-
#820 by Mark7777777 on 29 Jan, 2019 07:51
-
您好 Jamic先生，能否把球形端面腔体的电磁仿真图上传？传统锥形腔体TE模，电磁梯度差异都很小，端面电磁场强度差异更小，所以推力很小，我之前的设计是错误的。TM模应该是更合适的。Helloy James !! Please tell me if your installation can quickly-quickly switch the frequency and test the hypothesis that the Emdrive needs a very-very fast-unstable magnetron?
Hello and welcome! The signal generator I use is capable of fast frequency switching. You can read about its capabilities here: https://windfreaktech.com/product/rf-signal-generator-and-power-detector/
However, we have seen that Shawyer now uses solid state RF amplifiers. He claims that the end-plates need to be spherical to get the full "thrust" when using solid state RF.
I've tried both spherical and flat end-plates and I understand that TU Dresden has also tried both without success.
Google translate:
Hello, Mr. Jamic, can you upload the electromagnetic simulation of the spherical end cavity? In the traditional tapered cavity TE mode, the difference in electromagnetic gradient is very small, and the difference in the strength of the end face electromagnetic field is smaller, so the thrust is small, and my previous design is wrong. The TM mode should be more suitable. -
#821 by Mark7777777 on 29 Jan, 2019 07:56
-
您好 Jamic先生，能否把球形端面腔体的电磁仿真图上传？传统锥形腔体TE模，电磁梯度差异都很小，端面电磁场强度差异更小，所以推力很小，我之前的设计是错误的。TM模应该是更合适的。Helloy James !! Please tell me if your installation can quickly-quickly switch the frequency and test the hypothesis that the Emdrive needs a very-very fast-unstable magnetron?
Hello and welcome! The signal generator I use is capable of fast frequency switching. You can read about its capabilities here: https://windfreaktech.com/product/rf-signal-generator-and-power-detector/
However, we have seen that Shawyer now uses solid state RF amplifiers. He claims that the end-plates need to be spherical to get the full "thrust" when using solid state RF.
I've tried both spherical and flat end-plates and I understand that TU Dresden has also tried both without success.
Hello oyzw
Are you able to access google translate in China? That way you could post in English straight after your Chinese text.
Regards
Mark
你好oyzw
你能在中国访问谷歌翻译吗？这样你就可以在中文文本后直接用英文发帖。
问候
标记
-
#822 by Ricvil on 29 Jan, 2019 09:59
-
Looking at frequency sweep of the cavity with half dipole antenna, I see two almost complementary fields distributions, at least the electric field distribution.
If the resonance is a Fano resonance or not, the sharp phase response around central frequency remembers one thing called in telecom as "FM discriminator".
A FM discriminator coverts frequency variations on a carrier signal into amplitude variations, and a high slope curve under a narrow bandwidth converts small changes in frequency into large amplitude variations.
One can imagine a frequency switch from the source of cavity from lower frequency mode to higher frequency mode, under the action of discriminator behavior, remembering the changes of fields will begins at the antenna.
How would be the change of pressure on the cavity walls?
-
#823 by Monomorphic on 29 Jan, 2019 15:58
-
您好 Jamic先生，能否把球形端面腔体的电磁仿真图上传？传统锥形腔体TE模，电磁梯度差异都很小，端面电磁场强度差异更小，所以推力很小，我之前的设计是错误的。TM模应该是更合适的。
These are the two cavities that I have tested: the one you provided, which was flat ended, and the 3D printed version that used copper foil. The Q factor on the 3D printed/copper foil was measured at about ~8,000, while the solid copper cavity was ~32,000.
It is possible I can test some TM modes. I believe there may be one or two TM modes within the 2.35 - 2.45Ghz range that I can test at. I have to use a specially shaped antenna to get the TM mode, so I do not see a reason why the existing cavity can't be used. What makes you think your previous design was wrong?
-
#824 by meberbs on 29 Jan, 2019 16:08
-
Looking at frequency sweep of the cavity with half dipole antenna, I see two almost complementary fields distributions, at least the electric field distribution.
The phase difference is in the reflected signal, which is the energy that doesn't make it into the cavity. It has no meaningful effect on things that happen actually inside the cavity. It has a minor effect on tracking resonance via the reflected signal, but considering the frequency range used by most experiments, it is not a problem, detecting the total reflected power is what matters, and is not that difficult.
If the resonance is a Fano resonance or not, the sharp phase response around central frequency remembers one thing called in telecom as "FM discriminator".A FM discriminator coverts frequency variations on a carrier signal into amplitude variations, and a high slope curve under a narrow bandwidth converts small changes in frequency into large amplitude variations.
Since the phase shift you are looking at is on the reflected signal, it again can't change things inside the cavity. There is no mechanism for a frequency discriminator to make the relatively large arbitrary sized jump to the frequency at a different resonant mode, that is not even close to what a frequency discriminator does. In actuality, it uses rectifier diodes and produces output that is no longer an AC signal.
