-
#940 by TheTraveller on 20 Aug, 2017 19:52
-
This attachment should clearly show how EmDrive dynamic thrust Fd drops as KE increases and draws off more and more cavity energy to support the increasing KE.
Also shows that using short pulsed Rf will reduce KE energy draw down and maintain high Fd.
-
#941 by meberbs on 20 Aug, 2017 20:26
-
This attachment should clearly show how EmDrive dynamic thrust Fd drops as KE increases and draws off more and more cavity energy to support the increasing KE.
What you are saying here is that the force when you turn it on is dependent on how long you plan to keep it on (all previous analysis was for constant acceleration)
Also shows that using short pulsed Rf will reduce KE energy draw down and maintain high Fd.
In case you missed the implication here:... It doesn't make sense for this value to depend on at what point in the future the drive is turned off.
and if somebody assumes for the present value to depend on future (yet unknown) states, it is essentially assuming knowledge of the future state: requiring superluminal communication, as with tachyons conveying future information and breaking causality...
If what you meant to say is that the force decreases with time then you have to note:
1. Still doesn't make sense because the RF source is moving with the cavity.
2. You have to redo the previous calculations accounting for variable thrust.
3. Since it magically resets if you pulse the RF, doing so clearly results in the same energy conservation problems. Energy flow from the battery and kinetic energy gain both only happen with RF on, so while you will travel farther, and it will take twice as long (assuming 50% duty cycle) to reach the same velocity, the same battery power will be spent and same kinetic energy gained, so still an energy generator. -
#942 by dustinthewind on 20 Aug, 2017 20:59
-
snip..
Perhaps a forced gradient in the virtual particle density by -dB/dt where there is mutual repulsion between particles. A larger change in the magnetic field (energy density) may exist in the narrow part of the cone pushing pairs more into the larger end. This would give a lower pair density at the narrow end and larger density at the large end (possibly similar to squeezed light or vacuum). Maybe this change in density forces energy to be distributed to the available pairs. More energy per pair may increase the effective mass and decrease the number of available photons. Photon quanta being the interaction of vacuum pairs with an electron in material with possible backwards time traveling waves that cancel out a quanta of energy going else where when absorbed.
Sounds similar to the ideas of Dr. White et al.
yes it mixes the vacuum plasma with vacuum pairs, virtual particles known to surround charges, electrons in the skin of the cavity, the woodward effect (changing in mass) force/power>=1/c [slowing light] - increasing impulse, the Polarizable vacuum, General relativity, with standard electrodynamics, with squeezed light/vacuum which creates alternating regions of positive and negative energy. Possibly sensing and generating gravity waves.Based on the presence of a mean field[edit]
Squeezed states of light can be divided into squeezed vacuum and bright squeezed light, depending on the absence or presence of a non-zero mean field (also called a carrier), respectively. Interestingly, an Optical Parametric Oscillator operated below threshold produces squeezed vacuum, whereas the same OPO operated above threshold produces bright squeezed light. Bright squeezed light can be advantageous for certain quantum information processing applications as it obviates the need of sending local oscillator to provide a phase reference, whereas squeezed vacuum is considered more suitable for quantum enhanced sensing applications. The AdLIGO and GEO600 gravitational wave detectors use squeezed vacuum to achieve enhanced sensitivity beyond the standard quantum limitQuote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_energyCasimir effect[edit]
Main article: Casimir effect
In the Casimir effect, two flat plates placed very close together restrict the wavelengths of quanta which can exist between them. This in turn restricts the types and hence number and density of virtual particle pairs which can form in the intervening vacuum and can result in a negative energy density.
If there is any truth to it many things may tie in.
Dustinthewind:
If you liked those Quantum Vacuum plasma runs try out this mp4 movie of same. I've also attached a related Eagleworks (EW) Lab paper with the start of our idea on this QV topic if you've not read it already.
Best, Paul M.
Thanks for mentioning this paper as its fascinating. I have been thinking for a while now about the electron cloud around an atom so it really hit home. The way the electron can jump energy states or form a cloud seemed like a positron hole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_hole
Possibly giving a reason why an electron cloud orbit doesn't lose energy via acceleration to radiation falling into the nucleus.
