It's really not about personalities, but rather about our precious corpus of knowledge we call science. EmDrive as described violates conservation of momentum, which is linked, via Noether's symmetry theory, to the invariance of physics under displacements in space. Or in layman's terms, the electron charge is the same in Hoboken as it is in Hampstead. Everyone (with at least one notable exception and his acolyte) understands this. Therefore, if EmDrive works then it topples the entire edifice of physics. This is not a small thing, and one should expect a suitably graded response from science professionals. It's perfectly predictable.
Quote from: Flyby on 07/29/2015 08:17 pm...The moment you're no longer morally allowed to question things that are true, only by appearance, you slip into what i would call "scientific fundamentalism". A dogmatic attitude has never been very productive......As long as Sean Carroll is not trying to forbid or even impede discussions or experiments on EMdrive the term fundamentalism seems a bit exaggerated. Fundamentalism kills those days, you know, as in the past. He is just stating an opinion, as an expert in evaluation of crazy ideas of how stuff works at a basic level, he must see thousands a year. In not so diplomatic terms all right, but he is not talking to kids that Santa Claus doesn't exist (even if he is still working on the Grinch).Talking of productivity, what was the productivity in terms of confirmed effects/knowledge originating from the fringe science scene lately, compared to the productivity of research starting from speculative but academic subjects ? Who is to designate what is fringe if not the academics ? Who's faults if practically all fringe claims go nowhere, dogmatic academics or not so fun physical reality ?
...The moment you're no longer morally allowed to question things that are true, only by appearance, you slip into what i would call "scientific fundamentalism". A dogmatic attitude has never been very productive......
Quote from: tchernik on 07/29/2015 06:44 pmI mostly agree, but with a few caveats: - Yes, lots of people would like to see physics or big science fail for once. Why? because we are human, that's why. We are basically irrational apes and we root for the underdog and hate the authority "restricting" us. Science is not really an enemy of course, it's just the method and the changing dialectic discourse of what we know about the world thanks to that method, but in the eye of many, it represents the closet thing to ecclesiastic authority. And even more now, when it has imbibed itself (and being mixed up) with some political and societal opinions (e.g. climate politics and its detractors are always fighting for saying they have the scientific truth on their side).Great way of wording it. Some people see laws like COE and COM, the speed of light, etc., as cruelly restrictive, and would love to see them come crashing down.Quote - The impact of this being true and the unfairness of having Carroll's or other people's egos bruised are hardly on the same league. If the fans are wrong, the critics can gloat but hardly anyone else will be impacted in particular, on the contrary case, the critics get the bashing and gloating by virtue of being in the tiny minority vs a spiteful majority. But so what? the critics won't die because of it and if something like this is true, life as we know it will change and everyone on Earth (including the critics) will be impacted.I don't follow the logic here. If I believe X, and X has great implications if true and no implications if false, do I somehow have the moral high ground? Should Carroll have been kinder simply because the emdrive being true would be awesome? Are all the smug posts saying "I told you so!" (I'm talking on the web in general here, not in this thread) after the recent Tajmar result okay because they are in the minority, fighting the "spiteful" majority?I guess what I'm saying is, that yes, Carroll probably is attached to his view of the universe. Likewise, it's pretty clear from reading this forum that some people are attached to the emdrive being true, and would be very disappointed to find out otherwise. This makes for terrible science, because it means "believers" have an emotional incentive to find positive results, and "sceptics" have an emotional incentive to find null results. Carroll's comments don't help the situation, but the comments going after him are indicative that this thread is falling into the exact same trap. If Carroll has made his comments about the nonexistence of cold fusion or faster than light neutrinos, would he have gotten the same response?
I mostly agree, but with a few caveats: - Yes, lots of people would like to see physics or big science fail for once. Why? because we are human, that's why. We are basically irrational apes and we root for the underdog and hate the authority "restricting" us. Science is not really an enemy of course, it's just the method and the changing dialectic discourse of what we know about the world thanks to that method, but in the eye of many, it represents the closet thing to ecclesiastic authority. And even more now, when it has imbibed itself (and being mixed up) with some political and societal opinions (e.g. climate politics and its detractors are always fighting for saying they have the scientific truth on their side).
