-
#380 by Povel on 01 Sep, 2018 23:02
-
Yes, I have read all about their attempts at addressing Dean Drive criticisms. They seem to be under the false impression that vibrations need to reach the central flexure bearing in order for there to be a problem. That is not the case. The vibrations only have to cause an asymmetric translational shift in the faraday cage contents.
An asymmetric shift inside the faraday cage is produced everytime the device is turned on.
However, lacking any type of significant slip & stick effect on the central flexure bearing, it can only result in an asymmetric vibration at the same frequency of the the oscillations of the device.
Assuming that the device is firmly attached to the faraday cage mounted on the arm, the only way it could display a spurious steady signal is by having the balance itself react in some non-linear way.The biggest testable experimental prediction I can make is that, all things being equal, identical Mach effect devices mounted at a greater distance from the center pivot will produce less apparent "thrust" than those mounted closer. But that already seems to be the case when MET's have been tested on larger torsional pendulums than the one woodward uses. Woodward will claim something about the experiment wasn't performed correctly, but my position is that this is a fundamental property of dean drives mounted to torsional pendulums.
I don't understand the logic behind your prediction.
If the balance arm that you modeled as a rod is rotated around its center point (which presumably is also its center of mass) it will necessary require a stronger force to rotate a greater angle in the same time.
Since the distance between the central pivot / axis of rotation and the point of application of the force gets smaller, to obtain a greater angle of rotation a greater force is required compared to the case in which the point of application of the force is at greater distance from the pivot.
If instead of applying a force all you are doing is changing the shape of the device mounted on top so that the arm moves while the overall center of mass stays put you will still obtain a smaller angle of rotation if you mount it closer to the axis:
the central bearing acts like a torsional damped spring, producing a restoring couple, so the system is not really isolated.
The situation is similar to standing on a scale while doing curls with a pair of dumbbells:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/384676/measuring-weight-with-weighing-scale-doing-dumbbellsActually, it is possible to simulate the genuine-looking steady thrust signal using only vibrations. I have the feeling that once everyone sees how it is done, they will all be surprised how simple it really is. However, I couldn't have figured it out without running the simulations myself.
Not sure if this what you are thinking, but surely anharmonic oscillations are a wortwhile thing to investigate.
Still, one would need to show that the conditions in Woodward device are just right for this non-linear effects to manifest.
Rubber pads and similar are renowned for their non-linear behaviour and according to him, during his test for Dean drive effect, a number of rubber pads for vibrations isolation were removed, including a "Sorbothane applied to the interior of the Faraday cage", which was not restored after the test was concluded.
Beside altering the level of vibration detected this didn't alter the thrust signal significantly.
On a side note, I saw your more detailed model simulation you posted un 4th of July. It's really well done, but the "thrust signal", that is, the periodic displacement of the thrust balance arm, is in the opposite direction of what Woodward obtains.
I'm looking forward to see your presentation later in September.
-
#381 by Monomorphic on 02 Sep, 2018 00:50
-
An asymmetric shift inside the faraday cage is produced everytime the device is turned on.
However, lacking any type of significant slip & stick effect on the central flexure bearing, it can only result in an asymmetric vibration at the same frequency of the the oscillations of the device.
Assuming that the device is firmly attached to the faraday cage mounted on the arm, the only way it could display a spurious steady signal is by having the balance itself react in some non-linear way.
You're thinking in too few degrees of freedom. Yes, one oscillating object could only displace to one side at the same period as the oscillations. But what if there are two or more masses in the system?
-
#382 by spupeng7 on 02 Sep, 2018 01:32
-
(...)
meberbs,consistent with the corpus of existing observations,
It most definitely does not need to be consistent with the corps of existing presumptions.
OK you got me there
of course theoretical speculation must be 'consistent with the corpus of existing observations', RERT was making a very good point there, one that I am in full agreement with.
Thank you to everyone for your patience with this discussion, negative criticism always leaves a bitter taste but this was a rare chance for me to defend ideas which are usually ignored. I will be the first to admit that they are under-developed but in their defense, they deviate less from common sense than multiple universes or observer effect, in my opinion. Does anyone else have pertinent questions? -
#383 by RERT on 02 Sep, 2018 17:36
-
My most hated theory is inflation. I'm led to believe it's needed to preserve causality in describing the isotropy of the universe. Personally, I think junking causality would be much more fun. However, since Physics is really the story of what causes what, that us to say the least problematic.
