-
#860 by Jim Davis on 15 Aug, 2017 17:22
-
I noticed that when the initial velocity is around 1420 m/s the efficiency becomes "OU" (over unity?).
So the EmDrive is a free energy machine?
The message should say "Input Error", which it now does.
Thanks for the heads up.
??
How can an initial velocity be an "input error"?
There will always be a frame of reference where the initial velocity is anything you wish. -
#861 by Bob012345 on 15 Aug, 2017 17:45
-
Hi PN,
Roger clearly shows now, using EmDrive reference frame velocity changes, CofE is conserved.
So no OU.
TT, I do not have time and incentive to read his new equations at this time. I will read when enough skeptical people say they are correct. Thanks.
Hi PN,
The equations are very simple.
Just click here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1712726#msg1712726
If you mean "simply wrong" then you would be correct.
The equation for Energy in is simply P*t, not what Shawyer wrote. What he wrote for Ein is just another way of writing the same formula as Eout, making the rest of which a fancy way of saying 1=1. (The final equation has 2 variables, Fd, and Fs that both refer to the same quantity.)
The equation at the end of the first slide you posted is a correct expression for Eout = 0.5*P*Ts*t*Vt.
Divide this by the actual input energy, P*t, and you get 0.5*Ts*Vt. This clearly shows there is a velocity for which any given value of Ts results in over unity. For the values of Ts Shawyer has claimed recently, the Vt that results in over unity is small.
(Relativistic analysis agrees with this conclusion as well, and it is easy to see how relativity allows photon thrusters, because you can never accelerate past c, so a sufficiently small Ts is acceptable.)
I thought the same thing before my position changed, that the only input energy that matters is electrical power integrated over time. In fact I even wrote to Shawyer trying to explain it to him that he had made a rather humiliating blunder!
But if one accepts that a fixed electrical input power can actually create a fixed static thrust at all, then Shaywer's relevant input energy equation is just the work done by such a thrust. Yes, of course it can be way more that P*t and in fact his interstellar probe design violates P*t by a factor of 20 million! It seems to me that his position is somewhat like Prof. Woodward's position until recently which I may poorly elucidate but essentially says that as long as one inputs enough energy to boost the speed by a certain amount, equivalent to a certain acceleration, from an instantaneous rest frame, all is well. Thus Shawyer simply computes the efficiency of such a thrust under accelerations in which the given input power cannot support.
-
#862 by meberbs on 15 Aug, 2017 18:39
-
But if one accepts that a fixed electrical input power can actually create a fixed static thrust at all,
The only valid conclusion after this point is an over unity device (as long as Force/power is grater than 1/c).
It makes no sense to call the final kinetic energy the "input" because where did this energy come from?
For a simple analogy of the energy balance, you start with 2 buckets, one has 1 liter of water in it, and the other is empty. The one that starts with water in it represent electric potential energy and the other represents kinetic energy. Now pour the one water from the first bucket to the second. If the second bucket now has 2 liters of water in it you broke conservation, because an extra liter of water appeared out of nowhere.
Some theories like the Mach effect are supposed to resolve this by saying that the energy somehow gets pulled in from the rest of the universe, meaning that there is a third bucket that the extra liter of water comes from. I think this brings up other problems, but those aren't important right now. At least they don't ignore the issue, and therefore accept the quite useful application of there device (if it works as advertised) as an energy generator. -
#863 by Bob012345 on 15 Aug, 2017 19:47
-
But if one accepts that a fixed electrical input power can actually create a fixed static thrust at all,
The only valid conclusion after this point is an over unity device (as long as Force/power is grater than 1/c).
It makes no sense to call the final kinetic energy the "input" because where did this energy come from?
For a simple analogy of the energy balance, you start with 2 buckets, one has 1 liter of water in it, and the other is empty. The one that starts with water in it represent electric potential energy and the other represents kinetic energy. Now pour the one water from the first bucket to the second. If the second bucket now has 2 liters of water in it you broke conservation, because an extra liter of water appeared out of nowhere.
Some theories like the Mach effect are supposed to resolve this by saying that the energy somehow gets pulled in from the rest of the universe, meaning that there is a third bucket that the extra liter of water comes from. I think this brings up other problems, but those aren't important right now. At least they don't ignore the issue, and therefore accept the quite useful application of there device (if it works as advertised) as an energy generator.
