Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Posted By: Andrew PalfreymanMy impression is that, as I mentioned, he's simply using the radiation reaction from a 2-element Yagi. In space, that would qualify as "a working thruster", just as would a photon rocket. However, if his optimisations are worth anything (and I don't fully understand them, especially the number of bits required for tuning accuracy - can anyone shed light?), then he's actually doing antenna design optimisation.He might think that if he comes up with some huge Q that he can develop enough radiation pressure to do some good. Really colossal Q's aren't very amenable to apertures of any size. I can't see that as holding any promise at all.
I just got off the phone with him, actually. He's an applied mathematician. He's building something right now. I'm still climbing the learning curve on the patent details, and am going to give him a little email lecture on OU, just as I gave Serrano.
Posted By: Andrew PalfreymanHere's a general question about Noether and conservation. Here's two ways of expressing it, here in the case of momentum:I woould not attempt to express Noether in either of those terms. Noether is a very general theorem that has been applied to CoM, and CoE, so the first statement that CoM falls out from Noether due to spatial invariance of Newton's Laws would be an OK statement to me. CoE falls out provided that one cannot go back in time.
1. Conservation of momentum is a special case of Noether's theorem, and simply says that if the laws of physics do not change from place to place, then it must hold.
2. Conservation of momentum is a special case of Noether's theorem, and simply says that because the laws of physics do not change when the position coordinates are reflected about the origin, then it must hold.
Same goes for energy, but now in respect to time.
"place to place" => "time to time"
"when the position coordinates are reflected about the origin" => "when time is reversed."
Are both these descriptions right, or is one better than the other (superset or something)?
Posted By: joshsPosted By: Andrew PalfreymanMy impression is that, as I mentioned, he's simply using the radiation reaction from a 2-element Yagi. In space, that would qualify as "a working thruster", just as would a photon rocket. However, if his optimisations are worth anything (and I don't fully understand them, especially the number of bits required for tuning accuracy - can anyone shed light?), then he's actually doing antenna design optimisation.He might think that if he comes up with some huge Q that he can develop enough radiation pressure to do some good. Really colossal Q's aren't very amenable to apertures of any size. I can't see that as holding any promise at all.
I just got off the phone with him, actually. He's an applied mathematician. He's building something right now. I'm still climbing the learning curve on the patent details, and am going to give him a little email lecture on OU, just as I gave Serrano.
Posted By: AngusThat is the same for RF cavities. Finite conductivity in the walls results in some absorption of each incident wavefront, limiting Q. Any dielectric loss converts power to heat on each pass as well. It is routine to displace the air with dry nitrogen in high power waveguides in order to reduce such losses even though the wave propagation is incident.Posted By: joshsPosted By: Andrew PalfreymanMy impression is that, as I mentioned, he's simply using the radiation reaction from a 2-element Yagi. In space, that would qualify as "a working thruster", just as would a photon rocket. However, if his optimisations are worth anything (and I don't fully understand them, especially the number of bits required for tuning accuracy - can anyone shed light?), then he's actually doing antenna design optimisation.He might think that if he comes up with some huge Q that he can develop enough radiation pressure to do some good. Really colossal Q's aren't very amenable to apertures of any size. I can't see that as holding any promise at all.
I just got off the phone with him, actually. He's an applied mathematician. He's building something right now. I'm still climbing the learning curve on the patent details, and am going to give him a little email lecture on OU, just as I gave Serrano.
In optical cavities, which is all I know anything about, very high Q corresponds to very highly reflecting mirrors. The cavity power can be large, but correspondingly little gets out.
Posted By: AngusMy limited understanding of Noether's theorem seems to say that if the laws are symmetric in time (i.e. do not vary as time goes on) then energy is conserved.My understanding of the application of Noether to energy conservation is that the underlying presumption is that time "goes on".
Posted By: AngusErgo, on both ways of looking at it, high Q does not have a lot to do with radiation pressure, but has everything to do with line width.Or for RF types: percentage bandwidth. I don't see any land yacht races using overgrown LASER pointers as the propulsion units. I wonder why.
Posted By: AngusMy limited understanding of Noether's theorem seems to say that if the laws are symmetric in time (i.e. do not vary as time goes on) then energy is conserved.You've put both my alternatives into the same sentence, so I assume you feel that one is as good as the other; "symmetric in time" and "do not vary as time goes on" are the two.
Posted By: Andrew PalfreymanPosted By: AngusMy limited understanding of Noether's theorem seems to say that if the laws are symmetric in time (i.e. do not vary as time goes on) then energy is conserved.You've put both my alternatives into the same sentence, so I assume you feel that one is as good as the other; "symmetric in time" and "do not vary as time goes on" are the two.
Posted By: Andrew PalfreymanI didn't state it was exploitation, but merely asked the question. As for The Woodward Effect, the jury remains out.
Posted By: Andrew PalfreymanNo, that would be too mundane. If going far out, it's best to go really far out. It is not an expression of a change in energy being expressed as an inertial quantity, because E/c^2 is normally an extremely tiny quantity.
There is no dispute in the mainstream that this is what we find. This is different. It has to be different because the net energy in the LC circuit you describe never changes, but instead just sloshes around. There's no net change in total energy-inertia in what you describe.
State of the art for solid state energy density is around 100 KJ/Kg, but that's a dm/m of ~1E-13.
What's the "obvious thing" you want to say?
Posted By: legendre@Andrew (or anyone else with a proper understanding)In that case it is a fantasy built on a small mathematical error.
Am I correct that this 'Woodward effect' centers around the change in rest mass of an inductor or capacitor, as it transitions between charged and discharged states? The basic implementation would be an LC tank circuit, with the physical L and C elements situated diametrically opposed, on opposite ends of a linear transducer element?
The core tenet being that the L/C elements change rest mass - very slightly, per E=MC^2 - as they charge & discharge?
Making it go is like this: You set the tank circuit oscillating, and power the transducer probably synched to (or actually with) the tank signal. The xducer pushes the L/C apart when the L is +mass (charged) and the C is -mass (discharged), then on the next half-cycle, the xducer pulls in, while the L is -mass and the C is +mass.
Each half-cycle produces a slight but consistent net directional thrust along the same vector, alternately pulling towards then kicking off of the more massive side - right?
If this is actually the theoretical basis, it's got a very, very obvious problem. Nah, it can't be.. people smart enough to figure this out just +have to+ know more than I do about this shit!?
(ETA: Edits.. and more edits.)
Posted By: Andrew PalfreymanIsn't it odd that they are not equivalent from the perspective of inertia?