-
#384 by aero on 02 Sep, 2018 19:24
-
I recently built a Woodward-Mach/Harry Bull type apparatus for testing on the torsional pendulum that was built out of a voice coil actuator, a spring, rubber, and some 3D printed parts. It was interesting because the apparatus would move along the ground in one direction when in operation, like a classic Dean Drive, but when I changed the frequency by sending it a "chirped" signal, it would actually change directions and move the other way!
It's not real thrust obviously, but it shows that it is fairly easy to build oscillators that can repeatedly displace to one side of equilibrium through complex means. This is the so-called slip-stick effect and it is a special type of vibration. When mounted to a torsional pendulum, where there is nothing to "stick" to, you can still clearly see the "slip" vibration. It is easy to confuse this slip effect for thrust as they look very similar.
I made a quick video to show the apparatus in operation. This was a fun project to design and build. I also have detailed simulations I will be publishing in a week or so that show the woodward-mach effect "thrust" can be reproduced using only mechanical vibrations.
I saw your video with this thing skipping across a tabletop. You attribute its movement to friction. Have you tried it on the same tabletop with friction defeated? Maybe put on a freewheeling toy plastic car. Properly assembled and lubricated, there should not be a preferential direction to the friction of the wheels/axles of the toy car. -
#385 by Monomorphic on 02 Sep, 2018 20:52
-
I saw your video with this thing skipping across a tabletop. You attribute its movement to friction. Have you tried it on the same tabletop with friction defeated? Maybe put on a freewheeling toy plastic car. Properly assembled and lubricated, there should not be a preferential direction to the friction of the wheels/axles of the toy car.
Yes, I built a little toy car out of some legos. It's not exactly friction free so occasionally it will move to one side or the other, but overall it stays in the same place. I also recorded the device in slow motion attached to some springs. If you watch the bottom right corner of the oscillator, you can see how it displaces to the right more than the left of equilibrium. This anharmonic displacement is at the same frequency as the oscillation, but it is only a 2 DOF oscillator. I think at least three masses are required for Mach/Henry Bull-like displacements, plus some other anelastic effects.
-
#386 by Monomorphic on 02 Sep, 2018 21:12
-
Today I also performed the first high power infrared test on the solid copper frustum Oyzw sent me. It appears the mode I thought was TE013 at 2.4157Ghz is something else. The heating is concentrated in the large end of the cavity not the small like it should.
After carefully measuring again, which is not as easy when the cavity is sealed, and running more simulations, I now think I should be looking around 2.4118Ghz. But it is nice to now know that my infrared camera can detect the heat from the ~25W amplifier through the solid copper and paint.
-
#387 by Monomorphic on 02 Sep, 2018 22:11
-
I switched to the shorted loop antenna and only one mode was found in the vicinity at 2.4134Ghz. But it's a doozy with Q calculated at 32,366. That is the highest number I have achieved to date.
I will perform another IR test on this mode later. If it's not TE013, then I'm not sure what to do next...
-
#388 by oyzw on 03 Sep, 2018 00:42
-
I switched to the shorted loop antenna and only one mode was found in the vicinity at 2.4134Ghz. But it's a doozy with Q calculated at 32,366. That is the highest number I have achieved to date.
The ideal Q value of this copper cavity eigenmode is TE013--84000. Whether we can expand the sweep range, let's see how many resonance points there are at 500mhz bandwidth. In addition, the results of infrared observations are inconsistent with the TE013 mode, and have similarities with TE011, which may be the result of cavity stretching.
I will perform another IR test on this mode later. If it's not TE013, then I'm not sure what to do next... -
#389 by oyzw on 03 Sep, 2018 01:04
-
Today I also performed the first high power infrared test on the solid copper frustum Oyzw sent me. It appears the mode I thought was TE013 at 2.4157Ghz is something else. The heating is concentrated in the large end of the cavity not the small like it should.
Whether the large end face is attached with an insulating plate？I speculate that due to the addition of the annular washer, the high field strength is far from the end face.
