Quote from: Rodal on 09/16/2014 03:25 pmQuote from: wembley on 09/16/2014 01:38 pm...The point about the Cannae drive is not how much thrust it produced in the NASA test compared to other designs, but whether their 3 micronewton design is plausible. Because if they have backing, it will be built and launched...@WembleyI still don't understand why would somebody want to put in orbit the "Cannae drive [with] their 3 micronewton design " as you suggest, when Paul March's Woodward-Effect device has been repeatedly tested by him, and reported by NASA's Dr. White (slide 40 of previously linked reference) as having measured 1000 (one thousand) times greater thrust. That argument is the equivalent of saying "I don't see why you'd want to spend money on spaceflight when there are so many starving people in the world."Everyone has their own priorities - and that's a good thing, as it means many different things get tried (and done.) What others choose to do (or not do) are a distraction to the case you want to make.
Quote from: wembley on 09/16/2014 01:38 pm...The point about the Cannae drive is not how much thrust it produced in the NASA test compared to other designs, but whether their 3 micronewton design is plausible. Because if they have backing, it will be built and launched...@WembleyI still don't understand why would somebody want to put in orbit the "Cannae drive [with] their 3 micronewton design " as you suggest, when Paul March's Woodward-Effect device has been repeatedly tested by him, and reported by NASA's Dr. White (slide 40 of previously linked reference) as having measured 1000 (one thousand) times greater thrust.
...The point about the Cannae drive is not how much thrust it produced in the NASA test compared to other designs, but whether their 3 micronewton design is plausible. Because if they have backing, it will be built and launched...
Dr. Woodward maintains that the M-E's mass fluctuations occur in the "squishy" intermolecular chemical bonds of the dielectric and not in the rest mass of the ions in question. Next question is what are these squishy intermolecular chemical bonds made of? They are typically called covalent sharing of molecular electrons and/or an imbalance of ionic electric charges between the charged ions. Ok then what is in between the electrons and ions in these dielectric molecules that is affected by the M-E equation's transient gravity waves, or in other words what do the M-E's pressure transients in the cosmological gravitational field affect in between the molecules that for all practical purposes is a pure vacuum state. A vacuum state filled only with virtual photons of the electric fields and perhaps the virtual e/p pairs of the quantum vacuum. That is why I continue to say that Dr. White in only trying to answer what Woodward's M-E "gravity" pressure waves are effecting at the molecular and subatomic scales. A place that Dr. Woodward refuses to go to this date except perhaps in his musings on the ADM electron structure where the gravitational field is used to counter balance the electrostatic field forces, but once again ignoring the basic question of what either of these fields are composed of. That is supposed to be the realm of quantum gravity, but since no one has come up with an accepted answer for same, Dr. White is free to suggest his own.
Quote from: wembley on 09/16/2014 01:38 pm...The point about the Cannae drive is not how much thrust it produced in the NASA test compared to other designs, but whether their 3 micronewton design is plausible. Because if they have backing, it will be built and launched...@WembleyI still don't understand why would somebody want to put in orbit the "Cannae drive [with] their 3 micronewton design " as you suggest, when Paul March's Woodward-Effect device has been repeatedly tested by him, and reported by NASA's Dr. White (slide 40 of previously linked reference) as having measured 1000 (one thousand) times greater thrust. What is the advantage of the Cannae device compared to Paul March's? Do you have information that its minute measured thrust is more trustworthy or better in some sense?__PS: the actual reported measured thrust by NASA for the Cannae device was 40 microNewtons (not 3 microNewtons)
Quote from: wembley on 09/16/2014 12:51 pmQuote from: Rodal on 09/16/2014 11:55 amshows that Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s EM drive is claimed (with "measurements" performed elsewhere -not at NASA-) to have a thrust force 2000 to 4000 times higher than the drives recently tested at NASA.What information does WiredUK have in this regard? Is Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s EM drive going to go into orbit soon - at a cost less than $100k-?I'm a freelance, but Wired UK have been about the only people who will accept articles on this for the last few years.Unfortunately, Roger Shawyer seems to have been left on the sidelines on this one and SPR are not in a position to launch. I'm currently trying to find out what happened to the UK evaluation of his technology in 2009, but that seems to have been lost. He looks like being a pioneer whose work was taken up by others.Cannae are certainly continuing their work and have previously discussed a Cubesat mission with a thruster producing 3 micronewtons -- note their website is back up again now in slightly altered form --http://cannae.com//2-uncategorised/48-cubesatThere is no indication who they are partnering with, but we they have talked to various aerospace players previously.Yang Juan's work is also progressing largely undercover, but does appear to be progressing. I wrote a piece about this for Aviation Week which should appear shortly. My guess would be they will be the first to launch, unless NASA decide to sieze the initiative. However, the lack of comments from NASA suggests that the agency do not have any great appetitie for it, but I would be interested to hear otherwise. The lack of public statements for a new development doesn't seem normal to me, but others may know better?Isn't the reason we haven't heard much from NASA because from what's been said a lot of the people involved in this work have NDAs in place concerning what they can & cannot talk about it?