Dustinthewind:
Find attached the next EW paper in that series by Dr. White. I think the key takeaway from Dr. White's work to date is that both the electrons and positrons are NOT unique in time or space, but are just transient holes in the quantum vacuum (QV) that are controlled by 5th dimension based de Broglie guide waves. I believe that logic can also be applied to ALL subatomic particles, so in the end analysis, all of creation is just QV oscillations and their electric, magnetic and gravitational field interactions.
BTW, find attached two overlaid QV plasma code thrust prediction runs for the EW Copper Frustum being run at 50W with a TM212 resonant mode at 1937 MHz. As you can see this is a statistical process with lots of noise in it, but it appears to come close to predicting the actual thrust produced by these copper frustums.
Best,, Paul M.
Thanks again. I was reading this quote here:The exact causative agent or physical rationale for the delineation of 2/3 and 1/3 factors, if one exists, is a matter for future consideration.
My thoughts immediately went to the ratio of dark energy to dark matter. https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy
I'm not sure yet they wold be connected but thought I would just note the similarity. Omega_A comes very close to the 69% dark energy ratio which I assume was intentional.
I think it would be interesting if we could ever induce a flow in this vacuum to make the flow in a transverse toroidal direction. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39464.msg1484673#msg1484673 particularly this image "Light and Space-time toroid.png " but not necessarily using light. I suspect the toroid would experience no net drag from the flow but an object in the center may. Locking the 2 together would induce a stress in their connection. Maybe if the flow were large enough something similar to super cavitation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercavitation could be induced shunting the surrounding vacuum around the toroid. I am probably thinking too far ahead. -
#943 by Star-Drive on 20 Aug, 2017 21:41
-
Thanks again. I was reading this quote here:
Quote from: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=1662495948920176458&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26
The exact causative agent or physical rationale for the delineation of 2/3 and 1/3 factors, if one exists, is a matter for future consideration.
My thoughts immediately went to the ratio of dark energy to dark matter. https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy
I'm not sure yet they wold be connected but thought I would just note the similarity. Omega_A comes very close to the 69% dark energy ratio which I assume was intentional.
I think it would be interesting if we could ever induce a flow in this vacuum to make the flow in a transverse toroidal direction. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39464.msg1484673#msg1484673 particularly this image "Light and Space-time toroid.png " but not necessarily using light. I suspect the toroid would experience no net drag from the flow but an object in the center may. Locking the 2 together would induce a stress in their connection. Maybe if the flow were large enough something similar to super cavitation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercavitation could be induced shunting the surrounding vacuum around the toroid. I am probably thinking too far ahead.
Dustinthewind:
Dr. White's earliest version of his QV conjecture leads directly to a predictions that the dark energy portion of the universe has to be exactly 2/3, which is what it is still tending down to using the latest WMAP and later cosmological constant thermal radiation data. https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Best, Paul M. -
#944 by Monomorphic on 20 Aug, 2017 22:21
-
Image showing how the antenna is positioned on the small curved end-plate. I've also printed a linear actuator for the flat end frustum. That way I have two frustums based on the same dimensions, only difference is flat vs curved end-plates. These actuators are a godsend, saving me enormous amounts of time impedance matching!
-
#945 by Bob Woods on 20 Aug, 2017 23:18
-
Absolutely great work you're doing Jamie, but hurry. I'm smack in the middle of the path of totality tomorrow morning. Beside looking at the corona, it would be a great time to see the heat signature of a frustum passing overhead.
-
#946 by spupeng7 on 21 Aug, 2017 05:43
-
Image showing how the antenna is positioned on the small curved end-plate. I've also printed a linear actuator for the flat end frustum. That way I have two frustums based on the same dimensions, only difference is flat vs curved end-plates. These actuators are a godsend, saving me enormous amounts of time impedance matching!
Monomorph,
is there a reason for extending the conductive surface so far from the inside of the frustum? Could this contribute to I2R losses? -
#947 by TheTraveller on 21 Aug, 2017 09:49
-
This attachment should clearly show how EmDrive dynamic thrust Fd drops as KE increases and draws off more and more cavity energy to support the increasing KE.
What you are saying here is that the force when you turn it on is dependent on how long you plan to keep it on (all previous analysis was for constant acceleration)
Also shows that using short pulsed Rf will reduce KE energy draw down and maintain high Fd.
