-
#340 by Ricvil on 25 Aug, 2018 02:11
-
This resonance with almost 180 degree phase inversion is what is necessary.
Like this tiny asymmetrical 17 KHz resonance.
The frequency need to be at the high slope phase inversion region.
It is possible?
-
#341 by spupeng7 on 25 Aug, 2018 02:49
-
Crystal Set Question
What difference does it make what perspective we have on a covariant system, all perspectives should be the same. Well, it makes a great deal of difference if our perspective causes us to misunderstand physical reality. If orthogonal space dimensions and linear time exist for us as a consequence of our tiny velocity with respect to the speed of light, then we could have misinterpreted visible separation as distance when it would be better described as separation in the linear component of complex time. But solid evidence would be required to justify this strange consideration.
Such evidence may be available already, awaiting our interpretation. I have a notion that the humble crystal radio set may be an example. Surely the only energy available to make the signal audible at the earphone of this device, which has no amplifier, would have to be that which is transmitted from the signals transmitter and received in the crystal sets antenna and circuitry.
That must be limited to the energy of the received transmission which would, in a universe of purely linear time, be that part of the transmission which the antenna intercepts, being, the inverse of the transmission distance squared, multiplied by the transmission power and then by the cross-section of the antenna normal to the signals origin. So far as I know.
If that energy is not enough then other explanations would require that absorption of the quanta communicating the signal be concentrated where they find resonance, an explanation that requires time to be complex. So, are the few nano Watts received at the antenna enough to excite audible tones in the earphone. Not being confident that I can get a reliable result from this calculation, am hoping that someone on this forum can run it and let me know their conclusion.
NB: I continue to ask these questions in the spirit of freedom of enquiry, with respect for and in appreciation of not being banned from this forum and out of a perfectly peaceful desire to find truth as best as I am capable of understanding it. I have the same deep respect for the giants whose shoulders we stand upon, that I am sure everyone here has but physics should be permanently on the cusp of a revolution in understanding. That can only happen if we have the courage to ask stupid sounding questions, in my opinion. -
#342 by meberbs on 25 Aug, 2018 05:31
-
Crystal Set Question
And this is how far I got into your post before you started speaking a foreign language.
What difference does it make what perspective we have on a covariant system,
I am curious what you think the phrase "covariant system" means, because it sounds like you just made it up. (Google reveals the term comes up in some obscure pure math work, but that clearly isn't what you mean)
Covariant is a defined concept in physics that is related to how basis vectors or their components change under a change in basis for non-orthonormal coordinate systems. A system as a whole is not "convariant" or "contravariant," you need both at the same time to describe something, so your statement literally has no meaning under standard definitions of the words you are using.then we could have misinterpreted visible separation as distance when it would be better described as separation in the linear component of complex time.
There are defined concepts in relativity for "spacelike" "timelike" and "lightlike" separations between events. Different reference frames can for example make 2 spacelike separated events happen at the same time, or in either order. What is invariant is the magnitude of the 4 vector sqrt(r^2-(ct)^2)
Also "linear component of a complex number" doesn't make sense. A complex number has a real part and an imaginary part, linear is not a valid descriptive word in this context.If that energy is not enough
You could at least attempt a bit of research on your own rather than expecting others to do it for you. (The least time consuming part of writing this post was finding the information below)
from wikipedia:QuoteIn modern crystal sets, signals as weak as 50 picowatts at the antenna can be heard.[43] Crystal radios can receive such weak signals without using amplification only due to the great sensitivity of human hearing,[3][44] which can detect sounds with an intensity of only 10^−16 W/cm2
Those radios are significantly distance limited and work because of the sensitivity of human hearing with the sound dropped off directly in the ear. It might do you some good to consider that if the signal powers did not add up, someone would have noticed sometime in the last century.NB: I continue to ask these questions in the spirit of freedom of enquiry, with respect for and in appreciation of not being banned from this forum and out of a perfectly peaceful desire to find truth as best as I am capable of understanding it. I have the same deep respect for the giants whose shoulders we stand upon, that I am sure everyone here has but physics should be permanently on the cusp of a revolution in understanding. That can only happen if we have the courage to ask stupid sounding questions, in my opinion.
