I think these thrust inconsistencies can be attributed to Shawyer's assertions that this isn't a reaction less drive combined with him being fast and loose with precise terms such as thrust and reaction in order to support that. Literally every single thing Shawyer says that I put to the skeptical test, falls apart. It is certainly possible he built something exciting, but his explanations are lacking. Given that the rest of Shawyer's theory doesn't follow and the thrust paradoxes I presented here, his thrust direction explanation is suspect too.The Nasa paper doesn't come right out and say it, but it seems the normal thrust orientation is thrust to the left. See figure 9 page 7 and see figure 11 page 9 of Brady et al paper. (This is a loose correlation because this could be normal to Cannae, not the chamber)The Nasa paper didn't say they flipped the Shawyer design over or provide the sign of the measured thrust. (Did I miss it?)Given the videos published by Shawyer and his illustration of his space plane (he wants it to go up), it is clear that the direction of thrust for the Shawyer tapered test article is toward the small end. (flying through space pointy end first) I'm not willing to pick this horse based on this paltry evidence, but that is the bias I have.There is a LOT of inconsistencies here that need to be addressed in a skeptical way.Other than the video I posted of the thing seemingly moving, is there anything in writing from Nasa that says the thrust was one sign or another?(Not Cannae)
Quote from: Mulletron on 11/18/2014 09:05 pmI think these thrust inconsistencies can be attributed to Shawyer's assertions that this isn't a reaction less drive combined with him being fast and loose with precise terms such as thrust and reaction in order to support that. Literally every single thing Shawyer says that I put to the skeptical test, falls apart. It is certainly possible he built something exciting, but his explanations are lacking. Given that the rest of Shawyer's theory doesn't follow and the thrust paradoxes I presented here, his thrust direction explanation is suspect too.The Nasa paper doesn't come right out and say it, but it seems the normal thrust orientation is thrust to the left. See figure 9 page 7 and see figure 11 page 9 of Brady et al paper. (This is a loose correlation because this could be normal to Cannae, not the chamber)The Nasa paper didn't say they flipped the Shawyer design over or provide the sign of the measured thrust. (Did I miss it?)Given the videos published by Shawyer and his illustration of his space plane (he wants it to go up), it is clear that the direction of thrust for the Shawyer tapered test article is toward the small end. (flying through space pointy end first) I'm not willing to pick this horse based on this paltry evidence, but that is the bias I have.There is a LOT of inconsistencies here that need to be addressed in a skeptical way.Other than the video I posted of the thing seemingly moving, is there anything in writing from Nasa that says the thrust was one sign or another?(Not Cannae)1) You are not explaining why you insist in not taking into account the NASA Cannae test, to determine the direction of thrust vis-a-vis the position of the dielectric and vis-a-vis the slighter larger end of the Cannae device.2) If NASA's Paul March was consistent in placing the dielectric for NASA's truncated cone consistent with the dielectric placement for the Cannae, it necessarily follows that NASA's definition of thrust force and NASA's measurement in the pendulum was towards the big end of the truncated cone because:a) we know that NASA placed the dielectric in the truncated cone at the small endb) NASA is explicit that the thrust force for the Cannae occurred towards the end opposite to the location of the dielectric in the Cannae.For the thrust force to have occurred towards the small end of the truncated cone, it would mean that:c) Paul March would have to have inconsistently placed the dielectric in the truncated cone in a direction opposite as to where he expected the thrust force to occur. Ron Stahl is on record stating that Paul March told him that it was March's idea to place the dielectric in the truncated cone in the first place.d) the NASA authors would have been negligent in their writing of the "Anomalous..." report if they would have observed the thrust force to have occurred towards the small end of the truncated cone and not mention it, since this would have been the opposite of what they found for the Cannae device.
