-
#1040 by meberbs on 14 May, 2019 01:01
-
I think the shape of resonant electromagnetic field directly affects the thrust size and direction, which is a very sensitive factor. At the same time, I think the conical cavity of TE01X is not enough to form a significant difference in electromagnetic field gradient, and the cavity design is misguided.
In what manner do you claim the shape affects the thrust?
Why would this happen?
What cavity design do you propose?
Why should this design work any different than all of the other tests that have produced a null result?
All of those questions need to be answered, in detail with actual numbers to describe the expected forces, before it would make sense for anyone to spend any time experimenting based on your claim.
This is just the latest in the pile of suggestions that have come from multiple sources, but never seem to answer the equivalent of the questions I just asked. We are well past the point where random speculation is useful. Any further investigation should be backed by a falsifiable hypothesis with specific enough predictions to truly be testable, and preferably a decent explanation for why the effect is plausible and how it can be consistent with the countless accurate predictions of standard physics. -
#1041 by meberbs on 14 May, 2019 07:00
-
meberbs
What in the world are you referring to?
You acknowledge that you do not have sufficient knowledge to perform these calculations.
How much are you willing to pay for tuition
I know how to do just about any math that could possibly be required, but when people make random assertions that are not supported by any theory, there are simply no calculations to do. They have to first provide a complete hypothesis or their suggestions are useless. -
#1042 by OnlyMe on 14 May, 2019 15:40
-
meberbs
You acknowledge that you do not have sufficient knowledge to perform these calculations.
How much are you willing to pay for tuition ?
I have no idea how you came to the above conclusion.
I don’t know meberbs personally. I don’t always agree with his (theoretical) conclusions. But he has been contributing to these discussions for longer than the 3-4 years I have followed them and in that time he has proven repeatedly that he is well qualified in the mathematics and fundamental physics. -
#1043 by Bryan_Kelly on 14 May, 2019 16:10
-
McCulloch from yesterday...
-
#1044 by OnlyMe on 14 May, 2019 16:11
-
meberbs,
I apologize, the way I referenced/incorporated the EMDrive into my attempt to explain my question, muddied the underlying question. Briefly: The question I struggle with, is whether the interaction between two GHz electromagnetic fields, where one is a resonant field with no massive component and the other a field induced in the conductive walls of the frustum, can be explained within our classical understanding and experience of CoM and closed systems. This is completely aside from any question of whether any force could be extracted from the interaction.The question: Does physics require that CoM involve an outside force or is that only a reflection of classical experience? Or as crudely described below could the interaction be between the resonant EM field inside the frustum and induced EM field in the frustum walls?
The conservation laws I described are general in that you can take a closed device and its total momentum will not change without an external interaction, momentum can move between its different parts, but that is it. If there is an external interaction with something in the form of a force, then the equal and opposite reaction law balances things. Alternatively, depending on the initial definition of your system, it could change momentum by have mass (or energy/photons) leave the system, carrying away momentum. This generally covers any kind of interaction.
Noether's theorem is a fairly strong statement about conservation of momentum existing. GR starts to get into an exception, but even in GR, conservation of momentum holds locally. (locally being defined as interactions limited by the speed of light.) Globally, there are issues with even defining conservation laws, which is why I don't use this argument with the Mach effect. (I have doubts for related reasons, but am not sure if it is even possible to express those doubts mathematically.)
I don’t have any issue with your description of CoM, as it relates to what I attempted to reference as “classical experience” above. To be clear, what I mean by “classical experience” is direct and/or practical experience. Where the interaction involves two EM fields, classically the EM (or in some cases magnetic) field acts as a conduit for the transfer of momentum between two massive components, rather than the source of the momentum transferred. Simple everyday examples being electric motors, generators, alternators and solenoids.., etc..
The resonating EM field within a frustum has no similar massive “core” or counterpart, as in the above examples. Still the field does have both electric and magnetic properties and interacts with the corresponding EM field(s) induced in the conductive walls of the frustum. Two interacting fields, but only one massive component, the frustum.
meberbs, I am really split or torn, uncertain about the implications, of which there could be many possibilities. However my initial point was whether the system as a whole really represents a “classical” closed system, where an external interaction is required? Or could the electromagnetic interaction between the resonating EM field and the corresponding field induced in the frustum walls, even should they result only in a GHz jitter, dominate a transfer of momentum, that has no external massive counterpart? No classical analog.
