-
#1540 by gaballard on 20 Sep, 2019 19:53
-
No one has been able to prove the device still works when on a self-contained power supply. Everyone is off making up new physics when everyone should be trying to rule out every other possible thing that could be affecting the results. The fact that no one has bothered to run them with batteries and without high-voltage wiring and its associated magnetic fields running across the whole setup is worrying. I think that people are afraid to verify that, because it might mean it's all bunk.
That's not entirely true. Monomorphic has done just that, and as you might have expected, there is no signal amidst the noise.
Gotcha, so it is bunk then. Kind of sad to see this thread still going. I wish it worked, I really did, holy crap that would change the world. But the laws of physics are a harsh mistress... -
#1541 by Bryan_Kelly on 20 Sep, 2019 21:02
-
Noether's theorem was published in 1918. Conservation laws are not just from the 1500s, but have improved from useful assumptions to provable facts that they must exist.
Thanks for the 1918 update and especially for that second one, but I'm more partial to Gödel's incompleteness theorems when it comes to thinking about the physical world. -
#1542 by meberbs on 20 Sep, 2019 21:18
-
All those basically say is that you can't prove everything. That does not change things that are proven.Noether's theorem was published in 1918. Conservation laws are not just from the 1500s, but have improved from useful assumptions to provable facts that they must exist.
Thanks for the 1918 update and especially for that second one, but I'm more partial to Gödel's incompleteness theorems when it comes to thinking about the physical world.
(Other equivalent statements are that you can always formulate self-contradictory statements like "this statement is false." And there are things which may be true which cannot be proven. Again, none of these change the fact that there are things which can be proven, and it has been proven that standard physics does not allow propellantless propulsion, and experimentally demonstrated that the emDrive does not work.) -
#1543 by Bryan_Kelly on 20 Sep, 2019 21:38
-
I believe those say much more than you've "basically" described and allow even simple arithmetic, e.g., "1+1=2" to be questioned.
But this...And there are things which may be true which cannot be proven.
...would seem to confirm the need for discussions on "New Physics" beyond the standard model, would it not?
-
#1544 by meberbs on 20 Sep, 2019 22:01
-
I believe those say much more than you've "basically" described and allow even simple arithmetic, e.g., "1+1=2" to be questioned.
Then you don't know what you are talking about, because that is not what they say. Wikipedia has a rather detailed article on them that you can use as a starting point.
No, the obvious things that fall into that category include things such as religion or philosophy which is not on topic here.And there are things which may be true which cannot be proven.
...would seem to confirm the need for discussions on "New Physics" beyond the standard model, would it not?
New physics is useful to consider when there are experimental observations that don't match the predictions, or limits where experimental predictions are expected to break down. (Or just generally regimes where a theory has not been tested yet.) It is not useful to look for new physics in places where known physics excludes the possibility of an effect, and known physics is well tested. The emDrive falls into those categories, it does not involve extreme energies, or anything else that make it a plausible candidate for new physics, and the best experiments show no signal, so you can't point to anomalous experiments as a reason to investigate either. -
#1545 by Bryan_Kelly on 20 Sep, 2019 22:24
-
Then you don't know what you are talking about, because that is not what they say.
Statements like that, where your opinion is stated as a fact about something you could not possibly know, do not lend credibility to the rest of your "mostly wrong" argument.
For example, "extreme energies" are typically aggregations of lots of infinitesimal energies, like the kind in photons. That you go on and state what's "plausible" and what isn't after an observation like that indicates to me that it might be time to get out of here and eat dinner.
So, like the talk show hosts say, "I'll let you have the last word"... for now. -
#1546 by meberbs on 20 Sep, 2019 22:45
-
So I take it you either refused to look up the theorems on Wikipedia, or did so and decided to just ignore what it says there. I am not arguing from authority based on my opinions of what the theorems mean, I provided a source that explains the theorems in great detail, which itself provides links to many sourcesThen you don't know what you are talking about, because that is not what they say.
Statements like that, where your opinion is stated as a fact about something you could not possibly know, do not lend credibility to the rest of your "mostly wrong" argument.For example, "extreme energies" are typically aggregations of lots of infinitesimal energies, like the kind in photons. That you go on and state what's "plausible" and what isn't after an observation like that indicates to me that it might be time to get out of here and eat dinner.
