21 Jun, 2017 04:20
-
meberbs,
Internal Doppler shift limiting Q doesn't actually make sense if you check the math. Lets just pick a Q of 1 million. This means a typical photon lifetime would be about 0.001 s. even at 1 g of acceleration, the total delta v over that time is only 0.01 m/s. Since opposite ends of the frustum would cause opposing Doppler shifts, only the total delta v matters and this is so small compared to the speed of light that the impact on frequency is negligible.Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.
Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.
What are these "high Q acceleration" problems you've mentioned?
"What limits thrust in high Q thrusters? Internal Doppler shift." as mentioned in presentation by Mr. Shawyer.
Since all of Shawyer's theory so far has been nonsensical, here is an alternative guess at what led him to this most recent theoretically unsupported statement. He has probably found that the measured anomalous force from his thrusters has not been scaling with Q. This is expected, since based on all other emDrive experiments, his results are out of family, and therefore dominated by errors that would not scale with Q.
Well said.
I'm in agreement with you, as the numbers don't make any sense
even in very high Q systems it seems like more techno babble. I'm by no means the sharpest mind here, but when even I can see holes in this explanation, it means that they don't have a clue as to what they are doing, or are throwing up smoke screens to potentially protect their IP, or have nothing.
On another note...
I'm currently writing up my application for new provisional patents I'll be submitting. My theories are based on observable results and physics as we know them. This has been a very tough nut to crack and taken me over two years and lots of help (you know who you are)... but you need precise systematic key steps in controlling these high energy events, events that don't violate physics and rely on techno babble.
I'll say this. It's not photons that are the key, not really... well maybe a few bouncing around in the cavity and virtual photons (if you believe in that observation) of decaying evanescent waves, it's simply magnetism and the associated field control.
Sorry, it's taking so long, but this has to be done right. I even took the time (hated to take it), ripped apart my old broken hot tub, rebuilding the electronics and with a can of PC-7 fixed the cracks, just so I could sit and think again. That's where I'm headed now.
My Very Best,
Shell
'it's simply magnetism and the associated field control.'
No real chance finding it now, and the posters name escapes me, but I do recollect a purely magnetic explanation for the EM Drive being put forth a few months back. In conjunction with Warp Techs theory, if I remember correctly. Something about precisely timed and placed magnetic or electromagnetic fields playing off each other in a repeating sequence. A bit like the 'rail-gun' concept.
-
#366 by Left Field on 21 Jun, 2017 08:50
-
That was dustinthewind I think.
meberbs,
Internal Doppler shift limiting Q doesn't actually make sense if you check the math. Lets just pick a Q of 1 million. This means a typical photon lifetime would be about 0.001 s. even at 1 g of acceleration, the total delta v over that time is only 0.01 m/s. Since opposite ends of the frustum would cause opposing Doppler shifts, only the total delta v matters and this is so small compared to the speed of light that the impact on frequency is negligible.Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.
Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.
What are these "high Q acceleration" problems you've mentioned?
"What limits thrust in high Q thrusters? Internal Doppler shift." as mentioned in presentation by Mr. Shawyer.
Since all of Shawyer's theory so far has been nonsensical, here is an alternative guess at what led him to this most recent theoretically unsupported statement. He has probably found that the measured anomalous force from his thrusters has not been scaling with Q. This is expected, since based on all other emDrive experiments, his results are out of family, and therefore dominated by errors that would not scale with Q.
Well said.
I'm in agreement with you, as the numbers don't make any sense even in very high Q systems it seems like more techno babble. I'm by no means the sharpest mind here, but when even I can see holes in this explanation, it means that they don't have a clue as to what they are doing, or are throwing up smoke screens to potentially protect their IP, or have nothing.
On another note...
I'm currently writing up my application for new provisional patents I'll be submitting. My theories are based on observable results and physics as we know them. This has been a very tough nut to crack and taken me over two years and lots of help (you know who you are)... but you need precise systematic key steps in controlling these high energy events, events that don't violate physics and rely on techno babble.
I'll say this. It's not photons that are the key, not really... well maybe a few bouncing around in the cavity and virtual photons (if you believe in that observation) of decaying evanescent waves, it's simply magnetism and the associated field control.