- The impact of this being true and the unfairness of having Carroll's or other people's egos bruised are hardly on the same league. If the fans are wrong, the critics can gloat but hardly anyone else will be impacted in particular, on the contrary case, the critics get the bashing and gloating by virtue of being in the tiny minority vs a spiteful majority. But so what? the critics won't die because of it and if something like this is true, life as we know it will change and everyone on Earth (including the critics) will be impacted.
If I knew that...I'd have better answers!
Quote from: Chrochne on 07/29/2015 07:42 pmWall, I disagree especially when you say taking life less seriously. This is not the case. I recognize, when you can be critique, but I also recognize, when someone show arogance as Mr. Caroll unfortunately did.Those people use to fall for this side because they know their status and are sure in their knowledge. So, few insults would not hurt only support my work right? Agorance is easy. True critic trough experiments is hard and time costing. None of you here that go for critic actually did not done any of that, even when I recognize you have knowledge I will never have.As I said you guys have good critic and you are polite thank you for that, but there is too much experiments already done and none from the "Critic" side. Your knowledge and logic is great, but I really lack some data from you guys.Edit: Sorry for my English it is really not good.No worries on the English.It's no surprise data from critics is short, where is their incentive? A "believer", if it works out as planned, will be on the ground floor of the greatest breakthrough for a century, or have the opportunity to get some good IP or even a Nobel prize. The "skeptic", if everything goes as planned for them, will just manage to prove a largely anonymous internet crowd wrong, and will probably be resented for doing so. The incentives make no sense for a skeptic to actually do any experimenting themselves.So I suppose in that sense, it is the believers who will have to carry the day after all, as it requires a non zero belief in the emdrive to bother testing it in the first place.
Wall, I disagree especially when you say taking life less seriously. This is not the case. I recognize, when you can be critique, but I also recognize, when someone show arogance as Mr. Caroll unfortunately did.Those people use to fall for this side because they know their status and are sure in their knowledge. So, few insults would not hurt only support my work right? Agorance is easy. True critic trough experiments is hard and time costing. None of you here that go for critic actually did not done any of that, even when I recognize you have knowledge I will never have.As I said you guys have good critic and you are polite thank you for that, but there is too much experiments already done and none from the "Critic" side. Your knowledge and logic is great, but I really lack some data from you guys.Edit: Sorry for my English it is really not good.
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/29/2015 11:32 pmIf I knew that...I'd have better answers!And if we knew more we would have a GUT down pat.
Quote from: SeeShells on 07/29/2015 11:42 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/29/2015 11:32 pmIf I knew that...I'd have better answers!And if we knew more we would have a GUT down pat. I had a friend ask me today if it was even worth it, you know exploring the solar system because we had probes sent to all the planets and not much more needed to be done. The money could be spent here on earth feeding the hungry masses. I sent him this.http://www.space.com/30074-trillion-dollar-asteroid-2011-uw158-earth-flyby.html
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/29/2015 07:02 pmIt's really not about personalities, but rather about our precious corpus of knowledge we call science. EmDrive as described violates conservation of momentum, which is linked, via Noether's symmetry theory, to the invariance of physics under displacements in space. Or in layman's terms, the electron charge is the same in Hoboken as it is in Hampstead. Everyone (with at least one notable exception and his acolyte) understands this. Therefore, if EmDrive works then it topples the entire edifice of physics. This is not a small thing, and one should expect a suitably graded response from science professionals. It's perfectly predictable.I would have to disagree entirely. Why is it ok to assume that the Emdrive must work the way Shawyer's Theory says it does? My personally problem with your argument is that all the criticism has the built in assumption that If the EmDrive works Shawyer's theory must be right. When it could also be possible that If the EmDrive works Shawyer's theory cannot completely be used to explain it. I suspect that at best his thrust scaling predictions will be a good approximation.