That is great, but you keep bringing up your completely undefined concept of "complex time" making claims about it and asserting that it solves nonexistent problems. You have not responded to requests for clarification when you use words that literally have no meaning in context (2 examples I pointed out in this post). When you came up with the concept of looking at relativity from the perspective of a photon, I pointed out that it has been considered many times before, but is useless and I explained why. Instead of accepting the explanation, or asking for clarification, you insisted that your idea was somehow novel and useful. You can talk all you want about how you appreciate standing on the shoulders of giants, but when offered a ladder to get on their shoulders, you kicked it over instead of climbing it. So-called "stupid" questions aren't a bad thing. Ignoring the answers when you don't like them is.
If you want to demonstrate with your actions that your goals are as pure as you claim, one place you can start is by responding to the parts of this post where I point out that you are using terminology that has literally no meaning in any relevant context. -
#343 by X_RaY on 25 Aug, 2018 10:17
-
Your picture illustrates a plane EM wave traveling in a uniform dielectric medium, where the medium boundaries are far away.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.
You ignoring the boundary conditions within the conductive resonator with spacial dimensions clearly in the order of the used EM/photon wavelength (again
). The conductor leads to a phase shift of the field components relative to each other. 
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1529920#msg1529920 -
#344 by TheTraveller on 25 Aug, 2018 12:02
-
Watch the end:
-
#345 by flux_capacitor on 25 Aug, 2018 14:07
-
Watch the end:
Presentation of Taylor's laser EmDrive experiment is at 35:35 -
#346 by Monomorphic on 25 Aug, 2018 14:33
-
This resonance with almost 180 degree phase inversion is what is necessary.
Like this tiny asymmetrical 17 KHz resonance.
The frequency need to be at the high slope phase inversion region.
It is possible?
Yes, with a little tuning, I can get pretty much any combination of phase inversion and return loss. The one below is -153 degrees RP and -32dB RL. I had one earlier that was 175 degrees RP and -24dB RL.
-
#347 by rq3 on 26 Aug, 2018 00:15
-
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.
Confirm? How? What theory, data, or confirmation can you provide, other than the utter rubbish you continually post here?
Pictures, or it didn't happen. You've been bloviating about this for going on 4 years now, and can't even show a photograph of a plank hanging from fishing line. As I recall, that was what the KISS demo thruster basically consisted of. Even a photo of a microwave oven on one end of a see-saw (teeter-totter), with you on the other would at least provide comic relief, as Feynman and Einstein both appreciated.
I'd like to suggest that the moderators remove The Traveler from further posts, for the following reasons:
1) In my opinion, he adds no verifiable, or even reasonable, data to the discussion. Breadcrumbs from unverifiable sources don't count.
2) In my opinion, he repetitively declines to address direct requests for firm data. See his previous posts.
3) In my opinion, he has exhibited egregious violations of ethics by posting data, and/or links to data, that he had no right to access or publish on a public forum. See his previous fiasco.
4) In my opinion, The Traveler's function is to provide himself self-aggrandizement, at the expense of true scientific discourse; i.e., he is the classic troll (in the modern, internet sense of the word). See his previous posts.
5) In my opinion, The Traveller has provided no data, or even suggestions, that have advanced the state of the art under discussion. What he HAS done is shift his statements (repetitively) to make it APPEAR that he has made valuable inputs so as to advance the state of the art. See his previous posts.
While it is with heavy heart (cough, cough) that I make the request that a enormous source of amusement be removed from this forum, I feel that it is necessary now that real progress is being made to disprove the claims made for the EmDrive.
Having said that, I'd like to remind members that my contributions include, among many other things:
1) The use of electroforming for the fabrication of precision microwave frustrums (standard waveguide fab technique, not yet implemented by the EmDrive crowd).