Sorry, it's taking so long, but this has to be done right. I even took the time (hated to take it), ripped apart my old broken hot tub, rebuilding the electronics and with a can of PC-7 fixed the cracks, just so I could sit and think again. That's where I'm headed now.
My Very Best,
Shell
'it's simply magnetism and the associated field control.'
No real chance finding it now, and the posters name escapes me, but I do recollect a purely magnetic explanation for the EM Drive being put forth a few months back. In conjunction with Warp Techs theory, if I remember correctly. Something about precisely timed and placed magnetic or electromagnetic fields playing off each other in a repeating sequence. A bit like the 'rail-gun' concept.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1338339.msg#1338339 -
#367 by OnlyMe on 21 Jun, 2017 15:28
-
No, not that simple as a pushing or local fields....it's simply magnetism and the associated field control.
Pushing against other, local magnetic fields?
Shell
So basically you introduce a resonant EM field into an asymmetric frustum. Due to the asymmetry of the frustum, the resonant EM field is concentrated or focused in a predictable asymmetric pattern inside the frustum. Second the presence of the resonant EM field inside the frustum would result in an associated and again asymmetric manner, to match the asymmetry of the resonant field, electric currents and “EM/magnetic fields” in the frustum wall and endplates.
For simplicity assume that the frustum and manner that the resonant EM field is introduced into the frustum, result in the highest concentration/focus of the resonant EM field at or near the small end plate. In a manner similar to effects associated with Lenz’s law, the interaction between the resonant EM field and the induced “EM/magnetic field” in the frustum wall and end plates… and because the rate that the resonant EM field and the induced field in the frustum, update are not equivalent, would cause the frustum to attempt to slide toward the small end. The resonant EM field would move to the location within the frustum of best resonance at the speed of light, while the induced field in the frustum itself changes at the rate that current flows through the material the frustum is composed of…. The force would be very small and primarily based on the intensity of the resonant EM field and the construction of the frustum itself, to the extent that the materials and design improve or accentuate the “EM/magnetic field” in the frustum wall and endplates.
It would seem at this time that the frustum design and materials play two important roles. First the design should focus the resonant EM field toward the small endplate. And second the eletrical conductive rate of the coating inside the frustum, when compared to the frequency of the resonant field may be important. Assuming the resonant field moves with movement of the frustum at the speed of light, the rate that the induced field in the frustum wall/endplates relative to the frequency of the resonant field may be important.., to maximize the interaction between the two and result in an annomolus force...
There has been speculation of building these drive systems with a wide range of frequencies, while the best frequency may be better defined by the conductive properties of the available coatings, if one is seeking a device that can provide a continuous thrust. That may not be as important if a pulsed system is the objective.
-
#368 by tchernik on 21 Jun, 2017 16:37
-
... snip ...
The Matrix's Nebuchadnezzar had an intriguing design with EM thrusters (even producing arcing when close to other objects). I always assumed those were ionic/plasma thrusters only working on an atmosphere, but now I wonder if they were of a now more familiar (for people on this thread, at least) kind...
-
#369 by Rodal on 21 Jun, 2017 17:26
-
...And what about Fetta?...
Fetta has come out with absolutely no news since: http://cannae.com/cubesat-mission-clarification/
SEPTEMBER 26, 2016
That is a very long 8 months with no news. And that was just a clarification. The last news from Fetta's Cannae is really now 9 months ago:
http://cannae.com/press-release-from-cannae/
AUGUST 17, 2016
PRESS RELEASE FROM CANNAE
Cannae Inc. is demonstrating its proprietary thruster technology on an upcoming satellite mission. Cannae’s technology requires no on-board propellant to generate thrust and will provide station-keeping for a cubesat flying below a 150 mile orbital altitude. The demonstration satellite will remain in this orbit for a minimum of six months.
Cannae formed Theseus Space Inc. to work with its commercial partners to execute the technology demonstration mission. LAI International of Tempe. AZ continues to provide manufacturing and project support. SpaceQuest Ltd. of Fairfax, VA is providing system integration, technical support and program management for the satellite mission.
-
#370 by Bob012345 on 21 Jun, 2017 18:24
-
Internal Doppler shift limiting Q doesn't actually make sense if you check the math. Lets just pick a Q of 1 million. This means a typical photon lifetime would be about 0.001 s. even at 1 g of acceleration, the total delta v over that time is only 0.01 m/s. Since opposite ends of the frustum would cause opposing Doppler shifts, only the total delta v matters and this is so small compared to the speed of light that the impact on frequency is negligible.Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.
Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.
What are these "high Q acceleration" problems you've mentioned?
"What limits thrust in high Q thrusters? Internal Doppler shift." as mentioned in presentation by Mr. Shawyer.
Since all of Shawyer's theory so far has been nonsensical, here is an alternative guess at what led him to this most recent theoretically unsupported statement. He has probably found that the measured anomalous force from his thrusters has not been scaling with Q. This is expected, since based on all other emDrive experiments, his results are out of family, and therefore dominated by errors that would not scale with Q.
Shawyer says that the Doppler shift is enhanced by Q and not linearly but by Q squared. -
#371 by ThereIWas3 on 21 Jun, 2017 18:39
-
I was wondering if a patent can be refuted on the grounds that the filer improperly characterized how his invention worked. But then I remembered the famous case of Lee DeForest and Edwin Armstrong, back in the 1920's. DeForest did not really understand how his vacuum tube worked, but anyway claimed a "previous invention" that conflicted with Armstrong's later invention of the Regenerative detection circuits. It was a long drawn out court case, with multiple deep-pockets investors involved. DeForest eventually won out, even though it was Armstrong who did all the theoretical work showing how DeForest's "invention" actually worked.
-
#372 by meberbs on 21 Jun, 2017 19:06
-
Presumably the Q^2 would be the factor of Q I used in my calculations, plus the one he would include in the equation for acceleration. All effects from the second factor of Q are accounted for in the acceleration term I used. In most practical applications, if you increased the force high enough to get much past 1-2 g of acceleration, you would want to either reduce the power or increase system mass (higher payload). While technically accurate, the scaling with Q^2 only matters for systems where you have no reason to limit the acceleration, otherwise it scales linearly.
Internal Doppler shift limiting Q doesn't actually make sense if you check the math. Lets just pick a Q of 1 million. This means a typical photon lifetime would be about 0.001 s. even at 1 g of acceleration, the total delta v over that time is only 0.01 m/s. Since opposite ends of the frustum would cause opposing Doppler shifts, only the total delta v matters and this is so small compared to the speed of light that the impact on frequency is negligible.Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.
Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.
What are these "high Q acceleration" problems you've mentioned?
"What limits thrust in high Q thrusters? Internal Doppler shift." as mentioned in presentation by Mr. Shawyer.
Since all of Shawyer's theory so far has been nonsensical, here is an alternative guess at what led him to this most recent theoretically unsupported statement. He has probably found that the measured anomalous force from his thrusters has not been scaling with Q. This is expected, since based on all other emDrive experiments, his results are out of family, and therefore dominated by errors that would not scale with Q.
Shawyer says that the Doppler shift is enhanced by Q and not linearly but by Q squared. -
#373 by tchernik on 21 Jun, 2017 21:05
-
Even if the thrust remains in the milli-Newtons per Kilowatt in the long term, it would be a boon for in space applications just because it's not using any fuel.
Besides, any proven propelantless thruster with an efficiency above a photon rocket would be a scientific revolution in itself, by showing such things are even possible.
Most people wants flying cars and star ships ASAP, but that's just wishful thinking and lack of vision of the whole picture and of what's at stake here IMO. -
#374 by VAXHeadroom on 21 Jun, 2017 22:20
-
Even if the thrust remains in the milli-Newtons per Kilowatt in the long term, it would be a boon for in space applications just because it's not using any fuel.
Besides, any proven propelantless thruster with an efficiency above a photon rocket would be a scientific revolution in itself, by showing such things are even possible.
Most people wants flying cars and star ships ASAP, but that's just wishful thinking and lack of vision of the whole picture and of what's at stake here IMO.
At the level of mN/Kw it completely changes satellite design - no more reaction wheels, thrusters, magnetic torque rods, fuel, fuel tanks, fuel lines, valves, catalyst beds or heaters. It's a complete revolution.
(I design and build satellites for a living).
At the level of N/Kw it opens up the entire solar system.
Flying cars are actually harder
-
#375 by Flyby on 21 Jun, 2017 22:52
-
agreed.... with a N/kW level, we can start exploring and colonizing the entire solar system in less then 100 years.
