-
#220 by meberbs on 29 Jul, 2018 01:30
-
I understand that some here may not like this information but is it what it is.
Why would anyone not like this information? Your last couple posts have been more or less accurate, although they don't support your previous statements of there being more force on the small end than the large end or any overall unbalanced force. -
#221 by flux_capacitor on 31 Jul, 2018 15:38
-
The Traveller,
According to the two previous pages, it seems that:
1) you still base your understanding of the propellantless propulsion effect of the EmDrive in the same origin as Shawyer's, i.e. the existence of a force resulting from a non-zero sum of all radiation pressures upon materials within the cavity.
but:
2) you however now refute Shawyer's claim that the radiation pressure is greater at the big end, saying it would be the opposite: that the radiation pressures on side walls + small end combined are greater than the radiation pressure on the wide end, resulting in the EmDrive being pushed by this forward radiation pressure, small end leading. So no more invisible "thrust force" directed in the opposite, rear direction without matter ejected, that Shawyer yet introduced to try to mimic his system with classical Newtonian action-reaction.
You argue based on the momentum exchange with all walls and the photon incident angle varying across the tapered section.
Shawyer bases his "EmDrive theory" on Cullen's experiments and his 1952 paper, extrapolating measurement made with open cylindrical waveguides to tapered closed cavities, since he assumes that a closed tapered cavity is the same as a series of many shallow cylindrical open waveguides of decreasing diameter connected the one after the others (from the point of view of travelling waves, hence a pulsed operation).
Therefore Shawyer claims that the radiation pressure (and the group velocity) of microwaves is greater on the big end of the EmDrive than on the small end, which seems sound, but doing so he may neglect the wall component, which should add and sum up to zero (he claims this zero sum is indeed the case for a standing wave, but not for travelling waves).
Cullen showed (eq. 15 in his paper) that:
F = 2P/c ( λ / λg )
Since λ < λg (always) and the smaller the waveguide diameter, the longer the guide wavelength λg, it is easy to show that the force due to the radiation pressure of microwaves at the same input power acting on a plate in a wider waveguide is greater than the force acting on a plate in a narrow waveguide.
So do you now disagree with Cullen; or do you agree with him but saying instead that what is going on in open cylindrical waveguides cannot be extrapolated to closed tapered cavities? -
#222 by X_RaY on 31 Jul, 2018 20:23
-
The Traveller,
You should take the energy density per area into account. According to the work of Dr. Rodal we know that the field strength in the area of the smaller end plate is much larger than at the bigger plate. However, the total amount of incident power at the small end plate plus the equivalent vector component at conical sidewall should be the same per area unit squared, -F (small end plus sidewall vector component in this direction) +F (at the large plate), ...from a pure topological point of view.
According to the two previous pages, it seems that:
1) you still base your understanding of the propellantless propulsion effect of the EmDrive in the same origin as Shawyer's, i.e. the existence of a force resulting from a non-zero sum of all radiation pressures upon materials within the cavity.
but:
2) you however now refute Shawyer's claim that the radiation pressure is greater at the big end, saying it would be the opposite: that the radiation pressures on side walls + small end combined are greater than the radiation pressure on the wide end, resulting in the EmDrive being pushed by this forward radiation pressure, small end leading. So no more invisible "thrust force" directed in the opposite, rear direction without matter ejected, that Shawyer yet introduced to try to mimic his system with classical Newtonian action-reaction.
You argue based on the momentum exchange with all walls and the photon incident angle varying across the tapered section.
Shawyer bases his "EmDrive theory" on Cullen's experiments and his 1952 paper, extrapolating measurement made with open cylindrical waveguides to tapered closed cavities, since he assumes that a closed tapered cavity is the same as a series of many shallow cylindrical open waveguides of decreasing diameter connected the one after the others (from the point of view of travelling waves, hence a pulsed operation).
Therefore Shawyer claims that the radiation pressure (and the group velocity) of microwaves is greater on the big end of the EmDrive than on the small end, which seems sound, but doing so he may neglect the wall component, which should add and sum up to zero (he claims this zero sum is indeed the case for a standing wave, but not for travelling waves).
Cullen showed (eq. 15 in his paper) that:
F = 2P/c ( λ / λg )
Since λ < λg (always) and the smaller the waveguide diameter, the longer the guide wavelength λg, it is easy to show that the force due to the radiation pressure of microwaves at the same input power acting on a plate in a wider waveguide is greater than the force acting on a plate in a narrow waveguide.