Extreme energies means things like approaching the energy per particle you see in the best particle colliders, or fields approaching the Schwinger limit. The emDrive does not fall into that category. The emDrive containing a huge number of very small photons does not change that. I assumed that definition would be obvious, but clearly I should have been more specific. Your judging of my statement based on your lack of understanding, just shows that you continue to overestimate your own knowledge.So, like the talk show hosts say, "I'll let you have the last word"... for now.
Please don't, you won't learn anything if you just make false accusations of arguments from authority, and then run away. -
#1547 by rfmwguy on 21 Sep, 2019 15:20
-
"Solar sails work by capturing the energy from light particles as they bounce off a reflective surface, according to the Department of Energy."
Bread Crumbs from Beyond:
Momentum from mass-less particles? No.
Momentum from Wavefronts in Space-Time? No.
The real answer will lead to the next generation of space transportation. -
#1548 by meberbs on 21 Sep, 2019 16:36
-
"Solar sails work by capturing the energy from light particles as they bounce off a reflective surface, according to the Department of Energy."
Photons are massless (which means they have no rest mass, but they still carry energy). They have momentum. The possibility for this to exist comes straight from special relativity. The mass of photons has been shown to be 0 to within some extremely small margin of error (many orders of magnitude smaller than the mass of neutrinos.)
Bread Crumbs from Beyond:
Momentum from mass-less particles? No.
Radiation pressure has also been measured many different ways.
I am not sure what you intended the point of your post to be, solar sails have been demonstrated. -
#1549 by Alex_O on 21 Sep, 2019 22:11
-
The worm is crawling .... oops!
This is a simulation at a fixed frequency. I removed the vertical waveguide, RF power went through the port and the side wall. I tried to simulate the power supply through the coaxial connector, but it still does not work well, so I left the port.
If we take into account the Doppler effect, then it seems to me that the asymmetry in the distribution of EM fields can even be enhanced (non-linear dependence). Now I don’t understand what is happening with the total momentum. The field strengths on the end walls are clearly different, the pressure on the end walls is different, this resonator should show emdrive thrust.
-
#1550 by meberbs on 21 Sep, 2019 23:33
-
The worm is crawling .... oops!
It is literally mathematically impossible for there to be unbalanced forces from electromagnetism.
This is a simulation at a fixed frequency. I removed the vertical waveguide, RF power went through the port and the side wall. I tried to simulate the power supply through the coaxial connector, but it still does not work well, so I left the port.
If we take into account the Doppler effect, then it seems to me that the asymmetry in the distribution of EM fields can even be enhanced (non-linear dependence). Now I don’t understand what is happening with the total momentum. The field strengths on the end walls are clearly different, the pressure on the end walls is different, this resonator should show emdrive thrust.
There are a few possibilities for your simulation:
-You have it setup that energy can reflect off of your antenna. (So there is a balanced force on the antenna)
-The force on the ends actually is balanced, but you are being distracted by irrelevant things in the middle. (Your gifs simply don't contain the information required to tell if this is the case.)
-Your simulation is misconfigured and giving you nonsense results. (Tools like the one you are using are not foolproof.)
-
#1551 by Alex_O on 22 Sep, 2019 00:26
-
https://www.comsol.ru/model/download/552841/models.rf.circulator.pdf
it seems to me a very similar example on the comsol website, please see the picture on page 6. -
#1552 by meberbs on 22 Sep, 2019 04:52
-
https://www.comsol.ru/model/download/552841/models.rf.circulator.pdf
Not really similar at all, it is showing a circulator which is a pass-through device. (i.e. the signal comes in one port and leaves through another.) the picture is there to demonstrate the lack of standing waves, and what your pictures show are only standing waves.
it seems to me a very similar example on the comsol website, please see the picture on page 6. -
#1553 by Alex_O on 22 Sep, 2019 18:53
-
https://www.comsol.ru/model/download/552841/models.rf.circulator.pdf
Not really similar at all, it is showing a circulator which is a pass-through device. (i.e. the signal comes in one port and leaves through another.) the picture is there to demonstrate the lack of standing waves, and what your pictures show are only standing waves.
it seems to me a very similar example on the comsol website, please see the picture on page 6.
