I step into this debate with trepidation. My perspective is that neither proponent has developed a successful characterisation of any effect, hence the confusion over the test article modified to not perform, and the confusion over Shawyer's description leading to his theory gaining little traction. However- having exercised my doubts, and well aware of the problems inherent in using an analogy, one presents itself to me in this case. A rocket motor utilises the shape of the nozzle to convert chemical energy to a directed force, which we call thrust. Is it possible that all that happening here is microwave energy is converted to thrust by the shape of the chamber? It's a horribly inefficient conversion that may be due to the net sum of all the forces applied of the chamber. It is most likely more complex and as I am not clear on Shawyer's use of relativity as part of his description of the system I am ignoring that, but from what I have read I am in good company. Just an idle thought on a rainy saturday evening in Cumbria so if you think it doesn't hold water let it pass : )
Hello all,I think there is one elephant in the room that nobody seems to notice. If the drive is supposed to gain impulse by interaction with virtual particles of the quantum vacuum, then these particles obviously have to be accelerated in the opposed direction in which the drive is accelerated.Here comes now the elephant: When those accelerated virtual particles (which pop in an out of existence spontaneously) disappear again to who-knows-where, what happens to the impulse that these particles previously gained.. is it gone? I can hardly imagine that this should be the case. So.. where would the imparted impulse on the virtual particles go? Ideas? On the other hand.. please correct me if I'm wrong.. I seem to remember some knowledge that virtual particles were not subject to impulse conservation?Regards
The Wright brothers, Were two American brothers, inventors, and aviation pioneers who are credited with inventing and building the world's first successful airplane and making the first controlled, powered and sustained heavier-than-air human flight, on December 17, 1903Prior to that, It could be said that, "Heaver than air was consider impossible".
Consider a neutron in free space. It is surrounded by a malestrom of pair-production events all around it. It is perturbed on the Planck scale by all these events, but as in Brownian motion they average out to nearly zero.Remember we are talking Planck scale perturbations here. I.e: un-observable.What if you could bias the pair-production events somehow so that there was a preferred vector of momentum?Would we see our neutron being accelerated in a particular direction?
Quote from: IslandPlaya on 08/02/2014 08:12 pmConsider a neutron in free space. It is surrounded by a malestrom of pair-production events all around it. It is perturbed on the Planck scale by all these events, but as in Brownian motion they average out to nearly zero.Remember we are talking Planck scale perturbations here. I.e: un-observable.What if you could bias the pair-production events somehow so that there was a preferred vector of momentum?Would we see our neutron being accelerated in a particular direction? Since neutrons can't be accelerated by electromagnetism AFAIK, this effect would sound similar to what gravity would be able to do. I mean, gravity is a gradient in space, right?
Slightly odd article from the Verge on this. What I mean is they seem to be sceptical about this because of Guido Fetta's qualifications, which is a bit harsh.http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/1/5959637/nasa-cannae-drive-tests-have-promising-results
Yes. I suppose that is exactly what I'm saying.Sounds crazy when you put it like that! I'm just putting forward ways the anomalous thrust could be explained *if* it is real...
Quote from: Star One on 08/02/2014 08:33 pmSlightly odd article from the Verge on this. What I mean is they seem to be sceptical about this because of Guido Fetta's qualifications, which is a bit harsh.http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/1/5959637/nasa-cannae-drive-tests-have-promising-resultsWe see this everyday.People who criticize CAGW are hacked down because the are not in the 'Climate Science Club' and don't have qualifications in 'Climate Science' (sic)In this case 'He can't possibly know what he is talking about, he only knows about chemistry!'Sigh.Maybe the tech doesn't work, but I would fight and fight for the ability of people to try and fail at this sort of stuff./rant over
Quote from: IslandPlaya on 08/02/2014 08:44 pmQuote from: Star One on 08/02/2014 08:33 pmSlightly odd article from the Verge on this. What I mean is they seem to be sceptical about this because of Guido Fetta's qualifications, which is a bit harsh.http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/1/5959637/nasa-cannae-drive-tests-have-promising-resultsWe see this everyday.People who criticize CAGW are hacked down because the are not in the 'Climate Science Club' and don't have qualifications in 'Climate Science' (sic)In this case 'He can't possibly know what he is talking about, he only knows about chemistry!'Sigh.Maybe the tech doesn't work, but I would fight and fight for the ability of people to try and fail at this sort of stuff./rant overNobody I've ever heard of has argued that anybody shouldn't have the right to try whatever they want, with their own resources, and the resources of anyone wishing to spend them that way.However, resources are limited, and it's perfectly legitimate to argue about whether a particular line of research is worth putting the resources into, and to try to convince others not to put their own resources into a particular line of research.There are tens of thousands of grad students struggling to find research dollars to continue their research into all sorts of topics in physics and aerospace engineering.I personally find it sad that a very small number of fringe people who make outlandish claims get so much attention -- attention that, to my mind, would be better focused on more mainstream science and engineering, which is, I believe, far more likely to get us eventually to the breakthroughs we all would like to see.Real advances in science come from careful experimentation and analysis, the discovery of anomalous results, and the advancement of theories to explain those results, without any particular engineering goal in mind. Deciding to try to design a device that violates limitations of known physics gets it backwards -- it's the approach of amateurs.
Quote from: IslandPlaya on 08/02/2014 08:31 pmYes. I suppose that is exactly what I'm saying.Sounds crazy when you put it like that! I'm just putting forward ways the anomalous thrust could be explained *if* it is real...OK, here's an idea. The resonant cavity's purpose is to produce standing waves, right? So, basically it's a precise arrangement of conducting plates which reflect EM waves back and forth. For some reason, this reminds me of a "macro" Casimir cavity, just on a different scale and with "real" photons. So, what if.. this EM drive acted (by coincidence) as some weird form of "macro" Casimir cavity and its specific shape (accidentally) produced a preferred vector, working with real photons? I seem to remember that specific geometries of Casimir cavities were calculated to be able to produce a preferred vector of motion. I didn't find that piece of info yet again, or perhaps I remember wrongly. Maybe someone else knows better?
You might want to be rather careful in what you say here otherwise it might look like you're casting aspersions on the NASA scientists and their decision to investigate this.
Quote from: Star One on 08/02/2014 09:21 pmYou might want to be rather careful in what you say here otherwise it might look like you're casting aspersions on the NASA scientists and their decision to investigate this.This is one little corner of NASA. NASA is a huge organization with lots and lots of people working on lots of things. Sonny White and friends are not equivalent to NASA as a whole.And there's nothing wrong with complaining that this one small part of NASA is wasting precious resources that could be better spent, and misleading the public by letting the NASA name get attached to wishful thinking in the guise of science.
Real advances in science come from careful experimentation and analysis, the discovery of anomalous results, and the advancement of theories to explain those results, without any particular engineering goal in mind.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 08/02/2014 09:15 pmReal advances in science come from careful experimentation and analysis, the discovery of anomalous results, and the advancement of theories to explain those results, without any particular engineering goal in mind.Which is exactly what the authors are trying to do.