After carefully measuring again, which is not as easy when the cavity is sealed, and running more simulations, I now think I should be looking around 2.4118Ghz. But it is nice to now know that my infrared camera can detect the heat from the ~25W amplifier through the solid copper and paint. -
#390 by spupeng7 on 03 Sep, 2018 06:56
-
I switched to the shorted loop antenna and only one mode was found in the vicinity at 2.4134Ghz. But it's a doozy with Q calculated at 32,366. That is the highest number I have achieved to date.
Monomorph,
I will perform another IR test on this mode later. If it's not TE013, then I'm not sure what to do next...
record the data...
apologies if I sound like a broken record
data data data, we must have some data
(to the tune of "Move it move it move it" from 'Mozambique')
NB: please take care with your RF exposure. -
#391 by spupeng7 on 03 Sep, 2018 06:58
-
My most hated theory is inflation. I'm led to believe it's needed to preserve causality in describing the isotropy of the universe. Personally, I think junking causality would be much more fun. However, since Physics is really the story of what causes what, that us to say the least problematic.
RERT,
the other way to get rid of inflation is to junk the Big Bang... -
#392 by meberbs on 03 Sep, 2018 07:58
-
You aren't actually describing something different here. Inflation and the big bang are two sides of the same coin. Removing one removes the other by definition, and does not remove the consequence RERT pointed out of no causal way to explain some data we have without inflation. (Note that I am not sure if RERT is right about this, but it sounds similar to motivations for inflation that I have heard.)My most hated theory is inflation. I'm led to believe it's needed to preserve causality in describing the isotropy of the universe. Personally, I think junking causality would be much more fun. However, since Physics is really the story of what causes what, that us to say the least problematic.
RERT,
the other way to get rid of inflation is to junk the Big Bang...
I actually like the concept of throwing out causality, but as RERT says, physics is all about cause and effect, so it kind of throws a wrench in things. Relatedly, special relativity does not prohibit FTL, just says that if FTL exists, then so would time travel. (It also prohibits getting to FTL speeds by simply accelerating, but can be consistent with FTL hypotheses as long as you accept time travel.) -
#393 by Ricvil on 03 Sep, 2018 08:27
-
You aren't actually describing something different here. Inflation and the big bang are two sides of the same coin. Removing one removes the other by definition, and does not remove the consequence RERT pointed out of no causal way to explain some data we have without inflation. (Note that I am not sure if RERT is right about this, but it sounds similar to motivations for inflation that I have heard.)My most hated theory is inflation. I'm led to believe it's needed to preserve causality in describing the isotropy of the universe. Personally, I think junking causality would be much more fun. However, since Physics is really the story of what causes what, that us to say the least problematic.
RERT,
the other way to get rid of inflation is to junk the Big Bang...
I actually like the concept of throwing out causality, but as RERT says, physics is all about cause and effect, so it kind of throws a wrench in things. Relatedly, special relativity does not prohibit FTL, just says that if FTL exists, then so would time travel. (It also prohibits getting to FTL speeds by simply accelerating, but can be consistent with FTL hypotheses as long as you accept time travel.)
Just for fun.
It's all related to Poincare radius inversion conformal symmetry.
It's related with wormholes.
It's related with causality.
It's related with inertial mass.
It's related with dark matter.
It's related with a possible dual "dark" brother universe.
-
#394 by flux_capacitor on 03 Sep, 2018 15:50
-
It's all related to Poincare radius inversion conformal symmetry.
It's related with inertial mass.
It's related with dark matter.
Is the following related, does it represent somewhat the geometrical framework shift you are enigmatically suggesting?
1) In Einstein's classical general relativity and mainstream physics (of what is thought is going to happen to something never seen yet, though), "negative mass" means it has both a negative gravitational mass (it would induce an unusual negative curvature in spacetime) but also a negative inertial mass, according to the accepted axiom of the equivalence principle. In such a world view, spacetime is a manifold with "one side" described by a metric with one family of geodesics.
Positive mass (in blue below) induces a gravitational potential well in spacetime (white line), whereas negative mass induces a gravitational potential hump (or hill). From a side view in 2D, for an easier representation:
which gives the following interaction laws (found by Newtonian approximation of the Einstein Field Equations):
Positive masses mutually attract, while negative masses mutually repel.