I resisted the concept that such a device could be used as an energy generator for a long time but now accept that as inevitable if the device really works.
Also, it seems to me that Shawyer is concerned with the efficiency of his cavity as regards to what force it can sustain during acceleration compared to what force it can support statically. Clearly his slide on energy flow has a gaping hole in it that he is not directly addressing. I don't know what he's really thinking about overall energy balance. Maybe he just assumes as long as he generates a force, that creates the kinetic energy of the vehicle and doesn't see the need to explain it further? It's a mystery.
-
#864 by Monomorphic on 15 Aug, 2017 20:14
-
With a minor redesign of the small end-plate, a simple system for aligning the end-plates can be created. This idea is based on Shawyer's recent patent, where he uses piezoelecric elements to compensate for Doppler shifts during acceleration. In this case, the purpose is for very precise alignment of the end-plates. I'm not sure if this step will be necessary, since the 3D printed parts align very well, but it could be yet another way to tune the cavity. This design provides for 5mm of movement.
-
#865 by LowerAtmosphere on 15 Aug, 2017 20:57
-
Wattage is always dependent on time, so any exotic theories involving the warping of spacetime and the QV require the correct frame of reference when considering over unity discussions. Energy input into the EM Drive does not necessarily imply energy input into the reaction system. You have a choice of operational theory between the internal fields; internal fields and walls; and the internal fields, walls and external fields, not to mention theories relying on electron pressure which does not follow the simple logic of efficiency being related to electrical energy input vs mechanical energy output.
I apologize for my brevity, but it is important to consider any gain through the various mediums and additional energy from charge imbalance and coherency in the walls. There is much more than simply pumping in microwaves and electrons. -
#866 by spupeng7 on 16 Aug, 2017 02:40
-
(...)
Einstein was influenced by Mach and wanted to include Mach's principle within his theory of general relativity, but he eventually did not, especially because there is no instantaneous inertial mechanism involving a retarded/advanced radiative field in general relativity.
If Einstein's general relativity included Mach's principle, that's all we would need indeed. But it is not the case, and Einstein himself was affected by such a miss. As Abraham Pais, quoting Einstein, wrote in his book Subtle is the Lord: the Science and the Life of Albert Einstein (Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 287–288:QuoteSo strongly did Einstein believe at that time in the relativity of inertia that in 1918 he stated as being on an equal footing three principles on which a satisfactory theory of gravitation should rest:
1. The principle of relativity as expressed by general covariance.
2. The principle of equivalence.
3. Mach's principle (the first time this term entered the literature): … that the gµν are completely determined by the mass of bodies, more generally by Tµν.
In 1922, Einstein noted that others were satisfied to proceed without this [third] criterion and added, "This contentedness will appear incomprehensible to a later generation however."
As I said, gravitational waves have a limited propagation rate, the speed of light. That's why Heidi Fearn had to resort to an non-steady state version of H-N theory, which includes retarded and advanced waves that explain instantaneous inertial reaction forces, in order to build a theory including Mach's principle that allows Mach effects and its developments related to space flight applications.
Languages evolve. Maybe "gravinertial" is not the right term. But someday, if Fearn's theory proves to be correct and explains genuine Mach effects, we'll have to find a word summarizing the idea of an instantaneous radiative field with retarded and advanced waves, making all gravitational sources of the universe interact and explaining the inertia of bodies.
In my opinion, the inertial reaction to acceleration of mass acts across instants of complex time, those instants of time within which the infinity of the speed of light makes coincidence between remote locations obvious. The transfer of energy due to acceleration of charge (radiation) is that inertial reaction and it occurs within that instant. In this way the charges involved in asymetrical currents within the end plates of an emdrive frustum can exchange momentum with charges across the universe. We can then replace our broken energy calculations with a proper account.
Nothing exceeds the speed of light from a point perspective but the covariant perspective allows instantaneous interaction between charges separated by ict. Thus it is the only description of time which does not rely on paradoxical descriptors for the transfer of energy. No retarded waves are required, no photons are required, but comprehension of complex time only comes with acceptance of the possibility of coincidence of location over all separations ict.
