-
#380 by flux_capacitor on 07 Oct, 2020 10:29
-
At first I thought there was more radiation pressure exerted on the back mirror of the resonator put in motion, that would oppose acceleration (what we feel as inertia when we push on a massive object); but now I wonder if this is the opposite i.e.more radiation pressure occurs on the front mirror, that keeps the cavity in infinite motion at constant velocity after the external force initially applied has ceased (what we see as the inertial trajectory of an object without friction, e.g. in deep space vacuum).
EDIT: Correct answer selected above, explanation in my next message.
Reed's explanations about the Jennison experiments:
Jennison and Drinkwater (paper "An approach to the understanding of inertia from the physics of the experimental method" attached to my previous message) derived from first principles Newton's Laws of motion and their causal origins based on their analysis and experimental investigation of confined radiation in a cavity resonator. Inertia can thus can be understood as a local self-referral dynamic phenomenon and fermions, from which all matter is made, are quantum scale resonators. Blueshifted incident waves have greater energy and impart momentum to the following wall providing a "push". Reflected redshifted waves have lower energy and provide a "pull" on the motive wall. The resonator exhibits alternating compression/expansion as it moves, like a bouncing ball, and continues to move inertially until acted upon by another external force.
One can directly calculate the resultant ponderomotive (radiation pressure) force imbalance and resonator velocity, acceleration and impulse. No need for Mach's principle as the hypothesis for the origin of inertia, nor Rueda et al. with ZPF, Lorentz force or hypothetical virtual particle flux to explain or calculate inertia. As shown in the book, rest mass is simply a wave interference effect internal to the electron and represents an obstruction to energy flow, i.e. change in frequency.
EDIT:
- This summarizes what is explained in similar terms in chapter 11 "Origin of Inertia" of Reed's book, page 84 (attached). Also, a few pages before, page 78 (chapter 10 "Deflection of light):
"In lieu of an unexplained mechanism for assumed “bending” of spacetime (e.g., alteration in space (contraction) and time (dilation) in accelerated inertial frames), the Lorentz contraction in the Ivanov-LaFreniere wave model [36,37,38] refers instead to a physical EM wavelength contraction (compression of the nodal distance) and frequency reduction of a standing matter waves in motion."
- Ref [36] is the book "Rhythmodynamics" (149 pages) by Yuri N. Ivanov (2007)
- Ref [37] is Yuri N. Ivanov, “Compression of Standing Wave, Rhythmodynamics and the Third Condition of Rest”, Proceedings of the 1996 International Scientific Conference on New Ideas in Natural Sciences, Anatoly Smirnov, ed., Alexander Frolov, ed., PIK Publishing Co., Moscow RIA (1996)
- Ref [38] is Gabriel LaFreniere's lengthy article “Matter is made of waves” archived online at http://www.mysearch.org.uk/websiteX/Index.htm
This is related to the PV (Polarizable Vacuum) model, which WarpTech is quite familiar with on this forum.
-
#381 by bmcgaffey20 on 08 Oct, 2020 17:16
-
At first I thought there was more radiation pressure exerted on the back mirror of the resonator put in motion, that would oppose acceleration (what we feel as inertia when we push on a massive object); but now I wonder if this is the opposite i.e.more radiation pressure occurs on the front mirror, that keeps the cavity in infinite motion at constant velocity after the external force initially applied has ceased (what we see as the inertial trajectory of an object without friction, e.g. in deep space vacuum).
EDIT: Correct answer selected above, explanation in my next message.
Reed's explanations about the Jennison experiments:
Jennison and Drinkwater (paper "An approach to the understanding of inertia from the physics of the experimental method" attached to my previous message) derived from first principles Newton's Laws of motion and their causal origins based on their analysis and experimental investigation of confined radiation in a cavity resonator. Inertia can thus can be understood as a local self-referral dynamic phenomenon and fermions, from which all matter is made, are quantum scale resonators. Blueshifted incident waves have greater energy and impart momentum to the following wall providing a "push". Reflected redshifted waves have lower energy and provide a "pull" on the motive wall. The resonator exhibits alternating compression/expansion as it moves, like a bouncing ball, and continues to move inertially until acted upon by another external force.
