-
#320 by Monomorphic on 23 Aug, 2018 17:39
-
BTW anyone has the Taylor paper?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323278529_Propulsive_forces_using_high-Q_asymmetric_high_energy_laser_resonators
I don't think you have read it: the link provides only the abstract…
Taylor's paper is attached.
-
#321 by Bob Woods on 24 Aug, 2018 05:19
-
From Taylor: "... then our system can produce on the order of 30 N thrust per kW of electrical power."
That's a big statement. Any data? -
#322 by cvbn on 24 Aug, 2018 09:50
-
From Taylor: "... then our system can produce on the order of 30 N thrust per kW of electrical power."
That's a big statement. Any data?
As previously stated and here, this and another idea will be tested beginning on 1st Oct 2018 and finishing 4 years later (the funds of $1.3 mln are for 4 years). The first results are expected at the end of 2019. -
#323 by Ricvil on 24 Aug, 2018 11:34
-
The Emdrive is a kind of Warpdrive!!
-
#324 by RotoSequence on 24 Aug, 2018 11:36
-
The Emdrive is a kind of Warpdrive!!
Either that or it's an overcomplicated space heater.
-
#325 by TheTraveller on 24 Aug, 2018 14:05
-
Can confirm higher freq = higher thrust due to reduced proton propagation time from end plate to end plate. Ie assuming constant Q, there will be more transits and more end plate photon impacts during the same cavity ring down time (same Q) with a 10x shorter 24GHz cavity than with a 2.4GHz cavity, at the same mode.
Can also confirm a shorter TE011 cavity has more thrust than a longer TE013 cavity, assuming the same Q. This is opposite to what Qi thrust equation predicts and has been pointed out to Dr Mike.
Can also confirm a DF 0.95 cavity has lower thrust than a 0.65 DF cavity, assuming the same Q, due to slower averaged group velocity and thus lower end plate to end plate transits and end plate impacts as the DF (end plate diameter ratio) increases.
Optimal cavity thrust is about tradeoffs between highest Q, highest DF, shortest end plate to end plate propagation time. Ie all about max end plate impacts per cavity ring down time.
Work of the rotary KISS thruster demo is progressing well. -
#326 by TheTraveller on 24 Aug, 2018 14:08
-
The Emdrive is a kind of Warpdrive!!
EmDrive is just a machine that converts input Rf joules into KE joules of the accelerated mass. Newton 3, CofM and CofE are all obeyed.
it is no more a warp drive than is an electrical motor. -
#327 by TheTraveller on 24 Aug, 2018 14:14
-
The Emdrive is a kind of Warpdrive!!
Either that or it's an overcomplicated space heater.
It is neither.
EmDrive input Rf energy that is not converted into accelerated mass KE, is converted into IR energy. Think about a stalled electrical motor and now hot it will get as no input energy is converted into angular KE but all is converted into heat.
-
#328 by meberbs on 24 Aug, 2018 14:23
-
Can confirm higher freq = higher thrust due to reduced proton propagation time from end plate to end plate. Ie assuming constant Q, there will be more transits and more end plate photon impacts during the same cavity ring down time (same Q) with a 10x shorter 24GHz cavity than with a 2.4GHz cavity, at the same mode.
Q is defined as frequency * max energy stored /power loss. The "ring down time" as you call it is therefore inversely proportional to frequency, so the number of reflections involved for a given Q is fixed regardless of frequency. Please stop pretending that you know what you are talking about. The rest of your statements are based on incorrect theory that doesn't even get the direction of force correct.EmDrive is just a machine that converts input Rf joules into KE joules of the accelerated mass. Newton 3, CofM and CofE are all obeyed.
For the millionth time, the math does not work out. Battery energy is not dependent on reference frame, heat energy is not dependent on reference frame, kinetic energy is dependent on reference frame. The frame the drive starts in is not special, so conservation of energy does not care what frame you start from.
