Quote from: oliverio on 11/29/2015 07:51 pm...My reaction here was to the statement "...are two systems. The emdrive is one." and that's all. I actually fall on the side of believing the it's perfectly theoretically possible to have propulsion without a jettisoned mass; all systems are in a certain sense open, and in theory every particle's medium opens the system too. (You'd call me perhaps a nonlocal hidden variable realist.) I think I am skeptical about the emdrive but in no way was I saying that the pursuit of an explanation is silly at all. In fact I would love to build one if I had the time and resources.I don't mind you calling something I said as silly. I have heard worse from better critics. But you do need to understand there is very little in common between the magnet falling down a tube and the em-drive. The magnet is dropping through the tube because gravity is acting on it while the tube is held stationary. If the experiment was done on the ISS it would not work. Inside the em-drive all the forces produced by RF cancel out. Nothing is being pushed or pulled because of the RF effects.
...My reaction here was to the statement "...are two systems. The emdrive is one." and that's all. I actually fall on the side of believing the it's perfectly theoretically possible to have propulsion without a jettisoned mass; all systems are in a certain sense open, and in theory every particle's medium opens the system too. (You'd call me perhaps a nonlocal hidden variable realist.) I think I am skeptical about the emdrive but in no way was I saying that the pursuit of an explanation is silly at all. In fact I would love to build one if I had the time and resources.
Quote from: VAXHeadroom on 11/28/2015 04:13 amFinished uploading faster than I thought Here's the video with all 5 planes! I think the large end isn't lined up quite right yet...I'll work on that tomorrow...Is this video supposed to show the magnetic field vectors? If so something is definitely wrong with it, because the boundary condition for magnetic fields near metallic surfaces is that the magnetic field component normal to the surface is zero.My guesses at the issue:-You are actually plotting the electric field (the electric field must be purely normal to a metal surface)-You have switched up the order of the coordinates somewhere.-The points shown in the video are mostly not near the actual walls.-There is a major issue with the simulation.It is probably just one of the first 2, in my experience that type of mistake is really easy to make.
Finished uploading faster than I thought Here's the video with all 5 planes! I think the large end isn't lined up quite right yet...I'll work on that tomorrow...
Quote from: zen-in on 11/29/2015 08:32 pmQuote from: oliverio on 11/29/2015 07:51 pm...My reaction here was to the statement "...are two systems. The emdrive is one." and that's all. I actually fall on the side of believing the it's perfectly theoretically possible to have propulsion without a jettisoned mass; all systems are in a certain sense open, and in theory every particle's medium opens the system too. (You'd call me perhaps a nonlocal hidden variable realist.) I think I am skeptical about the emdrive but in no way was I saying that the pursuit of an explanation is silly at all. In fact I would love to build one if I had the time and resources.I don't mind you calling something I said as silly. I have heard worse from better critics. But you do need to understand there is very little in common between the magnet falling down a tube and the em-drive. The magnet is dropping through the tube because gravity is acting on it while the tube is held stationary. If the experiment was done on the ISS it would not work. Inside the em-drive all the forces produced by RF cancel out. Nothing is being pushed or pulled because of the RF effects.I dunno zen...something is out of balance best I can tell. It could be thermal or magnetic but something threw off my balance beam. EW is seeing it in their own configuration, shell is about ready to fire up her test stand...we may need your help to figure this anomaly out. While I can't claim my experiments are definitive proof, I do believe something is occuring. If it turns out to be mundane, I can accept that, but there is something there. Your theoretical expertise will be needed...
Quote from: SeeShells on 11/28/2015 09:49 pm...Throwing this out to the masses here for their thoughts and ideas.SehllInteresting. Never ran across this in the past. As it happens I did have a 5 foot length of 3/4 inch ridged copper pipe and a neodymium magnet 1/2x1/2x1 (inches), even with the comparatively thin copper walls, it takes 5-6 seconds for the magnet to drop the 5 feet... (And it is magnetized through the 1/2 dimension, rather than end to end.)So the question is, how would a copper frustum know the difference between a magnet moving through it and a magnetic field, generated by the resonance of the EM, moving through it?... Can you think of anyway to test or measure whether a magnetic field is being generated inside the frustum and moving from one end to the other?...Here we go with another violation of CoM theory of operation... But what the heck, when possible, test and measure for every hair brained thing you and anyone else can think of.
