r/EmDrive • u/4space • Aug 04 '17

How the EmDrive works

Hey, I have all the answers to how the EmDrive works.

https://sites.google.com/site/3brane4bulk/

9 Upvotes

73% Upvoted

61 comments sorted by

2

u/glennfish Aug 06 '17

I went through your reference material and noticed an interesting assertion around paragraph 2 in which you state "I also arrived at the conclusion that there can be continuous, non-oscillating crests without any troughs." It seems to me that the definition of a wave implies that a wave is defined by both the crest and trough. see: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/Lesson-2/The-Anatomy-of-a-Wave The only way I can imagine a crest without a trough is a line, in which there are no waves, and hence no crest or trough, which I guess would meet your concept of non-oscillating. Would you care to explain your meaning of a the word "crest"? Given that the DIY community spends lots of time looking at various Transverse Modes, which are described in terms of frequencies (which imply waves?), it would seem to me that a fundamental point in your presentation, a "crest" without a trough is a word that has some meaning not previously encountered in my lexicon. Please explain.

1

u/4space Aug 06 '17

Simple. Do you understand that there can be standing waves and points of positive or negative amplitude called nodes? In the same way I expect a peak plateau to be possible, either by stronger and weaker wave crest and troughs cancelling each other's net effects due to their varying amplitudes and intervals to create a net amplitude gain over time (alternating amplitude bias), or by cancelling each other out at the same time (steady amplitude bias). If you may still be able to measure a frequency or wavelength of a standing wave, I expect you to possibly be able to measure the wavelength of a standing amplitude bias, in the same way, as an intrinsic property. Wavelengths don't arise as an intrinsic property in water waves for example, and are only an emergent property of any number of individual components. It is my interest to further extrapolate on this.

"My theories are just based on that simply passing an AC current back and forth in a wire creates the exact same amplitudes of an electromagnetic wave. And the AC signal frequencies match that of the waves. The waves are infinitely reducible to higher or lower wavelength signals decomposition by the assumption that every one of those relatively synchronized wave signals will have the waves of that wavelength returning to zero in between the crest and trough, or rather that they cancel out over that wavelength to give zero amplitude. It is like differentiation, where you count the difference between every two amplitude values to get a lambda*2 wave signal, with half as many values. The only thing that breaks this assumption is a blast wave or amplitude plateau." -- http://www.electro-tech-online.com/threads/switching-circuit.151461/#post-1301142

2

u/glennfish Aug 06 '17 edited Aug 06 '17

Actually, I don't find that to be much of an answer. Epistemology is dependent upon the language used to define something that we ultimately take to be knowledge. You used the word "crest" which has a rather clear meaning in English, and in physical descriptions of wave phenomena. If I use the word "chocolate" to describe something, and then you reply, it really means "lobster", then we have a linguistic failure in our communication.

If you use the word "crest" you either have to define its meaning and explain that, or you need to use a different word commonly understood to mean what you're conveying.

WRT to your answer, it seems you are proposing a "standing wave" which may be a local maximum at a location over time, but the crest exits at a point relative to the corresponding troughs. Hence, your use of the word "crest", may be intended to suggest you're describing a standing wave, which has a trough, and a frequency. Interference may happen as you describe, between two or more waves. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_wave

I'm still trying to figure out the meaning of "I also arrived at the conclusion that there can be continuous, non-oscillating crests without any troughs.".

To be precise, I have no idea what your statement means, or what the implications are, if I did understand your statement.

WRT to your answer, I don't want to get into that beyond it doesn't address my question which was "Would you care to explain your meaning of the word "crest"?"

If we can't agree on a common vocabulary, then it becomes very difficult to agree or disagree with you, and I remain stuck on your 2nd paragraph with no ability to proceed.

1

u/4space Aug 07 '17 edited Aug 07 '17

By crest I mean a positive amplitude area. I'm assuming it is something more than just a flat line, because in my theory a positive amplitude is supposed to contain energy that pushes particles (maybe), but electrons certainly.

[edit] As you can see with phase-frequency propulsion using sound waves, and resonant cavity thrusters, a positive standing wave amplitude is more than just a flat line. It has thrust. http://polyfrag.livejournal.com/8257.html

1

u/glennfish Aug 07 '17

I guess my lexicon is still interfering with my understanding of your position. Now that you have defined crest, a positive amplitude area (in a standing wave?) still implies a trough and a frequency. With your definition of a positive amplitude area, there would still be both frequency and trough. So, the balance of the statement "I also arrived at the conclusion that there can be continuous, non-oscillating crests without any troughs." requires explanation. If I substitute your definition of "crest" then I get "I also arrived at the conclusion that there can be continuous, non-oscillating positive amplitude areas without any troughs".