One can directly calculate the resultant ponderomotive (radiation pressure) force imbalance and resonator velocity, acceleration and impulse. No need for Mach's principle as the hypothesis for the origin of inertia, nor Rueda et al. with ZPF, Lorentz force or hypothetical virtual particle flux to explain or calculate inertia. As shown in the book, rest mass is simply a wave interference effect internal to the electron and represents an obstruction to energy flow, i.e. change in frequency.
EDIT:
- This summarizes what is explained in similar terms in chapter 11 "Origin of Inertia" of Reed's book, page 84 (attached). Also, a few pages before, page 78 (chapter 10 "Deflection of light):
"In lieu of an unexplained mechanism for assumed “bending” of spacetime (e.g., alteration in space (contraction) and time (dilation) in accelerated inertial frames), the Lorentz contraction in the Ivanov-LaFreniere wave model [36,37,38] refers instead to a physical EM wavelength contraction (compression of the nodal distance) and frequency reduction of a standing matter waves in motion."
- Ref [36] is the book "Rhythmodynamics" (149 pages) by Yuri N. Ivanov (2007)
- Ref [37] is Yuri N. Ivanov, “Compression of Standing Wave, Rhythmodynamics and the Third Condition of Rest”, Proceedings of the 1996 International Scientific Conference on New Ideas in Natural Sciences, Anatoly Smirnov, ed., Alexander Frolov, ed., PIK Publishing Co., Moscow RIA (1996)
- Ref [38] is Gabriel LaFreniere's lengthy article “Matter is made of waves” archived online at http://www.mysearch.org.uk/websiteX/Index.htm
This is related to the PV (Polarizable Vacuum) model, which WarpTech is quite familiar with on this forum.
I seem to recall doppler shift induced energy/momentum transfer being explored. This seems to make sense to a pea-brain like myself... I want it to make sense...Where is @Meberbs? -
#382 by Mark7777777 on 11 Oct, 2020 09:25
-
At first I thought there was more radiation pressure exerted on the back mirror of the resonator put in motion, that would oppose acceleration (what we feel as inertia when we push on a massive object); but now I wonder if this is the opposite i.e.more radiation pressure occurs on the front mirror, that keeps the cavity in infinite motion at constant velocity after the external force initially applied has ceased (what we see as the inertial trajectory of an object without friction, e.g. in deep space vacuum).
EDIT: Correct answer selected above, explanation in my next message.
Reed's explanations about the Jennison experiments:
Jennison and Drinkwater (paper "An approach to the understanding of inertia from the physics of the experimental method" attached to my previous message) derived from first principles Newton's Laws of motion and their causal origins based on their analysis and experimental investigation of confined radiation in a cavity resonator. Inertia can thus can be understood as a local self-referral dynamic phenomenon and fermions, from which all matter is made, are quantum scale resonators. Blueshifted incident waves have greater energy and impart momentum to the following wall providing a "push". Reflected redshifted waves have lower energy and provide a "pull" on the motive wall. The resonator exhibits alternating compression/expansion as it moves, like a bouncing ball, and continues to move inertially until acted upon by another external force.
One can directly calculate the resultant ponderomotive (radiation pressure) force imbalance and resonator velocity, acceleration and impulse. No need for Mach's principle as the hypothesis for the origin of inertia, nor Rueda et al. with ZPF, Lorentz force or hypothetical virtual particle flux to explain or calculate inertia. As shown in the book, rest mass is simply a wave interference effect internal to the electron and represents an obstruction to energy flow, i.e. change in frequency.