One can imagine a frequency switch from the source of cavity from lower frequency mode to higher frequency mode, under the action of discriminator behavior, remembering the changes of fields will begins at the antenna.How would be the change of pressure on the cavity walls?
You jumped from an irrelevant phase shift on a reflected signal, to some random RF device which has no particular relevance to discussion of significantly changing the input frequency to jump between resonance modes. I am not sure which of these unrelated things this question refers to, but the last is the only one that possibly makes sense. The answer is exactly what I told Alex_O a few posts back. There would be no meaningful change. Radiation pressure from each mode individually averages out to 0. Adding them together in any linear superposition does not change that. You mention transients as it radiates from the antenna, but again this is the same as the case where you just turn it on with no frequency shift. Any directionality in the radiation causes an equal and opposite force on the antenna, which gets balanced as the wave reflects off whichever wall it is headed to.
-
#825 by Ricvil on 29 Jan, 2019 17:45
-
Dear meberbs, be a cavity or a lumped circuit , the linearity /superposition are presents, and I just wana see the spatio-temporal transients of fields. The antenna is just one point where this transients occurs.Looking at frequency sweep of the cavity with half dipole antenna, I see two almost complementary fields distributions, at least the electric field distribution.
The phase difference is in the reflected signal, which is the energy that doesn't make it into the cavity. It has no meaningful effect on things that happen actually inside the cavity. It has a minor effect on tracking resonance via the reflected signal, but considering the frequency range used by most experiments, it is not a problem, detecting the total reflected power is what matters, and is not that difficult.
If the resonance is a Fano resonance or not, the sharp phase response around central frequency remembers one thing called in telecom as "FM discriminator".A FM discriminator coverts frequency variations on a carrier signal into amplitude variations, and a high slope curve under a narrow bandwidth converts small changes in frequency into large amplitude variations.
Since the phase shift you are looking at is on the reflected signal, it again can't change things inside the cavity. There is no mechanism for a frequency discriminator to make the relatively large arbitrary sized jump to the frequency at a different resonant mode, that is not even close to what a frequency discriminator does. In actuality, it uses rectifier diodes and produces output that is no longer an AC signal.
One can imagine a frequency switch from the source of cavity from lower frequency mode to higher frequency mode, under the action of discriminator behavior, remembering the changes of fields will begins at the antenna.How would be the change of pressure on the cavity walls?
You jumped from an irrelevant phase shift on a reflected signal, to some random RF device which has no particular relevance to discussion of significantly changing the input frequency to jump between resonance modes. I am not sure which of these unrelated things this question refers to, but the last is the only one that possibly makes sense. The answer is exactly what I told Alex_O a few posts back. There would be no meaningful change. Radiation pressure from each mode individually averages out to 0. Adding them together in any linear superposition does not change that. You mention transients as it radiates from the antenna, but again this is the same as the case where you just turn it on with no frequency shift. Any directionality in the radiation causes an equal and opposite force on the antenna, which gets balanced as the wave reflects off whichever wall it is headed to.
Diodes? I don't want to recover the modulating signal from resulting amplitude envelop after resonant differential response. -
#826 by meberbs on 29 Jan, 2019 19:03
-
Dear meberbs, be a cavity or a lumped circuit , the linearity /superposition are presents, and I just wana see the spatio-temporal transients of fields. The antenna is just one point where this transients occurs.
Why though? This does little other then generate some pretty pictures. The transients of the antenna are dwarfed in amplitude by the resonant fields, which is the whole point of resonance in this case, it makes the field inside much stronger than the input. The actual resonant pattern oscillates, and if you want to see that, there are gifs people have made for some cases in old versions of this thread.Diodes? I don't want to recover the modulating signal from resulting amplitude envelop after resonant differential response.
Diodes are a component of a typical implementation of an FM discriminator. What you just said you don't want to do is what the device that you brought up does. That use is obviously irrelevant because there is no modulating signal in this case. Rather than state what you don't want to do could you answer my repeated question of what you are trying to do? -
#827 by Ricvil on 30 Jan, 2019 00:16
-
Dear meberbs.Dear meberbs, be a cavity or a lumped circuit , the linearity /superposition are presents, and I just wana see the spatio-temporal transients of fields. The antenna is just one point where this transients occurs.
Why though? This does little other then generate some pretty pictures. The transients of the antenna are dwarfed in amplitude by the resonant fields, which is the whole point of resonance in this case, it makes the field inside much stronger than the input. The actual resonant pattern oscillates, and if you want to see that, there are gifs people have made for some cases in old versions of this thread.Diodes? I don't want to recover the modulating signal from resulting amplitude envelop after resonant differential response.
Diodes are a component of a typical implementation of an FM discriminator. What you just said you don't want to do is what the device that you brought up does. That use is obviously irrelevant because there is no modulating signal in this case. Rather than state what you don't want to do could you answer my repeated question of what you are trying to do?