2) The idea of a "force locked loop" (currently gaining slow popularity by anyone actually building hardware).
Since I'm still waiting for the EmDrive flying car that The Traveller claimed I could see this year (2018), I'll remain amused by any and all trolls that remain, and in awe of the serious experimenters like Monomorphic.
>Edited to correct metamorphic to monomorphic, and then monomorphic to Monomorphic, due to input from a careful member and my own proofreading and research. -
#348 by Mark7777777 on 26 Aug, 2018 05:06
-
Watch the end:
Presentation of Taylor's laser EmDrive experiment is at 35:35
Time stamp 36:05 - "could be a million times more effective [than a microwave emdrive]" -
#349 by Ricvil on 26 Aug, 2018 07:01
-
This resonance with almost 180 degree phase inversion is what is necessary.
Like this tiny asymmetrical 17 KHz resonance.
The frequency need to be at the high slope phase inversion region.
It is possible?
Yes, with a little tuning, I can get pretty much any combination of phase inversion and return loss. The one below is -153 degrees RP and -32dB RL. I had one earlier that was 175 degrees RP and -24dB RL.
Visually, I could not see an asymmetrical RL response to confirm the Fano resonance.
Can you please expose, using the vna, some degree of asymmetry of RL?
Can you please show the response of the other early resonance together at same graphic?
At a Fano resonance, a fast transition between the peaks of phase, can be associated with a transition between positive group velocity modes to negative group velocity modes( negative pressure) , in a non adiabatic mode coupling theory representation of electromagnetic fields inside cavity.
So, a narrow bandwidth between the peaks of phase is good, and essential.
But a very narrow bandwidth can dificult the Fano resonance precise excitation.
-
#350 by Ricvil on 27 Aug, 2018 03:59
-
I have a experiment to be tried.
Copper is a good thermal and electrical conductor, isn't?
If my theory is correct, if someone to try pass a dc current between the small endplate and big endplate, during fano excitation, will have, at least, a big surprise with resistance measure.
Low amps please.
PS: The small endplate is really cooling or been thermically isolated, isn't?
-
#351 by spupeng7 on 27 Aug, 2018 05:08
-
(...)
meberbs,
So-called "stupid" questions aren't a bad thing. Ignoring the answers when you don't like them is.
(...)
you are arguing from authority. What if I don't like your answer? -
#352 by meberbs on 27 Aug, 2018 07:48
-
No, I have given you arguments based on math and logic. I am very confident in the logic because many people smarter than me have reviewed it. That is not "argument from authority." If you want to have a meaningful discussion, you have to actually respond what was said, rather than ignoring it.(...)
meberbs,
So-called "stupid" questions aren't a bad thing. Ignoring the answers when you don't like them is.
(...)
you are arguing from authority. What if I don't like your answer? -
#353 by Ricvil on 27 Aug, 2018 11:00
-
meberbs,it is entirely possible that I have failed to make a clear mathematical argument,
Well that much is true.never having received comment on the mathematical structure I am attempting to create, beyond 'it all adds to zero' which is unhelpful because time and distance do add to zero at the speed of light.
Nope, try reading what I wrote again. 0/0 is an invalid mathematical structure. The technical term for it is "undefined." Your concept is what is unhelpful, because you cannot use it to make a single meaningful prediction. Something that is 1 m away and something that is 2 m away both would be 0m away in your frame. This means that according to your frame, they are the same, and 1=2. This is obviously untrue since those are different objects. (And they must be different, since things like electromagnetic force are proportional to 1/r^2)My work aims to specify a simpler, more productive perspective on the findings of special relativity, which is available to anyone who is not afraid to consider action at a distance without artificial constructs for the transport of energy necessitated only by the uniquely limited point perspective that all us humans share.
Honestly, This sentence just sounds like condescending insults to me. If I was afraid to consider other perspectives, I wouldn't be here, but you seem afraid to admit that you are wrong. The condescension comes from when you act like your simple concept is not one that has been independently come up with countless times in the last century, followed by the people who know what they are doing rapidly realizing that everything collapses, so you can't make useful predictions.Please consider with an open mind because nothing less will resolve emdrive thrust if it does prove to be a reality.
