Quote from: ppnl on 05/03/2015 06:12 pmThe problem is I predict that Eagleworks will succeed and still nobody will be impressed. Remember cold fusion? Excess heat beyond chemistry... replicated... 10x energy input... 100x energy input... the thing produced so much heat that it melted down in the middle of the night.. heat in palladium... nickle... thin films... neutrons... maybe it isn't fusion but something else... zero point energy...Yet year after year nobody was producing a commercial product, viable theory or convincing demo. For some the only explanation was a conspiracy. Anyone remember the "hot fusion (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words)." preventing research into cold fusion in order to protect their programs? I bet Jed Rothwell is still chasing cold fusion. I do know that ICCF-19 was held last month.Emdrive has all the same properties. An extraordinary claim much more so than cold fusion in fact. A theory that makes no sense. People making up new theories to fit bad experiments. Other people day dreaming about how we can build a real spaceship now. Arguments over how to obtain funding. Free bubble up and rainbow stew.I'm sorry. I don't mean to be rude, unpleasant or confrontational but sometimes reality is unpleasant. In time most will give up on the EMdrive. Some will stay and probably drift into conspiracy theories. A trickle of new results will continue to excite a younger crowd. As a result the EM drive will never succeed and never ever ever go away.Talk to me in ten years and see if I'm not right. I hope I'm wrong.@ppnl we're here to solve problems, not handwave and accept the world will never find a better way. If you don't have any solutions, you're in the wrong place.
The problem is I predict that Eagleworks will succeed and still nobody will be impressed. Remember cold fusion? Excess heat beyond chemistry... replicated... 10x energy input... 100x energy input... the thing produced so much heat that it melted down in the middle of the night.. heat in palladium... nickle... thin films... neutrons... maybe it isn't fusion but something else... zero point energy...Yet year after year nobody was producing a commercial product, viable theory or convincing demo. For some the only explanation was a conspiracy. Anyone remember the "hot fusion (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words)." preventing research into cold fusion in order to protect their programs? I bet Jed Rothwell is still chasing cold fusion. I do know that ICCF-19 was held last month.Emdrive has all the same properties. An extraordinary claim much more so than cold fusion in fact. A theory that makes no sense. People making up new theories to fit bad experiments. Other people day dreaming about how we can build a real spaceship now. Arguments over how to obtain funding. Free bubble up and rainbow stew.I'm sorry. I don't mean to be rude, unpleasant or confrontational but sometimes reality is unpleasant. In time most will give up on the EMdrive. Some will stay and probably drift into conspiracy theories. A trickle of new results will continue to excite a younger crowd. As a result the EM drive will never succeed and never ever ever go away.Talk to me in ten years and see if I'm not right. I hope I'm wrong.
I like the 'turntable test.' Seems like something the Eagleworks team should shoot for. But...does this system of measuring thrust have any flaws that might skew the results?
Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/03/2015 08:06 pmThis belongs to Boeing: http://www.emdrive.com/flightprogramme.htmlAnd maybe this as Boeign bought all the SPR EM Drive IP in 2010: http://emdrive.com/demonstratorengine.htmlBoeing's Phantom Works, which has previously explored exotic forms of space propulsion, was said to be looking into it some years ago. Such work has evidently ceased. “Phantom Works is not working with Mr. Shawyer,” a Boeing representative says, adding that the company is no longer pursuing this avenue [as of Nov 5, 2012]. http://aviationweek.com/awin/propellentless-space-propulsion-research-continues
This belongs to Boeing: http://www.emdrive.com/flightprogramme.htmlAnd maybe this as Boeign bought all the SPR EM Drive IP in 2010: http://emdrive.com/demonstratorengine.html
Quote from: ThinkerX on 05/03/2015 09:18 pmI like the 'turntable test.' Seems like something the Eagleworks team should shoot for. But...does this system of measuring thrust have any flaws that might skew the results?Correct me if I'm wrong, but It appears to me that this apparatus is merely a measure of total displacement, not force, and it is only your assumption that the displacement is due to a consistent net force. Any unconstrained vibrating object restricted to planar motion is likely to form a random walk across the plane, but when you restrict the motion to 1 dimension (clockwise or counterclockwise), as was done in this turntable, then the displacement will monotonically go either clockwise or counterclockwise, because a complete reversal of direction would require overcoming the existing momentum. In other words, I think the motion in this video could be explained by mere vibrations that have no net force, with a direction of motion that is restricted by the conditions at initialization.
I apologize in advance my understanding is likely no where near where it should be but, there are no stupid questions only stupid people so prove me stupid.Is it possible this device is condensing spacetime at one side and expanding it at the other creating a gravitational flow to one side? This could explain some things like why when more power is put in the force becomes more directional or why the force changes depending on its orientation to the Earth's gravitational field. Maybe somebody should place an atomic clock in the force it is producing.