The Gravity Probe B may not have found anything contradicting Einstein's theory, but emdrive thrust does contradict it (because the frustum is a Faraday cage) and so does QM (because interactions occur faster than light). A simple and paradox free explanation is required for the action of the emdrive, just as much as reproducible thrust measurements are. Tensor equations will not help us without a logical notion of the structure of time. Complex time describes a Machian universe by its structure alone and also allows conservation of energy for emdrive thrust. Real time by itself does not even have a place in which photons can achieve integrity. Who here is prepared to go out on a limb and consider complex time as a potential solution?
The equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass is proof that the structure of matter depends upon its rate of passage through the real component of time. That rate varies in strict accord with proximity to a mass of charges by the inverse square of that distance. It is my opinion that the radiation of energy without loss between a system of charges, which are conserved and whose resultant energy is conserved despite the variability of that rate, is tangible proof of the complex nature of time. Please consider.
-
#867 by Mulletron on 16 Aug, 2017 13:37
-
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/18/2/023009/metaQuote
Utilizing linearized gravity, in [1] by Tolman et al it was established that the gravitational field of a cylindrical pulse of unpolarized light, of finite lifetime, for which diffraction can be neglected does not affect a parallel test beam if the test beam is co-propagating, but bends it, if counter-propagating. Stated differently, a freely propagating light pulse would not be affected by its own gravitational field, which is in sharp contrast to a beam of massive particles.
In a series of subsequent investigations, the gravitational field of light has been determined within the framework of the full set of the nonlinear Einstein equations in which light is represented as a null-fluid of massless particles [2], from the Lorentz-boosted Schwarzschild-metric of a point mass in the limit $v\to c$, $m\to 0$ [3], and even some exact plane wave solutions of the coupled Maxwell–Einstein theory [4]. It is now well established that the gravitational field of light is twice that of a material source of the same energy-mass density, that a pulse of light on an infinite straight path is accompanied by a co-propagating plane fronted gravitational wave, and that two such pulses would never interact if propagating on parallel tracks in the same direction1 . In [6] by Scully, it was shown that the interaction between pulses running slower than the speed of light—e.g. in a wave guide—is non-zero, however.QuoteWe recovered the result of [1] that a massless test particle is not effected by the pulse if it is co-propagating with the pulse while a counter-propagating massless test particle experiences an acceleration four times stronger than that experienced by a particle at rest.
-
#868 by RotoSequence on 16 Aug, 2017 21:43
-
On the other hand, this spin-gravity experiment turned up a null result: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.023001Quote from: Test of the Universality of Free Fall with Atoms in Different Spin Orientations
We report a test of the universality of free fall by comparing the gravity acceleration of the Rb87 atoms in mF=+1 versus those in mF=−1, of which the corresponding spin orientations are opposite. A Mach-Zehnder-type atom interferometer is exploited to alternately measure the free fall acceleration of the atoms in these two magnetic sublevels, and the resultant Eötvös ratio is ηS=(0.2±1.2)×10^−7. This also gives an upper limit of 5.4×10^−6 m^−2 for a possible gradient field of the spacetime torsion. The interferometer using atoms in mF=±1 is highly sensitive to the magnetic field inhomogeneity. A double differential measurement method is developed to alleviate the inhomogeneity influence, of which the effectiveness is validated by a magnetic field modulating experiment.
-
#869 by TheTraveller on 17 Aug, 2017 10:20
-
After a few emails with Roger, here is my latest version of the EmDrive mission calculator.
Needed to factor in cavity Q and thrust drop as some cavity energy is converted to kinetic.
Also attached are 2 Mars missions, calculated to midway flip & burn point, using the 326mN/kW Flight Thruster and a 5N/kW thruster with 10kW of Rf and a 3,000kg spacecraft.
No OU in sight.
-
#870 by Mulletron on 17 Aug, 2017 11:13
-
TT, all it takes is a video of an EMdrive moving or hovering or doing something useful, to set the world on fire. Ask Roger for something like this.
-
#871 by Star One on 17 Aug, 2017 12:33
-
TT, all it takes is a video of an EMdrive moving or hovering or doing something useful, to set the world on fire. Ask Roger for something like this.