What I'm trying to do?
At the end, I'm desire to realize an active special conformal transformation of electromagnetic field (conformal to a acceleration) inside the cavity, by a active spectral inversion in frequency domain.
The switching of frequency is only a passive test, to see the effect of field "duality rotation" during the transient.
A continuous spectral inversion can be achivied using a circulator, a magnetron, and a adjustable load, like the chinese design already showed in this forum.
-
#828 by meberbs on 30 Jan, 2019 06:03
-
Dear meberbs.
Everything you just said is literally gibberish. Some of the terms you used would mean something if you removed 1 or 2 extraneous adjectives, but you would still be applying a purely abstract mathematical construct to a physical system, which doesn't make sense. To use an example from special relativity, since more people are familiar with it:
What I'm trying to do?
At the end, I'm desire to realize an active special conformal transformation of electromagnetic field (conformal to a acceleration) inside the cavity, by a active spectral inversion in frequency domain.
The switching of frequency is only a passive test, to see the effect of field "duality rotation" during the transient.
A continuous spectral inversion can be achivied using a circulator, a magnetron, and a adjustable load, like the chinese design already showed in this forum.
Lorentz transformation is a mathematical tool used to change from one frame of reference to another. Applying a Lorentz transformation changes nothing about the underlying physics, and does not change any results. It simply lets you work in a reference frame of your choosing to do the math. If someone were to run an experiment and have one of the steps be "apply a Lorentz transformation to the system" This would be nonsensical, since there is no physical action associated with a Lorentz transformation. The only meaningful thing that can be extrapolated from such a statement is that the person saying it has no clue what they are talking about. Some of your statements in this post are generally equivalent to this, saying that you want to apply purely mathematical operations to a physical system.
I have no clue what "Chinese design" you are talking about. The only actual solid information I know of about Chinese things relevant to this thread is Yang's experiments which clearly had problems, and in the end Yang no longer claims successful thrust generation.
Also, spectral inversion is something that happens from mixing signals. None of the RF components you listed is a mixer, so again, you appear to have no clue what you are talking about.
This series of posts from you has involved you jumping to different irrelevant or nonsensical claims in every post. If you want to continue this conversation, please try to write something coherent that has something to do with the topic of this thread. -
#829 by Ricvil on 30 Jan, 2019 08:09
-
Dear meberbs.Dear meberbs.
Everything you just said is literally gibberish. Some of the terms you used would mean something if you removed 1 or 2 extraneous adjectives, but you would still be applying a purely abstract mathematical construct to a physical system, which doesn't make sense. To use an example from special relativity, since more people are familiar with it:
What I'm trying to do?
At the end, I'm desire to realize an active special conformal transformation of electromagnetic field (conformal to a acceleration) inside the cavity, by a active spectral inversion in frequency domain.
The switching of frequency is only a passive test, to see the effect of field "duality rotation" during the transient.
A continuous spectral inversion can be achivied using a circulator, a magnetron, and a adjustable load, like the chinese design already showed in this forum.
Lorentz transformation is a mathematical tool used to change from one frame of reference to another. Applying a Lorentz transformation changes nothing about the underlying physics, and does not change any results. It simply lets you work in a reference frame of your choosing to do the math. If someone were to run an experiment and have one of the steps be "apply a Lorentz transformation to the system" This would be nonsensical, since there is no physical action associated with a Lorentz transformation. The only meaningful thing that can be extrapolated from such a statement is that the person saying it has no clue what they are talking about. Some of your statements in this post are generally equivalent to this, saying that you want to apply purely mathematical operations to a physical system.
I have no clue what "Chinese design" you are talking about. The only actual solid information I know of about Chinese things relevant to this thread is Yang's experiments which clearly had problems, and in the end Yang no longer claims successful thrust generation.
Also, spectral inversion is something that happens from mixing signals. None of the RF components you listed is a mixer, so again, you appear to have no clue what you are talking about.
This series of posts from you has involved you jumping to different irrelevant or nonsensical claims in every post. If you want to continue this conversation, please try to write something coherent that has something to do with the topic of this thread.
Sorry if you cannot understand what I'm trying to say.
Operators in math are implemented all time using active and passive components, and differentiators/integrators are two simple examples.
The magnetron is a microwave source with a no so small bandwidth, and it can be used as a nonlinear negative resistence amplifier by reflection ( as already discuted in this forum), and a frequency inversion needs the presence of a quadratic nonlinear term as one of its components.
You are a smart guy meberbs, constantly right, but wrong in a interesting way sometimes.
The chineses had fail? It is very compelling.
End of conversation. -
#830 by mandrewa on 30 Jan, 2019 18:54
-
I'm really quite excited. I've just discovered Mike McCulloch's theory of quantized inertia. I'm sure everyone on this thread has already heard about it, but I was unaware of it until a short-time ago.
That is one amazing theory. It seems to explain so many different things that have lacked explanation. I'm not talking about the EM drive. This proposed EM drive effect is almost a footnote compared to some other things that the idea of quantized inertia explains.