Imagine space access to be just as mundane as air flight is today.
A trip to the moon, to visit you son or daughter who's working there as an astro-geologist.
A 2week flight to mars to conclude a business deal
A Jupiter flyby honeymoon trip...
Why would I need a flying car when my grandchildren could be standing on Europa (the moon) ?
BUT but but... we're not there yet... we first gotta prove the damn thing works as some claim it does... -
#376 by ThereIWas3 on 22 Jun, 2017 02:45
-
Also see Harry Harrison's 1970 SF novel "The Daleth Effect" about the development of a "space drive" and the futility of trying to keep a physics breakthrough secret. The lesson was, once everyone knows that such a device is possible, somebody will quickly figure out how to make one, or improve on it, no matter how much you try to keep the details secret. In the book, the secret space drive technology is reverse-engineered by the Honda motor company, resulting in flying cars.
-
#377 by dustinthewind on 22 Jun, 2017 03:27
-
Click left fields link to see previous quotes:
That was dustinthewind I think.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1338339.msg#1338339
That started out entirely as a separate topic from the EM drive. At the time I didn't know about the EM drive. I had this idea I thought was original, from understanding delayed EM signals, which really is propellant-less propulsion in a sense but it turns out it's just a phased array. However the patent I posted I realized was the same thing (little did I realize it was a little more) so my idea wasn't all that original. I was excited about the idea and had found this website, so thought I would try and share it.
I was approached or found the EM drive thread later. Some others wondered if it could be related, I wondered myself but the cavity give no emission of radiation as would a phased array and a phased array is weaker than a laser in thrust so its not a likely candidate.
Later I began to understand how the phased array actually fights against it self. The delayed electric fields from charge separation are different from magnetic fields of charge in motion. The time retarded forces from charge separation actually oppose time retarded forces from magnetic effects. Some how a phased array still can project radiation in a single direction so one of the forces is weaker than the other.
Also, there is a strong correlation with work. Positive work is done at the back of the phased array with magnetic forces while negative work is done toward the front of the phased array. This almost corresponds to negative energy at the front and positive energy at the back (similar to a diametric drive) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Propulsion_Physics_Program but doesn't use mass but rather work or energy. Problem is the phased array fights against it self and actually does opposing work so its not efficient. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1459290#msg1459290
I would later realize in this video they are making the magnetic force work with the static electric force http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1342799#msg1342799
I designed this circuit here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1455292#msg1455292 I realized that was what they were doing in the video was the same as my circuit and was excited to realize this.
I then would later realize a cavity in a transverse electric mode http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1460370#msg1460370 has no charge separation to fight against the magnetic effects. I had an idea to either make an array that had the electric fields from the charge separation working with the magnetic effects or, eliminate (magnetism or charge separation altogether). The TE mode in the cavities eliminate charge separation.
One problem is in a phased array you can control the current and make one wire do negative work. However in a cavity it does what it would when encountering light so I would assume it normally does negative work (metal blocks the radiation). I never quite put it out of the back of my mind that maybe however there could be some effect where the cavity was doing negative work at one end and positive work at the other while eliminating charge separation then maybe there would be some force greater than photon propulsion. But wait a phased array in a cavity? No radiation can escape! However, even if we were to build a phased array where only magnetic effects are there and not charge separation how is it that there would suddenly be an increase in propulsive force when all we know about is radiation. If its really possible then maybe there would be some other type of emission. I have wondered if it were possible to generate some type of space time wave this way. If some phased array could be made where charge separation works with the magnetic effects.
I also worked on what I called a reverse magnetic phased array that I already linked here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1459290#msg1459290 I would use a dielectric between them that would slow the speed of light to very low velocity so as to allow the arrays to be as close together as possible. There is another trick I haven't stated yet so as to further amplify forces between arrays also.
WarpTech would later bring to my attention that radiation passing through the dielectric should create an opposing force. While I admit this may be possible I have a suspicion that such an array may generate something else other than just light as it should provide a force greater than photon propulsion, because it should surpass a phased array, having magnetic forces with with charge separation.
Would it work? I have no guarantee, just a suspicion. Does the EM drive work on such an effect? I can't tell you that for sure either. I don't know how the EM drive would do positive work one one side, as opposed to the other by just introducing radiation.