EDIT:
- This summarizes what is explained in similar terms in chapter 11 "Origin of Inertia" of Reed's book, page 84 (attached). Also, a few pages before, page 78 (chapter 10 "Deflection of light):
"In lieu of an unexplained mechanism for assumed “bending” of spacetime (e.g., alteration in space (contraction) and time (dilation) in accelerated inertial frames), the Lorentz contraction in the Ivanov-LaFreniere wave model [36,37,38] refers instead to a physical EM wavelength contraction (compression of the nodal distance) and frequency reduction of a standing matter waves in motion."
- Ref [36] is the book "Rhythmodynamics" (149 pages) by Yuri N. Ivanov (2007)
- Ref [37] is Yuri N. Ivanov, “Compression of Standing Wave, Rhythmodynamics and the Third Condition of Rest”, Proceedings of the 1996 International Scientific Conference on New Ideas in Natural Sciences, Anatoly Smirnov, ed., Alexander Frolov, ed., PIK Publishing Co., Moscow RIA (1996)
- Ref [38] is Gabriel LaFreniere's lengthy article “Matter is made of waves” archived online at http://www.mysearch.org.uk/websiteX/Index.htm
This is related to the PV (Polarizable Vacuum) model, which WarpTech is quite familiar with on this forum.
I seem to recall doppler shift induced energy/momentum transfer being explored. This seems to make sense to a pea-brain like myself... I want it to make sense...Where is @Meberbs?
There are no posts from him since August 27 (45 days ago). Maybe he is on vacation. -
#383 by TheTraveller on 13 Oct, 2020 09:20
-
Received from Roger:
"Hi Phil
The IAC-20 conference is up and running at:
https://iac2020.vfairs.com
It is well worth registering as it gives access to the Technical Sessions Online Gallery until Wednesday. There are a huge number of papers and presentations in the gallery, and it’s all free.
My EmDrive paper and presentation is about half way through the C4 IAF Space Propulsion Symposium. Perhaps you could pass on this info.
Thanks
Best regards
Roger"
Roger's IAC 2020 paper is attached.
Link to the IAC paper:
https://p.iafastro.directory/download/congress/IAC-20/files/IAC-20/C4/6/IAC-20,C4,6,9,x56845.pdf
Link to the IAC video presentation:
https://outin-6e4ede8fe1c911eaabb800163e1a65b6.oss-cn-shanghai.aliyuncs.com/818101a81710454d8d438ff9ba50f6ed/2368ddd4399649e489ce917c4b2c24ca-f5319f2455987c727743c71579217145-ld.mp4
-
#384 by TheTraveller on 13 Oct, 2020 13:18
-
In his 2020 IAC paper Roger answers a question many have asked.
What is the required small end forward precursor acceleration needed to engage Motor Mode?
From his paper get get:
5uN applied to a 20kg 12U CubeSat, which includes the TE113 140mm long 0.5N/kw EmDrive.
Or an acceleration of 0.00000025m^2 for 10 milliseconds.
Not a lot.
Note if the CubeSat is within 1,800km of the Earth, using reaction wheels to point the small end away from the Earth, will cause enough internal differential Doppler shift to engage Motor Mode without needing the precursor solenoid. Paper section attached.
It is all about differential Doppler shift and the resultant differential radiation pressure generated on the end plates.
-
#385 by TheTraveller on 14 Oct, 2020 16:30
-
Lets make one thing very clear here.
Cavity photon momentum is transferred to the gained accelerated cavity momentum.
Resulting in lower cavity momentum as displayed via increased cavity photon wavelength.
EmDrive is just a machine that transfers some of photon momentum to accelerated mass gained momentum, at the cost of cavity trapped photon lost momentum. The effect is cavity trapped photon wavelength extends.
Simple example, pump X photon momentum into the cavity. Some of the photon momentum is transferred into gained accelerated cavity momentum, which causes trapped photon wavelength to increase due to lower momentum of the trapped photons.
Ie cavity momentum is decreased as per gained accelerated momentum.
This is not new physics!
-
#386 by edzieba on 15 Oct, 2020 13:13
-
That's just a photon drive pointed forward at a mirror.