It's been asked before & it isn't going to happen. I am sure TT can explain why. -
#872 by meberbs on 17 Aug, 2017 13:44
-
No OU in sight.
Are you blind?
The only energy present before the journey starts is the energy in the battery/power supply. Your "total energy in" has nothing to do with the original energy available at all. Compare the real input energy "RF Energy in" to any of the other energies you calculated.
Also, the changes you made are nonsensical. Fd clearly does not equal M*a. This stems from a string of meaningless calculations that start with the fact that your "Total energy in" equation doesn't even end up with units of Energy. -
#873 by LowerAtmosphere on 17 Aug, 2017 14:29
-
Meberbs, would you agree that stimulated emissions from a laser or spaser exceed the activation energy? Would you agree that the hamiltonian for a system is unrelated to the specific charge imbalance/stress tensors or rather the magnetic dipoles which occur in a metal can cause the electrons to break the non-crossing condition if the refractive index is different (among other reasons such as the entire Octupole/Quadrupole discussion)? Do you recognize that anisotropic effects throughout a cold plasma and or resonant phonons can transmit force without equivalent input energy? Then you will see that OU is nonsense in the context of intra-cavity reactions. CoE and CoM is a dead end I have said it before and I will say it again. I will gladly take the time to collect papers proving this point if the library project (remember some of us promised to collect and share all relevant literature in some sort of public database?) others talked about does not finally happen.
-
#874 by meberbs on 17 Aug, 2017 15:20
-
Meberbs, would you agree that stimulated emissions from a laser or spaser exceed the activation energy?
The output power of a laser is clearly no more than the input electrical power. Illusions created by ignoring that the input power is largely used to keep the gain medium excited are just that.Would you agree that the hamiltonian for a system is unrelated to the specific charge imbalance/stress tensors or rather the magnetic dipoles which occur in a metal can cause the electrons to break the non-crossing condition if the refractive index is different (among other reasons such as the entire Octupole/Quadrupole discussion)?
Your question is about the generic "a system," but then you get very specific. Grammatically, I am not sure what you are trying to say (I get confused by the "or" and what follows). I also don't know what you mean by "non-crossing condition"Do you recognize that anisotropic effects throughout a cold plasma and or resonant phonons can transmit force without equivalent input energy?
Where does this come from? I have not studied anisotropic effects in cold plasma, but it sounds like you are probably poorly defining the concept of input energy.Then you will see that OU is nonsense in the context of intra-cavity reactions.
Are you denying that an emDrive that works as described generates more kinetic energy than the input power?CoE and CoM is a dead end I have said it before and I will say it again.
They are among the most central portions of physics. See Noether's theorem to learn what it would take to violate them.
Also, look at the specific nonsense that Shawyer/TT are saying. They are proposing something that clearly violates energy conservation, while claiming that energy conservation holds. Even in the unlikely case that the emDrive works, denying its use as an energy generator is completely counterproductive.
-
#875 by Flyby on 17 Aug, 2017 16:51
-
If it really were about NDA restriction, I would understand that perfectly...TT, all it takes is a video of an EMdrive moving or hovering or doing something useful, to set the world on fire. Ask Roger for something like this.
It's been asked before & it isn't going to happen. I am sure TT can explain why.
In the past, I had several cases where I had to sign NDA's because I was handling/visualizing prototypes.
The rules of an NDA are pretty much like the "rules of the fighters club"
(you know, first rule is not to talk about it, so is the second and 3rd..
)
In general you don't even talk about the fact you had to sign an NDA for this or that design or company. You just keep your mouth shut, till the product hits the streets...
What doesn't add up here with Shawyer is that he keeps "publishing" documents that clearly contain interesting information (like the new patent designs and VTOL/drone designs) while at the same time he tempts to hide behind a smokescreen of confidentiality when it comes down to actually show a working EMdrive.
The video , published in 2007 of a rotating rig was a good start, yet some concerns can be formulated about it, concerns that have never been addressed publicly. After that, there is nothing....
So to put it very bluntly and deprived of any tactful appreciation (my sincere apologies to mr Shawyer for that) : Either he shuts up and hides behind his NDA, or he goes public with some real, new (video)material that supports his 1540N/kW claims...