The Doppler shifting of light, change in mass of light, is an idea I was toying with on the side. I might be able to give an answer on how much change in frequency would occur given that light changed in mass by some factor on one side as opposed to the other. The whole premise that light changed in mass was based on the apparent change in wavelength in radiation in the cavity along the z axis. With constant frequency then if the mass changes the speed should change almost as if the index of space is changing which would effect massive objects. Some microwave engineers seemed to think the index appeared to change also. I remain uncertain this is actually happening.
I am looking into how much frequency change would actually happen via a photon accelerating the cavity via 2nd order Doppler shift after many reflections. I have a paper I derive this 2nd order Doppler shift in but it has a typo in equation 13 which should read 4*m_2*f*h was (4*f*h). I am not confident the change in frequency will be significant. I do believe it occurs however. I suspect this is how energy is transferred from photons to a mirror in recycled photon thrusters or photonic laser thrusters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_laser_thruster
I also wonder if a photon accelerating a single electron would be more effective at transferring energy given the much smaller mass of the electron.
I still have no real idea how or why the mass of a photon would change in such a manner inside an EM drive or if it would even really be an effective form of propulsion if possible. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dustin_Macdermott I'll update that paper to fix that typo I caught soon.
The phased array is really a separate idea from light changing in mass.
-
#378 by dustinthewind on 22 Jun, 2017 05:17
-
It is linear, so 100 g would equate to 1000 m/s. this would be 8kHz of Doppler (Doppler is still roughly linear this far from c) This is getting into the plausibly significant range, but only would would affect experimental results if you actually accelerated to 1 km/s. At this point, does it really matter if performance is limited to 100g acceleration? This is solving a non-problem.When I say g, I am talking about gravitational acceleration (about 10 m/s^2). The between 2 and 100g you refer to would make more sense as grams of force.
Sorry I was not precise enough, thank you for pointing this out. I was citing Shawyer's IAC 2013 paper and was talking about g as a gravitational acceleration, not grams. So when Shawyer talks about "high-acceleration devices" he indeed talks about accelerations of 2g (~20 m.s-2) to 100g (~1000 m.s-2). These are not practical devices of course, just theoretical ones. Do your numbers show any problems with a Q of 109 using those values with a cavity of say, 30 cm long?
I tried with the 2nd order doppler effect for equations:
Assuming the mass of the photon at one end is twice at the other in a cavity
if v_2 > 0 then the regular Doppler shift appears to dwarf the other terms if m_2 very large like 1kg.
c = 3E8 = speed of light m/s
V = 1 = some starting velocity in m/s or use v_2 = 0 to eliminate the normal Doppler effect
f = 2.45E9 = microwave frequency
h = 6.626E-34 = planks constant
m_2 = 9E-31 kg; ~ mass of electron
n = 1000000; = number of reflections, I just multiply it all by n (not shown)
if m_2 is very small like the mass of an electron and you expect 10k reflections then things get interesting. The change in frequency could almost be 1khz which brings up a question. At what point do we assume the collision is with the cavity rather than the electron? -
#379 by flux_capacitor on 22 Jun, 2017 09:24
-
Imagine space access to be just as mundane as air flight is today.
A trip to the moon, to visit you son or daughter who's working there as an astro-geologist.
A 2week flight to mars to conclude a business deal
A Jupiter flyby honeymoon trip...
Why would I need a flying car when my grandchildren could be standing on Europa (the moon) ?
With a pressurized and confortable flying car, at home, you could walk down your backyard, open the door, sit down, and ask Siri to go directly to the Moon, Mars or Europa. No need to go to a spaceport, register and wait for a shuttle.
But even if such trips were technologically feasible at a personal level, probably every country regulation would prevent anybody to travel outside their airspace and even more the boundary of Earth atmosphere. Not as long as countries of Earth still undergo political, economical, religious and resource-based conflicts, with territory colonization, oil wars, terror attacks and massive migration problems. I can't imagine this era to happen for humans of Earth, sadly.
?
even in very high Q systems it seems like more techno babble. I'm by no means the sharpest mind here, but when even I can see holes in this explanation, it means that they don't have a clue as to what they are doing, or are throwing up smoke screens to potentially protect their IP, or have nothing.
