Object: Calculation of push (optimistic) on a half-wave dipole and new bibliography. The 2 dipoles face the opposite sides of a rectangle
The setup of the dipoles is what I have already talked about in
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42239.0And specifically I refer to fig. 1 [1]
and to the configuration fig. 4 [1] published ibidem which determines a thrust in the same direction and towards. The push is given only to Lorentz's strength:
F = i l B
since the photonic boost is over 1000 times lower than that of the Lorentz force.
In our setup i is the current in rms in the dipole arms, l is the length of the dipole or 16 cm and B is the optimistic calculation of the magnetic field of a dipole in the feedpoint of the other 8 cm distant dipole
The calculation is optimistic in the sense that it only serves to understand the amount of basic force that is in place.
The current i that flows in the dipoles is optimistically given to 4 Amp rms. As mentioned, the dipole arm along l is a 16 cm long segment of the circuit. For the calculation of B the last formula in this link should be used
http://www.roma1.infn.it/people/luci/libro/Campo_magnetico.pdf below on p. 833
where the limits of integration are no longer + - infinite but the extremes of the dipole is -8 cm and + 8 cm. To realize the amount of thrust in play we positively admit that the dipole of which we want to find the field B at a distance of 8 cm in the feedpoint is subject to the same field in all points of the dipole. That is, that field B is on the whole dipole the one that is at the center of the dipole in front of the one for which the magnetic field is to be found.
The setup with which to do the test are two vertical dipoles hanging in front of one another, 16 cm long and 8 cm apart, in the figure Setupd.
The two parallel dipoles are distant ¼ of a wave. The push detection is performed with 1 or more lasers on ballistic pendulum, lenses, etc .. We recommend using at least one power divider and a phase shifter in addition to a good power supply resistant to inevitable mismatch.
The calculation of force F offers a thrust of .454 milligrams or even half a milligram!
With these thrusts one could ask how electric motors work, actually magnetic motors, in common use. Actually in the motors the windings are much, much longer than 16 cm, stator and rotor are much closer and above all the whole is super boosted by magnetic masses with magnetic permeability much greater than 1 and top of the top do not work around the lethal frequency of 432 MHz and related phase problems :-)
With F432 I managed to increase these effects by about 100 times (even with a lower current) ... but it's still not enough for take-off.
I must also add a very important fact in my opinion that has always played against the thrust of open circuits:
In several Italian tests all the authors explicitly say that open circuits violate clearly the principle of action and reaction and solve the thing saying that in practice these forces do not exist or that the electromagnetic forces of Lorentz exist only between closed circuits as mentioned in the figure Amaldi ( General Physics II)
From what has been said, it is clear what determines the definition of non-existent for such potentially violent electrodynamic forces Newton III: the baseness of thrust beyond the difficulty of the experimental setup that requires a well-equipped experimental electrodynamic lab ... apart from the fact that in secula seculorum nobody went to investigate this event specifically despite someone who wanted the opposite (in the end we will say who he is).
But things are changing my opponents on the third of Newton or they seem to be changing opinion.
Here are some:
In the thread on free.it.scienza.fisica from the title
The 3 dynamic principle sometimes does not apply?
From:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=IT#!topic/free.it.scienza.fisica/eUUCW9P6NVAOn 27/04/16 20:00, G. Pasore wrote:
Interesting. It increases (Pastore says) the personal statistics of people who should
know it and do not know it (about the violation of the III principle of dynamics).
And many graduates in physics seem to ignore it (or
have forgotten it if they have known it in the past).
Your post confirms that this is a widespread gap.
I also add that the electromagnetic case is not the only one.
Not valid for apparent forces.
Not valid for the situation of forces not attributable to sums of
couple interactions.
Giorgio Pastore (professor of the University of Trieste)
............ ..
... while Prof Elio Fabri, former lecturer of the University of Pisa with whom I have had countless polemics for many years (over 15 years) about the violation of the Newton III principle recently at least in Italy has become the best academic propagandist of the violation in electrodynamics of the principle of action and reaction
Here is what he wrote against me:
E.Fabri said in 2006 in the thread: "Per Elio Fabri"
by Piccolachimica
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=IT#!searchin/it.scienza.fisica/fissato$20$20che$20ci$20sia$20il$20modo$20di$20violare$20la$20terza$20legge$20della $ 20dinamica% 7Csort: dates / it.scienza.fisica / pba9hbOaxyE / ZXc_pLh_qZ8J
he wrote:
> Can you tell me something about the activity of asps (asks Piccolachimica to Elio Fabri)?
From my long studies in Latin (Fabri says) , I remember saying "longum est"
to intend "it would be too long"

But I really do not want to disappoint you, so here's a summary
summary (and certainly partial, in the sense of "partisan" ...).
Laureti is dichara graduate in Physics in Rome, and seems to teach in
a secondary school in the city.
For several years he has taken it upon himself to discover a means of
propulsion that exceeds the traditional ones of astronautics, and yes
fixed that there is a way to violate the third law of dynamics.
That's why he talks about PNN, which means "propulsion not
Newtonian ".
In the early days it has held with improbable mechanical devices, gods
which gave fanciful theoretical justifications. To those who did
to notice the numerous errors of his "reasonings" has always responded
with the style you know: insults and escapes for the bribe.
In the end he was convinced that the mechanical system was not working (now
he says it himself, but then, woe to tell him ...) and he jumped up
an electromagnetic system, just as unfounded as the previous one.
..................... ..
........................ ..
-
Elio Fabri
(related links
http://www.asps.it/2pesi2misure.htm www.asps.it/contesto.htm )
One comment: as I have already said several times to the deaf Elio Fabri with the pnn are preserved both the qdm (momentum) that the energy but must renounce the fact that the pnn can be reached through relativity.
Now with a 180 degree turnaround E.Fabri says this in July 2018 :-)
Title: Third Principle and Field e.m.
E.Fabri writes:
"For the purpose of demonstrating that in the context of e.m. the third principle of dynamics
not valid, the following situation is considered "....
mathematical proof of E.Fabri of violation of Newton's III in electrodynamics
http://www.sagredo.eu/varie/terzopr-em.pdffrom:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=IT#!topic/it.scienza.fisica/bywUcjCN47UThe professor. Fabri has not yet made amends for all the lies that he previously said against me since unfortunately supporting hard-line ideas that go against the mainstream are almost always received insults. Here a collection that is a library and is almost completely Italian
www.asps.it/gotha.htm :-)
.............
To conclude as I said in the forum in
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42239.0The first who went to think about interactions between open circuits such as the above dipoles (and with an implicit invitation to study the thing well before constructing mathematical bans), was J.C. Maxwell.
He explicitly tells pag.163 Vol.2 of his Treatise:
... ..NO EXPERIMENTS ON THE MUTUAL ACTION OF UNCLOSED CIRCUITS HAVE BEEN MADE ... ..
And I must add that in his time it was almost impossible to do these experiments.
I have been experimenting with Maxwell for many years and I have discussed it for the first time in n.84 Vol.20 2000 of Nova Astronautica pp.3-9. I think that his fellow countryman of the emdrive Roger Shawyer never picked up this invitation. :-)
There is nothing else to add if you do not read for free Nova Astronautica Official Organ of the Space Propulsion Development Association (ASPS) at the National Library of Florence
http://www.asps.it/novafiorenza.htm for further details.
Greetings
E.Laureti