Hello dear meberbs!. Today was a good day, I learned a little how to simulate power supply to resonators.
I tried learning a Coaxial to Waveguide Coupling case study. First, I repeated the case study for an open-wall infinite waveguide. I changed the connection point of the RF, violated the rule of a quarter wave. The animation shows that there is a moment when the EM field is very poorly transmitted to the waveguide. I also continued to think that on the walls of the waveguide I see traces of radiation pressure.
Then I closed the waveguide from the end, and turned it into an RF resonator. In practice, it is recommended to assign the cavity length to half the wavelength, and the connection point to a quarter wavelength. I became interested and immediately looked at the 3 options, when the cavity length changed from a quarter to two lengths. It seems to me that the simulation turned out well, everything is logical.
And finally, I tested the idea of a asymmetric connection, and got the expected result already. At the end walls, the radiation pressure can be different.
Then I read a number of theoretical materials, and it seems to me that I see a fundamental difference. The asymmetric resonator has "few standing waves." There are poor conditions for resonance. And Greg Egan discusses only Resonant Modes of a Conical Cavity.
I still do not understand what this means. There are no Doppler effects.
-
#1554 by meberbs on 22 Sep, 2019 19:24
-
For reference, it is generally preferred on this site to attach images rather than embedding them with img tags. (I don't actually remember the reasoning though.)
Hello dear meberbs!. Today was a good day, I learned a little how to simulate power supply to resonators.
Of course there is radiation pressure on the walls of the waveuide. The net pressure is 0 though (accounting for the forces on the antenna itself and momentum leaving through one end.) The fact you find this worth noting makes it seem like you haven't been listening at all.
I tried learning a Coaxial to Waveguide Coupling case study. First, I repeated the case study for an open-wall infinite waveguide. I changed the connection point of the RF, violated the rule of a quarter wave. The animation shows that there is a moment when the EM field is very poorly transmitted to the waveguide. I also continued to think that on the walls of the waveguide I see traces of radiation pressure.
Also, for a situation like what you have there (I think the near end being a metal wall, but I haven't looked at the case in detail) Poor coupling for the wire placed in the wrong spot is expected behavior that can be predicted without resorting to a simulation.And finally, I tested the idea of a asymmetric connection, and got the expected result already. At the end walls, the radiation pressure can be different.
Breaking conservation of momentum is not an "expected result" As I already explained it can only mean that you are making a mistake.
As I already stated, there would be forces on the antenna as well and you are ignoring them.
There are also problems with the configuration of your simulation:
-The pictures you are making are not directly equal to radiation pressure, they are based on just one piece of information that goes into the radiation pressure calculation.
-Your pictures have no scale, the different colors would correspond to different values in each frame and in each image.Then I read a number of theoretical materials, and it seems to me that I see a fundamental difference. The asymmetric resonator has "few standing waves." There are poor conditions for resonance. And Greg Egan discusses only Resonant Modes of a Conical Cavity.
Why would there be Doppler effects? For a cavity moving at constant velocity, it is always more straightforward to do the calculations in the rest frame, so there would be none. Doppler effects would only be meaningful in a cavity with a constant externally applied acceleration, and even then they are tiny.
I still do not understand what this means. There are no Doppler effects.
I could explain what terms like "standing waves" means to you, but it would be a waste of time, since you don't seem to be listening anyway. (And if you actually cared to learn any of this, there are many resources out there, though you would be best off taking a formal class, or at least picking up a decent textbook.) -
#1555 by Alex_O on 23 Sep, 2019 03:43
-
For reference, it is generally preferred on this site to attach images rather than embedding them with img tags. (I don't actually remember the reasoning though.)
And finally, I tested the idea of a asymmetric connection, and got the expected result already. At the end walls, the radiation pressure can be different.
Breaking conservation of momentum is not an "expected result" As I already explained it can only mean that you are making a mistake.
As I already stated, there would be forces on the antenna as well and you are ignoring them.