I did consider it with an open mind. It does not do anything that would explain a working emDrive.Thank you for your questions, I may be able to answer them better after some consideration
That may be the most insincere "thank you" I have ever seen, Since earlier in the very same post you denied that I even presented you with valid problems. (and you seem to have completely ignored the whole fact that complex time plugged into any equation would result in all answers being complex (and meaningless.))
If you have nothing to add other than insults, and refusals to actually consider the problems with your claims, please stop wasting everyone's time including your own.
you ask what I bring to this discussion. All discussion of a mechanism of action for the emdrive must satisfy both relativity and quantum mechanics if it is to provide clarity but these subjects do not, despite your protestations, satisfy each other. The only way forward is to join the fray with a seamless alternative, and I believe I have one, though it may yet need to be explained more clearly.
By the equivalence principle it is established that gravity is the consequence of a dilation of time but we do not extend that mechanism to the electromagnetic forces. To do so would require us to approach the entire subject from the covariant perspective, which is horribly difficult and maybe impossible if we are to marry it with quantum mechanics. But, if we assume for the sake of argument that electromagnetic forces do act by dilation and divergence of time, then the covariant perspective requires to us recognize both the complex nature of time and the lack of orthoganality in the spatial dimensions.
Please forgive me for not specifying the fresh dynamical equations this suggests while unqualified and unassisted. It is more relevant to begin with why this is possible, which requires the reader to approach these concepts without prejudice. If time is complex then all charges act on each other directly, in the case of gravity and inertia their influence upon each other is proportional to the inverse square of their distance in their own individual proper time, and in the case of the exchange of a quantum their influence is the consequence of a hierarchy of proximity for resonance between charges without diminution of energy over distance in their own proper time. Not an easy set of concepts but seamless, I insist.
There is no place in this plan for photons. The impossibility of photons is established and they can be appreciated as illusion created by the reduction of dynamics to that apparent from a single perspective whose regular development through its own proper time gives it an infinity of universes to interact with depending upon its velocity vector. There is not even any need to continue to pursue such illusions except in order to define and so to understand the human, the animal, perspective. Time can then, as we have already begun, be appreciated as a dimension of location, its complex nature defining all interaction with the consequence that Schrodinger's cat is either alive or dead but never both at once.
Complex time describes a universe of charges all in constant interaction and all progressing through their own proper time at the same rate that I do, sitting here listening to my clock tick and tock. Forward because change is inevitable, interconnected by the very nature of existence. Forgive me if I see multiple universes and linear time as demented obsolete dreams. To comprehend complex time you must begin by understanding that the real component of time is only equal and opposite to its complex conjugate, at the speed of light.
To understand how this provides a mechanism of action for emdrive thrust it may help to distinguish between quanta which cannot escape the Faraday cage of its frustum, and the inertial interactions which act by dilation and divergence relative between the constant proper time of all individual charges without the charges which cause those imbalanced interactions leaving the confines of that frustum. Charges travelling within the conductor reflecting quanta of radiation, contain the energy of those quanta before it is re-emitted and while they do their momentum is a property of that conductor, so, conductors of different sizes have that momentum for differing durations. Is that not all we need to explain the extent of emdrive thrust.
Would it not help us improve the design of the emdrive if we knew its mechanism. Complex time is to my mind a simple explanation of physical reality if only because it raises no paradox, unless you see the immediate connection of all interaction as being a paradox which I do not. Everyone wants mathematical proof but the study of complex time must begin with a fresh conceptual resolution.
Referencing previously attached paper: 'Coincidence in Complex Time'
Your idea is very very deep.
It's about the possibility of what we could be at most deep level.
A kind of "quantum simulation"?
Are the massless interacting particles ours interpretations of the "quantum bits transitions"?