...Throwing this out to the masses here for their thoughts and ideas.Sehll
Quote from: OnlyMe on 11/28/2015 11:17 pmQuote from: SeeShells on 11/28/2015 09:49 pm...Throwing this out to the masses here for their thoughts and ideas.SehllInteresting. Never ran across this in the past. As it happens I did have a 5 foot length of 3/4 inch ridged copper pipe and a neodymium magnet 1/2x1/2x1 (inches), even with the comparatively thin copper walls, it takes 5-6 seconds for the magnet to drop the 5 feet... (And it is magnetized through the 1/2 dimension, rather than end to end.)So the question is, how would a copper frustum know the difference between a magnet moving through it and a magnetic field, generated by the resonance of the EM, moving through it?... Can you think of anyway to test or measure whether a magnetic field is being generated inside the frustum and moving from one end to the other?...Here we go with another violation of CoM theory of operation... But what the heck, when possible, test and measure for every hair brained thing you and anyone else can think of.This is exactly what I was talking about earlier but no one responded. here is the link: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1450260#msg1450260 For ease of viewing I'll re-post Shells gif. I was saying that if the fields in the image are magnetic fields then it looks like there is a magnet appearing lower in the frustum and moving towards the top. I was wondering if this would induce a dragging effect similar to a magnet moving along an aluminum plate. It is also used in trains to break because they would go through a lot of brakes otherwise. The cavity and the light are two separate systems similar to a magnet and a pipe. There is the lights magnetic field and then there are the currents in the cavity. The currents in the cavity move to keep the light from escaping in such a way that they block the lights electromagnetic field. Is the image of magnetic or electric fields? I also stated it was odd it looked like a traveling wave. I would have expected more of a standing wave. A traveling wave should imply there is some power dissipation, similar to when power is used in power lines. You get traveling waves when considering counter propagating waves and then the reflected wave is attenuated, giving traveling waves.Also, is this a legitimate image of the frustums EM fields?Maybe it isn't a traveling wave and I am mistaking what I am seeing?
I don't know what field component that is in the image. But here is a link to 24 different gif's with the field components and view direction identified in the file name. I think the last three gif's are the ones you want to look at but feel free to evaluate them all. https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tRERjT0tEYWxwMXM&usp=sharing
Quote from: dustinthewind on 11/30/2015 12:33 amQuote from: OnlyMe on 11/28/2015 11:17 pmQuote from: SeeShells on 11/28/2015 09:49 pm...Throwing this out to the masses here for their thoughts and ideas.SehllInteresting. Never ran across this in the past. As it happens I did have a 5 foot length of 3/4 inch ridged copper pipe and a neodymium magnet 1/2x1/2x1 (inches), even with the comparatively thin copper walls, it takes 5-6 seconds for the magnet to drop the 5 feet... (And it is magnetized through the 1/2 dimension, rather than end to end.)So the question is, how would a copper frustum know the difference between a magnet moving through it and a magnetic field, generated by the resonance of the EM, moving through it?... Can you think of anyway to test or measure whether a magnetic field is being generated inside the frustum and moving from one end to the other?...Here we go with another violation of CoM theory of operation... But what the heck, when possible, test and measure for every hair brained thing you and anyone else can think of.This is exactly what I was talking about earlier but no one responded. here is the link: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1450260#msg1450260 For ease of viewing I'll re-post Shells gif. I was saying that if the fields in the image are magnetic fields then it looks like there is a magnet appearing lower in the frustum and moving towards the top. I was wondering if this would induce a dragging effect similar to a magnet moving along an aluminum plate. It is also used in trains to break because they would go through a lot of brakes otherwise. The cavity and the light are two separate systems similar to a magnet and a pipe. There is the lights magnetic field and then there are the currents in the cavity. The currents in the cavity move to keep the light from escaping in such a way that they block the lights electromagnetic field. Is the image of magnetic or electric fields? I also stated it was odd it looked like a traveling wave. I would have expected more of a standing wave. A traveling wave should imply there is some power dissipation, similar to when power is used in power lines. You get traveling waves when considering counter propagating waves and then the reflected wave is attenuated, giving traveling waves.Also, is this a legitimate image of the frustums EM fields?Maybe it isn't a traveling wave and I am mistaking what I am seeing? I don't know what field component that is in the image. But here is a link to 24 different gif's with the field components and view direction identified in the file name. I think the last three gif's are the ones you want to look at but feel free to evaluate them all. https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tRERjT0tEYWxwMXM&usp=sharing