So do you now disagree with Cullen; or do you agree with him but saying instead that what is going on in open cylindrical waveguides cannot be extrapolated to closed tapered cavities?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=37642.0;attach=1030954
However I think for traveling (reflected) waves there is a time related difference related to the reflection on both ends. I guess the reflection at the smaller side has a broad band characteristic compared to the big end. I.e. the wave is partly reflected before it reaches the small plate (partially earlier times). If the big end is flat there is also a phase dependent time dependent reflection involved. But for a proper curved big plate and a small end below cutoff the time difference of the reflected signal should be located at the small end. So maybe a time-delayed reflection of the incident wave at a undersized small end combined with a spherical big end plate leads to a nice net force because of the time delayed reflection at one end only?
Just a thought..
It is hard to think about such problems while the room temperature is still way over 30°C/86°F
-
#223 by oyzw on 01 Aug, 2018 01:22
-
The electromagnetic force of each wall must be calculated according to Maxwell's equation, and the geometric vector calculations are all combined into zero.The Traveller,
You should take the energy density per area into account. According to the work of Dr. Rodal we know that the field strength in the area of the smaller end plate is much larger than at the bigger plate. However, the total amount of incident power at the small end plate plus the equivalent vector component at conical sidewall should be the same per area unit squared, -F (small end plus sidewall vector component in this direction) +F (at the large plate), ...from a pure topological point of view.
According to the two previous pages, it seems that:
1) you still base your understanding of the propellantless propulsion effect of the EmDrive in the same origin as Shawyer's, i.e. the existence of a force resulting from a non-zero sum of all radiation pressures upon materials within the cavity.
but:
2) you however now refute Shawyer's claim that the radiation pressure is greater at the big end, saying it would be the opposite: that the radiation pressures on side walls + small end combined are greater than the radiation pressure on the wide end, resulting in the EmDrive being pushed by this forward radiation pressure, small end leading. So no more invisible "thrust force" directed in the opposite, rear direction without matter ejected, that Shawyer yet introduced to try to mimic his system with classical Newtonian action-reaction.
You argue based on the momentum exchange with all walls and the photon incident angle varying across the tapered section.
Shawyer bases his "EmDrive theory" on Cullen's experiments and his 1952 paper, extrapolating measurement made with open cylindrical waveguides to tapered closed cavities, since he assumes that a closed tapered cavity is the same as a series of many shallow cylindrical open waveguides of decreasing diameter connected the one after the others (from the point of view of travelling waves, hence a pulsed operation).
Therefore Shawyer claims that the radiation pressure (and the group velocity) of microwaves is greater on the big end of the EmDrive than on the small end, which seems sound, but doing so he may neglect the wall component, which should add and sum up to zero (he claims this zero sum is indeed the case for a standing wave, but not for travelling waves).
Cullen showed (eq. 15 in his paper) that:
F = 2P/c ( λ / λg )
Since λ < λg (always) and the smaller the waveguide diameter, the longer the guide wavelength λg, it is easy to show that the force due to the radiation pressure of microwaves at the same input power acting on a plate in a wider waveguide is greater than the force acting on a plate in a narrow waveguide.
So do you now disagree with Cullen; or do you agree with him but saying instead that what is going on in open cylindrical waveguides cannot be extrapolated to closed tapered cavities?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=37642.0;attach=1030954
However I think for traveling (reflected) waves there is a time related difference related to the reflection on both ends. I guess the reflection at the smaller side has a broad band characteristic compared to the big end. I.e. the wave is partly reflected before it reaches the small plate (partially earlier times). If the big end is flat there is also a phase dependent time dependent reflection involved. But for a proper curved big plate and a small end below cutoff the time difference of the reflected signal should be located at the small end. So maybe a time-delayed reflection of the incident wave at a undersized small end combined with a spherical big end plate leads to a nice net force because of the time delayed reflection at one end only?
Just a thought..
It is hard to think about such problems while the room temperature is still way over 30°C/86°F -
#224 by mwvp on 01 Aug, 2018 03:53
-
...
You should take the energy density per area into account.
Funny how the frustrum even looks like a rocket nozzle. Energy density decreases if work is done by the microwaves, accelerating the frustrum (forward), via Doppler-effect.
But you may say, the red-shift at the small-end is undone by the blue shift at the large-end? No, I think not!
A multi-mode cavity has more modes, density of states (in that foul tongue of QM which I abhor uttering) at the large end. More degrees of freedom. An increase in Entropy! Just like a heat engine....
However I think for traveling (reflected) waves there is a time related difference related to the reflection on both ends.