Quote from: birchoff on 07/29/2015 11:34 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/29/2015 07:02 pmIt's really not about personalities, but rather about our precious corpus of knowledge we call science. EmDrive as described violates conservation of momentum, which is linked, via Noether's symmetry theory, to the invariance of physics under displacements in space. Or in layman's terms, the electron charge is the same in Hoboken as it is in Hampstead. Everyone (with at least one notable exception and his acolyte) understands this. Therefore, if EmDrive works then it topples the entire edifice of physics. This is not a small thing, and one should expect a suitably graded response from science professionals. It's perfectly predictable.I would have to disagree entirely. Why is it ok to assume that the Emdrive must work the way Shawyer's Theory says it does? My personally problem with your argument is that all the criticism has the built in assumption that If the EmDrive works Shawyer's theory must be right. When it could also be possible that If the EmDrive works Shawyer's theory cannot completely be used to explain it. I suspect that at best his thrust scaling predictions will be a good approximation.I do believe that you've misunderstood me, Sir.What I said in no way reflects upon Shawyer's theory or lack thereof. It's a general comment about how a mainstream professional scientist, accustomed to making media pronouncements and well-known to the media, would be expected to react. Really, there are no surprises here. He's almost duty bound to call it crap.If I were outraged by this and wished to mount a counter-argument, I would not go the well-trodden route taken by the fringe and the ignorami by portraying scientists as white lab-coated mandarins floating about in their expensive laboratories clutching clipboards, condescending to everybody, and dishing out pronouncements like stone tablets.Instead, I'd simply quote Feynman (if I could find the quote ) where he talks about Mother Nature as the Mistress of all science, and that at the end of the day, since all we can learn is Her data, all we have is that data, and we must perforce follow that data. If our theory contradicts the data, and we have triple-checked the integrity of our data-taking, then it's our theory that has to go, because the data is the boss.
Quote from: WarpTech on 07/29/2015 04:39 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/29/2015 04:04 pmIf he is still using the ARC balance, then it uses special "C-flexural" bearings. These come with an intrinsic restoring force and prevent the balance from acting like a ballistic galvanometer.http://c-flex.com/These bearings are now beloved these many years by Woodward. As a matter of fact, right after the "null result report" by Tajmar and Buldrini re. a Woodward Effect experiment they reported upon at STAIF2006, Tom Mahood (an ex-student of Woodward whose M.Sc. thesis was on the Woodward Effect) went off to his well-equipped home workshop and ran up the "ARClite", which Woodward has used ever since. It was a copy of the Buldrini design.Therefore, it is most likely that this persistent measured force is a real force and really is persistent.He says he used a knife edge balance, which is what's shown in the photo. There is no bearing. The only restoring force is gravity acting on the counter weight. He's counter-balanced the EM drive to the resolution of 1 uN of force. Which means, the restoring force must be < 1 uN. I would agree that IF there were a bearing with a restoring force, then to persist in the displaced position would require a continuous force. But given that it was simply a knife edge, there is nothing but gravity to restore the displacement back to the origin. A good control test would've been to displace the EM drive to this level of displacement with the power off, and then determine how long it takes to restore the displacement back to the origin.IMO, the correlation with temperature is a red herring. Both are slow to change and he didn't do anything to investigate if they are or are not correlated.ToddThe knife edge itself is a means by which the balance may NOT return to its original position at all (within the very small displacements that are involved), depending on the contact forces at the knife edge, and how sharp is the knife edge.At the knife edge you have "mountains" and "valleys" in the nanometer range. Due to the contact force you have stresses at the peaks of these mountains that can be readily be shown are in the plastic, permanent deformation range of the elasto-plastic metal used for the knife. Due to contact, there is a friction, due to the interweaving of contacting mountains and valleys under the contact stresses. The force displacement (at the scale of the roughness of the knife edge) relationship is nonlinear and hysteretic (governing the contact stresses and strains of what is macroscopically known as friction): this results in stick-slip at the contact of the knife edge. Depending on the contact load and the sharpness of the knife edge, the balance may not actually come back at all to its neutral position and may stay in the new position at a slight angle, as the restoring force due to gravity may not overcome the frictional force (due to plastic deformation of the knife edge peaks).As you say, they should have tested this, to see whether the position is restored, how long it takes, and whether this is repeatable and uniform.
