Quote from: Rodal on 09/12/2014 01:59 amJohn (Fornaro) and Paul (March), The experimental results and possible explanations are not trivial, addressing and studying them will take patience and time. There are subtle issues involved because of the extremely small forces being measured. There is no hurry. I think that we have a great line of communications !. Let's keep it going. To Infinity and Beyond (or to wherever we can get with the propulsion we have)Jose' RodalLook up at the stars. Try to make sense of what you see. Be curious.Jose':I've been involved in testing Dr. Harold Sonny White's Q-Thruster approach to exotic propulsion for seven plus years now, and Dr. James F. Woodward's Mach-Effect (M-E) work for sixteen years. (I started down this road in March of 1998 while working for Lockheed-Martin at JSC working as an electrical engineer on the NASA Space Shuttle program.) I summarize my M-E AKA Woodward Effect research in three STAIF papers published in 2004, 2006 and 2007. I know Dr. Woodward's body of M-E work extensively having been to his lab at CSUF a number of times now, and IMO Woodward has been seeing real forces in his M-E Thruster (MET) experiments for years. These latest experimental results on the Q-thruster is just trying to take Jim's work one step further by attempting to quantize the gravitational field in a manner consistent with Quantum Mechanics (QM), Plasma Physics and General Relativity Theory (GRT). In other words if you are not already familiar with this body of work that Dr. Woodward started in 1982, you need to perform due diligence in reading several of the papers that Dr. Woodward, Dr. White and I have written over this time period. Primarily I'm just the electrical engineer turned experimental physicist that is trying to make this exotic propulsion business work, for without something like it, humanity is doomed to stay inside the asteroid belt for the foreseeable future. In the meantime if you can't find the papers in question e-mail me a note and I'll be glad to get them to you. Best,
John (Fornaro) and Paul (March), The experimental results and possible explanations are not trivial, addressing and studying them will take patience and time. There are subtle issues involved because of the extremely small forces being measured. There is no hurry. I think that we have a great line of communications !. Let's keep it going. To Infinity and Beyond (or to wherever we can get with the propulsion we have)Jose' RodalLook up at the stars. Try to make sense of what you see. Be curious.
Previous posts at NBF (of mine) have been pasted here; so far, I see little love for the position(s) I've taken.
@PaulMarchNot sure if you will be able to answer this or not but, are there any plans for EagleWorks to carry out tests on Woodward's M-E devices?
A few caveats :1. Your calculations are Newtonian mechanics, when approaching c speeds or Thrust/Power ratios below 1/c its no longer valid...2. Ok so we are breaking energy conservation, great : Noether's theorem show this implies reality not to be time invariant. Hard to swallow much much below cosmological timescales.3. Ok so energy is conserved but the acquired energy is pumped from vacuum, not free energy but rel cheap energy, great : quoting myself "tap into vacuum zero-point energy, which would no longer be zero-point... 4. Penultimate point : if the k factor somehow decays with acquired speed ... it's really difficult to see what would make the system "remember" this particular initial reference frame5. Last point : the k=0.4 N/kW figure used for the mission profiles implies possible breakeven starting at speeds of 1/k=2.5km/s relative to a fixed frame. ... I'd like to see the experiment done on a freely rotating arm, in an otherwise rotationally symmetric setting around the axis.
... the possibilities of delivering grand pianos to Saturn moons for enthusiasts.
@GoatGuy, frobnicat,Your arguments illustrate that the operational principles of the EM drive satisfy Clark's third law - they are, "indistinguishable from magic". Your arguments do not advance our understanding of those principles. Others have taken the risk and dared to postulate principles but I know of none that are accepted. Go ahead, take the risk, postulate physics sufficiently advanced as to cast light on the difference between operation of the EM drive and magic.
Regarding the EM-Drive, I thought it was pretty well established that Shawyer's explanation implied a violation of conservation of momentum, and that thus if the drive worked it would be for some other reason.
Basically, your energy balance isn't complete until you've accounted for the device's interaction with the rest of the matter in its Hubble sphere, whatever form that interaction takes. In other words, you're drawing the box too small.Furthermore, without something to push on, you aren't just violating conservation of energy; you're violating conservation of momentum too.
...all attempts at putting intrinsic frames of reference of space/vacuum or aether back on the table failed experimentally so far ...
I'm against a "what if it works" scenario that won't go to all the inescapable consequences, when the consequences are on firm ground that couldn't possibly be overtaken by the hypothesis.
Dr . Woodward answers the question with the following statement:it is a radiation reaction interaction, presumably, that involves the Wheeler-Feynman ...
Of course not. The whole point of the advanced/retarded wave concept in W-F is that you can get instantaneous action at a distance without breaking causality; no momentum or energy or information need travel faster than c.