-
#387 by Alex_O on 18 Oct, 2020 13:52
-
I think I've already come up with an idea for a Doppler sim, and I plan to explore this sim soon. There are technical difficulties, but I came up with a small invention, I will make two or three rectangular resonators at once, but in each resonator I will start the movement of short EM pulses, of different frequencies, at different times.
Example. Two resonators (upper and lower).
1. The left wall of the upper resonator (like a good antenna) emits an EM pulse, it moves to the right, and is completely absorbed on the right wall.
2. After a short pause time, the right wall of the lower resonator emits an EM pulse, its frequency is lower, it now moves back towards the left wall. Let's call this pulse red (with redshift frequency).
3. We see a complete analogue of the Doppler effect, as if I had one resonator, and it was already moving towards the right wall - forward.
4. But here everything is motionless, I just programmatically control the parameters of the EM pulse. It's a little trick, like an invention.
Further, a red pulse moves in the lower cavity and also, is completely absorbed on the left wall of the lower cavity.
Now I need another, third resonator.
The left wall of the 3rd resonator emits a blue EM pulse! The cycle is closed, I built a complete analogue of Emdrive that moves forward, and I see well (separately) the movement of EM pulses with a blue and red shift of the frequency of EM pulses that move inside the Emdrive resonator, and using three resonators - I can flexibly control the energy flows in the resonator ... But there is a big problem here. It is not clear what to do next. How to get thrust of the Emdrive rocket? We need a good idea, and it seems we can discuss it in the next post. -
#388 by Alex_O on 18 Oct, 2020 14:07
-
I am making an attempt to discuss special physics.
I quickly ask if an emdrive can be a device that excites waves in the internal and (possibly even in the external environment, where new physics may be needed) and that emdrive, like a person on a board (surfer), can catch his own wave and ride this wave.
It may sound strange, to understand this idea I came up with an equivalent circuit, using the example of a ship (boat) at sea.
Here is the boat and its captain. The captain has two grasping hands. With his first hand (palm), the captain hits the surface of the water and creates large waves on the surface of the water that go towards the horizon. The boat (exact physics is not important here) will remain at rest.
But the captain has one more, long grasping hand, with this hand he managed to catch a wave that is already leaving towards the horizon and, like a surfer, caught on the crest of a wave and our boat, like a surfer, moves forward due to the energy of the wave.
Interestingly, the captain can, with his first grasping hand, generate waves on the surface of the water both at the stern of the boat and at the bow. The boat's speed can be higher if the captain creates waves correctly, at the correct frequency. The design of the hull of the boat also affects its speed, for example, the stern of the boat is better done with a concave surface).
But the most important detail that most of all affects the speed of the boat is the special grasping hand that catches the waves created in the sea. This hand should grab as many waves as possible, right? A good grasping hand can be like a solid wall around the boat. Like a conical resonator emdrive, for example.
You can grab the waves that go forward to the horizon, right? Is it possible to catch the waves that are carried away in the direction back, behind the stern of the boat? What does grab mean? It means taking energy. If the boat captain wants to move faster, he must learn how to extract energy from all the waves on the surface of the water.
Where there is already water, this is also part of the sea, but part of the water is inside the sealed hull of the boat. It seems there is a place for new physics in this, when EM waves are created in the emdrive resonator, these waves are created and exist in the space-continuum, it is like the sea - the water that is inside and outside the boat. If so, it is up to the boat captain to use the grasping hands to create the right waves in the right way and to use the other grasping hand to use the energy of the waves created in the right way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mote_in_God%27s_Eye -
#389 by Alex_O on 21 Oct, 2020 18:53
-
Short question - it seems to me that Shawyer described in more detail the technology for tuning the RF path of the emdrive, and that other experimenters did not do this. That in Dresden, and Monomorphic did not correctly configure the RF emdrive system. Am I wrong?