Classically the frustum should represent a closed system, but the EM radiation that the resonant field is composed of is introduced from outside the frustum, through a wave guide or by an antenna. Either way if the interacting fields generate even a jitter, momentum is transferred to the mass of the frustum through an interaction between the two fields.
This should not represent a classical closed system since the inherent momentum within the resonant EM field is introduce from outside the frustum. Similarly a classical interpretation of CoM of momentum should not be an issue.I am not yet fully convinced there is “nothing there”, nor that there “is”, but I believe that if there is, it is far more likely to be a fragile electromagnetic interaction between the resonant EM field and the induced electromagnetic properties in the frustum walls... This would switch the CoM issue to one of could the properties of the EM field induced in the frustum walls, be pushing off of the resonating EM field itself?
The problem with that idea if I am understanding what you are saying correctly, is that the fields themselves have energy and momentum. The fields cannot net move to the right while the momentum is to the left. Other than the need to use relativistic equations to describe the momentum in the fields, this is identical to a cavity that contains bouncing balls, and the conclusion is the same, the outside of the cavity may vibrate, but the center of mass (center of energy in relativity) won't go anywhere.
Your response above raised another question. I began with an assumption that the momentum potential of a resonant EM field (with no massive core) was limited to the inherent momentum potential of the radiating EM energy it is composed of... Even while we know from experience that an EM field has the potential to transfer momentum between massive components, far in excess of “that” relatively insignificant inherent momentum. So an additional question — Does an EM field have an inherent momentum potential greater than that of the radiating photons/waves, it is composed of? If not even imagining an ideal total transfer of momentum between the two fields, the results should not be greater than expected from a perfect photon rocket. If an EM field has an inherent momentum potential greater than that of the fundamental EM radiation, the potential might exceed that of a perfect photon rocket.., and it would then seem new physics or some significant re-evaluation of existing physics would be needed. But this could only be a question, explored after confirming some measurable anomalous force, to begin with. While a few of the early DIY experiments left some question on the issue, those early devices have never been re-examined with better test equipment and experimental control... (at least publicly shared).Since this would also be an almost insignificant EM interaction isolating the affect may require the higher power levels of the earlier magnetron tests.
I believe that sensitivity of tests should best be described in terms of what force/power ratio they can measure down to. Since this ratio is constant and linear in basically every proposal (including what you just described) this makes it a better metric. Tests with magnetrons improved sensitivity by increasing the total power, but usually induced other (thermal for example) problems, which increased the minimum force required to see a meaningful signal. Higher power would be unambiguously better if it is known to work, and the goal is to apply it, but sometimes lower power, but a significantly more sensitive force measurement can be better for showing if the force really exists.It would seem you could only test for the initial surge as the device is turned on with any in lab test equipment. The device would have to be free to move for the two fields to maintain an interaction resulting in a directional force. A device in orbit, or in a lab on a turntable with an inherent resistance to motion (both from friction and perhaps inertia), less than the very small expected anomalous force.
I am not sure how you are getting to that conclusion, and to the extent such a condition could even exist, the torsion pendulums in most experiments should satisfy it. It is similar to some claims from TT/Shawyer, but it makes no sense because the fields in the device cannot tell if the device is moving or not, physics is independent of reference frame, so sitting still and moving at constant velocity have the same results. The fields can tell if the device is accelerating, but the result is that the fields push (very slightly) against the direction of acceleration because they need to "accelerate" too.
This last bit was basically me rambling into “what ifs” and imagining that if one could somehow manage/control the interaction between the two fields, an anomalous force might be realized.
Should it be that any momentum is transferred through an interaction between the two EM fields, there then is the potential that the resonant field might be manipulated such that the momentum that is transferred, might be transferred asymmetrically. At least for short periods of time. But that is speculation which goes beyond my original intent
My focus on a need for higher power tests and even reverting to testing earlier frustum designs with the improved test beds, of the day, is grounded on two questions, I don’t feel have been resolved.