There are also problems with the configuration of your simulation:
-The pictures you are making are not directly equal to radiation pressure, they are based on just one piece of information that goes into the radiation pressure calculation.
-Your pictures have no scale, the different colors would correspond to different values in each frame and in each image.
And only feathers flew in all directions. Doc, there are still a lot of feathers in my wild goose, you won’t be able to pluck them at one time
I don’t forget anything you told me, moreover, I re-read more than once every day all that you told me, and I find every time more and more important.
Please note, I shared the technical contradictions. I was looking for the pressure drop, the gradient at the edge of the "wing" without writing the balance in the calculation of the momentum. Since I'm going to sink to the bottom of the nanosecond interval. (You said that my model may contain errors, I still check this).
So the antenna. Here the antenna is a thin stump with a diameter of 1 mm. The hemp surface area is very small and I know that physicists like to neglect small quantities. The antenna is also located on the horizontal side surface. The simulation shows that there are two horizontal surfaces, the top and the bottom, and the pressure on these surfaces balances each other well. I looked at the stump of the antenna in the speaker, and there almost nothing changes. The level of the reflected signal in the antenna changes, but since the antenna is made of coaxial, these changes in the projection onto the horizontal axis give a zero contribution. Further, I am still thinking that if a photon has flown out of the antenna, then this photon does not already belong to the emdrive (see point 1).
See what I came up with a picture with wild geese. The hunter sat in a balloon and fed a flock of geese from his hands. The geese ate, gathered in a flock and flew away (like photons). But the hunter and the balloon remained at rest (like an antenna). But the hunter was not at a loss, and threw a weightless net into a flock of wild geese, and caught them. Geese fluttered their wings, and the balloon flew behind the geese in a horizontal direction. After a short time, the geese were tired of flapping their wings, and returned to the hunter for food. Traction power of a flock of geese is the quality of the quality factor of the resonator. -
#1556 by meberbs on 23 Sep, 2019 04:14
-
And only feathers flew in all directions. Doc, there are still a lot of feathers in my wild goose, you won’t be able to pluck them at one time
Then why do I have to keep repeating the same things? I don’t forget anything you told me, moreover, I re-read more than once every day all that you told me, and I find every time more and more important.Please note, I shared the technical contradictions. I was looking for the pressure drop, the gradient at the edge of the "wing" without writing the balance in the calculation of the momentum. Since I'm going to sink to the bottom of the nanosecond interval. (You said that my model may contain errors, I still check this).
You still clearly don't understand: If you conclude any assymetric force, then you made a mistake somewhere. period.So the antenna. Here the antenna is a thin stump with a diameter of 1 mm. The hemp surface area is very small and I know that physicists like to neglect small quantities. The antenna is also located on the horizontal side surface. The simulation shows that there are two horizontal surfaces, the top and the bottom, and the pressure on these surfaces balances each other well. I looked at the stump of the antenna in the speaker, and there almost nothing changes. The level of the reflected signal in the antenna changes, but since the antenna is made of coaxial, these changes in the projection onto the horizontal axis give a zero contribution. Further, I am still thinking that if a photon has flown out of the antenna, then this photon does not already belong to the emdrive (see point 1).
100% of the power inside the resonator came through the antenna, you cannot neglect its effect. Your entire attempt at ignoring the effects of the antenna is completely wrong, and has no relationship to how radiation pressure actually works. You have not actually done a single calculation of radiation pressure.
I have lost count of how many times I have explained to you that your attempts to claim that a photon, which never leaves the cavity, actually leaves the cavity are nonsensical. It is simply self-contradictory, and while you can treat them separately, it does not change the result.
I am tired of saying the same basic fact over and over, with you ignoring it , and now you claim that you have been reading and paying attention to what I have said, when your repetition of something completely illogical and equivalent to 1+1=3 demonstrates otherwise.See what I came up with a picture with wild geese. The hunter sat in a balloon and fed a flock of geese from his hands. The geese ate, gathered in a flock and flew away (like photons). But the hunter and the balloon remained at rest (like an antenna). But the hunter was not at a loss, and threw a weightless net into a flock of wild geese, and caught them. Geese fluttered their wings, and the balloon flew behind the geese in a horizontal direction. After a short time, the geese were tired of flapping their wings, and returned to the hunter for food. Traction power of a flock of geese is the quality of the quality factor of the resonator.