But having said that, this persuasive theory, radically increases the odds, in my mind anyway, that the EM Drive is a real thing.
I see the wikipedia entry on "quantized inertia" describes it as "fringe science." Really?!! Compared to what exactly?
This is science. That does not mean the theory is true, but it is falsifiable. And inertia effects everything. That means there are hundreds of implicit predictions that can be tested.
And if Mike McCullogh is giving the straight account, we already have a significant list of tests passed.
Here's a video that does a good job of explaining the idea in an understandable way: .
I'm now looking for the counter-argument. I just did a quick search on duckduckgo and I'm having trouble finding it. -
#831 by meberbs on 30 Jan, 2019 19:28
-
Dear meberbs.
I don't recall any discussion here about using a magnetron as a negative resistance amplifier. The extent to which a magnetron has a broad spectrum signal is mostly in the form of noise so any frequency inversion that happens would be essentially indistinguishable. Also for a high resonance cavity, the wideband part of the signal is mostly reflected, and therefore has no effect inside the emDrive.
Sorry if you cannot understand what I'm trying to say.
Operators in math are implemented all time using active and passive components, and differentiators/integrators are two simple examples.
The magnetron is a microwave source with a no so small bandwidth, and it can be used as a nonlinear negative resistence amplifier by reflection ( as already discuted in this forum), and a frequency inversion needs the presence of a quadratic nonlinear term as one of its components.
You are a smart guy meberbs, constantly right, but wrong in a interesting way sometimes.
The chineses had fail? It is very compelling.
End of conversation.
And yes, Yang retracted any claim of generating real thrust after realizing unaccounted for errors in the original experiment. There have been rumors about other tests, but nothing solid, and from what I have seen, probably mistranslations of discussion of standard electric propulsion (ion engines). -
#832 by meberbs on 30 Jan, 2019 20:05
-
I'm really quite excited. I've just discovered Mike McCulloch's theory of quantized inertia. I'm sure everyone on this thread has already heard about it, but I was unaware of it until a short-time ago.
Compared to science that actually has experimental evidence to back it up, and has not already been falsified. The many radical claims are just that: radical claims. If there were so many waysthat it manifested itself, it should be easy to demonstrate, but it hasn't been.
That is one amazing theory. It seems to explain so many different things that have lacked explanation. I'm not talking about the EM drive. This proposed EM drive effect is almost a footnote compared to some other things that the idea of quantized inertia explains.
But having said that, this persuasive theory, radically increases the odds, in my mind anyway, that the EM Drive is a real thing.
I see the wikipedia entry on "quantized inertia" describes it as "fringe science." Really?!! Compared to what exactly?This is science. That does not mean the theory is true, but it is falsifiable. And inertia effects everything. That means there are hundreds of implicit predictions that can be tested.
And if any one is wrong then the theory is falsified. There are multiple ways that the theory can be falsified by all of the different claims that have been made, and several are already falsified:
-Strongest falsification from my perspective is the Pioneer anomaly. McCulloch predicts ripples in the Pioneer anomaly. Not only have I never hear of ripples in the Pioneer anomaly, the anomaly itself doesn't actually exist. It has been completely explained by the emission of black body radiation in specific directions due to the thermal profile of the spacecraft. This is completely case closed since 2012 with independent analysis. McCulloch has written a blog post trying to claim that the analysis is flawed that does nothing but reveal his ignorance of how thermal modeling is done. This claim alone that well accepted thoroughly reviewed papers on well understood physics that is accepted by the scientific community is completely wrong on its own puts him well into "fringe" territory.
-Recently, there have been discoveries that some galaxies have different amounts of dark matter than other comparable galaxies. If dark matter exists, it makes sense that such a thing can happen. It fundamentally cannot be explained by theories that rely on general modifications to the laws of physics. More data is still needed on this, but if confirmed it completely invalidates a broad range of alternatives to dark matter including McCulloch's theory.
-Last I checked, McCulloch is still working on the modeling needed to that his model matches the observed universe at least as well as the current best accepted model of dark matter: ΛCDM.
-The lack of success in emDrive experiments is itself evidence against his theory since his theory predicts it to work, apparently at thrust levels comparable to Shawyer's original experiments, (based on a recent pre-print from McCulloch) but the many DIY and other experiments, including those from Eagleworks have if nothing else confirmed that any actual thrust is orders of magnitude below what Shawyer claimed.
-He also predicts the Mach effect thruster to work for different reasons than Woodward claims, but evidence seems to be building that the positive results so far are due to systematic errors.And if Mike McCullogh is giving the straight account, we already have a significant list of tests passed.
I don't have time to sit through a half hour video right now, can you summarize what tests have been passed (that aren't already on the list I just provided of tests that have either already failed or look like they will fail)I'm now looking for the counter-argument. I just did a quick search on duckduckgo and I'm having trouble finding it.
