I think it is clear the experimentalists (at Nasa at least) are professionals. I'm not going to sell these men and women short. Eagleworks has been at it for several years and they have lessons learned under their belt before the EMdrive test campaigns. (not conjecture, look for yourself) At the very least they have personal and organizational reputations to protect.....and they work for a NASA. I have no reason not to respect NASA. Even with the screw ups over the years at NASA, the AARs have been completely pitch perfect on par scientific and analytical......eg. No bs.I can tell you that it is not acceptable to release a conference paper without following up (they have to know this) with an actual study asap. They concluded the conference paper with a way forward to more studies.
WEll, I gotta say, I'm learning a lot about people, am getting practice in scientific rhetoric, and learning somewhat less math than French, but hey.Best I can tell, is that the mhe math whiz bangs here think that something could be happening, and are snapping their synapses over just what could be happening that is consistent with the reported results.Although I'm with you on the sloppy experimental protocols, even by amateur standards.
Supergravity, what is your opinion of the Woodward effect ? ( see http://www.amazon.com/Making-Starships-Stargates-Interstellar-Exploration/dp/1461456223/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1414273515&sr=8-1&keywords=james+woodward+wormholes and http://physics.fullerton.edu/component/zoo/item/dr-james-f-woodward and http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/)(since you are discussing the topic ofQuote from: Supergravity on 10/25/2014 09:40 pmresearching outlandish concepts like warp drives)
researching outlandish concepts like warp drives
Si vous voulez apprendre la physique, je recommande fortement de ne pas l'apprentissage basé sur les spéculations des ingénieurs ennuyer.
... Before embarking onto Shawyer's devices leaks (BTW can someone answer to this apparently simple question : has superconducting EMdrive been tested yes or no ? ...
On January 13, 2011, Figure 1 was generated by sending 10.5 watt power pulses of 1047.335 MHz RF phase-locked power forward to the POC resonating cavity located in the experimental apparatus. The POC cavity is operated in the TM010 mode. Figure 1 shows 6 dips in the compressive force on the load cells. These 6 dips in the load-cell outputs coincide with the 10.5 watt power pulses sent into the cavity from the signal-generation circuit. Figure 1 also shows 2 positive peaks in the voltage signal coming from the load cells. These positive peaks resulted from placing a 2-gram calibrated weight onto the support arm that supports the POC cavity and vacuum tubing. Figure 1 was generated 65 minutes after bringing the pressure over the liquid helium bath up to atmospheric pressure from a pump-down pressure of 50 Torre. The 6 dips in voltage in Figure 1 correspond to a reduction in compressive force on the load cells of 8-10 mN.The upward drift of the load-cell voltage output of Figure 1 occurred with and without power being sent to the POC cavity. Moisture condensation on the cold equipment and signal drift (within specifications) of the load cells, contributed to the drift of the voltage output. The frequency of the drift in load-cell output is much lower than the frequency of the power pulses sent into the cavity and the calibration pulses. The dips in load-cell voltage output during power-pulse cycles is clearly visible against the background signal drift.
Quote from: frobnicat on 10/25/2014 11:21 pm... Before embarking onto Shawyer's devices leaks (BTW can someone answer to this apparently simple question : has superconducting EMdrive been tested yes or no ? ...There is this about Cannae's superconducting testhttp://web.archive.org/web/20121102082714/http://www.cannae.com/proof-of-concept/experimental-results
This is what we have to work with
Quote from: Rodal on 10/26/2014 12:11 amThis is what we have to work withDo we have to ?Should we ?Can we?Oui ?
Quote from: Rodal on 10/25/2014 05:30 pmCan the polymer gasket between the base plate and the cone act as a dielectric barrier discharge (DBD) actuator? I like where you're going with this, but I can't see how this ...applies ... because of the penetrating bolt through the whole assembly of the test device, which are conductive. I dismissed them because of this. ..
Can the polymer gasket between the base plate and the cone act as a dielectric barrier discharge (DBD) actuator?
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/25/2014 05:47 pmQuote from: Rodal on 10/25/2014 05:30 pmCan the polymer gasket between the base plate and the cone act as a dielectric barrier discharge (DBD) actuator? I like where you're going with this, but I can't see how this ...applies ... because of the penetrating bolt through the whole assembly of the test device, which are conductive. I dismissed them because of this. ..How can we possibly know the electrical conductivity of the bolts they used to attach the base plates to the copper cone? Is there information about the type of bolts that were used ?And the bolts are not going through the copper cone but they thread through to flanges. How are the flanges themselves made and/or attached to the cone?
....> Tau=2s (really uncertain, typical rise time, could be much lower)....
....From the first photo that you attached, it looks to me like the horizontal 1 1/2 inch beam on the far side of the thruster, and the end of the lower 1 1/2 inch beam on the near side of the thruster are just about equidistant from the center of the base plate of the thruster. Measuring distance perpendicular to the axis of the cone, that is. Setting our reference length to the average measured 1 1/2 inches should give a better reference than using one or the other.