Link to the IAC paper:
https://p.iafastro.directory/download/congress/IAC-20/files/IAC-20/C4/6/IAC-20,C4,6,9,x56845.pdf
Link to the IAC video presentation:
https://outin-6e4ede8fe1c911eaabb800163e1a65b6.oss-cn-shanghai.aliyuncs.com/818101a81710454d8d438ff9ba50f6ed/2368ddd4399649e489ce917c4b2c24ca-f5319f2455987c727743c71579217145-ld.mp4 -
#390 by TheTraveller on 21 Oct, 2020 21:36
-
Short question - it seems to me that Shawyer described in more detail the technology for tuning the RF path of the emdrive, and that other experimenters did not do this. That in Dresden, and Monomorphic did not correctly configure the RF emdrive system. Am I wrong?
Link to the IAC paper:
https://p.iafastro.directory/download/congress/IAC-20/files/IAC-20/C4/6/IAC-20,C4,6,9,x56845.pdf
Link to the IAC video presentation:
https://outin-6e4ede8fe1c911eaabb800163e1a65b6.oss-cn-shanghai.aliyuncs.com/818101a81710454d8d438ff9ba50f6ed/2368ddd4399649e489ce917c4b2c24ca-f5319f2455987c727743c71579217145-ld.mp4
Hi Alex,
Nicely spotted.
A loop coupler needs to be located on the side wall where the H field max occurs.
Likewise a stub coupler needs to be located on the side wall where the E field max occurs.
As per the attached from his recent IAC paper.
EW placed their loop coupler on the side wall at the E field max, not the H field max.
Another placed their loop at the centre of the big end plate, which is not an H field max position.
Don't have the needed details to determine if Tajmar made the same mistake.
Others who copied the EW design could have made the same mistake.
EW rejected Roger's offer to help.
BTW www.emdrive.com has been updated with Roger's IAC 2020 paper and video.
-
#391 by Unentitled on 22 Oct, 2020 05:17
-
Short question - it seems to me that Shawyer described in more detail the technology for tuning the RF path of the emdrive, and that other experimenters did not do this. That in Dresden, and Monomorphic did not correctly configure the RF emdrive system. Am I wrong?
Link to the IAC paper:
https://p.iafastro.directory/download/congress/IAC-20/files/IAC-20/C4/6/IAC-20,C4,6,9,x56845.pdf
Link to the IAC video presentation:
https://outin-6e4ede8fe1c911eaabb800163e1a65b6.oss-cn-shanghai.aliyuncs.com/818101a81710454d8d438ff9ba50f6ed/2368ddd4399649e489ce917c4b2c24ca-f5319f2455987c727743c71579217145-ld.mp4
Hi Alex,
Nicely spotted.
A loop coupler needs to be located on the side wall where the H field max occurs.
Likewise a stub coupler needs to be located on the side wall where the E field max occurs.
As per the attached from his recent IAC paper.
EW placed their loop coupler on the side wall at the E field max, not the H field max.
Another placed their loop at the centre of the big end plate, which is not an H field max position.
Don't have the needed details to determine if Tajmar made the same mistake.
Others who copied the EW design could have made the same mistake.
EW rejected Roger's offer to help.
BTW www.emdrive.com has been updated with Roger's IAC 2020 paper and video.
Long quote, but is the significance of placing the loop and stub couplers near these specific fields fleshed out in the paper or theory?
I'm curious as to how the interaction of each with the respective fields in a cavity has been determined as a net positive aspect or if this is a cursory noticed detail based on reported results. -
#392 by Monomorphic on 22 Oct, 2020 22:17
-
Short question - it seems to me that Shawyer described in more detail the technology for tuning the RF path of the emdrive, and that other experimenters did not do this. That in Dresden, and Monomorphic did not correctly configure the RF emdrive system. Am I wrong?
I did the best I could with the information available at the time. I also confirmed using infrared camera that the cavity was heating as it would for the correct mode (then TE013). This is something we have not seen TU Dresden do to date.