First of all I would have to say I'm no physicist. I however do follow up on some of the more abstract ideas in physics, but my mathematical understanding is only in classical physics and some basic relativity and quantum theory. My question then may not be mathematically sound, but I believe it is an interesting one.If string theory, or some other theory which allow for a multiverse or more spatial dimensions, is correct: Couldn't the conservation of momentum be conserved in a grander scale than just our universe or three spatial dimensions? The reason I'm asking is because I feel this engine rests in some domain we don't understand yet. Lets say between quantum theory and relativity. Of course everything can just be a fluke of sorts and no new physics will be developed here. But I sure hope this is revolutionary in some way
Quote from: rfmwguy on 11/29/2015 11:41 pmQuote from: zen-in on 11/29/2015 08:32 pmQuote from: oliverio on 11/29/2015 07:51 pm...My reaction here was to the statement "...are two systems. The emdrive is one." and that's all. I actually fall on the side of believing the it's perfectly theoretically possible to have propulsion without a jettisoned mass; all systems are in a certain sense open, and in theory every particle's medium opens the system too. (You'd call me perhaps a nonlocal hidden variable realist.) I think I am skeptical about the emdrive but in no way was I saying that the pursuit of an explanation is silly at all. In fact I would love to build one if I had the time and resources.I don't mind you calling something I said as silly. I have heard worse from better critics. But you do need to understand there is very little in common between the magnet falling down a tube and the em-drive. The magnet is dropping through the tube because gravity is acting on it while the tube is held stationary. If the experiment was done on the ISS it would not work. Inside the em-drive all the forces produced by RF cancel out. Nothing is being pushed or pulled because of the RF effects.I dunno zen...something is out of balance best I can tell. It could be thermal or magnetic but something threw off my balance beam. EW is seeing it in their own configuration, shell is about ready to fire up her test stand...we may need your help to figure this anomaly out. While I can't claim my experiments are definitive proof, I do believe something is occuring. If it turns out to be mundane, I can accept that, but there is something there. Your theoretical expertise will be needed...Dave,I have said this once before but maybe it got lost?Why is it such an absurd belief to wonder if all and any valid thrust produced by an EM Drive, is and always will be in a pure horizontal thrust direction in reference to any position that the larger end of a EM Drive is placed?Don
Quote from: TheUberOverLord on 11/30/2015 12:32 amQuote from: rfmwguy on 11/29/2015 11:41 pmQuote from: zen-in on 11/29/2015 08:32 pmQuote from: oliverio on 11/29/2015 07:51 pm...My reaction here was to the statement "...are two systems. The emdrive is one." and that's all. I actually fall on the side of believing the it's perfectly theoretically possible to have propulsion without a jettisoned mass; all systems are in a certain sense open, and in theory every particle's medium opens the system too. (You'd call me perhaps a nonlocal hidden variable realist.) I think I am skeptical about the emdrive but in no way was I saying that the pursuit of an explanation is silly at all. In fact I would love to build one if I had the time and resources.I don't mind you calling something I said as silly. I have heard worse from better critics. But you do need to understand there is very little in common between the magnet falling down a tube and the em-drive. The magnet is dropping through the tube because gravity is acting on it while the tube is held stationary. If the experiment was done on the ISS it would not work. Inside the em-drive all the forces produced by RF cancel out. Nothing is being pushed or pulled because of the RF effects.I dunno zen...something is out of balance best I can tell. It could be thermal or magnetic but something threw off my balance beam. EW is seeing it in their own configuration, shell is about ready to fire up her test stand...we may need your help to figure this anomaly out. While I can't claim my experiments are definitive proof, I do believe something is occuring. If it turns out to be mundane, I can accept that, but there is something there. Your theoretical expertise will be needed...Dave,I have said this once before but maybe it got lost?Why is it such an absurd belief to wonder if all and any valid thrust produced by an EM Drive, is and always will be in a pure horizontal thrust direction in reference to any position that the larger end of a EM Drive is placed?DonHi Don, early in the am, not sure I understand the question. force has something to do with a funneling or concentration of photonic energy in a small contained, assymetrical area best I can tell. The large diameter appears to be a reflector and sets up a reference plane for kinetic energy. It is the largest single flat surface that receives reflected photons internally. If I might take a rare dip into theory, perhaps something like this is happening...Photon collisions abound in the frustum on one side of the large diameter plate. What does this induce if anything? Considering the trillions of photon particle or wave interactions in the frustum, you'd think one byproduct would be heat. I measured very little temp rise looking into the frustum with a thermal cam.What other byproduct is created and how do we measure it? This is where I can't help much. I could barely describe what a photon is and its relative to the observer per the old slit experiments. All I can say is I believe new physics is involved one one side of the large diameter plate, thus creating kinetic energy perpendiculat to its surface. Casimir effect or something new...I'm not there yet.Hope I didn't misinterpret your point...only had one cup of coffee so far.