Quote from: frobnicat on 10/25/2014 11:21 pm... Before embarking onto Shawyer's devices leaks (BTW can someone answer to this apparently simple question : has superconducting EMdrive been tested yes or no ? ...There is this about Cannae's superconducting testhttp://web.archive.org/web/20121102082714/http://www.cannae.com/proof-of-concept/experimental-resultsQuoteOn January 13, 2011, Figure 1 was generated by sending 10.5 watt power pulses of 1047.335 MHz RF phase-locked power forward to the POC resonating cavity located in the experimental apparatus. The POC cavity is operated in the TM010 mode. Figure 1 shows 6 dips in the compressive force on the load cells. These 6 dips in the load-cell outputs coincide with the 10.5 watt power pulses sent into the cavity from the signal-generation circuit. Figure 1 also shows 2 positive peaks in the voltage signal coming from the load cells. These positive peaks resulted from placing a 2-gram calibrated weight onto the support arm that supports the POC cavity and vacuum tubing. Figure 1 was generated 65 minutes after bringing the pressure over the liquid helium bath up to atmospheric pressure from a pump-down pressure of 50 Torre. The 6 dips in voltage in Figure 1 correspond to a reduction in compressive force on the load cells of 8-10 mN.The upward drift of the load-cell voltage output of Figure 1 occurred with and without power being sent to the POC cavity. Moisture condensation on the cold equipment and signal drift (within specifications) of the load cells, contributed to the drift of the voltage output. The frequency of the drift in load-cell output is much lower than the frequency of the power pulses sent into the cavity and the calibration pulses. The dips in load-cell voltage output during power-pulse cycles is clearly visible against the background signal drift.
Can anyone please provide Dr. White's equation to predict the thrust force from his electron-positron virtual particle quantum vacuum theory?
The intent of this narrative is to propose a relationship between the vacuum energy density, light-radius of the universe, and the plank force. The equation is proposed to infer a connection between inertial mass and an observer's light horizon. This horizon is conjectured to be the mean free path for vacuum fluctuations as seen by an observer in deep space. This fundamental relationship will then be derived from a gravitational wave equation. Once this has been derived, the results will be extended to derive an equation to calculate the effect local matter has on the mean free path of a vacuum fluctuation, and hence the local vacuum energy density (vacuum fluctuation pileup). The paper will conclude by applying the theoretical framework to calculate expected thrust signals in an externally applied ExB application meant to induce plasma drift in the vacuum fluctuations. Current experimental results from domestic and international labs will be addressed.
QuoteCan anyone please provide Dr. White's equation to predict the thrust force from his electron-positron virtual particle quantum vacuum theory?Does this help? From Doctor White, back in 2007. Can't make heads or tails out of it:http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AIPC..880..987WAbstract:QuoteThe intent of this narrative is to propose a relationship between the vacuum energy density, light-radius of the universe, and the plank force. The equation is proposed to infer a connection between inertial mass and an observer's light horizon. This horizon is conjectured to be the mean free path for vacuum fluctuations as seen by an observer in deep space. This fundamental relationship will then be derived from a gravitational wave equation. Once this has been derived, the results will be extended to derive an equation to calculate the effect local matter has on the mean free path of a vacuum fluctuation, and hence the local vacuum energy density (vacuum fluctuation pileup). The paper will conclude by applying the theoretical framework to calculate expected thrust signals in an externally applied ExB application meant to induce plasma drift in the vacuum fluctuations. Current experimental results from domestic and international labs will be addressed. The meat of the article runs $28, though.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 10/25/2014 07:36 pmWEll, I gotta say, I'm learning a lot about people, am getting practice in scientific rhetoric, and learning somewhat less math than French, but hey.Best I can tell, is that the mhe math whiz bangs here think that something could be happening, and are snapping their synapses over just what could be happening that is consistent with the reported results.Although I'm with you on the sloppy experimental protocols, even by amateur standards.I guess it's all relative, then. While I'm sure the people here are no less brilliant when it comes to matters of applied science and technologies, they really are (for the most part) clueless when it comes to matters of fundamental physics and advanced mathematics from what I've seen. Just skimming this thread confirms my suspicion. Mostly algebraic manipulations of rather simple Newtonian equations and some differential calculus sprinkled in, nothing you wouldn't see in a first year math class. Where are the action principles? Or how about the symmetry arguments that would then trivially lead to the conservation laws via Noether's theorem? And for those pushing the quantum vacuum plasma "model", what is the form of the quantum fields (and these have to be there) in your model? Where are the path-integrals that should explain the interactions of those fields? I would be more impressed by such a model even if its path integrals diverged. I don't even see math that is appropriate for quantum mechanics in the low-energy limit, such as density functional theory, fourier transforms, abstract linear algebra, etc.If you want to learn physics, I strongly recommend not learning based on the speculations of bored engineers. When it comes to everything else on this forum, these are generally the perfect people to learn from. But with these fringe topics, I humbly believe you're better off building your physical intuition from the classic textbooks so then you would at least be armed with the correct intuition to sift between the speculatively plausible and the outright nonsensical.