Quote from: Prunesquallor on 10/13/2015 11:43 pmQuote from: zen-in on 10/13/2015 10:46 pmQuote from: aceshigh on 10/13/2015 04:12 pmgreat to see Paul March's post, although I guess NASA is still controlling what Eagleworks may or may not say....My memory is not that good, but I remember there was a talk of the americans here writing their representatives to tell NASA to not block info from Eagleworks. If this memory is correct, did anyone proceeded with writing their representatives?My guess is that NASA is just enforcing its ITAR policy as interpreted by the NASA Inspector General. When I worked at a NASA center even something as innocuous as presenting a paper to an SPIE conference required approval of the contents. This took over a week. It is even worse if a NASA contractor is a foreign national; Canadian, British, or other nationality. They have to be escorted everywhere they go and are scrutinized by the FBI every 2 years. There is a lot of paranoia there. If Paul March wants to keep his job he will have to toe the line.You are correct. ITAR is brutal and the regs are in flux. Anything to do with propulsion is problematic.That seems to imply that NASA management believes EM Drive may be a real effect (if so, it could be used as a kinetic weapon), but my impression has been much more on the line that NASA just wants to avoid negative light and mocking of the science it does, which would explain why the firewall on the info from EagleWorks was erected only after Eagle Works experiments became "mediatic" appearing EVERYWHERE and also being criticized everywhere. If was just protection against foreign espionage, NASA would have acted long before the EM Drive and Warp Drive appeared on Forbes...
Quote from: zen-in on 10/13/2015 10:46 pmQuote from: aceshigh on 10/13/2015 04:12 pmgreat to see Paul March's post, although I guess NASA is still controlling what Eagleworks may or may not say....My memory is not that good, but I remember there was a talk of the americans here writing their representatives to tell NASA to not block info from Eagleworks. If this memory is correct, did anyone proceeded with writing their representatives?My guess is that NASA is just enforcing its ITAR policy as interpreted by the NASA Inspector General. When I worked at a NASA center even something as innocuous as presenting a paper to an SPIE conference required approval of the contents. This took over a week. It is even worse if a NASA contractor is a foreign national; Canadian, British, or other nationality. They have to be escorted everywhere they go and are scrutinized by the FBI every 2 years. There is a lot of paranoia there. If Paul March wants to keep his job he will have to toe the line.You are correct. ITAR is brutal and the regs are in flux. Anything to do with propulsion is problematic.
Quote from: aceshigh on 10/13/2015 04:12 pmgreat to see Paul March's post, although I guess NASA is still controlling what Eagleworks may or may not say....My memory is not that good, but I remember there was a talk of the americans here writing their representatives to tell NASA to not block info from Eagleworks. If this memory is correct, did anyone proceeded with writing their representatives?My guess is that NASA is just enforcing its ITAR policy as interpreted by the NASA Inspector General. When I worked at a NASA center even something as innocuous as presenting a paper to an SPIE conference required approval of the contents. This took over a week. It is even worse if a NASA contractor is a foreign national; Canadian, British, or other nationality. They have to be escorted everywhere they go and are scrutinized by the FBI every 2 years. There is a lot of paranoia there. If Paul March wants to keep his job he will have to toe the line.
great to see Paul March's post, although I guess NASA is still controlling what Eagleworks may or may not say....My memory is not that good, but I remember there was a talk of the americans here writing their representatives to tell NASA to not block info from Eagleworks. If this memory is correct, did anyone proceeded with writing their representatives?
Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 11:47 pmQuote from: rq3 on 10/13/2015 01:07 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 01:32 amQuote from: rq3 on 10/13/2015 01:25 amUnless I'm missing something, it really looks bad when you conflate radius and diameter. What else do we have to guess at to understand your approach? Is the center of curvature for the endplates a radius? What is its origin? Be clear. Be concise. Be careful. No handwaving allowed. None. If you choose to publish drawings, they should be of sufficient quality that another person, "schooled in the art", can replicate your device and results.Roger made that clear quite some time ago. End plates radius from the frustum vertex.My design is 2nd image.But that's exactly my point. In the figure TTEMDriveMark2-1.jpg what appears to be the diameter of the frustum is labeled as the radius. Which is it? It may appear obvious, but it's sloppy. If the drawing purports to be an attempt at an assembly drawing, it doesn't pass muster.It is a schematic, not a build plan.But you've dodged the question. Is that a diameter or a radius? Even a schematic should be labeled correctly, unless you are attempting intentional obfuscation.