This is what is perhaps most difficult to wrap your mind around. The time and velocity differences between matter and radiation WRT conservation of energy!
Fermions never have velocity >= C. Light, only at C. In matter-radiation scattering, the Doppler equation describes conservation of momentum. Radiation conserves momentum in changing wavelength. Matter, in changing velocity. Fermions are time-like, bosons space-like (in the foul-tongue of SR/GR), IIRC. Bosons know no time; there clocks are frozen....
So maybe a time-delayed reflection of the incident wave at a undersized small end combined with a spherical big end plate leads to a nice net force because of the time delayed reflection at one end only?
Just a thought..
It is hard to think about such problems while the room temperature is still way over 30°C/86°F
Please, consider the graphs below carefully?:
Consider the red-cooled end. Imagine filling a high-Q frustrum with a microwave pulse, and then shaking it. Imagine the Fourier plot, with the center frequency being split into sum/difference, upper/lower sidebands that diverge from the center frequency with each shake.
Because of the difference in density of states, entropy increases; sidebands diverge, getting both higher and lower with each shake moving away from center; NOT going back and forth, from center to a fixed distance. But since we're red-detuned with finite Q, the lower sideband dissipates faster than the upper. Lower frequencies shake down, high frequencies shake-up.
What happens in a fractional distillation column, with a tap for lower-boiling point fraction?
We have here an energy fractional-distillation column (a dispersive line) that preserves the upper sideband energy at the top until its converted to kinetic energy (effective inertia reduction), and dissipates the lower sideband energy at the bottom as heat exhaust. Since energy is exhausting out the bottom (heat, or if you want perhaps radiation) you would feel more inertia on the downstroke than the upstroke. Push-heavy/pull-light, apparently experiencing ersatz friction against empty space.
Imagine a perfect, brick-wall, low pass dissipative filter cavity. If you don't shake it, no energy gets out. Energy would only dissipate (exhaust) if shaken, and then only the lower sideband, at one end, leaving the other end at higher radiation pressure, more apparent inertia.
You have to keep several thoughts in mind to get it. Diabolical devious, insidiously subtle. You appear to push against empty space, but your really just scattering photons, Doppler shifting microwaves.
Dispersion is to energy what a nozzle is to gas; a nozzle transduces momentum via pressure and velocity; dispersion transduces momentum via energy density/field strength and wavelength.
But, one must have extreme Q and dispersion to shake the sidebands apart to be significantly deferentially dissipated (see the curve above) and radiation pressure unbalance. Or extreme acceleration/vibration and Doppler shift. And if you got high Q, the field strength will soon reach breakdown values.
-
#225 by TheTraveller on 01 Aug, 2018 04:49
-
So do you now disagree with Cullen; or do you agree with him but saying instead that what is going on in open cylindrical waveguides cannot be extrapolated to closed tapered cavities?
FC,
What I saying is you need to do a ray trace of the photon movement such that the superposition of their incident and reflected E fields, as they reflect off the walls and end plates, produces the E field lobes shown by various modeling software.
Then you can work the radiation pressure angle and force for each of the 8 points of reflection.
The attachment is just a quick effort, so don't use it to do your calcs. You need to work out the average photon pathways that will allow superposition of the incident and reflected E fields to paint the E field lobes as shown. As the eddy current band widths show, there is no single pathway and is spread out over a large area. However there is an averaged photon pathway that can be used to do a simple 8 point radiation pressure calc.
-
#226 by meberbs on 01 Aug, 2018 06:08
-
And now you broke your streak of generally correct posts.
What I saying is you need to do a ray trace of the photon movement such that the superposition of their incident and reflected E fields, as they reflect off the walls and end plates, produces the E field lobes shown by various modeling software.
You need to do one where reflected angle equals incident angle, basic optics.
Despite the path you drew being completely unphysical, if you do the momentum calculations correctly, accounting for the different angles at each reflection, and the fact that this would involve momentum transfer in a direction that is not perpendicular to the surface, you still will find no net force.
Your responsibility to provide these calculations though. You are the one claiming momentum can appear out of nowhere, you get to do the math behind your claim.
The shapes are due to the wave nature of photons and do not indicate a "typical path" the way you seem to be thinking. Go look up some diagrams of waves propagating in a waveguide to see some examples of how different lobes and photon travel path are. In a waveguide a frequency propagating at a steep angle with many bounces back and forth to move forward a little bit will appear to have lobes separated by large distances, since they correspond to one wavelength projected perpendicular to the direction of travel. -
#227 by flux_capacitor on 01 Aug, 2018 12:35
-
The electromagnetic force of each wall must be calculated according to Maxwell's equation, and the geometric vector calculations are all combined into zero.