Quote from: Rodal on 09/16/2014 11:55 amshows that Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s EM drive is claimed (with "measurements" performed elsewhere -not at NASA-) to have a thrust force 2000 to 4000 times higher than the drives recently tested at NASA.What information does WiredUK have in this regard? Is Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s EM drive going to go into orbit soon - at a cost less than $100k-?I'm a freelance, but Wired UK have been about the only people who will accept articles on this for the last few years.Unfortunately, Roger Shawyer seems to have been left on the sidelines on this one and SPR are not in a position to launch. I'm currently trying to find out what happened to the UK evaluation of his technology in 2009, but that seems to have been lost. He looks like being a pioneer whose work was taken up by others.Cannae are certainly continuing their work and have previously discussed a Cubesat mission with a thruster producing 3 micronewtons -- note their website is back up again now in slightly altered form --http://cannae.com//2-uncategorised/48-cubesatThere is no indication who they are partnering with, but we they have talked to various aerospace players previously.Yang Juan's work is also progressing largely undercover, but does appear to be progressing. I wrote a piece about this for Aviation Week which should appear shortly. My guess would be they will be the first to launch, unless NASA decide to sieze the initiative. However, the lack of comments from NASA suggests that the agency do not have any great appetitie for it, but I would be interested to hear otherwise. The lack of public statements for a new development doesn't seem normal to me, but others may know better?
shows that Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s EM drive is claimed (with "measurements" performed elsewhere -not at NASA-) to have a thrust force 2000 to 4000 times higher than the drives recently tested at NASA.What information does WiredUK have in this regard? Is Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s EM drive going to go into orbit soon - at a cost less than $100k-?
@Stormbringer, please correct your last post because you added your text inside my quote.
Quote from: aceshigh on 09/16/2014 04:14 pm@Stormbringer, please correct your last post because you added your text inside my quote.Done. The weird thing is in the editor i do not see a nested quote. i see only a quote at the beginning and ending of the bit about Dr Woodward's thoughts. this has happened to me before when i pared down a massively nested multi-quote post. the coding for a global quote was invisible to me and i had no idea how to fix it.
....We already have a device which converts electricity to rotational motion, known as the electric motor. It depends upon the wheel, in order to instantaneously press, in a frictional fashion, against a local gravitational mass to convert the rotational force into forward motion.....
,,,,Dr Rodal: your efforts at clarifying the experimental situation for various setup are greatly appreciated. Could you add to your list the thrust/power figure for the only both theoretically sound and experimentally proven "thrust from power" that is photon rocket 1/c ? ...
@Fornaro, chi va piano, va sano e va lontano.
Quote from: Rodal on 09/16/2014 01:54 pm@Fornaro, chi va piano, va sano e va lontano.Rodal:Grazie per i consigli. Il mio problema è leggermente diverso:Il male dell'agnello, cresce la pancia e cala l'uccello.Solo dicendo.
...The only reason not many professional scientists didn't even bother to comment on that case probably because of the instant trivial obviousness of this line of reasoning and conclusion, unlimited energy from an engine running at the bottom of the well : why it's all the more strange that it's not more loudly shouted by proponents of the effect being real....
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 09/16/2014 06:51 pmQuote from: Rodal on 09/16/2014 01:54 pm@Fornaro, chi va piano, va sano e va lontano.Rodal:Grazie per i consigli. Il mio problema è leggermente diverso:Il male dell'agnello, cresce la pancia e cala l'uccello.Solo dicendo.I frutti proibiti sono i più dolci.
Quote from: Rodal on 09/16/2014 07:10 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 09/16/2014 06:51 pmQuote from: Rodal on 09/16/2014 01:54 pm@Fornaro, chi va piano, va sano e va lontano.Rodal:Grazie per i consigli. Il mio problema è leggermente diverso:Il male dell'agnello, cresce la pancia e cala l'uccello.Solo dicendo.I frutti proibiti sono i più dolci.Ai chihuahua, so to speak...
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 09/16/2014 07:51 pmQuote from: Rodal on 09/16/2014 07:10 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 09/16/2014 06:51 pmQuote from: Rodal on 09/16/2014 01:54 pm@Fornaro, chi va piano, va sano e va lontano.Rodal:Grazie per i consigli. Il mio problema è leggermente diverso:Il male dell'agnello, cresce la pancia e cala l'uccello.Solo dicendo.I frutti proibiti sono i più dolci.Ai chihuahua, so to speak...¡Ay, caramba!