In case you missed the implication here:... It doesn't make sense for this value to depend on at what point in the future the drive is turned off.
and if somebody assumes for the present value to depend on future (yet unknown) states, it is essentially assuming knowledge of the future state: requiring superluminal communication, as with tachyons conveying future information and breaking causality...
If what you meant to say is that the force decreases with time then you have to note:
1. Still doesn't make sense because the RF source is moving with the cavity.
2. You have to redo the previous calculations accounting for variable thrust.
3. Since it magically resets if you pulse the RF, doing so clearly results in the same energy conservation problems. Energy flow from the battery and kinetic energy gain both only happen with RF on, so while you will travel farther, and it will take twice as long (assuming 50% duty cycle) to reach the same velocity, the same battery power will be spent and same kinetic energy gained, so still an energy generator.
Hi Meberbs,
Some of the cavity energy is used to do work on mass, accelerating it and creating KE. As there is a constant supply of cavity energy, what is left after subtracting the KE draw down results in force generation.
So yes as acceleration time increases, increasing the KE draw down, the force reduces.
No OU during acceleration. -
#948 by Monomorphic on 21 Aug, 2017 12:35
-
is there a reason for extending the conductive surface so far from the inside of the frustum? Could this contribute to I2R losses?
The flange is 3.5cm wide, which is a little more than 1/4 wavelength. Advice I received was the flange should be at least 2.5cm to accommodate bolts and nuts. I decided on 3.5 because at the time, I was using a material that wasn't as strong. I stuck with the 3.5cm as I wanted to be able to interchange the end-plates. Since the flange is tight fitting, I do not expect it to contribute much, if anything to the copper loss - especially since with mode TE013, there are very little e-fields along the flange seam. -
#949 by TheTraveller on 21 Aug, 2017 13:05
-
As KE builds up, as velocity increases, thrust is not constant.
For the Pluto mission with a flip and decelerate point at ~2.3bkm, attached is the velocity vs time plot which clearly shows early mission thrust and velocity gain is greater than later in the mission. Plot is based on over 0.5m points.
By factoring in the earlier higher acceleration rate vs the simple calculator value time to flip droos from 3.9 years to 3.1 years.
Again no OU, just Rf energy input producing thrust and KE gain.
-
#950 by TheTraveller on 21 Aug, 2017 14:04
-
Photons can be harvested for more momentum than obtained in a photon rocket.
The belief that the most momentum that can be harvested from a photon is that harvested by a single photon emit event by a photon rocket is clearly incorrect.
Solar sails harvest 2 momentum events. 1 on photon absorb and another on photon emit, with the emitted photon being a slightly lower energy and momentum with a longer wavelength. Thus the momentum and KE gained by the solar sail is balanced by the momentum and energy lost by the emitted photon.
So both CofM and CofE are conserved by the dual absorb and emit event.
Photons can also be bounched between reflectors and the total radiation pressure on the reflectors increases by the number of reflections.
Clearly shown in this video:
This example helps to explain how higher cavity Q increases force generation as the higher the Q, the more reflections and momentum transfer that occurs.
Of course there is a limit to how much momentum that can be harvested from a photon.
-
#951 by PotomacNeuron on 21 Aug, 2017 14:21
-
Photons can be harvested for more momentum than obtained in a photon rocket.
The belief that the most momentum that can be harvested from a photon is that harvested by a single photon emit event by a photon rocket is clearly incorrect.
Solar sails harvest 2 momentum events. 1 on photon absorb and another on photon emit, with the emitted photon being a slightly lower energy and momentum with a longer wavelength. Thus the momentum and KE gained by the solar sail is balanced by the momentum and energy lost by the emitted photon.
So both CofM and CofE are conserved by the dual absorb and emit event.
Photons can also be bounched between reflectors and the total radiation pressure on the reflectors increases by the number of reflections.
Clearly shown in this video:
This example helps to explain how higher cavity Q increases force generation as the higher the Q, the more reflections and momentum transfer that occurs.
Of course there is a limit to how much momentum that can be harvested from a photon.
What you are talking about is a photonic laser thruster initially developed by Young Bae,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_laser_thruster
CoE is kept because a mother platform is involved which gains momentum in the opposite direction as that of the mission platform. This is different from EmDrive.