Quote from: Rodal on 11/18/2014 09:32 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 11/18/2014 09:05 pmI think these thrust inconsistencies can be attributed to Shawyer's assertions that this isn't a reaction less drive combined with him being fast and loose with precise terms such as thrust and reaction in order to support that. Literally every single thing Shawyer says that I put to the skeptical test, falls apart. It is certainly possible he built something exciting, but his explanations are lacking. Given that the rest of Shawyer's theory doesn't follow and the thrust paradoxes I presented here, his thrust direction explanation is suspect too.The Nasa paper doesn't come right out and say it, but it seems the normal thrust orientation is thrust to the left. See figure 9 page 7 and see figure 11 page 9 of Brady et al paper. (This is a loose correlation because this could be normal to Cannae, not the chamber)The Nasa paper didn't say they flipped the Shawyer design over or provide the sign of the measured thrust. (Did I miss it?)Given the videos published by Shawyer and his illustration of his space plane (he wants it to go up), it is clear that the direction of thrust for the Shawyer tapered test article is toward the small end. (flying through space pointy end first) I'm not willing to pick this horse based on this paltry evidence, but that is the bias I have.There is a LOT of inconsistencies here that need to be addressed in a skeptical way.Other than the video I posted of the thing seemingly moving, is there anything in writing from Nasa that says the thrust was one sign or another?(Not Cannae)1) You are not explaining why you insist in not taking into account the NASA Cannae test, to determine the direction of thrust vis-a-vis the position of the dielectric and vis-a-vis the slighter larger end of the Cannae device.2) If NASA's Paul March was consistent in placing the dielectric for NASA's truncated cone consistent with the dielectric placement for the Cannae, it necessarily follows that NASA's definition of thrust force and NASA's measurement in the pendulum was towards the big end of the truncated cone because:a) we know that NASA placed the dielectric in the truncated cone at the small endb) NASA is explicit that the thrust force for the Cannae occurred towards the end opposite to the location of the dielectric in the Cannae.For the thrust force to have occurred towards the small end of the truncated cone, it would mean that:c) Paul March would have to have inconsistently placed the dielectric in the truncated cone in a direction opposite as to where he expected the thrust force to occur. Ron Stahl is on record stating that Paul March told him that it was March's idea to place the dielectric in the truncated cone in the first place.d) the NASA authors would have been negligent in their writing of the "Anomalous..." report if they would have observed the thrust force to have occurred towards the small end of the truncated cone and not mention it, since this would have been the opposite of what they found for the Cannae device.Your argument is based off the position of the dielectric, which doesn't follow. But if it did follow, your argument support my earlier assertions that putting the dielectric at the big or small end doesn't matter. I am glad to see you are back on board with dielectric thrust. Side note, let's not get too serious about all this.
When something doesn't agree with your unexplained postures you write that it doesn't follow. What you mean is that you don't understand or worse, don't want to understand why somebody else thinks it follows. No I am not with you regarding your readings of the Quantum Vacuum and their effect on a piece of Teflon or Polyethylene polymer. They don't make any sense to me, from my academic studies or professional experience. I don't know anybody at major universities that has such theories. If it turns out that there is an interaction between these common polymers and the Quantum Vacuum in a microwave cavity that can practically serve for space propulsion I would be both very surprised and extremely delighted.But it logically follows (to me) that for somebody (like Paul March and Dr. White) who thinks that the dielectric placement in the microwave cavity has an interaction with the Quantum Vacuum, that they (Paul March and Dr. White) would place the dielectric always in a consistent manner both in the Cannae and the truncated cone, and if they wouldn't I would expect them to write about it and explain why they would have placed it inconsistently.
Well the matter is settled then. If you don't believe in the dielectric thrust scenario (even when the Brady et al paper said dielectric was important to thrust) (and the heaps and bounds of literature I've presented supporting it) you can't use the dielectric thrust placement as an argument for or agin. Especially when I've said multiple times that dielectric placement isn't the most fundamental thing here.The paradoxes still remain. We'll hopefully get answers this fall from Eagleworks anomalous thrust Part II.Thanks for keeping me on my toes with your spirited debate.
These mounting bolts? How does bolting it down on one side or the other matter? That doesn't change sign. Flipping it changes sign. Bolts pull and push.
Just to add my two cents worth, look at a couple of equations.F = m * a , so force must be in the same direction as acceleration, andF= mdot * Ve, so force must be in the same direction as Ve.But guess what! Rocket exhaust velocity, Ve is in the direction opposite to rocket engine acceleration. Now, call one thrust and one force, but what ever you name them, Rocket exhaust velocity and rocket engine acceleration have different signs.
I did finish my first attempt to compute Quality factor of the Brady cavity. It took much longer than I had hoped because I had to sleep on the cause of my computer shutting down every half hour. I awoke this morning and turned off the stupid Power management shut down which of course solved that problem. Then I let the run finished but it took 10 hours instead of six. I am now looking at the data and have decided that I won't get useful answers by simulating a perfect metal cavity. Some perfect values-Frequency- 2.040922E+009; Q- 2,236,229.84Frequency- 2.119509E+009; Q- 4,437,476.10Q of 2 to 4 x106 is nice to imagine, but real metal will reduce that and maybe change the frequency. Its a start, though.And just for giggles, I've attached an image of the fields. Red, magnetic and Blue electric, I think? It does show the effect of the dielectric. Note that the cavity is closed on both ends, it is just that the 0.002 inch copper ends draws to fine a line to show up with the graphic software. That is, if the end lines showed on the graphic they would not be true to the scale of the graphic. But the ends are included in the calculations, I get some really pretty fields without the big end closed.
Paul March would have to have inconsistently placed the dielectric in the truncated cone (as compared to the Cannae device) in a direction opposite as to where he expected the thrust force to occur. Ron Stahl is on record stating that Paul March told him that it was March's idea to place the dielectric in the truncated cone in the first place.
Briefly, the -Zc dkbluered makes the color scale go from dark blue (negative) to white (zero) to dark red (positive),
Don't read to much into my fields graphic. It might be weak/strong field. But I'm sure that blue is strong e-field. I'll find out and of course tell all QuoteBriefly, the -Zc dkbluered makes the color scale go from dark blue (negative) to white (zero) to dark red (positive), The cavity was excited with an Ez field, (electric field) so the colors are a measure of the electric field. I could excite with a magnetic field if that would be helpful.