As to thrust balance, there are lots of different designs. The suspension notion has some merit, but if one is to completely eliminate thermal as a spurious source, those wires are serious trouble. What I think would be much better, and perhaps in many ways easier; would be to use magnetic suspension. This is surprisingly easy to do and apart from the stray magnetic fields this generates, it solves a host of issues. MIT is doing this and I have to say, I like it! But when you're using these powerful fields for suspension, you both need to make judicious use of something like Mu metal during your testing (once you have thrust) to show you don't have b field coupling, and you'll need to make a fully powered test where your dummy load is as perfect as it can be. For the MET, this is simple: just alter the phase between the 1w and 2w portions of the power supply as this should not matter much for coupling and so provide a good dummy. For thruster designs that use a single frequency component, the task is harder. You'll need to think on that. Here though for your consideration is a small vid of the MIT Space Propulsion Lab balance in acton. It's a fun setup. There's nothing like floating stuff in the extra bedroom. :-)
Please elaborate on the bolded statements above.....Do you think a properly sealed, in an air tight container, insulated and baffled test article could suffice as a substitute for a vacuum, at least for lower power level studies? I'm planning on putting my test article in a sealed, foil lined box surrounded by insulation for example. I want to eliminate conduction convection and radiation as much as possible and not break the bank. Do you think that is enough? I understand the utility of using a hard vacuum as a pentamount test, but using the crawl walk run approach along with proper controls, we can glean useful results.Also do you think that elaborate magnetic suspension is better than a low torsion string? Considering we're trying to measure mosquito fart levels of thrust here?
Quote from: Ron Stahl on 11/19/2014 02:49 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 11/19/2014 12:36 pmWell, the propulsive efficiency of the "advertised" experimental devices is very low. For some reason, I seem to be the only person to put this in English: The devices aim to convert electrical energy into linear momentum.That is one interpretation, based upon certain explanations for the thrust being true and others not. Generally though, any explanation that holds this view that this is a force transducer, leads to a violation of conservation. The exception to this, is Woodward's theory which posits that this, if indeed it is generating Mach-Effects; is a gravinertial transistor, not a transducer. It is not transforming electrical power into kinetic but rather, controlling the flow of inertial flux into and out of the active mass, and that therefore the vast bulk of the energy and power provided is not electrical but gravinertial. This is why Woodward's theory alone does not violate conservation. Also, it is why Woodward's theory alone posits hugely improved thrust to electrical power ratios than what we've seen--the power is not being transduced or converted into thrust. It is merely controlling the flux that gives matter its mass.Can you please expand on the bolded statements above? This sounds very interesting. Please explain what you mean.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 11/19/2014 12:36 pmWell, the propulsive efficiency of the "advertised" experimental devices is very low. For some reason, I seem to be the only person to put this in English: The devices aim to convert electrical energy into linear momentum.That is one interpretation, based upon certain explanations for the thrust being true and others not. Generally though, any explanation that holds this view that this is a force transducer, leads to a violation of conservation. The exception to this, is Woodward's theory which posits that this, if indeed it is generating Mach-Effects; is a gravinertial transistor, not a transducer. It is not transforming electrical power into kinetic but rather, controlling the flow of inertial flux into and out of the active mass, and that therefore the vast bulk of the energy and power provided is not electrical but gravinertial. This is why Woodward's theory alone does not violate conservation. Also, it is why Woodward's theory alone posits hugely improved thrust to electrical power ratios than what we've seen--the power is not being transduced or converted into thrust. It is merely controlling the flux that gives matter its mass.
Well, the propulsive efficiency of the "advertised" experimental devices is very low. For some reason, I seem to be the only person to put this in English: The devices aim to convert electrical energy into linear momentum.
Indeed, building on our previous discussion on the nature of the QV itself (has weight but gravitationally repulsive, possible QV suitability as exotic matter analogue), Dr. White repeatedly hints that he is exploring this line of research in his warp experiments. He doesn't come out and say it. He is testing Qthrusters on a test bench designed to look for warped spacetime. At the 55:30 mark on through 58:30, he gets a tough question regarding this and he shies away from that. He's essentially saying (or I am, not sure) that creating a perturbed state in the QV is changing the shape of spacetime from flat to sloped.
CalTech's Prof. Kip Thorne, also just wrote a popular, 336 pages long book titled "The Science of Interstellar"http://www.amazon.com/Science-Interstellar-Kip-Thorne/dp/0393351378/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1416766293&sr=8-1&keywords=kip+thorne+interstellarSorry, he doesn't mention in his book the Quantum Vacuum, negative mass, the Mach Effect, Prof. Woodward's theory or experiments, nor does he mention Dr. White's warp drive theory or his Q-Drive experiments. Thorne does mention LIGO, Randall, Hawking, Witten and Einstein.