And it is strange to consider a General Relativity theory where one divorces completely from the Quantum Mechanics arrow of time (the Weak Force), but postulates that gravitational waves travel effectively with infinite speed, as with "action at a distance" (a concept only known in Quantum Mechanics entanglement).
Do you [93143] claim that Dr. Woodward misspoke in the video? Or that Dr. Woodward meant that instantaneous action is not an infinite speed? How long a period of time is instantaneous according to Dr. Woodward?
Quote from: Rodal on 09/13/2014 01:16 amDr . Woodward answers the question with the following statement:it is a radiation reaction interaction, presumably, that involves the Wheeler-Feynman ... Mr. Woodward does not answer any questions at all by saying "presumably".
1. Most of the objections were issues of writing style...2. HSF 3. They can barely discern the effect from background noise (and so) I object strenuously to the culturally optimistic projections of missions to Saturn and so forth...4. They assert that NASA decisionmakers have to be sold on the sizzle...5. They do not answer questions about what does the device push on.6. So.... I will be sending you a bill for the two or three sheets of used paper...
But Goat, the Mach Woodward is deflecting the intertial energy of the Universe, not unlike how a sailboat's sails are harvesting energy from the passing wind
Quote from: frobnicat on 09/12/2014 08:48 pm2. Ok so we are breaking energy conservation, great : Noether's theorem show this implies reality not to be time invariant. Hard to swallow much much below cosmological timescales.(2) - We probably agree, but my ignorance of Noether's Theorem is a hindrance.
2. Ok so we are breaking energy conservation, great : Noether's theorem show this implies reality not to be time invariant. Hard to swallow much much below cosmological timescales.
Quote from: Star-Drive on 09/12/2014 12:58 pmJose':I've been involved in testing Dr. Harold Sonny White's Q-Thruster approach to exotic propulsion for seven plus years now, and Dr. James F. Woodward's Mach-Effect (M-E) work for sixteen years. .....Paul,Thank you for pointing this out. I have read with interest several of Dr. Woodward, and Dr. White's papers, including some of your own papers. It is admirable, in a sense, to have people willing to pursue research avenues that are not most popular, or commonly accepted. Concerning Dr. Woodward's, theory, to cut to the chase, as Dr. Woodward himself accepts with a smile in the following presentation ( [ ]where I have on purpose timed it to when the question is asked, otherwise advance to the end of the presentation at 41:08 minutes (2468 sec)) the obvious question to pose to Dr. Woodward is:If your interpretation of Mach's principle is that inertia is a gravitational reaction from the rest of the Universe (no matter how distant from your center of mass) how come that reaction takes place INSTANTLY ?In other words, in Dr. Woodward's theory, the propagation of this gravitational reaction responsible for inertia, has INFINITE speed, which is problematic in a Theory of Relativity (where we usually associate gravitational waves to travel at the speed of light).Dr. Woodward answers with a smile, that "presumably" it is a radiation reaction attributable to Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory. With his smile and frank facial expression he acknowledges that this is, let's say... problematic?Because we know that:A) The Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory assumes that the solutions of the electromagnetic field equations must be invariant under time-reversal symmetry, there is no distinction between past and future.B) It therefore assumes that elementary particles are not self-interacting. This is a big drawback of this theory. Indeed, as demonstrated by Hans Bethe, the Lamb shift necessitated a self-energy term to be explained. Feynman and Bethe had an intense discussion over that issue and eventually Feynman himself stated that self-interaction is needed to correctly account for this effect.C) Wheeler and Feynman conceived of this theory before the Weak Force was understood as it is nowadays. It is known that the Weak Force implies time-symmetry breaking and gives an arrow of time. Hence the Weak Force is incompatible with the Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory, in this sense.I think that it was wise that you, Dr. White, et.al., decided that <<This paper will not address the physics of the quantum vacuum plasma thruster (QVPT), but instead will describe the recent test campaign>> (Abstract of "Anomalous Thrust Production..." paper).In that vein, I think it would be best to discuss the experiments without addressing any controversial physical explanation for the time being.
Jose':I've been involved in testing Dr. Harold Sonny White's Q-Thruster approach to exotic propulsion for seven plus years now, and Dr. James F. Woodward's Mach-Effect (M-E) work for sixteen years. .....
frobnicat <<3. Ok so energy is conserved but the acquired energy is pumped from vacuum, not free energy but rel cheap energy, great : quoting myself "tap into vacuum zero-point energy, which would no longer be zero-point... >>GoatGuy <<(3) - I guess this is where I get stuck: >>How about discussing the actual equations that Dr. White uses to calculate the thrust? Dr. White uses a "local quantum vacuum density" that is several orders of magnitude larger than the zero-point quantum vacuum density.(Not that I agree with the physical model they propose, see my previous posts; but it would be interesting to discuss the actual equations he uses instead)