OK, third time is the charm (same error only twice) on the proposition that dispersion caused by an accelerating frame of reference implied an accelerating frame of reference caused by a dispersive cavity resonator to 1st order using massless, perfectly conducting cavity. Quickie calculation to rotate waveguide into doppler frame for acceleration g.g = (X[subm,n])^2*(c/4*pi^2)*lambda^2*((1/a^2)-(1/b^2))where a anb b are the end plate radii and the X are the Bessel function zeros.X[subm,n] = m-th root of dJ[subn](x)/dx = 0[1,0]=3.83, [1,1]=1.84, [1,2]=3.05, [2,0]=7.02, [2,1]=5.33, [2,2]=8.54, [3,0]=10.17, etc.Lambda < cutoff wavelength.Lambda is the free space wavelength c/f.giving thrust per photon:T = (X[subm,n])^2*(h/4*pi^2)*lambda*((1/a^2)-(1/b^2))If the number of photons is power * Q / hf then I should be able to try some numbers.T = P*Q*(X[subm,n])^2*(1/c*4*pi^2)*lambda^2*((1/a^2)-(1/b^2))TM211 T=9.84e-5 vs 9.12e-5 P=16.9 Q=7320 TM211 T=2.39e-4 vs 5.01e-5 P=16.7 Q=18100TE012 T=1.32e-4 vs 5.54e-5 P=2.6 Q=22000Close enough for gummint work ?So if you have the dispersion relation for any cavity, can you now directly calculate Thrust (force ?) as GR ??Edit: Does it also mean, as in the acoustic case, that you can optimize the cavity shape ?

OK, third time is the charm (same error only twice) on the proposition that dispersion caused by an accelerating frame of reference implied an accelerating frame of reference caused by a dispersive cavity resonator to 1st order using massless, perfectly conducting cavity. Quickie calculation to rotate waveguide into doppler frame for acceleration g.

Quoting Rodal.1) What is the actual acceleration (formula used for acceleration and variables inside it) of the accelerating frame of reference under your consideration?2) Defining thrust force of a rocket to be in the same direction as the motion of the rocket, what is the direction of the thrust force according to your EM drive formula? Is it directed towards the small end or towards the large end?3) For your formula, does it make a difference whether the cavity's mode is TE (outer circumferentially electric with an inner axial magnetic field) or TM (outer circumferentially magnetic with an inner axial electric field) ?4) So the proposition that an accelerating frame of reference caused by a dispersive cavity resonator gives you a net thrust (as long as the ends have different diameter) proportional to Q even though there are no photons escaping the cavity? What is the explanation for conservation of momentum? That one has to consider an open system because of the accelerating frame of reference?

Quote from: Notsosureofit on 12/02/2014 08:36 pmOK, third time is the charm (same error only twice) on the proposition that dispersion caused by an accelerating frame of reference implied an accelerating frame of reference caused by a dispersive cavity resonator to 1st order using massless, perfectly conducting cavity. Quickie calculation to rotate waveguide into doppler frame for acceleration g.QuoteQuoting Rodal.1) What is the actual acceleration (formula used for acceleration and variables inside it) of the accelerating frame of reference under your consideration?2) Defining thrust force of a rocket to be in the same direction as the motion of the rocket, what is the direction of the thrust force according to your EM drive formula? Is it directed towards the small end or towards the large end?3) For your formula, does it make a difference whether the cavity's mode is TE (outer circumferentially electric with an inner axial magnetic field) or TM (outer circumferentially magnetic with an inner axial electric field) ?4) So the proposition that an accelerating frame of reference caused by a dispersive cavity resonator gives you a net thrust (as long as the ends have different diameter) proportional to Q even though there are no photons escaping the cavity? What is the explanation for conservation of momentum? That one has to consider an open system because of the accelerating frame of reference?Would you mind answering these questions presented earlier? Particularly question 4. Are you interacting with anything that is outside of the cavity?

The Dr. White QV thrust model got a down peer review.http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.5359....

Not really peer review. arxiv is the peerless reviewless. But a useful place to find quick opines. You'll find lots of terrible nonsense on arxiv, but you'll also find all sorts of pre-peer review stuff and all the guys from the national labs use it. It also has a lot of crank stuff that would never make it into any peer review journal, so you need to be careful.

No, sorry, the answer to life, the universe and everything is not 376.73031Don't view this report as an Air Force internal study. Rather, it is an AFRL contract report. The author of the contract report apparently has also made controversial statements regarding UFOs (he is quoted as saying UFOs Are "Supremely Advanced Technology") according to the following links and YouTube video:http://www.theufochronicles.com/2013/05/ufo-research-by-nasa-affiliated.htmlhttp://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1ed8uo/dr_eric_w_davis_of_nasas_breakthrough_propulsion/http://massufosightings.blogspot.com/2013/07/exopolitical-disclosure-dr-eric-w-davis.html

Just a quick question because it can be kind of hard to find this:Has there been any news on experimental followups to the summer paper that got so much attention? How long would you expect it to take?Thanks in advance!

Don't view this report as an Air Force internal study. Rather, it is an AFRL contract report. The author of the contract report apparently has also made controversial statements regarding UFOs (he is quoted as saying UFOs Are "Supremely Advanced Technology") according to the following links and YouTube video

But if that picture cannot be reproduced regularly, at different times, viewing angles, lighting conditions, and so forth, how could it be called remote viewing?Answer: Analytical overlay. Without corect analysis, the data is useless.

At 30:25 or so, the lecturer talks about Ed, the scambuster, sent by the CIA to vet the results of the experimentors. Turns out, part of the procedure was a previous list of various sites kept in envelopes in a safe. The sites were chosen at random from a previously made list. This is not random enough.

Quote from: SpoCk0nd0pe on 12/04/2014 01:50 amJust a quick question because it can be kind of hard to find this:Has there been any news on experimental followups to the summer paper that got so much attention? How long would you expect it to take?Thanks in advance!Welcome to the forum. No clue. We're all chomping at the bit for official word.

The hateful reaction (of theoretical physicists) is really counter productive.

Often in modern science people try to defend the big, long, ongoing projects because their jobs depend on it. Not to say those projects do not create results but they often drain the funding for alternative approaches that may be much cheaper to look at while some times creating no results themselves.

Besides, theoretical physicists have their own skeletons in their closets, e.g. with all the popular black hole talk they hide that there can practically be no event horizon because it would take forever to form (infinite gravitational time dilatation) from our observation standpoint.