One is that, should the potential momentum available for transfer be limited to the inherent momentum associated with any EM photons/waves contributing to the internal resonant EM field, there is a possibility that the there would be insufficient total momentum potential available, from low power systems to overcome the inherent inertial resistance of the device’s mass and inherent initial resistance of the test bed. Think of it like this were we dealing with a photon rocket what would be the minimum power/force required to overcome the inherent inertia of the mass of the device itself? Higher power tests provide a greater possible momentum potential to begin with.
The other, if a transfer of momentum were the result of an interaction between the two EM fields described above, the design of the device should be focused on generating, likely a specific asymmetrical interaction.., not just resonance. Build to creat the greatest potential eddy currents and EM fields in the frustum walls possible. Some resonant modes have different potentials for just how they interact with the frustum walls.
But again this last was really rambling beyond the original question...
It has seemed to me that lacking any credible theory of operation, there has been a great deal of design modification, that should only have followed after validating or refuting the results of early designs and claims.
It does not matter how sensitive your test equipment is, if the device you are testing does not or cannot generate sufficient force to overcome the involved inertial mass and inherent baseline resistance of the test equipment.
Higher powered tests have a greater potential of producing a more significant interaction, with little or no change in the total inertial mass of the device. -
#1045 by JohnFornaro on 14 May, 2019 17:22
-
McCulloch from yesterday...
A super mirror? One of these?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_supermirror -
#1046 by Notsosureofit on 14 May, 2019 18:54
-
McCulloch from yesterday...
A super mirror? One of these?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_supermirror
...................manufactured by yours truly many moons ago in large quantities.
I don't think that is what he is referring to. Maby just the optical equivalent...wide band, very low loss multilayer mirrors. Have to check it out..... -
#1047 by JohnFornaro on 14 May, 2019 19:56
-
A super mirror? One of these?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_supermirror
...................manufactured by yours truly many moons ago in large quantities.
I don't think that is what he is referring to. Maby just the optical equivalent...wide band, very low loss multilayer mirrors. Have to check it out.....
Hah. They're all over ebay I hear.
But still, terminology is important, because clearly a super-duper mirror is mucho betterro than a plain old super mirror. -
#1048 by meberbs on 14 May, 2019 20:25
-
Numerical answers can't be given when no inputs have been provided. This is true for both the people who keep posting suggestions like "change the shape" and for your question about lightning, where you need to state the initial charge distributions and some other information before you can apply the laws of electrodynamics to determine what happens. (This particular case would most likely require a massive amount of raw input data to fully describe.)I know how to do just about any math that could possibly be required, but when people make random assertions that are not supported by any theory, there are simply no calculations to do. They have to first provide a complete hypothesis or their suggestions are useless.
fine!
can you calculate the trajectory of electrons during a lightning strike between clouds?
or do you need to know the physical processes in the atmosphere besides mathematics?
However your question about lightning is completely off topic, so nothing further on that.
My original post was stating basic information that anyone who wants their suggestions taken seriously should provide. If they don't provide this information, they are not posting meaningful suggestions, and should not waste anyone's time. -
#1049 by vi4apaev on 14 May, 2019 20:51
-
this is where the problem arises - the author’s knowledge (not mine) of physics and mechanics, which is at the level of “know-how” or invention for which the author wants to receive a patent ...
Numerical answers can't be given when no inputs have been provided. This is true for both the people who keep posting suggestions like "change the shape" and for your question about lightning, where you need to state the initial charge distributions and some other information before you can apply the laws of electrodynamics to determine what happens. (This particular case would most likely require a massive amount of raw input data to fully describe.)I know how to do just about any math that could possibly be required, but when people make random assertions that are not supported by any theory, there are simply no calculations to do. They have to first provide a complete hypothesis or their suggestions are useless.
fine!
can you calculate the trajectory of electrons during a lightning strike between clouds?
or do you need to know the physical processes in the atmosphere besides mathematics?
However your question about lightning is completely off topic, so nothing further on that.