This is perfectly true, but it only considers Maxwell and a steady-state situation. What about time dependance, delays, travelling waves associated to phenomena other than Maxwell as suggested by the posts of X_RaY and mwvp following ours?
By the way mwvp, I always find your posts profoundly interesting (like notsosureofit's posts about dispersion). I don't get all your story about optomechanics, but as I have the feeling that there might be something down there, I regret that not many skilled people comment much on your ideas. -
#228 by TheTraveller on 01 Aug, 2018 13:24
-
You need to do one where reflected angle equals incident angle, basic optics.
Despite the path you drew being completely unphysical, if you do the momentum calculations correctly, accounting for the different angles at each reflection, and the fact that this would involve momentum transfer in a direction that is not perpendicular to the surface, you still will find no net force.
Your responsibility to provide these calculations though. You are the one claiming momentum can appear out of nowhere, you get to do the math behind your claim.
The shapes are due to the wave nature of photons and do not indicate a "typical path" the way you seem to be thinking. Go look up some diagrams of waves propagating in a waveguide to see some examples of how different lobes and photon travel path are. In a waveguide a frequency propagating at a steep angle with many bounces back and forth to move forward a little bit will appear to have lobes separated by large distances, since they correspond to one wavelength projected perpendicular to the direction of travel.
Glad to see you understand why the guide wavelength increases and the group velocity decreases as the cavity diameter drops. At one time on this forum, that actuality would have brought howls of disbelief and denial.
Sure the angle of incidence equals the angle of emission. As the resultant radiation pressure from such side wall events is orthogonal to the side wall, the overall side wall radiation pressure is toward the small end.
You really sure the small end + side wall radiation pressure equals that on the big end?
Attached for your consideration.
-
#229 by meberbs on 01 Aug, 2018 13:34
-
It is perfectly true period. Electrodynamics is a perfectly conservative theory. Quantum Electrodynamics is also a perfectly conservative theory. These are simple facts with textbook proofs.The electromagnetic force of each wall must be calculated according to Maxwell's equation, and the geometric vector calculations are all combined into zero.
This is perfectly true, but it only considers Maxwell and a steady-state situation. What about time dependance, delays, travelling waves associated to phenomena other than Maxwell as suggested by the posts of X_RaY and mwvp following ours?
None of the things you listed can in any way lead to useful forces. Listing a bunch of things with no explanation of how they could be relevant is simply not a scientific argument.
-
#230 by meberbs on 01 Aug, 2018 13:47
-
Glad to see you understand why the guide wavelength increases and the group velocity decreases as the cavity diameter drops. At one time on this forum, that actuality would have brought howls of disbelief and denial.
The only howls of disbelief and denial were from you as you insisted on there being no sidewall force.
The facts of guide wavelength in waveguide have never been denied. The fact that something similar happens in the cavity has not been denied. What has been pointed out is that waveguide equations do not translate directly to the slanted sidewalls of an emdrive cavity and that the nature of resonance prevents the waveguide definition of guide wavelength from having any physical meaning in a resonator. Your false accusations of otherwise are insulting and not appreciated.Sure the angle of incidence equals the angle of emission. As the resultant radiation pressure from such side wall events is orthogonal to the side wall, the overall side wall radiation pressure is toward the small end.
Your attachment yet again shows incident angle different from reflected angle. Try actually making a precise drawing with angles and distances labelled, and then add up the momentum.
You really sure the small end + side wall radiation pressure equals that on the big end?
Attached for your consideration. -
#231 by OnlyMe on 01 Aug, 2018 14:57
-
Funny how the frustrum even looks like a rocket nozzle. Energy density decreases if work is done by the microwaves, accelerating the frustrum (forward), via Doppler-effect.
But you may say, the red-shift at the small-end is undone by the blue shift at the large-end? No, I think not!
............
None of the arguments based on a direct transfer of momentum between photons (or EM waves) and the frustum are realistic explanations.... If you were to assume that 100% of the theoretical momentum potential associated with the “microwave photons” were transferred to one surface inside the frustum (all potential momentum transferred in a single direction), you would at best be dealing with a perfect photon rocket. At the 1000 watts of a magnetron how much actual momentum potential do you believe that represents? No matter how you bounce the photons/waves around, invoking Doppler-effects and red/blues shifts, you cannot get more momentum potential than that initial 1000 watts of EM radiation.