Yeah, when someone writes a blog post claiming that thoroughly reviewed papers are wrong because the model "has 1000s of finite elements" (which is actually a good thing for the model), or because it has adjustable parameters that allow it to fit actual measured spacecraft temperatures (obviously would not be used to fit thrust), scientists will tend to not publish full articles explaining why the person who wrote the blog post has no comprehension of how thermal modeling works. That kind of thing also will tend to decrease scientists' interest in reading even published articles from someone who repeatedly makes such absurd claims. -
#833 by mandrewa on 30 Jan, 2019 22:44
-
Hello meberbs. Thanks for your response.
I'm really quite excited. I've just discovered Mike McCulloch's theory of quantized inertia. I'm sure everyone on this thread has already heard about it, but I was unaware of it until a short-time ago.
Compared to science that actually has experimental evidence to back it up, and has not already been falsified. The many radical claims are just that: radical claims. If there were so many waysthat it manifested itself, it should be easy to demonstrate, but it hasn't been.
That is one amazing theory. It seems to explain so many different things that have lacked explanation. I'm not talking about the EM drive. This proposed EM drive effect is almost a footnote compared to some other things that the idea of quantized inertia explains.
But having said that, this persuasive theory, radically increases the odds, in my mind anyway, that the EM Drive is a real thing.
I see the wikipedia entry on "quantized inertia" describes it as "fringe science." Really?!! Compared to what exactly?
What experimental evidence?
Two of the theories the physics community currently believes in, "dark matter" and "dark energy," and that McCullogh is offering this alternative explanation for, have absolutely no experimental evidence for them at all.
It is difficult even to construct an imaginary experiment to test for "dark matter" and "dark energy" since what they are is so unspecified.
Suppose you are offered two explanations for something. One cannot be disproven because it makes no predictions that can be tested. The second makes many predictions and can be tested many ways. Which do you prefer?
By the way I do not mean to say that it is easy to test this hypothesis. The percent difference between "quantized inertia" and inertia is tiny in most contexts. The percent difference between "quantized acceleration" and acceleration is tiny in most contexts. The percent difference between "quantized force" and force is tiny in most contexts. And the list goes on. We can create imaginary experiments for these and other things, but finding an actual experiment where the difference is large enough to be measured by real instruments is not so easy.
I don't know exactly how McCullogh came up with his theory but I can construct a scenario. It starts off with him thinking about the Casimir Effect and then looking for other places in nature where a similar thing is going on. He realizes that information boundaries can act like the plates in the Casimir Effect experiment and he looks for information boundaries in nature. Then perhaps inspired by Stephen Hawking's hypothesis of blackhole evaporation he looks for other interactions between the quantum vacuum and other information boundaries.
A huge part of his logic depends on the idea that an information boundary is formed every time something accelerates. I wonder about that. I don't have the mathematical background to check that, but my intuition suggests that would be one of the first things to verify.
He claims that this is also consist with, and derivable from, quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity. I admit I doubt that. My impression is that very few people actually understand the math of these theories. Further I get the feeling that for those that kind of do, they spend a huge amount of time just working through the equations of these theories for specific situations. Further as soon as quantum mechanics is mentioned I know that the equations are not, except in special situations, computable.
So I'm guessing that what McCullogh is actually doing is trying to estimate the effect of these things, which is a very different thing from precisely calculating them.
So although it may be conceptually true that one can imagine calculating these things and testing for them, that is actually far beyond what is possible and what he knows how to do. Instead he is trying to find situations where he can estimate the effects and the expected effect is large enough to be perceptible.This is science. That does not mean the theory is true, but it is falsifiable. And inertia effects everything. That means there are hundreds of implicit predictions that can be tested.
And if any one is wrong then the theory is falsified. There are multiple ways that the theory can be falsified by all of the different claims that have been made, and several are already falsified:
-Strongest falsification from my perspective is the Pioneer anomaly. McCulloch predicts ripples in the Pioneer anomaly. Not only have I never hear of ripples in the Pioneer anomaly, the anomaly itself doesn't actually exist. It has been completely explained by the emission of black body radiation in specific directions due to the thermal profile of the spacecraft. This is completely case closed since 2012 with independent analysis. McCulloch has written a blog post trying to claim that the analysis is flawed that does nothing but reveal his ignorance of how thermal modeling is done. This claim alone that well accepted thoroughly reviewed papers on well understood physics that is accepted by the scientific community is completely wrong on its own puts him well into "fringe" territory.
-Recently, there have been discoveries that some galaxies have different amounts of dark matter than other comparable galaxies. If dark matter exists, it makes sense that such a thing can happen. It fundamentally cannot be explained by theories that rely on general modifications to the laws of physics. More data is still needed on this, but if confirmed it completely invalidates a broad range of alternatives to dark matter including McCulloch's theory.
-Last I checked, McCulloch is still working on the modeling needed to that his model matches the observed universe at least as well as the current best accepted model of dark matter: ΛCDM.