If the drive can accelerate for a while, turn off, then accelerate again by the same change in velocity, using the same energy from the battery, it breaks conservation of energy. (You have to do all calculations in a single frame, turning it off does not let you change frames, because conservation of energy is defined in a single frame.) -
#329 by TheTraveller on 24 Aug, 2018 15:10
-
....
Cavity ring down time in seconds = (5 * Qu) / ( 2 * Pi * Freq).
So yes the cavity ring down time is fixed per Qu and freq. However the number of end plate to end plate transits and the number of end plate reflection during the ring down time is not, as you incorrectly stated, fixed by Qu nor freq.
It is much more complex than that and involves the end plate separation distance, the averaged group velocity (which increases as DF increases) and the excited mode.
That you do not understand this is not your fault, being an armchair critic, that has never built nor tested an EmDrive but relies on old school traditional physics.
Your input is interesting but misguided as there is information you so far reject as it does not fit into your world view. Hopefully one day you will understand and accept the EmDrive is just another machine, capable of converting Rf input Joules of energy into accelerated mass KE Joules. The increased photon wavelength and thus less momentum is how CofM occurs. Same for lower photon energy, ie longer wavelength balancing accelerated mass gained KE.
BTW when acceleration mass there is only one correct value for the work done. The accelerated mass has no frame other than that which existed just before acceleration started. That work value should be frame invariant. I have showed you how that can be achieved, yet you insist in the frame variant, ie some distant observer determines the work work by a force over time to accelerate a mass. Sorry but that is just a silly position to take. There is clearly only one value of Work done to accelerate a kg mass, using a force over a number of seconds.
That you refuse to accept there can only be ONE real value of work done to accelerate a mass, shows even more your armchair locked in stone position and unwillingness to think outside what you believe is correct.
You are wrong. But not my job to alter your opinion. -
#330 by meberbs on 24 Aug, 2018 16:07
-
For a fixed mode, the size of the cavity is inversely proportional to frequency. The factor by which the travel time between the plates is increased (due to not travelling in a straight line between the plates) is fixed by the mode.....
Cavity ring down time in seconds = (5 * Qu) / ( 2 * Pi * Freq).
So yes the cavity ring down time is fixed per Qu and freq. However the number of end plate to end plate transits and the number of end plate reflection during the ring down time is not, as you incorrectly stated, fixed by Qu nor freq.
It is much more complex than that and involves the end plate separation distance, the averaged group velocity (which increases as DF increases) and the excited mode.
Number of reflections = decay time/ travel time = decay time / (cavity length*c*average velocity factor)
Decay time is inversely proportional to frequency. Cavity length is inversely proportional to frequency. The velocity factor is fixed by the mode. Overall, the number of reflections is independent of frequency.That you do not understand this is not your fault, being an armchair critic, that has never built nor tested an EmDrive but relies on old school traditional physics.
Ability to do basic algebra is not affected by whether I have wasted my time building some arbitrary shaped RF resonator.
Current evidence is that you have not yet built and tested an emDrive yourself anyway, and you continue to claim the contradictory points of "emDrive works" and "classical physics works."Your input is interesting but misguided as there is information you so far reject as it does not fit into your world view. Hopefully one day you will understand and accept the EmDrive is just another machine, capable of converting Rf input Joules of energy into accelerated mass KE Joules.
It can't be, because a normal machine has something to push off of. Maybe one day you will be willing to actually learn something.The increased photon wavelength and thus less momentum is how CofM occurs.
Since the total momentum that can be stored in photons is proportional to their energy, the most momentum you could ever get out of such a claim is that of a photon rocket, and then only if you ignore that when the photons were emitted they had given the cavity exactly opposite momentum.