There just isn’t any way that radiation or photon pressure can explain any useable anomalous force.... it just is not reasonable to believe the frustum—microwave relationship (based on bouncing photons) winds up a self contained perfect photon rocket. Let alone something better!
If/when an EmDrive is demonstrated to produced useable anomalous force, it will be by some mechanism other than bouncing photons and Doppler shifts.
Because it seems to be a contained system, any acceleration of the frustum would seem to be relative to the EM field within the frustum. Whether that winds up being the result of an electromagnetic affect on the local shape of spacetime, some rendition of a/the Mach effect or simply a Lentz law like effect between the contained asymmetric EM field and corresponding induced eddy currents and magnetic fields in the walls of the frustum, that is something we will never know until a functional build is available for further study and investigation.
-
#232 by Augmentor on 01 Aug, 2018 16:46
-
Meberbs,
My dear soothsaying analyst,
Would you be so kind to put your comments into a mathematical form?
What might help to define is any invariance in the system such as volume, weight or charge.
DM -
#233 by meberbs on 01 Aug, 2018 18:13
-
Meberbs,
Please point to where I made any predictions of the future in this thread. Otherwise, please apologize for this insulting slander.
My dear soothsaying analyst,Would you be so kind to put your comments into a mathematical form?
I have made specific mathematical statements many times. I have no idea what comments you are referring to here. If you think any statements I made were unclear due to some lack of statement of some assumption, please be specific as to what statements were unclear and what you don't understand about them.
What might help to define is any invariance in the system such as volume, weight or charge. -
#234 by mwvp on 01 Aug, 2018 19:03
-
The electromagnetic force of each wall must be calculated according to Maxwell's equation, and the geometric vector calculations are all combined into zero.
This is perfectly true, but it only considers Maxwell and a steady-state situation. What about time dependance, delays, travelling waves associated to phenomena other than Maxwell as suggested by the posts of X_RaY and mwvp following ours?
There are several traps that, at first glance with a facile, naivete, perspective, justify common-sense skepticism of counter-intuitive phenomena. Consider laser-cooling! Sunlight makes you warm, even hot. Lasers burn through even tungsten. The first time, decades ago, I heard of laser cooling, I didn't believe it. I researched it, and didn't understand side-band cooling. Very few marvelous, incredible things are, in fact, true! But the technological potential of graphene pales in comparison to photonic technology; from ultra-cold Bose-Einstein condensates, to Teller-Ulam hydrogen bombs, photonics has demonstrably defined technological boundaries.
Its said energy isn't conserved; the frustrum is closed. Its said you can't push against empty space.
The frustrum isn't closed, it must dissipate heat, which arises from radiation momentum. As a rocket nozzle exhausts mass with negative momentum relative to the rocket, a frustrum exhausts negative, lower sideband momentum by absorption (skin effect/copper losses) and radiating it as heat. There's more metal at the bottom, losses are far more inductive than capacitive, for the red-shifted lower sideband.
I agree, in the static case, no "thrust", unbalanced radiation pressure, is produced. The cavity must accelerate, whether linearly or vibrate, on convert/transduce electromagnetic, radiation momentum into mechanical momentum.
It must be understood, when you accelerate a hollow shell (frustrum), you do not accelerate the empty space inside the shell. The Sagnac effect, applied in laser-gyroscopes must be understood. You don't really push against empty space. You release electromagnetic (EM) momentum into empty space, pushing against it/exchanging momentum with it, with time-delay, and a phase shift. Just as in BAE's "photon recycling" rocket.
This is really hard to get; many probably think they understand, but THEY DON"T!
The speed of light, is the speed of light, is the speed of light
If you trap a counter-propagating standing wave in an anisotropic bottle (like a linear waveguide), you have, in a sense, created an inertial reference frame/context. If you accelerate yourself later, you necessarily must exchange momentum with that bottle-trapped momentum. The difference manifest as side-band, wavelength-shifted energy STILL AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT. Unlike ping-pong balls, photons do not change there speed. This is not true of sound. Or there is a high dielectric/permittivity material in the bottle (polarized mass) that will reduce the refractive index. As is evident in the Sagnac effect, and responsible for Fresnel Drag.
You do a devious, dastardly, despicable trick now when your bottle separates short and long wavelegths in different directions, colinear to your acceleration axis. It's like the energy is a fluid in a tube you've balance on a knife edge, and when you tip it a little, half shoots forward and half out the back. Its unstable. You either radiate the low frequency rocket-style, or, even more viciously subtle, absorb and radiate it as heat.