Quote from: rq3 on 10/13/2015 01:07 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 01:32 amQuote from: rq3 on 10/13/2015 01:25 amUnless I'm missing something, it really looks bad when you conflate radius and diameter. What else do we have to guess at to understand your approach? Is the center of curvature for the endplates a radius? What is its origin? Be clear. Be concise. Be careful. No handwaving allowed. None. If you choose to publish drawings, they should be of sufficient quality that another person, "schooled in the art", can replicate your device and results.Roger made that clear quite some time ago. End plates radius from the frustum vertex.My design is 2nd image.But that's exactly my point. In the figure TTEMDriveMark2-1.jpg what appears to be the diameter of the frustum is labeled as the radius. Which is it? It may appear obvious, but it's sloppy. If the drawing purports to be an attempt at an assembly drawing, it doesn't pass muster.It is a schematic, not a build plan.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/13/2015 01:32 amQuote from: rq3 on 10/13/2015 01:25 amUnless I'm missing something, it really looks bad when you conflate radius and diameter. What else do we have to guess at to understand your approach? Is the center of curvature for the endplates a radius? What is its origin? Be clear. Be concise. Be careful. No handwaving allowed. None. If you choose to publish drawings, they should be of sufficient quality that another person, "schooled in the art", can replicate your device and results.Roger made that clear quite some time ago. End plates radius from the frustum vertex.My design is 2nd image.But that's exactly my point. In the figure TTEMDriveMark2-1.jpg what appears to be the diameter of the frustum is labeled as the radius. Which is it? It may appear obvious, but it's sloppy. If the drawing purports to be an attempt at an assembly drawing, it doesn't pass muster.
Quote from: rq3 on 10/13/2015 01:25 amUnless I'm missing something, it really looks bad when you conflate radius and diameter. What else do we have to guess at to understand your approach? Is the center of curvature for the endplates a radius? What is its origin? Be clear. Be concise. Be careful. No handwaving allowed. None. If you choose to publish drawings, they should be of sufficient quality that another person, "schooled in the art", can replicate your device and results.Roger made that clear quite some time ago. End plates radius from the frustum vertex.My design is 2nd image.
Unless I'm missing something, it really looks bad when you conflate radius and diameter. What else do we have to guess at to understand your approach? Is the center of curvature for the endplates a radius? What is its origin? Be clear. Be concise. Be careful. No handwaving allowed. None. If you choose to publish drawings, they should be of sufficient quality that another person, "schooled in the art", can replicate your device and results.
... The data is borderline significant, but the "result" claimed is based on a faulty experimental design. The experiments were not performed in vacuum, and so there is no real way to completely eliminate thermal effects from the data. Without vacuum tests the "results" are not credible, even if the data was really good. I'm sure that if I put a toaster on the end of a lever and measured the force when on or off, that I would be able to extract some kind of similar signal from the noise. ...
Along the way, Zvi, John Joseph and Henrik, thanks to the time-honored method of “just staring at” the loop integrand provided by unitarity, also stumbled on a new property of gauge theory amplitudes, which tightly couples them to gravity. They found that gauge theory amplitudes can be written in such a way that their kinematic part obeys relations that are structurally identical to the Jacobi identities known to fans of Lie algebras. This so-called color-kinematics duality, when achieved, leads to a simple “double copy” prescription for computing amplitudes in suitable theories of gravity: Take the gauge theory amplitude, remove the color factors and square the kinematic numerator factors. Crudely, a graviton looks very much like two gluons laid on top of each other. If you’ve ever looked at the Feynman rules for gravity, you’d be shocked that such a simple prescription could ever work, but it does.
Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/11/2015 02:39 am ... The data is borderline significant, but the "result" claimed is based on a faulty experimental design. The experiments were not performed in vacuum, and so there is no real way to completely eliminate thermal effects from the data. Without vacuum tests the "results" are not credible, even if the data was really good. I'm sure that if I put a toaster on the end of a lever and measured the force when on or off, that I would be able to extract some kind of similar signal from the noise. ...The question “What can DIY experimenters do?” is of interest.It has been rather a long time since anyone has been able to significantly push forward the knowledge physics from inside their home, on a budget that an average person can afford.Whilst it is true that you don’t really need a $17 billion advanced collider, it usually takes the resources of a fairly decent educational institution or a government funded enterprise to achieve something that would appear in a peer approved journal today. The days of Newton and Faraday seem to have long gone. The low hanging fruit has essentially being picked over.It is thus easy for the professional scientist to make the obvious observations that signals from any experiment that are in the dirt or below the noise floor cannot obtain real or valid data. At first glance it would seem that only low level signals free from error and noise can be only be obtained with incredibly well thought out and carefully designed experiments to eliminate known sources of noise. And when amateurs who use incredibly ingenuity, skill and sheer determination do obtain some possibly spurious signals which “could” be anomalous with known physics, it is easy to critique under the guise of guiding methodology whilst in reality they are just being negative. It actually sounds like they are trying to enhance their own cred for minimal effort though I suppose in their own minds they see it as being helpful rather than trying to put the amateurs off. (By amateurs I only mean those that are working privately with extremely limited funding compared to some institution.)Forget the fact, that for those smart enough, this may be a really fun and entertaining way to spend time trying to discover new knowledge in a similar way to those amateur astronomers who actually do contribute to the total knowledge of astronomy. Yes it is perhaps unlikely that the DIY experimenters might actually find the million to one loophole in existing physics theory but the thing is ... it is the chase that is fun!The prize makes it worthwhile and following the breadcrumbs of My. Shawyer makes it a really fun and interesting treasure hunt. In reality they are not trying to out compete the likes of the big boys like CERN, NASA or Boeing etc. They are just having a lot of fun doing something which their own skills are eminently suitable for.My only regret is that my own knowledge isn’t quite sufficient to play at the level of the likes of Shells, Aero, rfmwguy, Elizabeth Green, the Traveller and others who I would love to mention. Early on (back in thread 1) I realized I was likely to fry off some valued portion of my anatomy if I tried to do what rfmwguy did and so I took my meager budget and donated it to others so I could at least live vicariously through their efforts.But the point is in my own view, none of the DIY experimenters really need to spend huge $$$ on vacuum chambers and other technologies in an attempt to remove all sources of error – which is the same as lowering the noise floor. There is another completely different approach which has just as great a potential of yielding real results (assuming there are any to be had) and isn’t so fraught with having to fight with the scientific method of peer reviewed journals.As I see what rfmwguy and Shells and the others are doing, it is not so much as messing with the noise floor as tinkering with the experiment to see if any anomalous signals start to rise up above that noise floor. Since nobody as yet understands how this thing works (if it does) then tweaking anything; anything at all, whether it be Q, geometry, different feed methods or maybe even sprinkling in fairy dust is fair game. If a signal changes in any meaning full way, either up or down then it will tell us something. Something at best that might even possibly suggest what is going on or at worst, something else that can be tried. In which case Shells is on target with “No data is bad data”.Some tweaks may indeed also affect buoyancy, forces from currents from environmental magnetic fields etc. So what? Yes this isn’t the way CERN or Fermi labs go about it (and hopefully not Eagle Works) but hey! That’s the advantage of being an amateur. They don’t have to play by rules and doing something outside of the box occasionally produces results. Shawyer and Yang and others may have produced spurious signals above the noise floor. rfmwguy saw something that wasn’t easily explainable. If any tweaks cause this “something” to change then it could well give a clue to what is happening – even if it is just understanding the real affects of magnetron heating.Right now I would love nothing more than to work besides the likes of Shell, Traveller and rfmwguy. If Aero lived closer and he could teach me MEEP I would love to involve myself with that … I just fear that if I tried to learn on line I would show how big a fool I really am.Whether the DIY’ers ever find anything or not, this is perhaps the last opportunity of a life time when someone in their garage could actually contribute to physics knowledge in a similar way to that those guys with their telescopes in their back yards do. The fact that it could be done using a modified kitchen appliance also appeals to my sense of wonder (and humor) at how strange the universe really is.The scientific method is not defined by professional scientists. In the end it is far more about discovery of new knowledge than can be confirmed and repeated by others … if necessary in the fancy labs with the one micro-torr vacuum chambers. But that is for later.My plea is that the DIY’ers never ever be distracted … oh and if any live in So Cal, please PM me … I would love to team up. In the meantime I’ll go back to lurking and saving my cash to contribute to the people here I am most envious of – those that are having fun! Cheers to all the DIY'ers
You may want to step through the distance between the end plates and see the resonances. It will be interesting to compare. Also did you see the parts bins in the pictures of the shop, that's just part of all of them... yes I have spares parts and beads
Oh,and then we wonder why conspiracy theories do exist! This makes me believe that if there is a silence after initial announcement (EmDrive, LENR etc), there's no joke, it is real and working somewhere in a secret lab. Public and media will be fed with fake data in order to believe that it doesn't work and it never did Unless...a large group of diy-ers proves with no doubt that it works, every time, and it can be reproduced/rebuilt using common household items, before the wordwide ban of microwave ovens takes place!