My original post was stating basic information that anyone who wants their suggestions taken seriously should provide. If they don't provide this information, they are not posting meaningful suggestions, and should not waste anyone's time.
and you want to get this information for free - this will not happen.
Try to follow the links and contact the inventor personally.
or ask Mike McCulloch from Plymouth to share detailed information about the research, for which DARPA paid 1,300,000 dollars - everyone will be interested in what he will tell you ... ;-)
-
#1050 by meberbs on 14 May, 2019 21:37
-
this is where the problem arises - the author’s knowledge (not mine) of physics and mechanics, which is at the level of “know-how” or invention for which the author wants to receive a patent ...
Again, what in the world are you talking about?
and you want to get this information for free - this will not happen.
Try to follow the links and contact the inventor personally.
or ask Mike McCulloch from Plymouth to share detailed information about the research, for which DARPA paid 1,300,000 dollars - everyone will be interested in what he will tell you ... ;-)
This particular chain of conversation started with oyzw telling people on this site additional experiments that should be run, but without enough data for anyone to follow through. Others have done similar. This has nothing to do with patents.
McCulloch has a particular physics theory that he is pushing (which is non-patentable) and the devices he is having people test would be to support his theory (which seems pointless, since he has already made predictions that have been disproven.) Of course the recent message from McCulloch that was posted above does not include predicted results to compare his theory with experiment. In the same thread he claims it will be good for his theory if either device produces thrust. However in reality if only 1 does, but his theory predicts that both should it is not good for his theory. His shotgun approach while claiming success if anything hits is a form of cherry picking and is not consistent with the scientific method. -
#1051 by flux_capacitor on 16 May, 2019 11:54
-
José Rodal has been working hard on propellantless propulsion from a Mach effect these past months. His paper "A Machian wave effect in conformal, scalar–tensor gravitational theory" analyzing Woodward's MEGA drives/Mach effect thrusters in the framework of general relativity has been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication in the prestigious General Relativity and Gravitation journal.
Congratulations, José!
Link to the paper and some comments in the appropriate thread Woodward's effect. -
#1052 by mandrewa on 18 May, 2019 15:25
-
"Correcting our paper (McCulloch & Lucio) on wide binaries. A reviewer said we'd used too high an EFE on MoND so this is the corrected plot. Same result: only QI (3 solid lines) can predict wide binary rotation data (gray area). So GR/dark matter; MoND are falsified by this plot." Mike McCulloch (@memcculloch) May 15, 2019
I'm not sure I understand this graphic, but it's a plot from an upcoming paper by Mike McCulloch et al. about wide binaries. This means by the way that I was wrong in my earlier belief that Mike McCulloch et al. were not going to be analyzing the wide binaries in detail.
I'm not quite certain I understand the graph. On the vertical axis delta-v is plotted, which in this case is the difference in velocities of two binaries. On the horizontal axis the units are parsecs, which I assume is the distance between the binaries at different points as they move around their elliptical orbits.
If I understand this correctly, the expected difference in velocity versus distance is plotted for three binary systems for each of the three theories being compared.
And then there are five actual observations, none of which on the face of it match any of the three theories being compared: Newtonian Physics, MoND, and Quantitative Inertia. But then there is the area in gray which is a plot of the uncertainty of these observations, and the significant part of that is that in one quadrant of the plot both MoND and Newtonian Physics are making predictions far from what is being observed.
My initial reaction, assuming I'm understanding this is that they need more than five data points. That may be all that there is right now, but surely there are a huge number of wide binaries in the Milky Way that could be examined. Of course getting that data will take a lot of time, and other researchers have to do it. -
#1053 by meberbs on 19 May, 2019 19:33
-
... My initial reaction, assuming I'm understanding this is that they need more than five data points. That may be all that there is right now, but surely there are a huge number of wide binaries in the Milky Way that could be examined. Of course getting that data will take a lot of time, and other researchers have to do it.
I have no idea how anyone could claim that GR is falsified based on the results of that plot. None of the lines fit the data, and there are so many other things that need to be considered (such as the fact that the plotted real binaries might have just been mistakenly classified.)