BTW you see in the middle figure the preposterous Runaway motion where a positive mass would run away, repelled by the gravitational potential hill created by the negative mass which, in turn, falling into the positive gravitational well of the positive mass, would chase it. The couple would accelerate, which is the basic mechanism of the "diametric drive" concept popularized by Friedwardt Winterberg and Robert Forward in the 1990s, yet is "preposterous" as explained by William B. Bonnor, as it would reveal a physical absurdity since such a couple would indefinitely accelerate while its total kinetic energy would be conserved:
½m1v1² + ½m2v2² = CST
This unobserved preposterous effect is what prevented the scientific community to seriously consider the possible reality of the presence of negative mass in the universe.
2) Extending general relativity to a second "dark sector" however, and "negative gravitational mass" (as well as "positive gravitational mass") to a pure relative geometric property of spacetime, things are quite different. Whatever the type of mass considered, it has always a positive effect (gravitational potential well) in its own sector. But the "observation" of such mass from the other sector makes it appear from there as if it was a negative mass (negative gravitational hump detected). Spacetime is then described like "two sides of the same coin" as a manifold with two metrics, each having its own family of geodesics. Newtonian approximation:
The difference: Like masses attract, and unlike masses repel. No runaway effect.
BTW, you can see that a mass in its own sector induces a positive gravitational potential well, but it also induces a conjugate negative curvature in the adjacent sector, acting on matter there, as some "invisible dark matter made of negative mass"…
In such an extended relativistic view, a negative mass only appears to be negative, the "negativity" of this mass is not an intrinsic property of such exotic matter, it is only an illusion, a perception from a different point of view produced by the geometry.
Negative mass is there, invisible, in its "dark sector". It exerts some (anti)gravitational effect on matter in the universe. But it doesn't really "exist" on its own. It is only a real illusion.It's related with causality.
It's related with a possible dual "dark" brother universe.
This encourage me to think this is related, as what I have exposed above about curvatures of spacetime can be considered as being applied to one single universe having two separate sets of geodesics, but these two metrics can alternatively be considered as being two parallel universes, and more specifically two "dark" universes since they would interact through gravitation with a (negative) dark matter effect.
And they would also be two dark "brother" universes as you say, following the "twin universe" theory of Andrei Sakharov (1967) who link them from the same "initial singular hypersurface of infinite density at t = 0, the two sectors having antiparallel arrows of time from there:
"We can visualize that neutral spinless maximons (or photons)
are produced at t < 0 from contracting matter
having an excess of antiquarks,
that they pass "one through the other" at the instant t = 0
when the density is infinite,
and decay with an excess of quarks when t > 0,
realizing total CPT symmetry of the universe.
All the phenomena at t < 0 are assumed in this hypothesis
to be CPT reflections of the phenomena at t > 0."
— Andrei Sakharov, in Collected Scientific Works (1982).It's related with wormholes.
According to Sakharov, these two dark sectors could join together through some kind of "hyperspace bridge". Local matter would accumulate and reach density and pressure levels high enough to connect the two sheets through a bridge without spacetime between them, but with a continuity of geodesics beyond the Schwarzschild radius with no central singularity, allowing an exchange of matter between the two conjugate sheets, based on an idea of Igor Dmitriyevich Novikov, who called such singularities a "collapse" and an "anticollapse" which are alternative words to the couple "black hole" + "white fountain" in the classical wormhole model, as we now would call it.
In conclusion, a little poem inspired about this (forgive my English):
Universe is a parchment
With a front and a back face
This very side is my own space
Everything is adjacent
The time that is moving on
Illusions we feel also
Do not have the same reason
On recto and on verso -
#395 by Monomorphic on 03 Sep, 2018 17:16
-
It looks like I may have finally gotten TE013! The new antenna seems to have done the trick. In mode TE013 most of the RF is concentrated in the small end as we see here now. I just wish I could distinguish the circular pattern on the small end, but the copper seems to dissipate the heat too quickly. We do see the topmost circular pattern on the sidewalls and less heat on the large end. Will be very interesting to get this cavity covered with insulation and remounted for real thrust tests...
-
#396 by Ricvil on 03 Sep, 2018 18:27
-
It's all related to Poincare radius inversion conformal symmetry.
It's related with inertial mass.
It's related with dark matter.