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/29/2015 04:04 pmIf he is still using the ARC balance, then it uses special "C-flexural" bearings. These come with an intrinsic restoring force and prevent the balance from acting like a ballistic galvanometer.http://c-flex.com/These bearings are now beloved these many years by Woodward. As a matter of fact, right after the "null result report" by Tajmar and Buldrini re. a Woodward Effect experiment they reported upon at STAIF2006, Tom Mahood (an ex-student of Woodward whose M.Sc. thesis was on the Woodward Effect) went off to his well-equipped home workshop and ran up the "ARClite", which Woodward has used ever since. It was a copy of the Buldrini design.Therefore, it is most likely that this persistent measured force is a real force and really is persistent.He says he used a knife edge balance, which is what's shown in the photo. There is no bearing. The only restoring force is gravity acting on the counter weight. He's counter-balanced the EM drive to the resolution of 1 uN of force. Which means, the restoring force must be < 1 uN. I would agree that IF there were a bearing with a restoring force, then to persist in the displaced position would require a continuous force. But given that it was simply a knife edge, there is nothing but gravity to restore the displacement back to the origin. A good control test would've been to displace the EM drive to this level of displacement with the power off, and then determine how long it takes to restore the displacement back to the origin.IMO, the correlation with temperature is a red herring. Both are slow to change and he didn't do anything to investigate if they are or are not correlated.Todd
If he is still using the ARC balance, then it uses special "C-flexural" bearings. These come with an intrinsic restoring force and prevent the balance from acting like a ballistic galvanometer.http://c-flex.com/These bearings are now beloved these many years by Woodward. As a matter of fact, right after the "null result report" by Tajmar and Buldrini re. a Woodward Effect experiment they reported upon at STAIF2006, Tom Mahood (an ex-student of Woodward whose M.Sc. thesis was on the Woodward Effect) went off to his well-equipped home workshop and ran up the "ARClite", which Woodward has used ever since. It was a copy of the Buldrini design.Therefore, it is most likely that this persistent measured force is a real force and really is persistent.
Makes no sense to me : the Sartorius scale restores to the initial position as its spring is relieved of the added force, the balance assembly is restored to its initial position because it rests on the scale (I'm not saying it's stuck on it, doesn't need to).
Quote from: SeeShells on 07/28/2015 06:39 pmQuote from: X_RaY on 07/28/2015 06:10 pm@Rodal1.Thanks for verification (picture Tajmar device yesterday @4,556GHz).My calculation was verry close 2. impressing picture of the fractal antennas... like thatBut for what is that good in the frustrum? This type of antenna will be use to get large bandwide, for multiband mobilephones for example. We don't need large BW.What is need is ~constand impedance match in the possible drift BW if a high Q is recommend like discussed before? 3."3) We also verified that one cannot excite Transverse Electric (TE) modes with a dipole antenna, regardless of orientation or placement in the truncated cone, the mode excited by a dipole antenna is a Transverse Magnetic (TM) mode."At the center it doesn't work.I remember that is possible to get TE resonance with a simple dipole:(rfmwguy posted something similar / plans for his frustrum...) It's most simple for TE01p. At this mode there are currents in Phi vector inside the metallic endplate, the strongest at the radius who the besselfunktion is maximal.Place a dipole at this radius close to the plate, E-field vector in Phi direction(tangetial to the radius).The result will be the correct mode if the cone has the correct length to catch that eigenfrequence.Something similar is possible at the sidewall, one have to activate currents in the right direction for the mode in the wall..of course one need a full 3D modelvery interesting posts today too much to read all after long day full of work Very nice post X_Ray. I was thinking of potentially using a 1/10 wave loop (like the square one I posted as it could be modeled) to excite a TE mode center in either center plate. The bandwidth should be around 20-30 mhz. Thoughts?Also won't a loop on the side wall excite either mode depending on orientation? Would love your feedback.Shellgarbage wording.Can you repost a link to your setup please?I'm a little tired today, don't wanna search...I think up to a quater wavelength will work like you want without bigger problems.couple the end of the loop direct to the copper( matching capacitor will also work between loops end and copper).Dipoles very close to the wall will work also.Picture:In general,pace the antenna in one of the positions like in the sketch.