I addressed this in a previous post, where I provided a link to a paper pointing out that the entire issue may just be projection errors. The paper I linked in that post mentions a catalogue of 83 wide binary candidates, and interestingly also plots 5 specific points which show the experimental data actually matches up well with a simulation of GR, well within the error bars.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1940037#msg1940037 -
#1054 by mandrewa on 19 May, 2019 22:34
-
Examining the figure posted by Mike McCulloch and the paper by Kareem El-Badry it's clear that the five data points are the same for each paper but with two discrepancies.
In the El-Badry paper the stars separated by 0.09 parsecs have a significantly lower delta-V than in McCulloch's figure and there's also a discrepancy for the stars separated by 0.3 parsecs. I don't know what that's about.
I like the general approach of the El-Badry paper, but there is one part of it that I'm very confused about.
If you go to figure 3 in the El-Badry paper four different plots of simulated binary motion are presented with different assumed radial velocity distributions. Now radial velocities are what we cannot see, so yes, it makes sense to try to estimate the impact of this unseen factor. But as figure 3 shows you get very different results depending on what motion in and out of the plane is present.
If I understand correctly, El-Badry chooses to assume that there is no radial velocity component from our perspective. That would minimize the discrepancy between observation and prediction for Newtonian Physics. But it is statistically unlikely. More data would definitely help to resolve this.
There is one more disagreement I see between the papers. The McCulloch figure shows all three wide binaries approaching a delta-v of zero as the distance between the stars approaches one parsec. That matches my intuition of what would happen. I mean isn't that what Kepler's law says?
But ignoring my intuition, in none of the simulated cases that El-Badry presents does the delta-v head towards zero. I feel like there must be more to the simulations that El-Badry is using than is discussed in his paper.
Is he assuming the presence of other stars that are accelerating these binary pairs as they get far from each other? -
#1055 by mandrewa on 20 May, 2019 00:00
-
I'm reading the Kareem El-Badry paper again because I realized something wasn't adding up.
Okay I missed on my first read that all of his analysis depends upon the wide binary being relatively close to us. For instance the "projection effect" only matters if the apparent separation between the stars is at least 10 arcminutes.
So the bulk of the El-Badry paper only applies to wide binaries that are quite close to us.
Second, even for the wide binaries that fall into this category, that is they are nearby, the whole analysis heavily depends upon the simulation and the assumptions that went into it. If he doesn't describe the simulation well enough for other people to duplicate it then nobody can check him.
I'm getting very curious about those assumptions, because it doesn't seem to make sense that the apparent relative velocity of the binaries would increase as they get further apart.
So end of the paper. I just don't know. There's no footnote that gives us a more detailed description of his simulation. I don't know whether there's enough information in his description of the simulation for someone else to duplicate it. And I don't know whether all of his assumptions were stated.
Oh, and all the observations I said before are still valid, particularly the part about his assumption of no radial velocity. -
#1056 by as58 on 20 May, 2019 05:35
-
I think you have misunderstood El-Badry's paper.
I think his description of simulations is easily good enough to understand his methods. He creates a sample of wide binaries matching the observed catalogue. The orbits are calculated with just normal gravity and the orientations are random (isotropically distributed). This is all discussed in quite some detail at the beginning of section 2. I don't know where you get the assumption that there is no (intrinsic) radial velocity component.
However, we don't have (good) observations of radial velocity for some of the stars, which obviously makes things more difficult (indeed, impossible for an single system, but still possible to analyse statistically in case of a larger sample). Figure 3 shows how the available radial velocity information changes the inferred velocity difference distribution. As I understand it, the upturn at the end is because observational errors in proper motion and radial velocity (or complete lack of information about it) start polluting the 'true' velocity distribution. Obviously, the more and better information about the radial component of the velocity, the better it is possible to infer the true velocity difference, but eventually the observational errors blur the distribution.
Also, we can only measure the velocity difference for relatively nearby systems. The measurement of plane-of-sky component of velocity from proper motion becomes less and less accurate with distance, so after a couple of hundred parsec or so errors in proper motion measurements make the determination of velocity difference impossible.
-
#1057 by mandrewa on 20 May, 2019 11:42
-
First sentence of section 2: "I construct a sample of simulated binaries with the goal of comparing to the sample studied by Hernandez et al. (2018)."