It is trivial that the emDrive breaks conservation of momentum. Start with an emDrive that is off and has no photons in it. For simplicity lets say that it starts with 0 momentum. Now turn it on wait a while and turn it off, specifying that while it is on, nothing leaves the device, and nothing external pushes on the device. Now turn it off so that there is no more photons in the cavity. If the emDrive works at all, that means the drive has non-zero momentum once it is off, despite starting with 0 momentum, and interacting with nothing else. This momentum has come out of nowhere, and is the definition of breaking conservation of momentum.Same for lower photon energy, ie longer wavelength balancing accelerated mass gained KE.
Again, the equations simply do not work out as has been demonstrated for you countless times.BTW when acceleration mass there is only one correct value for the work done.
Utterly false again. By definition work is dependent on distance travelled, which is dependent on reference frame.I have showed you how that can be achieved, yet you insist in the frame variant, ie some distant observer determines the work work by a force over time to accelerate a mass.
And your math was demonstrated to be completely inconsistent.Sorry but that is just a silly position to take.
Claiming that a device whose sole purpose is to break conservation of momentum does not do so is what is silly.That you refuse to accept there can only be ONE real value of work done to accelerate a mass, shows even more your armchair locked in stone position and unwillingness to think outside what you believe is correct.
No, it shows that I actually have bothered to study the definition of basic physics concepts.
Your continued refusal to even acknowledge the definition of momentum conservation or work shows that you have no desire to learn anything.
Also, since all of this has been told to you before and you have no response except to repeat your same false and self-contradictory claims, you are breaking the rules set forth in the first post of this thread.You are wrong. But not my job to alter your opinion.
The definitions of energy and momentum are not an opinion, and you do not get to make up their definitions. -
#331 by flux_capacitor on 24 Aug, 2018 16:08
-
the rad pressure is greater on the small end plate than on the big end plate. This is why the EmDrive accelerates small end forward.
There is some side wall force, it is small end directed
the small side wall force actually adds to the overall small end forward action
a shorter TE011 cavity has more thrust than a longer TE013 cavity
a DF 0.95 cavity has lower thrust than a 0.65 DF cavity, assuming the same Q
Anyone who has followed your claims over 3.5 years on NSF could point out that you now make such conclusions following "Roger's breadcrumbs" but in the REVERSE direction…
Can you please expose these findings to Shawyer and report here what he says about them? -
#332 by TheTraveller on 24 Aug, 2018 17:36
-
the rad pressure is greater on the small end plate than on the big end plate. This is why the EmDrive accelerates small end forward.
There is some side wall force, it is small end directed
the small side wall force actually adds to the overall small end forward action
a shorter TE011 cavity has more thrust than a longer TE013 cavity
a DF 0.95 cavity has lower thrust than a 0.65 DF cavity, assuming the same Q
Anyone who has followed your claims over 3.5 years on NSF could point out that you now make such conclusions following "Roger's breadcrumbs" but in the REVERSE direction…
Can you please expose these findings to Shawyer and report here what he says about them?
FC,
There is so much more to EmDrive theory that has not been released. It is not my place to upstage Roger. What Roger has released is, in context, correct. It is not however the full theory.
Consider traditional photon E & H field in phase oscillations as attached.
The individual photon, being a point source of Em energy, oscillates over the 360 deg oscillation from a max to min value. Ie the photon energy and thus momentum and energy is not constant over a cycle but varies from zero energy and momentum and energy to a max value. Consider what that means to the rad pressure delivered as the photon energy varies. ie no rad pressure when E & H fields are zero to max rad pressure when E & H fields are max.
Then ask yourself what is the phase of the oscillation of the E and H fields when hitting the side walls vs hitting the end plates? Assuming the photon momentum is the same during the entire cyclic E & H field oscillations can lead to the wrong assumptions.
You need to click on the GIF to see the action.
-
#333 by Ricvil on 24 Aug, 2018 18:22
-
The Emdrive is a kind of Warpdrive!!
Either that or it's an overcomplicated space heater.