-The lack of success in emDrive experiments is itself evidence against his theory since his theory predicts it to work, apparently at thrust levels comparable to Shawyer's original experiments, (based on a recent pre-print from McCulloch) but the many DIY and other experiments, including those from Eagleworks have if nothing else confirmed that any actual thrust is orders of magnitude below what Shawyer claimed.
-He also predicts the Mach effect thruster to work for different reasons than Woodward claims, but evidence seems to be building that the positive results so far are due to systematic errors.
Thanks for these examples. I will need to think about them, although as I have already implied since there is no experimental evidence for the "dark matter" hypothesis, judging something from this perspective may be a case of assuming your conclusion. -
#834 by Ricvil on 30 Jan, 2019 23:36
-
Dear meberbs.
I don't recall any discussion here about using a magnetron as a negative resistance amplifier. The extent to which a magnetron has a broad spectrum signal is mostly in the form of noise so any frequency inversion that happens would be essentially indistinguishable. Also for a high resonance cavity, the wideband part of the signal is mostly reflected, and therefore has no effect inside the emDrive.
Sorry if you cannot understand what I'm trying to say.
Operators in math are implemented all time using active and passive components, and differentiators/integrators are two simple examples.
The magnetron is a microwave source with a no so small bandwidth, and it can be used as a nonlinear negative resistence amplifier by reflection ( as already discuted in this forum), and a frequency inversion needs the presence of a quadratic nonlinear term as one of its components.
You are a smart guy meberbs, constantly right, but wrong in a interesting way sometimes.
The chineses had fail? It is very compelling.
End of conversation.
And yes, Yang retracted any claim of generating real thrust after realizing unaccounted for errors in the original experiment. There have been rumors about other tests, but nothing solid, and from what I have seen, probably mistranslations of discussion of standard electric propulsion (ion engines).
I agree with you meberbs.
-
#835 by meberbs on 30 Jan, 2019 23:55
-
What experimental evidence?
Maybe you should do some more research before making assertions about what scientists think. (That means outside of McCulloch's claims, since he has made false claims similar to some of what you say.) Both "dark matter" and "dark energy" refer to effects that have been in experiments. In particular dark energy is not a theory, but a quantification of the magnitude of the correction term that needs to be applied to current theories to match reality. I know of no accepted theory that explains the "why" of it. Your assertion about what physicists think is not accurate.
Two of the theories the physics community currently believes in, "dark matter" and "dark energy," and that McCullogh is offering this alternative explanation for, have absolutely no experimental evidence for them at all.
It is difficult even to construct an imaginary experiment to test for "dark matter" and "dark energy" since what they are is so unspecified.
Dark matter is also originally based on experimental evidence, but there is a complete theory for it that successfully predicts many things in cosmology, and it is falsifiable.Suppose you are offered two explanations for something. One cannot be disproven because it makes no predictions that can be tested. The second makes many predictions and can be tested many ways. Which do you prefer?
False analogy, change it so that both make predictions and the second makes predictions that are not consistent with observations, and you would be getting closer to relevance.So I'm guessing that what McCullogh is actually doing is trying to estimate the effect of these things, which is a very different thing from precisely calculating them.
Most of your narrative is not worth discussing since as you say, it is just your guess at his thought process. This last part is similar to my observations that many of his claims of effects that he predicts often involve thought experiments with significant handwaving, but if this is the case many assertions he has made about what his theory predicts are not actually things he can truly assert. While GR and quantum mechanics are both involve difficult equations to work with, with computers, solving everything by hand is no longer necessary. There are ways to get the relevant answers.
So although it may be conceptually true that one can imagine calculating these things and testing for them, that is actually far beyond what is possible and what he knows how to do. Instead he is trying to find situations where he can estimate the effects and the expected effect is large enough to be perceptible.Thanks for these examples. I will need to think about them, although as I have already implied since there is no experimental evidence for the "dark matter" hypothesis, judging something from this perspective may be a case of assuming your conclusion.
Your statement that there is no evidence for dark matter is 100% false. I even referenced some of it in my previous post. There is a list of different effects predicted by dark matter theories and observed in experiment in the "Observational Evidence" section of its Wikipedia article. As I mentioned in my last post there is evidence that dark matter distribution is not completely uniform, and that is a difficult set of data to reconcile with any theory that claims that there is no dark matter. (No dark matter anywhere, just modified physics, would be a perfectly uniform distribution by definition.) -
#836 by meberbs on 31 Jan, 2019 00:08
-
Interesting work creating a monopole ananolgy: https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/01/funky-mirror-turns-electric-field-into-a-magnetic-field-with-missing-pole/
Possibly I should just report this to moderator, but this seems like a good time to remind people that this section is for "new physics with spaceflight applications" and this thread is for the "emdrive." This article makes a good example because it goes out of its way to mention that the research it is discussing has essentially no real application.