I tested two cavities pretty thoroughly. One had the antenna mounted in the center of the small end (max H field) and the other had the antenna mounted in the same location Shawyer uses.
The big difference is that I did not use a teeter-totter balance like Shawyer, nor any "pre-load." The stop prevents the pre-load from moving the balance, so the claim that some initial acceleration is needed does not seem to be how the system reacts.
-
#393 by bmcgaffey20 on 24 Oct, 2020 19:50
-
The crickets are intriguing. I really hope something pans out soon right? We're not getting any younger ^.^
-
#394 by Alex_O on 24 Oct, 2020 22:34
-
Short question - it seems to me that Shawyer described in more detail the technology for tuning the RF path of the emdrive, and that other experimenters did not do this. That in Dresden, and Monomorphic did not correctly configure the RF emdrive system. Am I wrong?
I did the best I could with the information available at the time. I also confirmed using infrared camera that the cavity was heating as it would for the correct mode (then TE013). This is something we have not seen TU Dresden do to date.
I tested two cavities pretty thoroughly. One had the antenna mounted in the center of the small end (max H field) and the other had the antenna mounted in the same location Shawyer uses.
The big difference is that I did not use a teeter-totter balance like Shawyer, nor any "pre-load." The stop prevents the pre-load from moving the balance, so the claim that some initial acceleration is needed does not seem to be how the system reacts.
I still do not understand well how to explain the problem - how to properly build a system for controlling RF power flows in an emdrive resonator. Earlier, I studied a simple resonator design example and saw good and bad RF energy flow patterns. Now I will try to show it in pictures.
1. Movement of a short pulse in a simple resonator. There is no antenna - a plane EM wave somehow ideally leaves the flat end and is reflected.
2. In the attached graph we see the total radiation pressure forces, and this is a good example of tuning a resonator for a high Q factor. This design cannot create directional (one-way) thrust of the emdrive, as the laws of electrodynamics clearly do not allow it.
This is a nice design setting, as there is good harmony in the graphics. If this design is put on a good (sensitive balance), it will oscillate (vibrate at a high frequency) with good amplitude. But there are design flaws (or customization) - these little peaks on the graph.
These peaks can be severely detrimental during multiple reflections of the RF pulse from the end walls and further create detrimental effects on reflections from the side walls in practical design. As a result, there may be a case where, due to these bad peaks, even a high Q design fails to create vibration in the balance.
3. This is an example of poor tuning, EM waves move in the resonator somehow incorrectly, there may be a loop antenna here, which creates bad energy flows in the resonator. Or it happens if the shape of the original RF pulse is created too, incorrectly.
Yes, there are energy flows here, there are resonances, but this thing just creates a noise signal, it should not create thrust for the emdrive rocket. If you put this RF setting on the balance, then the balance simply will not be able to show movement at all.
Could you (as a specialist) somehow formalize the algorithm for setting up an emdrive? It is necessary to somehow correctly describe the Shawyer's tuning algorithm.
Upd:
I am attaching a sim to point 3. I simply rounded the edges at the ends of the resonator and launched two EM pulses for a meeting. The count showed a complete mess. When I look at this sim, and there were other sims, I thought about the chaotic movement of EM photons in the emdrive resonator. What if the design (geometry), the position of the point of input of microwave power into the resonator is done somehow incorrectly, then this device will not be able to work.
The 15MB GIF does not work, I attach a download link
https://c.radikal.ru/c16/2010/9c/0652f80da2ca.gif
-
#395 by meberbs on 31 Oct, 2020 15:24
-
Lets make one thing very clear here.
You have stated all of this before. It has been thoroughly debunked already. For any new readers hear is a (partial) list of reasons why these claims are wrong and nonsensical.
Cavity photon momentum is transferred to the gained accelerated cavity momentum.
Resulting in lower cavity momentum as displayed via increased cavity photon wavelength.
EmDrive is just a machine that transfers some of photon momentum to accelerated mass gained momentum, at the cost of cavity trapped photon lost momentum. The effect is cavity trapped photon wavelength extends.