Right there we may have already lost reproducibility. How many different ways are there to construct a sample that would have this same goal? What aspects of the sample studied by Herandez et al. (2018) (I haven't read this paper yet, but I'm guessing this is the five data points, the five actual systems, that are plotted both in Figure 2 of the El-Bardy paper and the figure supplied by McCulloch) are going to be held the same for the systems invented for the simulation?
It's not hard to imagine generating a reasonable set of random variations on the actual systems studied but even if I alone were the judge of what is reasonable I suspect there are a huge number of possible ways to do that, let alone my trying to guess the impact of a slightly different idea of what is reasonable that El-Bardy might have.
The next two sentences of section 2: "I first sample positions for the center of mass of each binary assuming a uniform spatial distribution. I then reject a random subset of the simulated binaries such that their distribution of heliocentric distance is similar to the observed sample."
My only hope of understanding why El-Bardy is doing this would be to try to construct a random simulated population of binary systems (yet that are similar to the ones observed) myself. As with the first sentence, it looks like there might be a very large number of different reasonable ways to do this that would match the procedure as described so far. But the business about rejecting a random subset is difficult to follow. I can guess that the purpose is to make the randomly generated simulated binaries more like the five real observed data points, but what exactly are the criteria being used to discard some of the generated simulated binaries?
The fourth sentence of section 2: "Center-of-mass velocities for each simulated binary are drawn from a 3D Guassian {variance}{subscript 1D} = 25 km s^-1." (I put in brackets the parts I had trouble duplicating here, but {variance} corresponds to the Greek letter usually used for variance. But this aspect of the description of the procedure seems sufficiently specific. If I've understood correctly it describes the random generation of systems that are randomly directed in orientation and speed with a variance of 25 km/s. The 25 km/s tells us which of the many reasonable numbers that could have been used was actually used for this aspect of the simulation. The random direction of the velocity matches with my intuition about what should vary in our simulated binaries.
But stop right there. Somehow in subsequent modifications to the simulated binaries the random orientation of the simulated binaries at this stage is completely lost. In figure 2 where observed versus simulated properties are compared all of the simulated binaries are either pointed directly at or away from us. Why? Well as figure 3 shows it's only this orientation that allows us to minimize the discrepancy between observed versus predicted properties.
Now it may be that by chance the real observed systems actually are oriented directly at or away from us given we don't know the actual orientations. But still the odds for that being the case seem quite low. And that raises another issue. If I were doing this procedure, wouldn't I try to calculate the odds for that being the orientation? It seems an obvious thing that is missing. Now I realize this is not totally straightforward. To make this calculation we have to make assumptions about what is practically speaking the same, with there being many different ways of reasonably doing that.
In any case, there are many more sentences describing the process of making the simulated binary systems, but for the most part it raises more questions as to how exactly it was done. We are left, I think, trusting that El-Badry has done it correctly. -
#1058 by as58 on 20 May, 2019 12:06
-
Figure 1 shows the the distribution of parameters for the simulated sample is similar to the actual Gaia wide binary sample. The details about how exactly the simulated sample was generated are not that important, as long as the distribution matches the observed one. I don't understand where you're getting the idea that El-Badry assumes that " all of the simulated binaries are either pointed directly at or away from us".
Also, the five crosses are not five different systems. Instead, a total of 81 binaries has been grouped into five bins and the crosses show the data for each bin. -
#1059 by mandrewa on 20 May, 2019 12:17
-
As I understand it, the upturn at the end is because observational errors in proper motion and radial velocity (or complete lack of information about it) start polluting the 'true' velocity distribution.
I have a different understanding. Of course I could be mistaken, but the problem is that if the binaries are close enough to us that they occupy a significant part of our field of view then this can make it appear that the binaries are closer together than they actually are.
How close do they have to be for this to be a significant effect? Well the paper said 10 arc minutes. The full moon is 30 arc minutes across. So if the binaries are close enough to us that they appear to be separated by a distance greater than one-third of the distance across the moon then the "projection effect" which is how El-Badry refers to this will make it seem that the differences in velocities of the binaries are greater than they actually are.
