...When you say "toward the small end plate", do you mean from the outside or the inside? That's the ambiguity with using that sort of nomenclature.Once again, I recommend using "small end forward" etc. as the least ambiguous designator of the direction of the resultant thrust vector - the one which produces acceleration.
http://www.gizmag.com/scientists-create-real-protons-from-virtual-ones/20689/Huh, that's interesting.
Quote from: phaseshift on 05/24/2015 04:49 pm...Great video. It touches on so many topics that get discussed here on this forum.Quote from: SeeShells on 05/24/2015 05:08 pm...I thoroughly enjoyed this, Thanks Dr. Rodal!!! As PhaseShift said it is interesting how this video deals with a number of topics we have been discussing. For example, the question is asked (by somebody at CERN) to Sundrum as to whether there is a relation of the extra dimension(s) to the Quantum Vacuum virtual particles. The answer is that this is unknown. They are using Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as a given. Sundrum emphasizes the fact that we can borrow much larger amounts of energy than we own (no need of collateral) but that you have to pay it back in an extremely small amount of time. They are using this ability to borrow larger energy from the QV in their experiments to explore energy being lost in the extra dimension(s). Thus, the issue with Dr. White's proposal is the need to payback, in a very small amount of time, any energy you may borrow (the QV being immutable and non-degradable over longer periods of time). Essentially, Dr. White's proposal is that one can default on the mortgage
...Great video. It touches on so many topics that get discussed here on this forum.
...I thoroughly enjoyed this, Thanks Dr. Rodal!!!
Quote from: Rodal on 05/24/2015 06:29 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 05/24/2015 06:21 pmQuote from: Rodal----Her conclusion and final paper attached.Very interesting. Thus we see here that Prof. Yang, far from imitating Shawyer, states a completely different conclusion: that the "measured net EM thrust" is directed towards the small end (towards the "minor end plate"), (the complete opposite of what Shawyer states). She also states that this thrust direction (towards the small end) agrees with her theoretical prediction of thrust direction.AND her theory predicts the thrust level per power input. All without needing new physics.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/24/2015 06:21 pmQuote from: Rodal----Her conclusion and final paper attached.Very interesting. Thus we see here that Prof. Yang, far from imitating Shawyer, states a completely different conclusion: that the "measured net EM thrust" is directed towards the small end (towards the "minor end plate"), (the complete opposite of what Shawyer states). She also states that this thrust direction (towards the small end) agrees with her theoretical prediction of thrust direction.
Quote from: Rodal----Her conclusion and final paper attached.
----
...Would appreciate a look at this lecture chap 7.
The ‘‘Galilean’’ equations used by van Tiggelen et al.[1] in bianisotropic media as well as Feigel [2] in dielectricmedia to prove the existence of the so-called ‘‘Feigel effect’’are a mixing of these two separate Galilean transformationlaws. Hence, I suggest that the effects predicted byvan Tiggelen et al. and Feigel are not observable within therealm of Galilean Physics as they are based on wrong hypotheses....’ Now, to be honest, theauthors try in their reply to formulate a Lorentz-covarianttheory in order to show that ‘‘zero-point momentum isallowed in a fully Lorentz-invariant model.’’ I would leavethis point to others for discussion but stand still on theimpossibility to describe the Feigel–van Tiggelen effect ina Galilean way.
Quote from: phaseshift on 05/24/2015 06:51 pmhttp://www.gizmag.com/scientists-create-real-protons-from-virtual-ones/20689/Huh, that's interesting.People are playing around with "electron mirrors" these days with a view to reflecting gammas. The inertia of such a contraption is exceedingly low and, being charged, is highly amenable to being vibrated. I wonder if there's a way to do a direct dynamic Casimir experiment with this technique.