Is the following related, does it represent somewhat the geometrical framework shift you are enigmatically suggesting?
1) In Einstein's classical general relativity and mainstream physics (of what is thought is going to happen to something never seen yet, though), "negative mass" means it has both a negative gravitational mass (it would induce an unusual negative curvature in spacetime) but also a negative inertial mass, according to the accepted axiom of the equivalence principle. In such a world view, spacetime is a manifold with "one side" described by a metric with one family of geodesics.
Positive mass (in blue below) induces a gravitational potential well in spacetime (white line), whereas negative mass induces a gravitational potential hump (or hill). From a side view in 2D, for an easier representation:
which gives the following interaction laws (found by Newtonian approximation of the Einstein Field Equations):
Positive masses mutually attract, while negative masses mutually repel.
BTW you see in the middle figure the preposterous Runaway motion where a positive mass would run away, repelled by the gravitational potential hill created by the negative mass which, in turn, falling into the positive gravitational well of the positive mass, would chase it. The couple would accelerate, which is the basic mechanism of the "diametric drive" concept popularized by Friedwardt Winterberg and Robert Forward in the 1990s, yet is "preposterous" as explained by William B. Bonnor, as it would reveal a physical absurdity since such a couple would indefinitely accelerate while its total kinetic energy would be conserved:
½m1v1² + ½m2v2² = CST
This unobserved preposterous effect is what prevented the scientific community to seriously consider the possible reality of the presence of negative mass in the universe.
2) Extending general relativity to a second "dark sector" however, and "negative gravitational mass" (as well as "positive gravitational mass") to a pure relative geometric property of spacetime, things are quite different. Whatever the type of mass considered, it has always a positive effect (gravitational potential well) in its own sector. But the "observation" of such mass from the other sector makes it appear from there as if it was a negative mass (negative gravitational hump detected). Spacetime is then described like "two sides of the same coin" as a manifold with two metrics, each having its own family of geodesics. Newtonian approximation:
The difference: Like masses attract, and unlike masses repel. No runaway effect.
BTW, you can see that a mass in its own sector induces a positive gravitational potential well, but it also induces a conjugate negative curvature in the adjacent sector, acting on matter there, as some "invisible dark matter made of negative mass"…
In such an extended relativistic view, a negative mass only appears to be negative, the "negativity" of this mass is not an intrinsic property of such exotic matter, it is only an illusion, a perception from a different point of view produced by the geometry.
Negative mass is there, invisible, in its "dark sector". It exerts some (anti)gravitational effect on matter in the universe. But it doesn't really "exist" on its own. It is only a real illusion.It's related with causality.
It's related with a possible dual "dark" brother universe.
This encourage me to think this is related, as what I have exposed above about curvatures of spacetime can be considered as being applied to one single universe having two separate sets of geodesics, but these two metrics can alternatively be considered as being two parallel universes, and more specifically two "dark" universes since they would interact through gravitation with a (negative) dark matter effect.
And they would also be two dark "brother" universes as you say, following the "twin universe" theory of Andrei Sakharov (1967) who link them from the same "initial singular hypersurface of infinite density at t = 0, the two sectors having antiparallel arrows of time from there:
"We can visualize that neutral spinless maximons (or photons)
are produced at t < 0 from contracting matter
having an excess of antiquarks,
that they pass "one through the other" at the instant t = 0
when the density is infinite,
and decay with an excess of quarks when t > 0,
realizing total CPT symmetry of the universe.
All the phenomena at t < 0 are assumed in this hypothesis
to be CPT reflections of the phenomena at t > 0."
— Andrei Sakharov, in Collected Scientific Works (1982).It's related with wormholes.
According to Sakharov, these two dark sectors could join together through some kind of "hyperspace bridge". Local matter would accumulate and reach density and pressure levels high enough to connect the two sheets through a bridge without spacetime between them, but with a continuity of geodesics beyond the Schwarzschild radius with no central singularity, allowing an exchange of matter between the two conjugate sheets, based on an idea of Igor Dmitriyevich Novikov, who called such singularities a "collapse" and an "anticollapse" which are alternative words to the couple "black hole" + "white fountain" in the classical wormhole model, as we now would call it.