Random posts of some random "new physics" article, with no explanation of relevance, are not on topic, and do not add value. They do add more work for the moderators. -
#837 by TheTraveller on 31 Jan, 2019 05:24
-
Roger Shawyer just confirmed he will be meeting with Mike McCulloch at Shrivenham in a few weeks. He also said his presentation, which should include new data, will be made available on www.emdrive.com.
Have asked Mike if he will also produce and make available a report on the meeting.
BTW Roger has done EmDrive presentations at Shrivenham before:
"An edited set of slides from a presentation made to the UK Defence Academy in February this year [2017] can be downloaded here. They give the background story to the emergence of EmDrive, and illustrate how important Global Defence applications are to the continuing development of the technology."
http://www.emdrive.com/ShrivenhampresentationV.3.pdf
https://www.cranfield.ac.uk/study/life-on-campus/life-at-shrivenham -
#838 by dustinthewind on 31 Jan, 2019 07:07
-
For the most part this is true. There is very little coupling to the vacuum normally to detect much less generate gravity waves.
GR generally talks about "space-time," not "the vacuum."
There are those that are bridging the gap. The vacuum is obviously not empty. Not only can light be squeezed but also the vacuum. The Casimir force exists. Matter and anti-matter can be created from the vacuum. Space time can curve. Those in LIGO use squeezed light or vacuum to detect space time waves or (gravity waves).
The Quantum Enhanced LIGO Detector Sets New Sensitivity Record
https://www.ligo.org/science/Publication-SqueezedVacuum/index.php
Recent progress in generating quantum states of squeezed vacuum has made it possible to enhance the sensitivity of the 4 km gravitational wave detector at the LIGO Hanford Observatory to an unprecedented level...The Nature of Inertial and Vacuum Gravitational Field
Ning Wu
In the literature [32], the problem of the change of space-time structure under Lorentz
transformation is studied. In that paper, only the Lorentz transformation of uniform
motion in a straight line is studied. If the motion is constantly accelerated motion,
what will happen? In this paper, the gravitational field in a local constantly accelerated
reference is studied. In Section 2, a simple introduction to the gauge theory of gravity is
given. The gravitational field and the field strength of gravitational field in a constantly
accelerated reference are calculated in Section 3. The gravitational force on a mass
point in that local reference is studied in Section 4.
...
Through discussions in this paper and literature [32], we know that, if there is an inertial
reference with no gravity, a non-trivial gravitational gauge field will be generated in the
reference after a Lorentz transformation. In other words, if the reference is an inertial
reference before transformation and the gravitational gauge field vanishes in it, the gravitational gauge field does not vanish after a Lorentz transformation. The gravitational
gauge field not only affects the space-time structure, but also generates non-trivial gravitational force. The non-trivial gravitational force is generated from vacuum by a Lorentz transformation, so we call it vacuum gravitational force. The gravitational gauge
field C x( ) a
µ after Lorentz transformation is called vacuum gravitational field.
...
It is known that the equivalence principle
is a transcendental principle in general relativity. But in quantum gauge theory of
gravity, it is obtained through a strict derivation. Essentially speaking, it is only a deduction
of the gauge principle.
Through the discussions in this paper, we know that there are two ways to produce
gravitational field and gravitational force. One way is that it is produced by a massive
object, which is given by classical Newtonian gravity and general relativity. Another
way is that it is produced by a transformation, which is a new way to produce gravitational
field and gravitational force. It is an inevitable outcome of gravitational gauge
symmetry.
some more.
pardon the copy of text from the pdf is a bit lacking in translation.=http%3A%2F%2Ftud.qucosa.de%2Fapi%2Fqucosa%253A31140%2Fmets]donloaded from
The Planck Constant and the Origin of Mass due to a Higher Order Casimir Effect
C. Baumg¨artel and M. Tajmar
...
Researchers have made di erent attempts not only to modify
Weber’s law and derive Maxwell’s field equations from
them [8–10], but also conducted experiments to check back
on the validity of the theory [11–14]. Especially the experiments
of Smith et al. [12] showed some interesting measurements
where the behaviour of an electron beam could
[email protected]; corresponding author
be predicted more accurately with Weber-type formulae than
Maxwell-Lorentz ones.
This interest leads us to study further on this subject and investigate
the bonds that connectWeber’s law and nature’s phenomena,
as this may be a possibility to find a long sought after
unification of theories. Therefore, we will present our findings
that combine electromagnetism, gravitational-like forces,
quantum e ects and even the origin of mass itself all through
the derivation of the Planck constant from a single model of
oscillating dipoles.
...
This equation is used in [2,
3] to identify a gravitational e ect and this is again used in
[1] to obtain a constant in the order of magnitude of Planck’s
constant.
The above presented calculations were done by Assis with pen
and paper and are very long. This is why we wanted to check
the results using a computer, so the calculations were redone
in MAXIMA and showed a slightly di erent result.
...