The reason a photon rocket is so inefficient is, for reasonable accelerations (<1 G, or 10m/s^2), you only get a phase shift in parts per billion. You only exchange momentum in parts per billion. Ghastly! But if you recycle photons (high-Q required), you integrate the billions of little impulses to significance.
The maximum power transfer theorem, in the context of photonics, must be understood.
You only let the nasty photons out of the gulag after you've beat them down in frequency, absorbing momentum with each reverberation at the top, and finally burying the heat-dead corpses at bottom....
By the way mwvp, I always find your posts profoundly interesting (like notsosureofit's posts about dispersion). I don't get all your story about optomechanics, but as I have the feeling that there might be something down there, I regret that not many skilled people comment much on your ideas.
Thanks flux_capacitor. I grew weary of posting, wondering when something will come of this, some real news. Or an expert, waveguide microwave engineer would show up. I know there are other ways side-band heating/cooling, in Lorentz-invariant or Sagnac-like devices; molecular, chemical, laser, Peltier/electro-thermal, plasma, et. might be contrived.
I had posted references to cavity optomechanic papers, dispersion, Sagnac, et. I've got to run now, I'll repost links later.
It is rather frustrating to know, I'm practically certain, what's going on here. And nobody else seems to get it except, IMHO Traveller in some vague way. Others, maybe you and X-ray, with your sense of time-delay, understand that, in this Sagnac context, the speed of light is the speed of light and as you accelerate you shift freqquency, integrate the minute phase-shift with immense Q, exhaust low frequency as heat, and turn high frequency into frustrum momentum.
No frequency is shifted if no work, acceleration, Doppler shift, occurs. You will hardly find static thrust, unless you vibrate the cavity. -
#235 by mwvp on 01 Aug, 2018 22:00
-
Funny how the frustrum even looks like a rocket nozzle. Energy density decreases if work is done by the microwaves, accelerating the frustrum (forward), via Doppler-effect.
But you may say, the red-shift at the small-end is undone by the blue shift at the large-end? No, I think not!
............
None of the arguments based on a direct transfer of momentum between photons (or EM waves) and the frustum are realistic...At the 1000 watts of a magnetron how much actual momentum potential do you believe that represents? No matter how you bounce the photons/waves around, invoking Doppler-effects and red/blues shifts, you cannot get more momentum potential than that initial 1000 watts of EM radiation.
That's kind of fuzzy. Momentum depends on mass*velocity or field strength*wavelength. You're giving me an absolute rate of energy input, and leaving the mass issue out of the equation.
If I have a virtually massless reflector of radiation, and hit it with radiation, being near massless it near instantly accelerates to C, converting nearly all radiant energy to kinetic. The more massive, the more energetic the reflection and less energetic the recoiling mass. So it is evident that, without resonant impedance matching network, 1/4 wave etalon, et. mass is at the bad end of an exponential curve for propulsive efficiency.
You need a hell of a gear-box to match the impedance of massless photons/ EM waves to massive systems of particles.
Or, as an afterthought, you need an energy pulse = 1/2 m C^2. Whoohoooo!There just isn’t any way that radiation or photon pressure can explain any useable anomalous force.... it just is not reasonable to believe the frustum—microwave relationship (based on bouncing photons) winds up a self contained perfect photon rocket. Let alone something better!
It's very reasonable not to deduce the consequences of a dozen or so arcane and esoteric abstractions and principles. Alas, that I had the patience and eloquence. -
#236 by meberbs on 02 Aug, 2018 05:14
-
But you may say, the red-shift at the small-end is undone by the blue shift at the large-end? No, I think not!
The second statement literally does nothing to support your "No, I think not." It doesn't make the blue shift go away by some kind of magic. Entropy is not relevant to the discussion, since energy and momentum won't just appear out of nowhere just to make entropy increase. Nothing you are describing increases the density of states anyway.
A multi-mode cavity has more modes, density of states (in that foul tongue of QM which I abhor uttering) at the large end. More degrees of freedom. An increase in Entropy! Just like a heat engine.
There is nothing fuzzy about OnlyMe's statements. The total momentum that can be present in EM waves is purely a function of their energy. Power is the only variable needed to determine the rate of momentum change (force). Mass is literally irrelevant since photons are massless.None of the arguments based on a direct transfer of momentum between photons (or EM waves) and the frustum are realistic...At the 1000 watts of a magnetron how much actual momentum potential do you believe that represents? No matter how you bounce the photons/waves around, invoking Doppler-effects and red/blues shifts, you cannot get more momentum potential than that initial 1000 watts of EM radiation.