Your analogy fails, the geese you describe push against air to fly away. Photons in a cavity can't leave the cavity, and don't interact with anything outside the cavity. -
#1557 by Alex_O on 23 Sep, 2019 11:29
-
And only feathers flew in all directions. Doc, there are still a lot of feathers in my wild goose, you won’t be able to pluck them at one time
Then why do I have to keep repeating the same things? I don’t forget anything you told me, moreover, I re-read more than once every day all that you told me, and I find every time more and more important.
Thank. I'm just taking slow steps to go through my nanoseconds. I wrote the words - the radiation pressure on the end walls is different, but I did not do it to calculate the impulse balance. I'm still on the first nanosecond.Please note, I shared the technical contradictions. I was looking for the pressure drop, the gradient at the edge of the "wing" without writing the balance in the calculation of the momentum. Since I'm going to sink to the bottom of the nanosecond interval. (You said that my model may contain errors, I still check this).
You still clearly don't understand: If you conclude any assymetric force, then you made a mistake somewhere. period.
Thank you, I am preparing a question about the period, based on an article by Greg Egan, next post.So the antenna. Here the antenna is a thin stump with a diameter of 1 mm. The hemp surface area is very small and I know that physicists like to neglect small quantities. The antenna is also located on the horizontal side surface. The simulation shows that there are two horizontal surfaces, the top and the bottom, and the pressure on these surfaces balances each other well. I looked at the stump of the antenna in the speaker, and there almost nothing changes. The level of the reflected signal in the antenna changes, but since the antenna is made of coaxial, these changes in the projection onto the horizontal axis give a zero contribution. Further, I am still thinking that if a photon has flown out of the antenna, then this photon does not already belong to the emdrive (see point 1).
100% of the power inside the resonator came through the antenna, you cannot neglect its effect. Your entire attempt at ignoring the effects of the antenna is completely wrong, and has no relationship to how radiation pressure actually works. You have not actually done a single calculation of radiation pressure.
I have lost count of how many times I have explained to you that your attempts to claim that a photon, which never leaves the cavity, actually leaves the cavity are nonsensical. It is simply self-contradictory, and while you can treat them separately, it does not change the result.
I am tired of saying the same basic fact over and over, with you ignoring it , and now you claim that you have been reading and paying attention to what I have said, when your repetition of something completely illogical and equivalent to 1+1=3 demonstrates otherwise.
I realized this is a problem, let's discuss it a bit later. The antenna does not interfere yet. It is welded to the resonator body and can even be inside the body, with an RF and DС source, and is located in the center of mass, (for interest.) And we need a good antenna, with the correct radiation pattern, I don’t know which one. I have the temptation to place the antenna in the body of a large or small bottom, I have seen such simulations. As a result, it can be even better for the worm.See what I came up with a picture with wild geese. The hunter sat in a balloon and fed a flock of geese from his hands. The geese ate, gathered in a flock and flew away (like photons). But the hunter and the balloon remained at rest (like an antenna). But the hunter was not at a loss, and threw a weightless net into a flock of wild geese, and caught them. Geese fluttered their wings, and the balloon flew behind the geese in a horizontal direction. After a short time, the geese were tired of flapping their wings, and returned to the hunter for food. Traction power of a flock of geese is the quality of the quality factor of the resonator.
Your analogy fails, the geese you describe push against air to fly away. Photons in a cavity can't leave the cavity, and don't interact with anything outside the cavity.
I came up with a new version of the analogy,
1. The captain sits in the boat and throws a stone along the keel of the boat in the direction of the stern.
2. The boat moves forward. Why?? Why is this possible? Because the stone left the boat, it does not already belong to the boat, it is now part of the universe, and already exists there, in the universe, separately from the boat. The stone has no connection with the boat. He knows nothing about her now.
3. The stone accidentally hit the stern of the boat and stuck.
4. The boat stopped.
Why?? Why is this possible? Because from the universe, a portion of the matter of the universe (stone) flew onto the boat, which is part of the universe.