Furthermore, the Beta-term can
be identified as a gravity-like force, as already done by Assis
[2, 3], since only the pre-factor deviates but the structure is the
same. Keeping in mind that the
gamma-term can be interpreted as
inertial e ects [2], what does the new alpha-term correspond to?
Since it falls with 1/R^4, it looks similar to the Casimir force
[17] which originates from Van-der-Waals dipole-dipole interaction
[18]. There were earlier approaches from Puthoff and
Haisch to model gravity and inertia as zero-point energy fluctuations
based on the Casimir effect [19–22], but they were
heavily discussed afterwards [23–25].
However, it seems in agreement with Casimir’s original assumptions
to find his force in this model of dipole-dipole interactions.
...
Furthermore, this connects
to the origin of mass as the higher order of the Casimir force
shows a mass-like behaviour depending on the electrical properties
of the interacting particles. These properties also lead
to a gravitational-like attracting force between the particles.
That means that there is a really interesting connection between
electrodynamics, gravitation, quantum-theory and the
origin of mass, all linked by the Planck constant.Quote from: meberbs
yes the gravitational waves they generate aren't detectable yet, though they think the coupling exists.Some physicists think LIGO is generating gravity waves because of their coupling. Because gravity waves can induce detectable changes in EM fields it also goes the other way. Their EM fields can also induce minor gravity waves.
I assume you are talking aboutthis. The article doesn't mention the strength of the emission even relative to what is detected there, but my guess would be negligible, and the claim only true if there were rapidly moving large masses rather than photons bouncing back and forth. More importantly, the article says that they came up with their conclusion through a quantum theory, but there is no proven theory of quantum gravity, and not much in terms of good options. Biggest reason for this is the lack of testable predictions, the article I linked mentions an experiment and calls it "unbelievably difficult" What they actually mean is "beyond the capability of any foreseeable technology."Quote from: meberbsAll of this depends if Eugene's experiments are valid and actually generate the waves he claims. I tend not to jump to the conclusion he is a liar so I'm still currently interested to learn more. (particularly the gravity impulse generator)
He has asserted that multiple other labs have replicated his experiments, but this is not true. One lab did some tests, but not a replication. There are multiple examples in the article you linked of cases where someone has to be making false statements.
The technical statements he has made about his device amount to complete gibberish. At a minimum he has no clue what he is talking about, and there is absolutely no reason to think that any measurements he made are anything other than experimental error. Apparently the original observation was that smoke was observed rising above a very cold object, which basically indicates there were problems with air currents.
I make no claims as to the validity of his experiments just point out what he claims to have observed. That they seem to line up with the idea of inflated vacuum and negative gravity. I'm only really interested in the gravity impulse generator. Not sure what to think of the spinning disk.
I notice this guy claims his experiments were not actually replicated. Not really sure I care for the paper though.New Evidence, Conditions, Instruments & Experiments for Gravitational Theories
Benjamin T. Solomon
...
1Three teams set out to investigate Podkletnov’s claims. The first was led by RC Woods. The second led by Hathaway. These are discussed in this paper. Ning Li led the third team comprised of members from NASA and University of Huntsville, AL. It was revealed in conversa-tions with a former team member that Ning Li’s team was disbanded before they could build the superconducting discs required to investi-gate Podkletnov’s claims.
...
It is obvious that neither teams were able to faithfully reproduce Podkletnov’s work. It is no wonder that at least Woods et al. team stated “the tests have not fulfilled the specified conditions for a gravity effect”. This state- ment definitely applies to Hathaway, Cleveland & Bao’s research.
Here is an extra that seemed interesting.
A Theoretical Justification of NASA Electromagnetic
Drive based on Cosmic Dark Matter
Mohamed S. ElNaschie
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=16671618278540492657&as_sdt=5,26&sciodt=0,26&hl=en
I think its based on this papper here:
Completing Einstein’s Spacetime
M. S. El Naschie
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=2307852642997297549&hl=en&as_sdt=5,26&sciodt=0,26
From a dual Einstein-Kaluza spacetime to 'tHooft renormalon and the reality of accelerated cosmic expansion
MS El Naschie
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=17151164495508288154&hl=en&as_sdt=5,26&sciodt=0,26
Never mind the last part. Stayed up too late skimming papers. -
#839 by as58 on 31 Jan, 2019 09:16
-
Here is an extra that seemed interesting.
A Theoretical Justification of NASA Electromagnetic
Drive based on Cosmic Dark Matter
Mohamed S. ElNaschie
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=16671618278540492657&as_sdt=5,26&sciodt=0,26&hl=en
I think its based on this papper here:
Completing Einstein’s Spacetime
M. S. El Naschie
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=2307852642997297549&hl=en&as_sdt=5,26&sciodt=0,26
From a dual Einstein-Kaluza spacetime to 'tHooft renormalon and the reality of accelerated cosmic expansion
MS El Naschie
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=17151164495508288154&hl=en&as_sdt=5,26&sciodt=0,26
El Naschie is a notorious crackpot.