In conclusion, a little poem inspired about this (forgive my English):
Universe is a parchment
With a front and a back face
This very side is my own space
Everything is adjacent
The time that is moving on
Illusions we feel also
Do not have the same reason
On recto and on verso
Dear flux_capacitor.
You are almost there.
Now think, what happened with magnetic monopoles of our Universe?
Why we are seeing just one arrow of time?
Where are the tachions?
Think about how the superconductors breaks U(1) Symmetry producing the Meissner effect. -
#397 by flux_capacitor on 03 Sep, 2018 19:22
-
Dear flux_capacitor.
You are almost there.
Now think, what happened with magnetic monopoles of our Universe?
I am not very familiar with magnetic monopoles, sorry. I tend to think they are a theoretical concept with no true physical existence. Please enlighten. [EDIT: are you talking of monopoles to talk about inflation, which solves the problem of the actual nonobservation of monopoles, proposing they were greatly "diluted" by the inflation mechanism down to unobservable levels?)]Why we are seeing just one arrow of time?
According to Julian Barbour (as well as Sean Carroll and Alan Guth), the arrow of time is defined in the sense of the direction of increasing entropy. Barbour talks of the Big Bang at t = 0 as the Janus Point:
https://qz.com/596514/its-possible-that-there-is-a-mirror-universe-where-time-moves-backwards-say-scientists/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2-futures-can-explain-time-s-mysterious-past/
In the twin universe scheme I talked about, the arrow of time in the sector located at t < 0 ("before" the Big Bang) points in the opposite direction to ours, since its own entropy is increasing going further away in time from the singularity.Where are the tachions?
In the same model, I would match these tachyons with the "dark photons" of negative energy (therefore which we could not see with our optical instruments as they follow the null geodesics of the dark "brother" sector, the other metric). Since the space scale factors of the two sectors are not necessarily equal, one sector could have a higher value of its speed of light; and some distance, between two distant conjugate points A and B there, could also represent a shorter path than the equivalent path "here". Such dark photons, and any massless or massive dark particle travelling at a relativistic speed "there" would appear from our point of view as an FTL particle, or "tachyon" (although its velocity would remain inferior to the speed of light of its local sector, according to special relativity).Think about how the superconductors breaks U(1) Symmetry producing the Meissner effect.
Are you talking of a symmetry breaking occurring when a symmetric but unstable high-energy state falls into a more stable state of lower energy? If so, do you suggest a collective excitation of particles in a high energy state (Bose-Enstein condensate? metastable atoms? embedded with magnetic fields and NMR?) to experiment or understand the process for some hyperspace transfer with FTL implications? Or do you imply to look into topology and group theory?
This is interesting, but how is all this related to the EmDrive? -
#398 by oyzw on 04 Sep, 2018 00:26
-
It looks like I may have finally gotten TE013! The new antenna seems to have done the trick. In mode TE013 most of the RF is concentrated in the small end as we see here now. I just wish I could distinguish the circular pattern on the small end, but the copper seems to dissipate the heat too quickly. We do see the topmost circular pattern on the sidewalls and less heat on the large end. Will be very interesting to get this cavity covered with insulation and remounted for real thrust tests...
Exhilarating！I want to see the S11 parameters in this test state. -
#399 by Ricvil on 04 Sep, 2018 03:44
-
This is interesting, but how is all this related to the EmDrive?
The EmDrive cavity, at the right frequency of resonance, is reproducing a " black hole event horizon".
At one side, one has a slowing down (with positive group velocity) "bright mode" , at the other side a negative group velocity "dual dark mode, and at "event horizon" a singular (exceptional point with zero group velocity) TEM mode.
A increasing radiation pressure is expected to be acumulated near the event horizon ( if not reflected by imperfections, or thermically dissipated ) , and a effective net force directed to small endplate will be produced.
of course theoretical speculation must be 'consistent with the corpus of existing observations', RERT was making a very good point there, one that I am in full agreement with.
It's not real thrust obviously, but it shows that it is fairly easy to build oscillators that can repeatedly displace to one side of equilibrium through complex means. This is the so-called slip-stick effect and it is a special type of vibration. When mounted to a torsional pendulum, where there is nothing to "stick" to, you can still clearly see the "slip" vibration. It is easy to confuse this slip effect for thrust as they look very similar.