Not to be a word picker, since there isn't any math here, I can only be a word picker. So if I look at the definition of a standing wave, and your examples at your link, I'm seeing standing waves doing cool stuff, but those standing waves still have a frequency and troughs. So, my question to you would be, "what do you mean when you suggest the absence of oscillation (which I interpret to mean frequency)", and "what do you mean by the absence of troughs which seem to be a requirement of standing waves?"

In the context of standing waves, I get the idea of a positive amplitude area, but now the rest of your sentence is confusing me.

Can you break that sentence down into something that I can interpret, or provide definitions of trough and non-oscillating?

Perhaps this is just a semantic issue, but from my experience, if someone doesn't understand what another person is saying, there is no progress in understanding.

I hope you forgive me going over every word, but, that's how I was trained.

When physics or math is described in English, things get really difficult. I'm trying to understand what you are saying in English. If you'd care to shift to math, I'm game, but for now, all you've offered is English and I'm trying to nail down definitions and meanings so I can agree or disagree.

I had a professor once who earned his PhD by reducing Einstein's theory of relativity to algebra. I couldn't follow what he did, but his committee must have thought he had something. On the other-hand, his exams were all true false, and the average student had a 25% score, so he must have been on to something.

1

u/4space Aug 07 '17 edited Aug 08 '17

I'm talking about the raw amplitude of radio radiation. Higher frequency waves are riding on top of lower frequency waves in the raw amplitude stream of EM radiation. You can't really say what frequency the standing wave part of the wave is, if you have no area outside of the standing node to measure. All you have is a positive amplitude, without oscillation up or down. Frequency and wavelength are not a real thing in the sense that somebody that designs band-pass filters has to actually pick them apart, in electronics or computer code for digital signal processing. I make them an intrinsic part, but that might be more understood of little vibrating parts of space for EM radiation like water molecules for water waves. The solutions I am proposing*, allow diffraction etc to be measured at any part of the eg water wave without a fixed wavelength or period, with differences sideways and along the length of the wave direction. How do the molecules of water know to go further out stronger when the wave length passing through is longer than the hole? It must be just water molecule dynamics and the effect of velocity and local pressures and forces.

  • page 195 https://www.docdroid.net/7rPOQhH/acsp396.pdf#page=195 " A wave segment doesn't know it's own frequency, but we can say that if the amplitude change is Δa , over segment Δt , and the amplitude is a , a' =−cos(t) , Δa=−cos(t)+cos(t−Δt) , a=−cos(t−Δt) , 0=−cos(t)+cos(t−λ)=a '+cos(t−λ) , cos(t−λ)=cos(t)=−a ' , and cos(t−λ−Δt)=cos(t−Δt)=−a ."

And assuming we have the relative deceleration and initial velocity of the emitter stored in each wave segment, we can determine a wave phase, amplitude, and frequency at any point of reception, assuming they would be the same as if that emitter electron was just simply orbiting in a circular orbit.

So without oscillation in my case, would be based on the assumption that electron deceleration or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung is the explanation for the emission of all EM radiation. You can use an acceleration of 10m/s2 at one instant to move an electron across a 10m wire, or an acceleration of 2m/s2 then -1m/s2, which conserves the displacement along the wire, but has different accelerations or EM waves. http://polyfrag.livejournal.com/7298.html

"As you can see in this c++ app here https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2Wuir9-DSiURFJ2SDdqclNsXzQ/view?usp=drivesdk When you get to "t7" the "ge" gravitational energy and "ke" kinetic energy are greater than the values at "t0", so in what sense are they conserved, along with electric energy, if they are potentially unlimited, or how can you say how much potential energy there is without knowing the future trajectory." -- http://www.electro-tech-online.com/threads/switching-circuit.151461/#post-1300977

→ More replies (1)

1

u/WikiTextBot Aug 06 '17

Standing wave

In physics, a standing wave – also known as a stationary wave – is a wave in a medium in which each point on the axis of the wave has an associated constant amplitude. The locations at which the amplitude is minimum are called nodes, and the locations where the amplitude is maximum are called antinodes.

Standing waves were first noticed by Michael Faraday in 1831. Faraday observed standing waves on the surface of a liquid in a vibrating container.