We see evidence that if a photon flew out of the antenna, then it is on its own. You can throw a weightless net into it and catch it (or he himself will return if he wants).
===
5. The stone suddenly divided into two parts and, like a frog, jumped up and down.
6. The boat remained in place, since its center of gravity can no longer change.
7. The stone exploded cleanly with IR photons, and heated the boat at 10 degrees.
8. The boat remained in place, since the heating was uniform, the center of gravity did not change. A slight forward movement of the boat is allowed (like a solar sail).
9. The captain turned on the refrigerator, evenly cooled the boat and pulled ice from the refrigerator in the equivalent of a mass of stone. He will add to this masa, from the stock, from the source of DS. This operation does not create movement for the boat.
10. The captain throws a stone again, the boat moves forward again.
In total, there is a closed cycle, the boat moves forward all the time, in small jerks, but forward. The speed of the boat depends on the power of the captain. The trick worked because the stone lost its physical connection with the boat three times, the boat and the stone went along different "geodesic lines".
-
#1558 by meberbs on 23 Sep, 2019 14:56
-
"Thanks?" When you ignore me, the word that you should be using is "sorry." Thanking me for my words which you keep throwing in the trash just sounds insincere. Nothing you said here justifies you ignoring me.Then why do I have to keep repeating the same things?
Thank. I'm just taking slow steps to go through my nanoseconds. I wrote the words - the radiation pressure on the end walls is different, but I did not do it to calculate the impulse balance. I'm still on the first nanosecond.I realized this is a problem, let's discuss it a bit later. The antenna does not interfere yet.
The antenna has an effect in your simulations, ignoring that is just a way to get wrong answers.7. The stone exploded cleanly with IR photons, and heated the boat at 10 degrees.
These steps are wrong.
8. The boat remained in place, since the heating was uniform, the center of gravity did not change. A slight forward movement of the boat is allowed (like a solar sail).
First of all, a rock weighing 0.5 kg would release something like 4.5*10^19 J of energy. This is enough to heat a 10 ton aluminum boat by about 5 billion degrees.
Assuming for simplicity that half of the energy hits the back of the boat and half hits the front (and ignoring that the boat should vaporize.) The rock is at the back of the boat, so the energy hits there first, pushing the boat backwards very hard. The boat will stop moving backwards when the other half of the energy reaches the front of the boat. The center of mass of the boat does change during this step, moving the boat backwards. If the rock before it was thrown was in the middle of the ship, then the boat is exactly back to where it started.
The final mass of the boat includes the mass of the stone, because the heating of the boat increases the mass of the boat by an amount equivalent to the energy that was added, which is the mass of the stone by E= m*c^2.
There are an infinite number of ways to be wrong, but only one correct answer. If you start from momentum conservation (which you are doing) then there is no self contained way to get something to move its own center of mass. -
#1559 by Alex_O on 23 Sep, 2019 18:18
-
"Thanks?" When you ignore me, the word that you should be using is "sorry." Thanking me for my words which you keep throwing in the trash just sounds insincere. Nothing you said here justifies you ignoring me.Then why do I have to keep repeating the same things?
Thank. I'm just taking slow steps to go through my nanoseconds. I wrote the words - the radiation pressure on the end walls is different, but I did not do it to calculate the impulse balance. I'm still on the first nanosecond.
Dear meberbs, please accept my sincere apologies. I'm in a hurry, I want to check out a lot of different ideas, and I break the rules of dialogue, jump from one topic to another. You point out errors to me, I agree with you, but then again I have new questions - and again I'm in a hurry. Let's go back to the starting position. I suggested testing the idea of whether the Doppler effect could be useful for creating the thrust of an emdrive rocket and set about building a model. But I am very grateful to you for the fact that I was able to show you my problem (open drive open system, etc. from Point 1) and you informed me of important criticism. I sincerely thank you for spending your time explaining the problems. I will continue to build a model of the Doppler effect, and will return to this question when I get the result.
I also ask your consent to look at, discuss a few more issues that have arisen in me as a result of studying the topic of emdrive for several years.
I don’t forget anything you told me, moreover, I re-read more than once every day all that you told me, and I find every time more and more important.