-
#952 by TheTraveller on 21 Aug, 2017 15:00
-
Photons can be harvested for more momentum than obtained in a photon rocket.
The belief that the most momentum that can be harvested from a photon is that harvested by a single photon emit event by a photon rocket is clearly incorrect.
Solar sails harvest 2 momentum events. 1 on photon absorb and another on photon emit, with the emitted photon being a slightly lower energy and momentum with a longer wavelength. Thus the momentum and KE gained by the solar sail is balanced by the momentum and energy lost by the emitted photon.
So both CofM and CofE are conserved by the dual absorb and emit event.
Photons can also be bounched between reflectors and the total radiation pressure on the reflectors increases by the number of reflections.
Clearly shown in this video:
This example helps to explain how higher cavity Q increases force generation as the higher the Q, the more reflections and momentum transfer that occurs.
Of course there is a limit to how much momentum that can be harvested from a photon.
What you are talking about is a photonic laser thruster initially developed by Young Bae,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_laser_thruster
CoE is kept because a mother platform is involved which gains momentum in the opposite direction as that of the mission platform. This is different from EmDrive.
Example is to show how it is possible to harvest more photon momentum than can be harvested by a photon rocket. Also helps to explain why higher Q and hense more reflections, increases EmDrive force generation.
Thrre are several steps to understanding how and why an EmDrive works.
1) EmDrive is not OU.
2) More photon momentum, than obtained in a photon rocket, is available to be harvest from photons.
3) Bounching photons between reflecting end plates increases the radiation pressure on the end plates.
4) Radiation pressure is the result of the Compton Effect, between photons and bound electrons of the lattice metallic atoms in the end plates.
5) Monentum & energy gain of the metallic atom lattice is balanced by the momentum & energy lost to the photons, resulting in them having lower monentum, lower energy and longer wavelength.
6) In the demo, the moving reflector photon impacts are an inelastic event, ie momentum is lost to the impacting photons and for the other mirror it is an elastic event as there is no monentum transfer and thus no photon momentum loss.
Examples of all the above have been provided.
You follow so far?
-
#953 by TheTraveller on 21 Aug, 2017 17:37
-
Interesting Rocket In Space equations that show initial velocity has no effect on the dV obtained from the burn.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/rocket2.html
So why be concerned if the EmDrive equations ignore initial velocity?
-
#954 by Bob012345 on 21 Aug, 2017 18:36
-
Photons can be harvested for more momentum than obtained in a photon rocket.
The belief that the most momentum that can be harvested from a photon is that harvested by a single photon emit event by a photon rocket is clearly incorrect.
Solar sails harvest 2 momentum events. 1 on photon absorb and another on photon emit, with the emitted photon being a slightly lower energy and momentum with a longer wavelength. Thus the momentum and KE gained by the solar sail is balanced by the momentum and energy lost by the emitted photon.
So both CofM and CofE are conserved by the dual absorb and emit event.
Photons can also be bounched between reflectors and the total radiation pressure on the reflectors increases by the number of reflections.
Clearly shown in this video:
This example helps to explain how higher cavity Q increases force generation as the higher the Q, the more reflections and momentum transfer that occurs.
Of course there is a limit to how much momentum that can be harvested from a photon.
What you are talking about is a photonic laser thruster initially developed by Young Bae,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_laser_thruster
CoE is kept because a mother platform is involved which gains momentum in the opposite direction as that of the mission platform. This is different from EmDrive.
Example is to show how it is possible to harvest more photon momentum than can be harvested by a photon rocket. Also helps to explain why higher Q and hense more reflections, increases EmDrive force generation.
Thrre are several steps to understanding how and why an EmDrive works.
1) EmDrive is not OU.
2) More photon momentum, than obtained in a photon rocket, is available to be harvest from photons.
3) Bounching photons between reflecting end plates increases the radiation pressure on the end plates.
4) Radiation pressure is the result of the Compton Effect, between photons and bound electrons of the lattice metallic atoms in the end plates.
5) Monentum & energy gain of the metallic atom lattice is balanced by the momentum & energy lost to the photons, resulting in them having lower monentum, lower energy and longer wavelength.
6) In the demo, the moving reflector photon impacts are an inelastic event, ie momentum is lost to the impacting photons and for the other mirror it is an elastic event as there is no monentum transfer and thus no photon momentum loss.