That's kind of fuzzy. Momentum depends on mass*velocity or field strength*wavelength. You're giving me an absolute rate of energy input, and leaving the mass issue out of the equation.
Also, momentum depends on field strength squared. Wavelength only comes into it if you want to work in the quantum realm and count photons, in which case it is proportional to number of photons / wavelength. Note, division not multiplication.
Luckily there are statements that can be made with complete generality where it doesn't matter if there are 10^100 steps in between. If all of those steps obey simple equations (Maxwell's equations with special relativity for example), and you can show something that is fundamentally true for any interaction obeying those laws (for example momentum is conserved), then no amount of complications can change that fact, all of the interactions added together will still behave according to the simple rule (momentum and energy conservation).There just isn’t any way that radiation or photon pressure can explain any useable anomalous force.... it just is not reasonable to believe the frustum—microwave relationship (based on bouncing photons) winds up a self contained perfect photon rocket. Let alone something better!
It's very reasonable not to deduce the consequences of a dozen or so arcane and esoteric abstractions and principles. Alas, that I had the patience and eloquence.
Hi, guess what experts are already here, you apparently would rather ignore what they say though. The things you are posting about have been shown to be wrong so many times over it gets tedious to repeat the difference between have a mirror on a spacecraft with another on a planet versus two mirrors glued to the same spacecraft. Or facts like the existence of absolute rotational motion is irrelevant....
By the way mwvp, I always find your posts profoundly interesting (like notsosureofit's posts about dispersion). I don't get all your story about optomechanics, but as I have the feeling that there might be something down there, I regret that not many skilled people comment much on your ideas.
Thanks flux_capacitor. I grew weary of posting, wondering when something will come of this, some real news. Or an expert, waveguide microwave engineer would show up. I know there are other ways side-band heating/cooling, in Lorentz-invariant or Sagnac-like devices; molecular, chemical, laser, Peltier/electro-thermal, plasma, et. might be contrived.It is rather frustrating to know, I'm practically certain, what's going on here. And nobody else seems to get it except, IMHO Traveller in some vague way. Others, maybe you and X-ray, with your sense of time-delay, understand that, in this Sagnac context, the speed of light is the speed of light and as you accelerate you shift freqquency, integrate the minute phase-shift with immense Q, exhaust low frequency as heat, and turn high frequency into frustrum momentum.
What is frustrating is when people like you who apparently don't even know how to calculate momentum of an EM wave think they are somehow smarter than people who actually know what they are talking about. Try to recognize that maybe the reason that qualified people don't agree with you is because you are wrong. -
#237 by mwvp on 02 Aug, 2018 17:51
-
Here are some interesting links I repost:
Bradshaw: "Dispersion, controlled dispersion, and three applications" https://arxiv.org/abs/1005.5467
Contains interesting stuff about dispersion and Complex, dynamic Doppler shift (conservation of momentum in mass-radiation exchanges; optomechanics)QuoteHere is the good news - we have a nozzle folks. It's called dispersion. It's highest on the phase-slope on the edge of the resonance curve. It in effect multiplies the beat frequency and momentum transfer.
See fig. 4 of "Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum", and on pg 3 reference to "phase angle quality factor".
Read what Bradshaw writes, pg 17 eq. 2.19: (group index = delta ln lambda / delta ln omega ) in
"Dispersion, controlled dispersion, and three applications" https://arxiv.org/abs/1005.5467
He describes the case where an interferometer has 100 x resolution with ng=100.QuoteI read something very interesting in EW's latest paper @ http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/1.B36120
pg. 3:
Quote
"The change in phase angle over frequency [dispersion!] was also calculated, and a new parameter dubbed the phase angle quality factor was developed to help quantify the characteristics of a given resonance condition. The phase angle quality factor was the change in phase angle over a given frequency range, and it was determined using the phase plot fromVNA and only considering the region of the steepest phase angle change centered on the resonance. Figure 4 depicts ...The bottom-left pane is the variation in phase angle for the system, and the bottom-right pane is the group delay.
The tuning study determined that, for this particular tapered test article, optimal thrust was present if the system had a quality factorat least several thousand and the maximum phase angle quality factor ["phase angle quality factor" - dispersion!] that could be achieved."
