Q does not mean amplify!!! - Q means less resistance at a specific frequency. So a high Q resonant cavity has a tighter tolerance of frequency bands it will not attenuate, and outside that it will attenuate any signal entering the cavity and kill it.
So his device needs tightly controlled resonant cavity which he can't get if using magnetron. Magnetrons can easily have +/-10MHz bandwidth drift and that means a couple of millimeters the resonant cavity must be tuned to which is very slack!!!
It makes *no* difference to this discussion.
Just like Einstein limit makes *no* difference to solving the FTL result at CERN.
Your clearly don't understand simple physics, nor can you learn.
Naudin said the force was 1000 times that which could be due to ions.
Bahder and Fazi point out that the force is greater the same way a high bypass jet engine produces more thrust than a low bypass jet engine of the same energy; it moves more mass with a lower velocity causing there to be more force.
Still enough to move ions, which is why it works.
Chek the quote from Wiki:
"Sinusoidally driven resonators having higher Q factors resonate with greater amplitudes (at the resonant frequency) but have ...". The "but have..." is irrelevant as the design of the resonator allows for fine tuning.
Mathew Orman
Then please, by the way of this example explain where do you see reaction-less force.
The EM field action on the wall results in reaction of accelerated motion of the EM drive or a craft.
Mathew Orman
If we are to believe the published test results of 160 millinewtons thrust at 450 watts input, looking at the photograph, it won't even lift its own weight.
I suppose somebody gullible might be persuaded to invest. There's one born every minute.
please, just believe me, you're an idiot.
You don't know basic physics and you can't be educated. That's an idiot.
If there is a force on the plate, then that force produces a force in the bolts that hold it to the frame, and the frame holds the transmitter, which must undergo a equal and opposite force. Thus, there is no net force to drive the machine.
You can't see that. Idiot. I don't mean it in a bad way, just that you don't understand Newton's laws, and thus you don't have a chance to understand physics.
Nope. You snipped the answer to ride over the results. Refer to earlier post, or the original article and its summary They have no idea why it works and they say in plain English:
In your opinion only, and I can take on board as a sensible comment. However, it is not supported by the research results:
The application in not in lifting but only for slight maneuvers on the orbit like changing orientation or orbital speed. Compared to ion thruster is has much larger thrust.
Mathew Orman
Thats completely correct - attenuation is less at the resonant frequency which means higher amplitude compared to non-resonant frequencies, but it does not mean it amplifies a signal where putting in a small signal leads to a bigger signal out.
The microwaves definitely do not get amplified inside a higher Q resonator. All that a high Q means is that frequencies outside of the resonance of the cavity are diminished in strength more quickly than the signals at the resonant frequency.
Transmitter just feeds low intensity radiation into the resonator it get amplified by hundred thousands of times. Also one can just use the microwave transmitter as a thruster but the thrust will be significantly smaller.
See the newscientist discussion:
Mathew Orman
Why is it necessary to repeat the same points over and over and over???? Nobody is gonna budge.
The thing is trivial to build. Just do it!!! Power it with an E-Cat and efficiency will be irrelevant. Put it in a boat. Drive the boat to the patent office. Figure out something not already disclosed to patent.
Sell the patent and buy an island complete with 70 virgins.
Everybody wins...especially this incessant thread...well...maybe 70 virgins don't win...
Done Deal.
You beat me to it. Apparently it works on the UK government, although someone certainly should be asking just who they talked out of all the money, and if they can get it back.
The UK government certainly isn't unique. Think: Solyndra
Well if the thing turned a couple of full circles - then cheating is hardly a proposition with 0.1N force even if you personally can't believe it.
Video of it working:
You would have to accuse them of being fakes which frankly is out of order.
Nothing new about it - it uses an old scientific principle: leverage. It's a lever of BS that pivots on a fulcrum of gullibility, and is intended to pry money loose.
Ed
Pretty sad for science, huh? Find the guy (or in one case, gal) who controls the distribution of tax payer money, and then kick back a percentage.
The research doesn't even have to be real. In fact, it is better if you work on some hypothesis that can't be falsified and is slathered in rich juicy bullshit - that way the gravy train just never ends.
Meanwhile, the honest researcher doesn't get funded for his far less exciting "real science".
BFD. There are many way I can make a thing like that rotate: vibrators and a clutch mechanism, magnetic interaction, blowers, all kinds of ways.
A YouTube Video is just weak. I'm sorry that you will settle for a "YouTube" video.
Well, they're fakes. The only question is have they fooled themselves or do they know they're fakes.
It's even sadder that science isn't unique. Think: unions.
Why does AGW come to mind?
...and the taxpayer gets ripped off seven ways from Sunday.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required