Examples of all the above have been provided.
You follow so far?
It's a great concept for local travel where you have a mirror to reflect between and to show even photons can beat the photon rocket paradigm. Are you suggesting the EMDrive creates a virtual mirror? -
#955 by TheTraveller on 21 Aug, 2017 18:48
-
It's a great concept for local travel where you have a mirror to reflect between and to show even photons can beat the photon rocket paradigm. Are you suggesting the EMDrive creates a virtual mirror?
No not at all.
I linked the video as proof that bouncing photons between reflecting mirrors increases the radiation pressure on the moving mirror to be very much more than 3.3uN/kW.
You see there are still those that believe any force greater than 3.3uN/kW, photon rocket force, is not possible and would be OU.
This explains why force or end plate radiation pressure increases as cavity Q increases as with increasing cavity Q there are increasing photon end plate impact events.
Need to get the basics well understood before engaging the pathway to explain how and why the EmDrive works and is not in violation of Newton's Laws nor CofM nor CofE. -
#956 by TheTraveller on 21 Aug, 2017 23:02
-
Guys,
There is one universal equation that defines the work that is needed to be done to move a mass a distance over a time by a force.
It matters not if the propulsion tech is a
Chem rocket.
Ion drive.
Solar sail powered by the sun or a laser.
Photon rocket.
MEGA drive.
EmDrive.
Etc
That universal equation is:
W = N * 1/2a * t^2 where
W = Joules of energy
N = Newtons of force
t = time taken to do the move or acceleration time
a = acceleration in m/sec^2 = N / m where
m = mass in kgs
Please note there is no initial velocity value needed nor used.
Phil -
#957 by PotomacNeuron on 21 Aug, 2017 23:11
-
Guys,
There is one universal equation that defines the work that is needed to be done to move a mass a distance over a time by a force.
It matters not if the propulsion tech is a
Chem rocket.
Ion drive.
Solar sail powered by the sun or a laser.
Photon rocket.
MEGA drive.
EmDrive.
Etc
That universal equation is:
W = N * d * t where
W = Joules of energy
N = Newtons of force
t = time taken to do the move
d = distance the mass moved in meters = 1/2 a * t^2 where
a = acceleration in m/sec^2 = N / m where
m = mass in kgs
Please note there is no initial velocity value needed nor used.
Phil
TT, wikipedia said W=Fs, where s=displacement, so this is your d. Your W has wrong unit.
also d=1/2 a * t^2+V*t, where V is the initial velocity, instead of d=1/2 a * t^2; so either you missed V*t or you assumed V=0. Did you assume V=0?
-
#958 by francesco nicoli on 21 Aug, 2017 23:13
-
No offense, but since TT keeps defending Shawyer no matter what, I won't pay any attention of any kind beyond this post to whatevs TT says, till either Shawyers' flying cars are proved, or TT comes to better senses. Enough of nonsense.
-
#959 by TheTraveller on 22 Aug, 2017 00:40
-
Guys,
There is one universal equation that defines the work that is needed to be done to move a mass a distance over a time by a force.
It matters not if the propulsion tech is a
Chem rocket.
Ion drive.
Solar sail powered by the sun or a laser.
Photon rocket.
MEGA drive.
EmDrive.
Etc
That universal equation is:
W = N * 1/2a * t^2 where
W = Joules of energy
N = Newtons of force
t = time taken to do the move or acceleration time
a = acceleration in m/sec^2 = N / m where
m = mass in kgs
Please note there is no initial velocity value needed nor used.
Phil
TT, wikipedia said W=Fs, where s=displacement, so this is your d. Your W has wrong unit.
also d=1/2 a * t^2+V*t, where V is the initial velocity, instead of d=1/2 a * t^2; so either you missed V*t or you assumed V=0. Did you assume V=0?
Thanks PN.
Equations fixed. Still jet lagged and sleep time is all messed up. Using 1/2a * t^2 as displacement as it brings in time.
As for initial velocity, floating in my tin can as Major Tom says, what initial v should I use? Based on what external to my tin can reference frame? Maybe Earth orbit velocity or solar orbit velocity or orbit velocity around the galactic hub or local group or great attractor? They are all so different and produce such different values. Maybe just use the pre thrust reference frame of my tin can, ie zero?