Quote from: X_RaY on 07/28/2015 06:10 pm@Rodal1.Thanks for verification (picture Tajmar device yesterday @4,556GHz).My calculation was verry close 2. impressing picture of the fractal antennas... like thatBut for what is that good in the frustrum? This type of antenna will be use to get large bandwide, for multiband mobilephones for example. We don't need large BW.What is need is ~constand impedance match in the possible drift BW if a high Q is recommend like discussed before? 3."3) We also verified that one cannot excite Transverse Electric (TE) modes with a dipole antenna, regardless of orientation or placement in the truncated cone, the mode excited by a dipole antenna is a Transverse Magnetic (TM) mode."At the center it doesn't work.I remember that is possible to get TE resonance with a simple dipole:(rfmwguy posted something similar / plans for his frustrum...) It's most simple for TE01p. At this mode there are currents in Phi vector inside the metallic endplate, the strongest at the radius who the besselfunktion is maximal.Place a dipole at this radius close to the plate, E-field vector in Phi direction(tangetial to the radius).The result will be the correct mode if the cone has the correct length to catch that eigenfrequence.Something similar is possible at the sidewall, one have to activate currents in the right direction for the mode in the wall..of course one need a full 3D modelvery interesting posts today too much to read all after long day full of work Very nice post X_Ray. I was thinking of potentially using a 1/10 wave loop (like the square one I posted as it could be modeled) to excite a TE mode center in either center plate. The bandwidth should be around 20-30 mhz. Thoughts?Also won't a loop on the side wall excite either mode depending on orientation? Would love your feedback.Shellgarbage wording.
@Rodal1.Thanks for verification (picture Tajmar device yesterday @4,556GHz).My calculation was verry close 2. impressing picture of the fractal antennas... like thatBut for what is that good in the frustrum? This type of antenna will be use to get large bandwide, for multiband mobilephones for example. We don't need large BW.What is need is ~constand impedance match in the possible drift BW if a high Q is recommend like discussed before? 3."3) We also verified that one cannot excite Transverse Electric (TE) modes with a dipole antenna, regardless of orientation or placement in the truncated cone, the mode excited by a dipole antenna is a Transverse Magnetic (TM) mode."At the center it doesn't work.I remember that is possible to get TE resonance with a simple dipole:(rfmwguy posted something similar / plans for his frustrum...) It's most simple for TE01p. At this mode there are currents in Phi vector inside the metallic endplate, the strongest at the radius who the besselfunktion is maximal.Place a dipole at this radius close to the plate, E-field vector in Phi direction(tangetial to the radius).The result will be the correct mode if the cone has the correct length to catch that eigenfrequence.Something similar is possible at the sidewall, one have to activate currents in the right direction for the mode in the wall..of course one need a full 3D modelvery interesting posts today too much to read all after long day full of work
Dr. Rodal,Are these from the antenna positions with the monopole in the side towards the bottom exciting the TE mode I sent you and aero?Shell
Quote from: SeeShells on 07/30/2015 12:51 amDr. Rodal,Are these from the antenna positions with the monopole in the side towards the bottom exciting the TE mode I sent you and aero?ShellNo. These are the steady-state fields computed from the exact solution for the Yang/Shell cavity due purely to standing waves, assuming that (by whatever means) a pure TE012 mode has been excitedThe purpose of showing these images, as per the sketch of X-Ray is : once you know what TE012 is supposed to look like for Yang/Shell, then optimize the location of the antenna to excite such a mode._________PS: I did not receive antenna positions with a monopole, rather I understand that you sent that information to aero through a private e-mail (that's what I understand from your Personal Message).