Simple example, pump X photon momentum into the cavity. Some of the photon momentum is transferred into gained accelerated cavity momentum, which causes trapped photon wavelength to increase due to lower momentum of the trapped photons.
Ie cavity momentum is decreased as per gained accelerated momentum.
This is not new physics!
1. Momentum is a vector quantity, it has direction. In the typical case inside a resonant cavity, there are photons moving in opposing directions, and the net momentum is 0, there is no momentum in the photons to transfer to the cavity.
2. In a specific (and temporary) scenario where the photons do have net momentum all of the momentum they have originally came from the cavity, so the cavity would currently be moving in the opposite direction of the photon momentum, which would precisely be enough to stop the cavity motion to the original rest value if the photons were absorbed.
3. The above situation is temporary because within roughly 1 ns, the photons would reach the end of the cavity, and be reflected, reversing their momentum and the cavity momentum.
4. When the photons have momentum, the total amount of momentum they have can never, ever be more that a 1/c ratio with the energy they contain. The most effective way to use such an energy/momentum ratio is to shine a laser out the back (but only worthwhile if you have a matter/antimatter reactor as your power source.)
And not directly related, but worth pointing out again that if the emDrive is not new physics it fundamentally can't work. Electrodynamics has been proven rigorously to obey conservation of momentum. The simple steps describing emDrive operation:
-Have it at rest in whatever frame you want
-Turn it on and let it run for any amount of time
-While on it does not emit anything, or cause the momentum of anything else in the universe to change (the photons are inside it, and do not leave it)
-Turn it off (the photons have been absorbed by the cavity walls)
-It now has finite velocity in the original frame
This result is the literal definition of breaking momentum conservation. It doesn't matter if you look at one detailed step like a specific reflection and show that it conserves momentum, because the big picture view proves unambiguously that momentum conservation is broken, and you are just overlooking the step where the flaw is.In his 2020 IAC paper Roger answers a question many have asked.
So little in fact that it is the amount of inherent gravitational acceleration due to a misalignment with gravity of just 1 *10^-6 degrees or 0.005 arc seconds. This can easily be assumed to be present in all emDrive experiments, because it would be absolutely absurd to get this kind of alignment. Of course I see nothing clearly explaining why this would be the minimum required (which is the actual question that has been asked), the explanations given imply even an infinitesimal acceleration would be enough (ignoring that the explanation for it being required at all is nonsense to begin with.)
What is the required small end forward precursor acceleration needed to engage Motor Mode?
From his paper get get:
5uN applied to a 20kg 12U CubeSat, which includes the TE113 140mm long 0.5N/kw EmDrive.
Or an acceleration of 0.00000025m^2 for 10 milliseconds.
Not a lot.
Therefore the claims of need for preload are irrelevant in addition to being inherently nonsense (already described in the past, not repeating it now.)Note if the CubeSat is within 1,800km of the Earth, using reaction wheels to point the small end away from the Earth, will cause enough internal differential Doppler shift to engage Motor Mode without needing the precursor solenoid. Paper section attached.
And this just goes to prove the Shawyer continues to have zero concept of the definition of force, or how to perform basic physics calculations. At 1800 km altitude the gravitational acceleration is 5.97 m/s^2 The difference in gravitational pull, the gravity gradient, over a foot distance is around 4.5*10^-7 m/s^2. This gravity gradient causes a very tiny amount of tension in the walls of the cavity, but the photons do not care about this. The Doppler shift due to gravity (predicted by GR and verified by experiment) depends not on the gravity gradient, but on the gravitational acceleration (that larger 5.97 m/s^2 number.) None of this changes anything about the fact that the emDrive doesn't work, and is really tangential other than being an excellent indication of how Shawyer has nothing to contribute except complete nonsense.
It is all about differential Doppler shift and the resultant differential radiation pressure generated on the end plates.