..."A hollow microwave resonant cavity is evolved from the RLC loop.[15] In the cavity, the power damped by the wall skin effect, Pr, stored in electric and magnetic fields, Pe, Ph, correspond to the power consumed by the resistance and stored in the capacitance and the inductance of the RLC loop, respectively. Therefore the parameters of the cavity also have |Pe|=|Ph|= Qcavity*Pr= Qcavity*Pinput, where Qcavity and Pinput are the cavity quality factor and the power consumed by the microwave resonant cavity, respectively..."I'd say, she nailed it! And she's better at the math than I am.Todd
Quote from: WarpTech on 05/24/2015 07:18 pm..."A hollow microwave resonant cavity is evolved from the RLC loop.[15] In the cavity, the power damped by the wall skin effect, Pr, stored in electric and magnetic fields, Pe, Ph, correspond to the power consumed by the resistance and stored in the capacitance and the inductance of the RLC loop, respectively. Therefore the parameters of the cavity also have |Pe|=|Ph|= Qcavity*Pr= Qcavity*Pinput, where Qcavity and Pinput are the cavity quality factor and the power consumed by the microwave resonant cavity, respectively..."I'd say, she nailed it! And she's better at the math than I am.ToddYeap, it's kind of funny that we are looking at Prof. Yang's this late in the game. After all she achieved much higher reported thrust than Shawyer. I think the reason is that Yang does not give the dimensions of her EM Drive. We naturally concentrated on NASA first. Also Shawyer because he gave some dimensions (the big diameter of the Exp and the Demo).It is evident that Prof. Yang's theory is not Shawyer's theory.
...That is not new news. Shawyer has stated the Chinese developed another approach to his many times. End result of both approaches is the same level of measured versus predicted thrust.
... Wonderfully the one explanation that is left and it's likely to be the one... spacetime. Thanks all and question it, pull it out and kick it around like a EM can.Shell
Quote from: Mulletron on 05/24/2015 06:20 pm...Would appreciate a look at this lecture chap 7.Quote from: Germain RousseauxThe ‘‘Galilean’’ equations used by van Tiggelen et al.[1] in bianisotropic media as well as Feigel [2] in dielectricmedia to prove the existence of the so-called ‘‘Feigel effect’’are a mixing of these two separate Galilean transformationlaws. Hence, I suggest that the effects predicted byvan Tiggelen et al. and Feigel are not observable within therealm of Galilean Physics as they are based on wrong hypotheses....’ Now, to be honest, theauthors try in their reply to formulate a Lorentz-covarianttheory in order to show that ‘‘zero-point momentum isallowed in a fully Lorentz-invariant model.’’ I would leavethis point to others for discussion but stand still on theimpossibility to describe the Feigel–van Tiggelen effect ina Galilean way.http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.248901
Second, the final resultobtained by Feigel for the Casimir momentum density, ∼ ~ R χnrEMk3dk, seems to lacka reference frame since this equation is not Lorentz or even Galilean invariant [23].
Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/24/2015 07:48 pm...That is not new news. Shawyer has stated the Chinese developed another approach to his many times. End result of both approaches is the same level of measured versus predicted thrust.Well, I will refrain from reengaging on the fact that a short time ago you were stating that Prof Yang was using the same theory as Shawyer, that she was using TM01, cut off length, and the fact that she predicts the force in the complete opposite direction as to Shawyer. But let's forget about that. How do you know that "both approaches is the same level of measured versus predicted thrust." ?Do you have dimensions for Prof Yang's EM Drive so that we can assess such a prediction?
...We all know that Feigel was falsified. What you are quoting is greater than 7 years old and was responded to by another letter * which you conveniently left out. Your amateur attempts at misdirection, rather than academic rebuttal won't go unnoticed. Try harder Doctor. I kindly ask you to excuse yourself from discussion, as you are of no help....
This discussion is clearly interminable, in the literal sense of that word. Whatever experimental results accrue, in past, present or future, there will always be doubt. This is why I am so strongly in favour of a space-based test. I've already laid out my reasons. Without that, I'd lay odds that one could return to this forum in years to come and people would still be arguing the toss.Let's cut the Gordian Knot!
Quote from: deltaMass on 05/24/2015 08:06 pmThis discussion is clearly interminable, in the literal sense of that word. Whatever experimental results accrue, in past, present or future, there will always be doubt. This is why I am so strongly in favour of a space-based test. I've already laid out my reasons. Without that, I'd lay odds that one could return to this forum in years to come and people would still be arguing the toss.Let's cut the Gordian Knot!I fully agree. I think that the space test should be in a controlled course, to also eliminate doubt from anomalies.