Would be Your complex time a measure of these quantum bits entropy ? -
#354 by Monomorphic on 27 Aug, 2018 18:31
-
I have the new solid copper frustum from Oyzw mounted to the torsional pendulum, balanced, and working. The second port, which is used for S21 parameters acts as a convenient second fine tuner I have found. In all likelihood, I will end up covering the outside of the frustum with insulation during powered tests, as the large surface area of highly conductive copper will no doubt cause significant natural convection noise.
For those wondering, the solid copper frustum weighs 801 grams more than the 3D printed version.
-
#355 by Slyver on 27 Aug, 2018 18:56
-
I have the new solid copper frustum from Oyzw mounted to the torsional pendulum, balanced, and working. The second port, which is used for S21 parameters acts a convenient second fine tuner I have found. In all likelihood, I will end up covering the outside of the frustum with insulation during powered tests, as the large surface area of highly conductive copper will no doubt cause significant natural convection noise.
Will you be doing a test to characterize the impulse response of the completely assembled system (insulation and all) prior to powered tests? I vaguely recall you doing that at some point in the past, though I don't remember exactly how you did it (magnetic impulse?).
For those wondering, the solid copper frustum weighs 801 grams more than the 3D printed version.
I don't know your testing regime. I apologize for the impertinence if this was already the plan. I just thought it might be a good idea.
Edit: though if that requires too much extra setup, ignore the idea! At some point all projects require a feature freeze for the sake of sanity and the project. -
#356 by Monomorphic on 27 Aug, 2018 21:38
-
Will you be doing a test to characterize the impulse response of the completely assembled system (insulation and all) prior to powered tests? I vaguely recall you doing that at some point in the past, though I don't remember exactly how you did it (magnetic impulse?).
I do have a calibration coil in the setup. You can see what those pulses look like below. I will probably use the calibration coil again, but it's really only necessary to confirm the spring constant of the torsion bearing.
-
#357 by oyzw on 28 Aug, 2018 01:18
-
Can you test the noise value of a pure load first? As a comparison parameterWill you be doing a test to characterize the impulse response of the completely assembled system (insulation and all) prior to powered tests? I vaguely recall you doing that at some point in the past, though I don't remember exactly how you did it (magnetic impulse?).
I do have a calibration coil in the setup. You can see what those pulses look like below. I will probably use the calibration coil again, but it's really only necessary to confirm the spring constant of the torsion bearing. -
#358 by spupeng7 on 28 Aug, 2018 02:10
-
meberbs,
No, I have given you arguments based on math and logic. I am very confident in the logic because many people smarter than me have reviewed it. That is not "argument from authority." If you want to have a meaningful discussion, you have to actually respond what was said, rather than ignoring it.(...)
meberbs,
So-called "stupid" questions aren't a bad thing. Ignoring the answers when you don't like them is.
(...)
you are arguing from authority. What if I don't like your answer?
math and logic which is far from seamless. I love your confidence but I ignore arguments which to my mind are flawed. Your questions are, however, valid and I will do my best to answer them more often and more clearly. -
#359 by spupeng7 on 28 Aug, 2018 02:36
-
(...)
Thanks Ricvil,(...)
Referencing previously attached paper: 'Coincidence in Complex Time'
Your idea is very very deep.
It's about the possibility of what we could be at most deep level.
A kind of "quantum simulation"?
Are the massless interacting particles ours interpretations of the "quantum bits transitions"?
Would be Your complex time a measure of these quantum bits entropy ?
it does resemble some of the ideas in both holomorphic theory and spinors but is simpler because it ascribes the complex domain to time, specifying its defining role in all location. This undermines the validity of all linear measurement apart from the scalar component of complex time, so presenting a very difficult set of concepts for anyone to grasp.
Exchange particles are massless in complex time because they have no duration. The quantum is reduced to a momentary frequency of resonance for those energy exchanges. Entropy, I must confess, is a concept which eludes me. It may be easier to approach these ideas with conservation of energy in mind.
Please let me know how you go.
). The conductor leads to a phase shift of the field components relative to each other.