****
Now, a stationary electron can be (whether accurately or not) thought of (modeled) as a standing electromagnetic standing wave in a nonlinear Kerr-effect media (quantum vacuum). A moving electron, as a marching wave. If similar conditions are created in an appropriate waveguide (frustrum), will it too move, similar to how particles move? Is the EM drive system acting like a macroscopic particle?
https://www.academia.edu/11093756/Confinement_of_Light_Standing_Wave_Transformations_in_a_Phase-Locked_Resonator (link courtesy Shells)
See appendix to Ch. 1 here:
"Only Spacetime" pg 3-13 http://onlyspacetime.com/OnlySpacetime.pdfQuoteI've read there is a sort of privileged frame, and space, the vacuum itself is the road...
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.3519v4
Quote
"Consider that the vacuum medium is described by the vacuum states of
quantum fields and then its total momentum vanishes, it is reasonable for us to assume that
the vacuum medium as a whole is always resting with respect to all inertial observers. In
other words, the relative velocity between the vacuum medium and an arbitrary inertial
observer cannot be measured (i.e., it is an unobservable quantity), such that one can think it
always vanishes. On the other hand, consider that the velocity of light in vacuum is
invariant with respect to all inertial observers, and the eigenvalues of electron’s velocity
operator are equal to the velocity of light in vacuum, one can present the following
hypotheses: the velocity of light in vacuum ( 1 c = ) and the velocity of the vacuum medium
( ) are only two genuine velocities in our universe, they are invariant constants for all
inertial frames of reference; all other velocities are the apparent (or average) velocities of
massless fields moving in a zigzag manner. Such a zigzag motion, just as the
electromagnetic waves that are reflected back and forth by perfectly conducting walls as
they propagate along the length of a hollow waveguide, concerns two mutually orthogonal
0 u =
114D momentum components, i.e., a time-like 4D momentum (called the longitudinal
component) and a space-like 4D momentum (called the transverse component), respectively,
where the former corresponds to the usual 4D momentum of particles while the latter
contributes to the rest mass of particles."
the classic: "Cavity Optomechanics" fig.14 pg 1410.
http://aspelmeyer.quantum.at/docs/82/downloads/revmodphys.pdfQuoteAccording to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_gas SF6 can get you 3 - 6 times 30kv/cm breakdown for air, and freon up to 17, pressurized.
-
#238 by moreno7798 on 02 Aug, 2018 18:12
-
Meberbs,
Please point to where I made any predictions of the future in this thread. Otherwise, please apologize for this insulting slander.
My dear soothsaying analyst,Would you be so kind to put your comments into a mathematical form?
I have made specific mathematical statements many times. I have no idea what comments you are referring to here. If you think any statements I made were unclear due to some lack of statement of some assumption, please be specific as to what statements were unclear and what you don't understand about them.
What might help to define is any invariance in the system such as volume, weight or charge.
Talk is cheap. The language of physics is mathematics. Equations would give those that are versed in the subject (probably not me - but others) plenty of clarification. -
#239 by mwvp on 02 Aug, 2018 18:15
-
But you may say, the red-shift at the small-end is undone by the blue shift at the large-end? No, I think not!
The second statement literally does nothing to support your "No, I think not." It doesn't make the blue shift go away by some kind of magic. Entropy is not relevant to the discussion, since energy and momentum won't just appear out of nowhere just to make entropy increase. Nothing you are describing increases the density of states anyway.
A multi-mode cavity has more modes, density of states (in that foul tongue of QM which I abhor uttering) at the large end. More degrees of freedom. An increase in Entropy! Just like a heat engine.
Literally, I think so. The blue shift goes away either by cavity dissipation or by being red-shifted at the cavity apex if the cavity accelerates. IF...What is frustrating is when people like you who apparently don't even know how to calculate momentum of an EM wave think they are somehow smarter than people who actually know what they are talking about. Try to recognize that maybe the reason that qualified people don't agree with you is because you are wrong.
I have never found a highly qualified microwave engineer here, that is one that has years of EM simulation experience with waveguides and antennas, R&D. Shell, Dave maybe the best, one Nasa test engineer showed up for maybe one post, and Dr. Rodal's math expertise seems to be with gravity and fluid dynamics. One other guy with military radar.
Hmmm, Shall I care if you are frustrated because I think I am smarter than people who you think actually know what they are talking about? Hmmm
I have alluded to a bit of uncertainty regarding my conjectures and reasoning, which are based on references I link. Of course I concede I may be wrong.
I think not.
I wouldn't spend time here if I didn't think I was right.
It sure as hell wouldn't be to feed trolls who provoke hapless travelers