This is why M-E Theory and QVF are incompatible--they make contradictory claims about where inertia comes from. The ZPF theory White's QVF model rests upon and is an extension of, stipulates that matter gets its mass from the virtual particles in the ZPF. M-E theory stipulates that matter gets its mass from the gravitational connection between all the universe's parts but chiefly from the farthest parts as per Mach's Principle. Both these could be wrong, but they can't both be right because they contradict one another.
The formalized science will work itself out. it always does.
And now there is this: http://boingboing.net/2014/11/24/the-quest-for-a-reactionless-s.html
Quote from: Mulletron on 11/23/2014 04:43 pmIndeed, building on our previous discussion on the nature of the QV itself (has weight but gravitationally repulsive, possible QV suitability as exotic matter analogue), Dr. White repeatedly hints that he is exploring this line of research in his warp experiments. He doesn't come out and say it. He is testing Qthrusters on a test bench designed to look for warped spacetime. At the 55:30 mark on through 58:30, he gets a tough question regarding this and he shies away from that. He's essentially saying (or I am, not sure) that creating a perturbed state in the QV is changing the shape of spacetime from flat to sloped.This is why M-E Theory and QVF are incompatible--they make contradictory claims about where inertia comes from. The ZPF theory White's QVF model rests upon and is an extension of, stipulates that matter gets its mass from the virtual particles in the ZPF. M-E theory stipulates that matter gets its mass from the gravitational connection between all the universe's parts but chiefly from the farthest parts as per Mach's Principle. Both these could be wrong, but they can't both be right because they contradict one another.
The real power is in the gravinertial flux--the universal wind created by and controlled by the MET.
His warp interferometer experiment has implicit in it that the q thruster or a similar device does warp space. If it didn't he would have nothing to generate the warp he hopes to detect. And it has to be more than just the mass of his test article. if his interferometer was sensitive enough he could hypothetically at least measure the curvature due to the mass of atoms the beam passes by in the instrument. but it is not that sensitive.
Ron; i meant in the sense that often exploitation comes before formal understanding. For example; man was cooking megafauna long before the chemistry and combustion physics were known. shamans were whipping up bizarre herbal cocktails (both effective and ineffective) before biochemistry and pharmacological sciencewas a thing. people were blowing stuff up before chemistry was a thing. rockets were made in the near east before tsilovkosky was even conceived let alone scribbled his first equations.you don't always need pages of proven algebra and calculus and thousands of disertations, thesis and papers to do something. sometimes things come by happy accident, or informal observation or mad tinkering.
QVF posits that any strong E field ought to produce this warp curvature.
It's simply not true. It's just yet one more example of the lack of integrity involved with the work at Eagle. Pretty shameful really, but this is what pathological science is like.
Quote from: Stormbringer on 11/24/2014 08:01 pmRon; i meant in the sense that often exploitation comes before formal understanding. For example; man was cooking megafauna long before the chemistry and combustion physics were known. shamans were whipping up bizarre herbal cocktails (both effective and ineffective) before biochemistry and pharmacological sciencewas a thing. people were blowing stuff up before chemistry was a thing. rockets were made in the near east before tsilovkosky was even conceived let alone scribbled his first equations.you don't always need pages of proven algebra and calculus and thousands of disertations, thesis and papers to do something. sometimes things come by happy accident, or informal observation or mad tinkering.I understand what you're saying and it is always possible to stumble onto a discovery rather than deliberately design a hypothesis or a technology. I am just noting, that's not a safe bet. There's no warrant for belief when the theory that predicts is obviously wrong, and continuing to cling to what we know is wrong is a hallmark of pathological science. This does not compare to the careful science Woodward does. It's voodoo nonsense.
There's no warrant for belief when the theory that predicts is obviously wrong, and continuing to cling to what we know is wrong is a hallmark of pathological science.
QVF posits that any strong E field ought to produce this warp curvature. The original interferometer was built to be able to measure something like 11 orders magnitude less curvature than his model predicted from a single capacitor. He measured no curvature. Then he claimed the laser was not precise enough and waited six months on a replacement, and again, no curvature. Then he started reporting he had had "non-null results" which is fanciful at best. If null results were possible, he had null results. That didn't stop him claiming he had real curvature when he gave the address out at U. of AZ.Now if you're saying he is yet again, claiming the laser was not powerful enough and he lacked resolution in the interferometer, I would just note to you he would have had to be off by more than 20 orders of magnitude for his original experiment for that to be true. It's simply not true. It's just yet one more example of the lack of integrity involved with the work at Eagle. Pretty shameful really, but this is what pathological science is like.
Being that the work that Dr. White and Dr. Woodward are both pioneering endeavors, both of which haven't been falsified, I see no reason to have the view that somebody's theory is obviously wrong.