Quote from: rfmwguy on 11/30/2015 11:47 amQuote from: TheUberOverLord on 11/30/2015 12:32 amQuote from: rfmwguy on 11/29/2015 11:41 pmQuote from: zen-in on 11/29/2015 08:32 pmQuote from: oliverio on 11/29/2015 07:51 pm...My reaction here was to the statement "...are two systems. The emdrive is one." and that's all. I actually fall on the side of believing the it's perfectly theoretically possible to have propulsion without a jettisoned mass; all systems are in a certain sense open, and in theory every particle's medium opens the system too. (You'd call me perhaps a nonlocal hidden variable realist.) I think I am skeptical about the emdrive but in no way was I saying that the pursuit of an explanation is silly at all. In fact I would love to build one if I had the time and resources.I don't mind you calling something I said as silly. I have heard worse from better critics. But you do need to understand there is very little in common between the magnet falling down a tube and the em-drive. The magnet is dropping through the tube because gravity is acting on it while the tube is held stationary. If the experiment was done on the ISS it would not work. Inside the em-drive all the forces produced by RF cancel out. Nothing is being pushed or pulled because of the RF effects.I dunno zen...something is out of balance best I can tell. It could be thermal or magnetic but something threw off my balance beam. EW is seeing it in their own configuration, shell is about ready to fire up her test stand...we may need your help to figure this anomaly out. While I can't claim my experiments are definitive proof, I do believe something is occuring. If it turns out to be mundane, I can accept that, but there is something there. Your theoretical expertise will be needed...Dave,I have said this once before but maybe it got lost?Why is it such an absurd belief to wonder if all and any valid thrust produced by an EM Drive, is and always will be in a pure horizontal thrust direction in reference to any position that the larger end of a EM Drive is placed?DonHi Don, early in the am, not sure I understand the question. force has something to do with a funneling or concentration of photonic energy in a small contained, assymetrical area best I can tell. The large diameter appears to be a reflector and sets up a reference plane for kinetic energy. It is the largest single flat surface that receives reflected photons internally. If I might take a rare dip into theory, perhaps something like this is happening...Photon collisions abound in the frustum on one side of the large diameter plate. What does this induce if anything? Considering the trillions of photon particle or wave interactions in the frustum, you'd think one byproduct would be heat. I measured very little temp rise looking into the frustum with a thermal cam.What other byproduct is created and how do we measure it? This is where I can't help much. I could barely describe what a photon is and its relative to the observer per the old slit experiments. All I can say is I believe new physics is involved one one side of the large diameter plate, thus creating kinetic energy perpendiculat to its surface. Casimir effect or something new...I'm not there yet.Hope I didn't misinterpret your point...only had one cup of coffee so far.Thanks Dave,What I meant was is it possible that some thrust force is not always completely horizontal to the position of the EM Drives large diameter end plate?Would it not be odd that all thrust force produced is always 100 percent confined to exactly one small area of the large diameter end plate of the EM Drive vs. some residual thrust force going in slightly different and/or different directions?That would seem like "Blind luck" no matter how much frequency tuning one does. Even a scale or a rotatory table testbed for a EM Drive is not measuring thrust force in all directions at the same moment in time.Hope that better explains my original question.Don
I emailed Paul March and asked how the peer review process was going and just a little update for everyone.Blaine:The EW peer review lab report is now in its second rewrite after receiving our first round of comments from the two editors of the peer reviewed journal in question. After that the new version of the report will be sent out to the four independent PhD peer reviewers that will have their shots at the content of the current restructured report that now includes a lot more of Dr. White's quantum vacuum modeling spelled out and demonstrated for all to see. It's still hard to know when all of these reviews will be completed and answered, but we are hoping the final reviewed version of the report should go to press sometime during the first half of 2016, though Dr. White's last peer reviewed theoretical paper on this topic took just over year to go through the review process. See "Physics Essays": http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1396-11-harold-sonny-white-a-discussion-on-characteristics-of-the-quantum-vacuum.html Abstract: This paper will begin by considering the quantum vacuum at the cosmological scale to show that the gravitational coupling constant may be viewed as an emergent phenomenon, or rather a long wavelength consequence of the quantum vacuum. This cosmological viewpoint will be reconsidered on a microscopic scale in the presence of concentrations of “ordinary” matter to determine the impact on the energy state of the quantum vacuum. The derived relationship will be used to predict a radius of the hydrogen atom which will be compared with the Bohr radius for validation. The ramifications of this equation will be explored in the context of the predicted electron mass, the electrostatic force, and the energy density of the electric field around the hydrogen nucleus. It will finally be shown that this perturbed energy state of the quantum vacuum can be successfully modeled as a virtual electron-positron plasma, or the Dirac vacuum.It appears that academics like to think long and hard about new things... Best, Paul M.