Anything in between is simply a huge PR disaster because it will not convince anybody and gives opponents of the EMdrive idea only more fuel to discredit his work.
So pretty please...stop it right there, stop the fancy words, the hockus-pockus spreadsheets and hollow powerpoint presentations and show us a working EMdrive.
TT, if you have a working result of 5N/kW as you claimed... show it... you can even put it in a hermetically sealed cardboard box, as not to reveal your "secrets"...
Again, it is not that the majority of forum participants don't want to believe it works, but we need proof that transcends the cheapo words and physics-formula juggling.
This is about Science, not Faith...
Science needs proof or at least a credible path that leads somewhere...
Only faith relies on unconditional believing...
The EMdrive is above all a science enigma, not a religious one. So "believing it works" is simply not an option. Period. -
#876 by Bob012345 on 17 Aug, 2017 17:24
-
After a few emails with Roger, here is my latest version of the EmDrive mission calculator.
Needed to factor in cavity Q and thrust drop as some cavity energy is converted to kinetic.
Also attached are 2 Mars missions, calculated to midway flip & burn point, using the 326mN/kW Flight Thruster and a 5N/kW thruster with 10kW of Rf and a 3,000kg spacecraft.
No OU in sight.
The parameters for the second Mars mission of 5N/kW suggest a nice energy generation device whereby the input Rf is multiplied by 75X on average. Chain some together for big power output.
By that definition it certainly is 'OU' but to me that doesn't mean it can't work, it just means the energy comes from somewhere else rather than the input Rf as it does with the Mach effect as I understand it.
-
#877 by Bob012345 on 17 Aug, 2017 17:46
-
Meberbs, would you agree that stimulated emissions from a laser or spaser exceed the activation energy?
The output power of a laser is clearly no more than the input electrical power. Illusions created by ignoring that the input power is largely used to keep the gain medium excited are just that.Would you agree that the hamiltonian for a system is unrelated to the specific charge imbalance/stress tensors or rather the magnetic dipoles which occur in a metal can cause the electrons to break the non-crossing condition if the refractive index is different (among other reasons such as the entire Octupole/Quadrupole discussion)?
Your question is about the generic "a system," but then you get very specific. Grammatically, I am not sure what you are trying to say (I get confused by the "or" and what follows). I also don't know what you mean by "non-crossing condition"Do you recognize that anisotropic effects throughout a cold plasma and or resonant phonons can transmit force without equivalent input energy?
Where does this come from? I have not studied anisotropic effects in cold plasma, but it sounds like you are probably poorly defining the concept of input energy.Then you will see that OU is nonsense in the context of intra-cavity reactions.
Are you denying that an emDrive that works as described generates more kinetic energy than the input power?CoE and CoM is a dead end I have said it before and I will say it again.
They are among the most central portions of physics. See Noether's theorem to learn what it would take to violate them.
Also, look at the specific nonsense that Shawyer/TT are saying. They are proposing something that clearly violates energy conservation, while claiming that energy conservation holds. Even in the unlikely case that the emDrive works, denying its use as an energy generator is completely counterproductive.
Although the rate kinetic energy is created wrt the instantaneous rest frame of the drive can always be less that the Rf input power even as the kinetic energy dramatically rises wrt the starting frame. In that sense, the device is seemingly conserving energy locally. I believe this was prof. Woodward's previous position. -
#878 by TheTraveller on 17 Aug, 2017 18:16
-
Roger is happy with version 8 of the calculator, so now it is fairly simple to input a few parameters and obtain expected Vt, distance and burn time from a few m/s dV for docking to full on interstellar missions that can either whiz by the target star at a significant % of c or do a mid way flip & burn to orbit planets in a near by star system.
I fully expect the Shawyer EmDrive Thruster Efficiency Equations to become as famous as the Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation, in which there are no references to initial or final velocity but just the desired dV from the burn.
Additional information on the static force input energy can be obtained from Roger's peer reviewed paper as attached plus screenshot with equation 11.