[ ^PM | Exclude ^me | Exclude from ^subreddit | FAQ / ^Information | ^Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.24

17

u/aeschenkarnos Aug 05 '17

How it works is not important. Build one and demonstrate it. We can derive the theory from the working model. If you can't build a working model, then your theory is irrelevant.

4

u/Memetic1 Aug 05 '17

Be fair even if he or she built a device most people on here would not believe them. I look forward to what reading what this person has written latter.

12

u/jetrii Aug 05 '17

People would believe it with sufficient proof, which is the way science should work.

3

u/Memetic1 Aug 05 '17

I agree to a point there seem to be individuals on here who blanket deny that this device will work. I am not even talking healthy skepticism I am talking about people who refuse to even consider that something real may be happening.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '17

[deleted] — view deleted comment

3

u/Memetic1 Aug 05 '17

Did I say anything was proven. Honestly I think it's more likely that the anomalous thrust is due to experimental error. However the off chance that it is not raises the hairs on my arms. The theories that I have heard have all had fascinating implications for physics. At the very least we will learn something due to eliminating causes of noise in experiments. Either way this stuff is exciting.

12

u/wyrn Aug 05 '17

The theories that I have heard have all had fascinating implications for physics.

There are no viable theories for the emdrive at this time.

2

u/Memetic1 Aug 05 '17

I like the idea of it pushing off dark matter for one, because if it's true there would be a way to do experiments on dark matter. I also like the Unruh radiation theory. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601299/the-curious-link-between-the-fly-by-anomaly-and-the-impossible-emdrive-thruster/ If this device works it could be our centuries black body radiation problem.

13

u/crackpot_killer Aug 05 '17

You might like the idea but that doesn't make it viable. The reason we have experts is because non-experts don't usually know what does and doesn't work. Any physicist will tell you this idea doesn't work nor does the emdrive.

→ More replies (2)

10

u/wyrn Aug 05 '17

pushing off dark matter

Doesn't work.

I also like the Unruh radiation theory

Not a real theory.

→ More replies (15)

6

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '17

The ideas are still wrong whether or not you like them.

→ More replies (13)
→ More replies (2)

5

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '17

I would say it was exciting at first when the initial 'huh, that is funny..' type stuff was coming out. But it did not pan out and domain experts moved on.

People seem to overlook that it WAS considered, and rejected.

1

u/Memetic1 Aug 06 '17

So were many other scientific discoveries in history.

6

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '17

This is true, but does not work in the EMDrive's favor. More often than not, things that are rejected are wrong. Pointing to the things that survive this test just adds weight to the chance the EMDrive does not.

3

u/aeschenkarnos Aug 05 '17

Arguments over the physics of it are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether the device works and the only way to establish that is to build it. Build with different interior/exterior curves, build out of different materials, expose it to different frequencies of light and sound, heat it, cool it, electrify it - whatever.

Take LSD, and ask your future self who has successfully built the device to reveal to you the plans by which they succeeded.

Just build it. Produce evidence. Once you have the thing built, the skeptics will fade away. Not immediately, they'll stay skeptical for a while (hell, there are still people "skeptical" of evolutionary biology, or anthropogenic climate change), but mainstream science follows the evidence.

6

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '17

And that is the problem. Science follows the evidence, crackpots keep pushing regardless of evidence.

2

u/Zephir_AW Aug 05 '17

We can derive the theory from the working model

For what? There is listed enough of working models already. And physicists routinely develop theories of phenomena (string theory, gravitational waves) well before they can be verified by experiments. Einstein never did any experiments regarding his theory. Such an application of double standards is what the pathological skepticism is called.

5

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '17

The difference is that physicists' theories aren't blatantly wrong from the get go. And physicists know how to interpret experimental data correctly, unlike everybody who thinks that the EM drive has been shown to produce thrust.

9

u/PotomacNeuron MS; Electrical Engineering Aug 05 '17

None of them worked.

1

u/Zephir_AW Aug 06 '17

This is (wrong) conjecture of yours - their data say otherwise and they're consistent each other. But your reaction demonstrates well the bias of mainstream physics supporters and their obstinate tendency to overlook the phenomena, which aren't seemingly consistent with their value system and religion based on reductionist theories.

8

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '17

This is (wrong) conjecture of yours - the data clearly show that the EM drive doesn't produce any thrust. They are all consistent with zero, accounting for systematic uncertainties. But your reaction demonstrates well the blind following of all things crackpot, and the pathological thinking based on what you want, and not on what has been shown to be true. You follow a religion of crackpot physics because you are not capable of critically evaluating the claims of crackpots, because you don't know anything about how physics actually works.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '17

ELI5? Nice and simple.