Quote from: Blaine on 11/30/2015 03:33 pmI emailed Paul March and asked how the peer review process was going and just a little update for everyone....Being the only lab work done in vacuum, first half of 2016 seems an awfully long way off...I wonder if replication at a second NASA lab is in the works.., before or after publication?...I wonder if NASA will allow or make any of the lab data/results/conclusions available, independently?... As in separately from any theory of operation...Can you tell I am impatiently waiting for even more DIY progress reports?
I emailed Paul March and asked how the peer review process was going and just a little update for everyone....
Quote from: OnlyMe on 11/30/2015 04:53 pmQuote from: Blaine on 11/30/2015 03:33 pmI emailed Paul March and asked how the peer review process was going and just a little update for everyone....Being the only lab work done in vacuum, first half of 2016 seems an awfully long way off...I wonder if replication at a second NASA lab is in the works.., before or after publication?...I wonder if NASA will allow or make any of the lab data/results/conclusions available, independently?... As in separately from any theory of operation...Can you tell I am impatiently waiting for even more DIY progress reports?Next up to bat is Shell, who should be putting some VNA scan results on soon. Not sure when her flight tests are scheduled. I think the EW update is what we already knew, 2015 was to be another test not yet publicly released. What might be new is the peer review process and the stage it is in. Not an expert, but this could take some time...as in months. Hopefully DIY stuff can fill the void.
Quote from: Blaine on 11/30/2015 03:33 pmI emailed Paul March and asked how the peer review process was going and just a little update for everyone.Blaine:The EW peer review lab report is now in its second rewrite after receiving our first round of comments from the two editors of the peer reviewed journal in question. After that the new version of the report will be sent out to the four independent PhD peer reviewers that will have their shots at the content of the current restructured report that now includes a lot more of Dr. White's quantum vacuum modeling spelled out and demonstrated for all to see. It's still hard to know when all of these reviews will be completed and answered, but we are hoping the final reviewed version of the report should go to press sometime during the first half of 2016, though Dr. White's last peer reviewed theoretical paper on this topic took just over year to go through the review process. See "Physics Essays": http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1396-11-harold-sonny-white-a-discussion-on-characteristics-of-the-quantum-vacuum.html Abstract: This paper will begin by considering the quantum vacuum at the cosmological scale to show that the gravitational coupling constant may be viewed as an emergent phenomenon, or rather a long wavelength consequence of the quantum vacuum. This cosmological viewpoint will be reconsidered on a microscopic scale in the presence of concentrations of “ordinary” matter to determine the impact on the energy state of the quantum vacuum. The derived relationship will be used to predict a radius of the hydrogen atom which will be compared with the Bohr radius for validation. The ramifications of this equation will be explored in the context of the predicted electron mass, the electrostatic force, and the energy density of the electric field around the hydrogen nucleus. It will finally be shown that this perturbed energy state of the quantum vacuum can be successfully modeled as a virtual electron-positron plasma, or the Dirac vacuum.It appears that academics like to think long and hard about new things... Best, Paul M.That abstract is quite a word salad. I don't understand where it all comes from. The EW lab has not demonstrated that any force has been produced, at least with what has been made public so far. There was a paper Mr. White published some time ago that had pictures of an interferometer and that contained similar claims as this abstract. With no data to prove a thrust has been produced I don't see any need for this elaborate theory.