Phil
-
#879 by LowerAtmosphere on 17 Aug, 2017 18:27
-
Apologies for the confusion, I do not have time or access to my regular PC at the moment so I will have to back my points up the proper way later this month. My main point is that there are many effects which produce more mechanical force than the input energy*, but this is not over unity because part of the energy is being 'borrowed' from the molecules throughout the cavity through a variety of coinciding effects. It is not creating energy just slowly converting the existing electrical energy inside the entire apparatus (walls and particles within the cavity) into kinetic energy. It does so at less than 100% efficiency as some is lost to heat and it cannot do so indefinitely: anybody who says so is clearly an OU charlatan. To have continuous work the EM Drive needs more and more input power to have sufficiently strong waveguide containment fields. Constant acceleration under constant power is OU. I agree with you there, that's why we need to pulse it.
The gain medium can self-excite if confined! Think about time crystals or non-linear optical properties or even the compression of waves at surface boundaries discovered earlier this year! There is no need for continuous energy output for a system to retain energy for an arbitrary period of time. It helps to see it as a matter of time lag or a feedback loop**. A traffic jam of high energy builds up over time (time here is crucial! if there is a significant spacetime gradient or even something comparable to this then your input will take longer to leave the system than new input aka a runaway effect!) and it must eventually escape, but not at the same rate as more input. So to the outside observer it appears that you get more power than you input when really you get more force/outside clock time! As a wise man once said, time is relative and therefore so is power.
Regarding non-crossing I am referring to the level crossing condition, violation of which is likely in an em drive. We discussed this earlier when I made a small error in my thought regarding how quantized the wall really is and whether wavelengths can be predicted in the sidewall quasi-ions. Hyperplanck and I talked about this in May. Old but still relevant: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6928708/
This is why the EM Drive cannot operate at full power and full acceleration indefinitely. It will overheat and deform (melt and buckle) as the resistance to the current, the radiation pressure, and tension in the walls exceeds the strength of the bonds in the metallic lattice. Not to mention that Q will fall as the energy density leads to a hot particle soup forming in the atmosphere in the center (and QV depending on your preferred theory). Also the relativistic effects of frame dragging and doppler shift limits the top speed as you and others discovered. I cannot even begin to wrap my head around how gravitational waves play into this picture but I assume they will radiate away energy as well. The over unity aspect must be balanced by energy loss from edit: 'to' not 'from' the environment, it is that simple. The question is what is the environment? Do we borrow inertia from the Mach effect? Do we borrow electrons via a charge imbalance in the walls? Do we simply borrow momentum from the local gravitational fields or the gravitational/energetic fluctuations of the QV? Do we borrow energy from the wavelengths and decay/decohere the resonant microwaves/walls? I do not have a clear answer since it all depends on choice of theory, which is a subjective choice clearly. Personally, I believe that there is a reactionless transfer of energy from the areas of high energy density to the areas with low energy density via magnetic reconnection. This is just from what I can remember so I am sure I have fudged the details somewhere and will need to correct it and reference back to old discussions and well known papers to refresh all our memories - feel free to help me do so.
Hope this doesnt come across as lecturing, just trying to clarify why I believe coe is a dead end for disproving the em drive. I do not object to you correcting TT and Shawyer just that you do not offer a solid rebuttal to their claims based on a reasonable alternative. It is the job of a skeptic to not only contradict falsehoods but also inform what more likely constitutes the truth. CoE will never be a counterargument since it is a given.
*Let's define it as watt since that is what the magnetron needs to operate. We could also choose resonant microwaves*Q or more abstractly, define it as the increase in electron density in the peak field layer per unit of outside observer time. I should have said input power, you are right.
**Nod here to the many years of plasmon/evanescent wave based theories which may still prove useful in explaining energy storage at the boundary
But if one accepts that a fixed electrical input power can actually create a fixed static thrust at all, then Shaywer's relevant input energy equation is just the work done by such a thrust. Yes, of course it can be way more that P*t and in fact his interstellar probe design violates P*t by a factor of 20 million! It seems to me that his position is somewhat like Prof. Woodward's position until recently which I may poorly elucidate but essentially says that as long as one inputs enough energy to boost the speed by a certain amount, equivalent to a certain acceleration, from an instantaneous rest frame, all is well. Thus Shawyer simply computes the efficiency of such a thrust under accelerations in which the given input power cannot support.
)
By that definition it certainly is 'OU' but to me that doesn't mean it can't work, it just means the energy comes from somewhere else rather than the input Rf as it does with the Mach effect as I understand it.