Quote from: Prunesquallor on 10/13/2015 11:43 pmQuote from: zen-in on 10/13/2015 10:46 pmQuote from: aceshigh on 10/13/2015 04:12 pmgreat to see Paul March's post, although I guess NASA is still controlling what Eagleworks may or may not say....My memory is not that good, but I remember there was a talk of the americans here writing their representatives to tell NASA to not block info from Eagleworks. If this memory is correct, did anyone proceeded with writing their representatives?My guess is that NASA is just enforcing its ITAR policy as interpreted by the NASA Inspector General. When I worked at a NASA center even something as innocuous as presenting a paper to an SPIE conference required approval of the contents. This took over a week. It is even worse if a NASA contractor is a foreign national; Canadian, British, or other nationality. They have to be escorted everywhere they go and are scrutinized by the FBI every 2 years. There is a lot of paranoia there. If Paul March wants to keep his job he will have to toe the line.You are correct. ITAR is brutal and the regs are in flux. Anything to do with propulsion is problematic.And you are also very correct! Not only is ITAR brutal, inflexible and in flux (which pretty much means Dept of State (DoS) can do whatever they want) ITAR applies to EVERYONE whether you are working for a big entity like NASA, a small startup, or are an independent researcher. In my former position I had training on this every six months or so. I specifically ask each legal beagle that question - who does it apply to -and the answer was universal and consistent - "Everyone". It is one of the reasons why many folks on ebay for instance won't sell internationally - they don't want to even chance running afoul of ITAR. ITAR and EAR regulations cover ANY "export" of pretty much anything someone thinks could be useful for arms - yes propulsion is very much covered. . And an "Export" includes data and processes and techniques so just discussing info with any foreign entity - even a US citizen who works for foreign company and is standing in your living room in say Omaha. And typical intelligence groupings for US Allies like 5 eyes mean NOTHING to ITAR - well you may get DoS approval a little faster after you make formal application, but causing an export to such folks without approval is still a problem.I am not trying to alarm anyone here but if you are going to post data please familiarize yourself with ITAR and EAR (Export Administration Regulations). Google/Wikipedia is a good start. Oh and just because data originated with a 'foreign' (to US) source doesn't mean you can then "pass it on". That constitutes a "re-export" and is also under ITAR. One more OBTW - under certain circumstances foreign nationals outside the US can cause an "export" to occur - I can't begin to explain that one since I (hopefully) still have a soul i.e. am not a lawyer. Herman
Quote from: graybeardsyseng on 10/14/2015 09:40 amQuote from: Prunesquallor on 10/13/2015 11:43 pmQuote from: zen-in on 10/13/2015 10:46 pmQuote from: aceshigh on 10/13/2015 04:12 pmgreat to see Paul March's post, although I guess NASA is still controlling what Eagleworks may or may not say....My memory is not that good, but I remember there was a talk of the americans here writing their representatives to tell NASA to not block info from Eagleworks. If this memory is correct, did anyone proceeded with writing their representatives?My guess is that NASA is just enforcing its ITAR policy as interpreted by the NASA Inspector General. When I worked at a NASA center even something as innocuous as presenting a paper to an SPIE conference required approval of the contents. This took over a week. It is even worse if a NASA contractor is a foreign national; Canadian, British, or other nationality. They have to be escorted everywhere they go and are scrutinized by the FBI every 2 years. There is a lot of paranoia there. If Paul March wants to keep his job he will have to toe the line.You are correct. ITAR is brutal and the regs are in flux. Anything to do with propulsion is problematic.And you are also very correct! Not only is ITAR brutal, inflexible and in flux (which pretty much means Dept of State (DoS) can do whatever they want) ITAR applies to EVERYONE whether you are working for a big entity like NASA, a small startup, or are an independent researcher. In my former position I had training on this every six months or so. I specifically ask each legal