Orientation matters as well, but rules of thumb are just starting points, the coupling is nontrivial, and many experimenters directly verified that they were getting appropriate coupling and energy in the cavity via multiple mechanisms. This, like the pre-load nonsense seems to be nothing more than a misguided attempt to discredit all of the experiments that have shown that Shawyer's claims are nonsense.Short question - it seems to me that Shawyer described in more detail the technology for tuning the RF path of the emdrive, and that other experimenters did not do this. That in Dresden, and Monomorphic did not correctly configure the RF emdrive system. Am I wrong?
Hi Alex,
Nicely spotted.
A loop coupler needs to be located on the side wall where the H field max occurs.
Likewise a stub coupler needs to be located on the side wall where the E field max occurs. -
#396 by meberbs on 31 Oct, 2020 15:32
-
I still do not understand well how to explain the problem - how to properly build a system for controlling RF power flows in an emdrive resonator. Earlier, I studied a simple resonator design example and saw good and bad RF energy flow patterns. Now I will try to show it in pictures.
The answer to this problem is simple. Don't bother, because it has already been demonstrated proven that the emDrive does not work (experimentally and theoretically)This design cannot create directional (one-way) thrust of the emdrive, as the laws of electrodynamics clearly do not allow it.
No design can by the laws of electrodynamics. So while it makes for pretty pictures, propagation of electromagnetic pulses through what is effectively a rectangular waveguide are not relevant or of value to this thread.Could you (as a specialist) somehow formalize the algorithm for setting up an emdrive? It is necessary to somehow correctly describe the Shawyer's tuning algorithm.
See my above post for just a few of the flaws in Shawyer's theories. I left out things like how he claims that pushing something to the left makes it move to the right, and several other fundamental problems that have been described before. No algorithm from Shawyer has any actual meaning whatsoever due to the multiple flaws in his theory. No one can formalize the algorithm, because doing so requires fixing the mistakes, and fixing the mistakes shows that there is no useful force.
-
#397 by Star One on 14 Nov, 2020 06:30
-
New article from Popular Mechanics:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a34652271/emdrive-thruster-physics-controversy-space-travel/ -
#398 by Alex_O on 14 Nov, 2020 07:28
-
I still do not understand well how to explain the problem - how to properly build a system for controlling RF power flows in an emdrive resonator. Earlier, I studied a simple resonator design example and saw good and bad RF energy flow patterns. Now I will try to show it in pictures.
The answer to this problem is simple. Don't bother, because it has already been demonstrated proven that the emDrive does not work (experimentally and theoretically)This design cannot create directional (one-way) thrust of the emdrive, as the laws of electrodynamics clearly do not allow it.
No design can by the laws of electrodynamics. So while it makes for pretty pictures, propagation of electromagnetic pulses through what is effectively a rectangular waveguide are not relevant or of value to this thread.Could you (as a specialist) somehow formalize the algorithm for setting up an emdrive? It is necessary to somehow correctly describe the Shawyer's tuning algorithm.
See my above post for just a few of the flaws in Shawyer's theories. I left out things like how he claims that pushing something to the left makes it move to the right, and several other fundamental problems that have been described before. No algorithm from Shawyer has any actual meaning whatsoever due to the multiple flaws in his theory. No one can formalize the algorithm, because doing so requires fixing the mistakes, and fixing the mistakes shows that there is no useful force.
Thanks. I understand your arguments, but it seems to me that you simply do not understand how emdrive can work, and that other people do not understand it either. It is possible that the author himself does not yet understand how emdrive works.
Read the story in the attached file. It follows from the story that the size of any photon is equal to the size of the Universe.
In short, if the universe is multidimensional, then it is possible that when photons jump between the walls inside a 3-dimensional resonator, there is also important physics going on outside the resonator (or in other dimensions).
If emdrive works and can create thrust, then you just need to do the right design and look for the right physics.
-
#399 by Star One on 14 Nov, 2020 09:56
-
Related new article that is original source for the PM article.
https://www.space.com/can-emdrive-space-propulsion-concept-work