The small endplate is more cold than big endplate in operation, even copper being a very good thermal conductor? -
#334 by flux_capacitor on 24 Aug, 2018 18:37
-
The Emdrive is a kind of Warpdrive!!
Either that or it's an overcomplicated space heater.
The small endplate is more cold than big endplate in operation, even copper being a very good thermal conductor?
Are you sure? Is it a measurement you have directly made, or an hypothesis? Look at the various sims made by X-RaY, Monomorphic, Rodal, etc. which all show a much higher energy density near small end, as well as greater eddy currents in the copper. How could temperature be lower in this high EM density and high induced electric currents region? Moreover the larger surface of the wide end acts more efficiently as a heatsink and heat dissipator. -
#335 by meberbs on 24 Aug, 2018 18:48
-
The individual photon, being a point source of Em energy, oscillates over the 360 deg oscillation from a max to min value. Ie the photon energy and thus momentum and energy is not constant over a cycle but varies from zero energy and momentum and energy to a max value.
No, if you are talking about individual photons, then you are talking about a quantum mechanical object. In quantum mechanics, a point object is not located at a definite point. It exists spread across an amount of space related to its wavelength (and yes, objects like electrons have a defined wavelength too.) It gets complicated when you have many overlapping of the same (indistinguishable) particle, but the actual total momentum of the photon would not be changing with time or space the way you present it. -
#336 by Ricvil on 24 Aug, 2018 19:15
-
The Emdrive is a kind of Warpdrive!!
Either that or it's an overcomplicated space heater.
The small endplate is more cold than big endplate in operation, even copper being a very good thermal conductor?
Are you sure? Is it a measurement you have directly made, or an hypothesis? Look at the various sims made by X-RaY, Monomorphic, Rodal, etc. which all show a much higher energy density near small end, as well as greater eddy currents in the copper. How could temperature be lower in this high EM density and high induced electric currents region? Moreover the larger surface of the wide end acts more efficiently as a heatsink and heat dissipator.
Sorry.
I'm talking about this very particular scenario, and I really don't know if a real test was made in this configuration of excitation, with no internal dielectric , and with thermal images.
Need not be this exact shape, but with the "Dark Zone" of surface current at the small endplate , viewed on the simulations.
PS: Sorry about my poor english again , because It was not a affirmation, but a question.
-
#337 by Monomorphic on 24 Aug, 2018 19:44
-
I've fabricated the two new antennas I want to test. These were first designed in FEKO, then I 3D printed two cones of the right size to wrap the wire around to get the correct diameters, and then soldered. I will need to run some calibrations on the VNA, then start tuning.
-
#338 by Monomorphic on 24 Aug, 2018 21:34
-
After a quick calibration and some rough tuning, TE013 was found almost exactly where the simulation predicted, 2.415.2Ghz (measured) vs 2.416.3Ghz (simulated). This difference is probably because the gaskets ended up a little thicker after applying the copper foil. I haven't performed any detailed measurements since installing the gaskets, but may do so to improve the accuracy of the simulation.
The solid copper cavity is definitely better than the 3D printed one Q factor-wise. Just roughly tuning now, and using the open-ended half loop antenna, Q was measured at ~13,000 (using -3dB method). The 3D printed cavity was about ~7,000.
-
#339 by Ricvil on 24 Aug, 2018 23:22
-
After a quick calibration and some rough tuning, TE013 was found almost exactly where the simulation predicted, 2.415.2Ghz (measured) vs 2.416.3Ghz (simulated). This difference is probably because the gaskets ended up a little thicker after applying the copper foil. I haven't performed any detailed measurements since installing the gaskets, but may do so to improve the accuracy of the simulation.
The solid copper cavity is definitely better than the 3D printed one Q factor-wise. Just roughly tuning now, and using the open-ended half loop antenna, Q was measured at ~13,000 (using -3dB method). The 3D printed cavity was about ~7,000.
No signal of a asymmetrical Fano resonance, and it is very important.
The question is ... why?