beagle that question - who does it apply to -and the answer was universal and consistent - "Everyone". It is one of the reasons why many folks on ebay for instance won't sell internationally - they don't want to even chance running afoul of ITAR. ITAR and EAR regulations cover ANY "export" of pretty much anything someone thinks could be useful for arms - yes propulsion is very much covered. . And an "Export" includes data and processes and techniques so just discussing info with any foreign entity - even a US citizen who works for foreign company and is standing in your living room in say Omaha. And typical intelligence groupings for US Allies like 5 eyes mean NOTHING to ITAR - well you may get DoS approval a little faster after you make formal application, but causing an export to such folks without approval is still a problem.I am not trying to alarm anyone here but if you are going to post data please familiarize yourself with ITAR and EAR (Export Administration Regulations). Google/Wikipedia is a good start. Oh and just because data originated with a 'foreign' (to US) source doesn't mean you can then "pass it on". That constitutes a "re-export" and is also under ITAR. One more OBTW - under certain circumstances foreign nationals outside the US can cause an "export" to occur - I can't begin to explain that one since I (hopefully) still have a soul i.e. am not a lawyer. HermanCan we be done with ITAR please? It's totally off-topic, and it's distracting. ITAR is not the boogeyman, and it's not the reason Eagleworks stopped updates on their EMDrive research. If any one thing triggered the cut-off, the NSF article I helped write precipitated that (I have no regrets that we wrote it).EW didn't need wild speculative press banging on their doors (it was) and distracting everyone with headlines like "NASA ACCIDENTALLY DISCOVERS WARP DRIVE" (real headline) while they are trying to conduct basic theoretical research that may or may not pan out, but which definitely does not synch with the 24-hour news cycle.
...I consider the EMDrive issue to be on the cusp of moving from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 to 2. I am preparing a white paper on that and what it means vis a vis experimentation right now and will have it ready shortly - hopefully today. Often TRL level 1 and 2 material escapes ITAR issues as it is are often considered basic science/engineering and "public". However, once EMdrive goes to TRL 3 - if ever - there WILL be people watching. BTW - accidental or inadvertent release of information under ITAR control can often be handled with minimum impact. But willful disregard - including willful ignorance - is generally much more serious. My last comments on the subject.Herman
Quote from: graybeardsyseng on 10/14/2015 03:16 pm...I consider the EMDrive issue to be on the cusp of moving from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 to 2. I am preparing a white paper on that and what it means vis a vis experimentation right now and will have it ready shortly - hopefully today. Often TRL level 1 and 2 material escapes ITAR issues as it is are often considered basic science/engineering and "public". However, once EMdrive goes to TRL 3 - if ever - there WILL be people watching. BTW - accidental or inadvertent release of information under ITAR control can often be handled with minimum impact. But willful disregard - including willful ignorance - is generally much more serious. My last comments on the subject.HermanIt is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1. The science has not been demonstrated yet. No consistently repeatable results have occurred.
Think its good to discuss technology regs, as I spent a lot of time in my past life dealing with the ability to export electronics products. Something like the EMDrive in its relative infancy is better broken down to its base components. Nothing in there with DIY designs are restricted commodities to the best of my knowledge (except of course exports to "unfriendly" nations as defined by the country you live in).Which, is kinda the beauty of the thing if you think about it. No exotic materials or microprocessors. So far, we basically have kitchen microwave parts and empty metal cans. Pretty innocuous components being used in a novel new way. Since the EMDrive experimentation has already been in the public domain about the only concerns out there are more aligned with corporate interests and who, if anyone, can capitalize on it. Just IMHO.