Very interesting suggestion. But I would have expected random vibrations to produce random walk motion in one direction with a ratchet form of stick-slip friction or a bearing acting with a ratchet-like action, as found in molecular motors...The ratchet-like action would explain why it wants to move in only one direction (a factor TheTraveller has pointed out). (Without the ratchet-like action, just with stick slip friction it would initially move in either direction, depending on initial conditions)
Quote from: Rodal on 05/03/2015 11:05 pmVery interesting suggestion. But I would have expected random vibrations to produce random walk motion in one direction with a ratchet form of stick-slip friction or a bearing acting with a ratchet-like action, as found in molecular motors...The ratchet-like action would explain why it wants to move in only one direction (a factor TheTraveller has pointed out). (Without the ratchet-like action, just with stick slip friction it would initially move in either direction, depending on initial conditions)The direction of motion could be controlled with a ratchet, but that would be pretty difficult to conceal and so would be an unlikely way to cheat.More likely would be to have a very slight inclination, or to set it up so there is slightly more friction on one side than the other, thus controlling the initial otherwise random direction of movement.
One would have to examine the system, for anything that unintentionally acts like a ratchet.
Quote from: Rodal on 05/04/2015 12:27 am One would have to examine the system, for anything that unintentionally acts like a ratchet.Interesting. However, this would only be necessary in order to figure out exactly what was going on, if other methods of measuring the force were negative.The real test that should be done is measuring the force using different methods, because if the experiment is somehow interacting with one type of measurement apparatus, it is unlikely to be interacting with others. If the force is real, then any method of measuring the force should produce the same result.Perhaps we have been thinking about this problem the wrong way, trying to think of ways that a force would be generated, rather than trying to think of ways that the measurement apparatus used by EW might possibly be biased by the experiment.
The real test that should be done is measuring the force using different methods, because if the experiment is somehow interacting with one type of measurement apparatus, it is unlikely to be interacting with others. If the force is real, then any method of measuring the force should produce the same result.
I posted yesterday in this thread http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.300 hoping to get a reply to a question on if this device producing gravity I realize now the question I posted was vague and the way I comprised the post might look childish so I'll try to expand on it.The original post was as follows.QuoteI apologize in advance my understanding is likely no where near where it should be but, there are no stupid questions only stupid people so prove me stupid.Is it possible this device is condensing spacetime at one side and expanding it at the other creating a gravitational flow to one side? This could explain some things like why when more power is put in the force becomes more directional or why the force changes depending on its orientation to the Earth's gravitational field. Maybe somebody should place an atomic clock in the force it is producing.I would like to correct a mistake in my original question before I start. When I said expanding spacetime at one side that is wrong it would simply be less compressed than the other side. As I said in my original post my understanding of physics is not where it should be so it should be easy to prove this wrong for most of you and if you take 5 minutes to do so I will be extremely grateful.I'll explain how I think this might be happening. If there is a denser concentration of microwaves in one side of the chamber compared to the other and these groups of microwaves are manipulating spacetime it would create a gravitational flow. Basically I'm asking if it's possible this device is producing force by passing gravitons between groups of microwaves?Yes I realize this probably sounds like crazy pseudo-science so I apologize in advance if you think this wasted your time.
It is very sad when people come to a forum hiding under monickers behaving in an abusive way which they would never dare do face to face or using their real names, and prevent communication with researchers, oh well
Quote from: Eye_one on 05/03/2015 11:15 pmI posted yesterday in this thread http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.300 hoping to get a reply to a question on if this device producing gravity I realize now the question I posted was vague and the way I comprised the post might look childish so I'll try to expand on it.The original post was as follows.QuoteI apologize in advance my understanding is likely no where near where it should be but, there are no stupid questions only stupid people so prove me stupid.Is it possible this device is condensing spacetime at one side and expanding it at the other creating a gravitational flow to one side? This could explain some things like why when more power is put in the force becomes more directional or why the force changes depending on its orientation to the Earth's gravitational field. Maybe somebody should place an atomic clock in the force it is producing.I would like to correct a mistake in my original question before I start. When I said expanding spacetime at one side that is wrong it would simply be less compressed than the other side. As I said in my original post my understanding of physics is not where it should be so it should be easy to prove this wrong for most of you and if you take 5 minutes to do so I will be extremely grateful.I'll explain how I think this might be happening. If there is a denser concentration of microwaves in one side of the chamber compared to the other and these groups of microwaves are manipulating spacetime it would create a gravitational flow. Basically I'm asking if it's possible this device is producing force by passing gravitons between groups of microwaves?Yes I realize this probably sounds like crazy pseudo-science so I apologize in advance if you think this wasted your time.Simply put, photons carry the electromagnetic force of which microwaves are a part of. Photons have no mass therefor do not manipulate spacetime, only travel through it. The term "denser" can not apply to a massless particle.The theoretical graviton is similar to the photon in that it is massless and it carries the gravitational force. Any mechanism for the absorption or emission of gravitons hasn't made much sense.If this interests you, may i suggest "The Theory of Almost Everything" by Robert Derter. It will introduce you to some basic principles you will need to know.Everyone knew nothing before they knew something!
I think it is simply important to have a space that is separated, where those who choose to entertain the idea can do so without continuous distraction from those who want to vent their frustration.
I just wish we could remain on topic and talk about Emdrive experimental results, instead of the umpteenth attempt of refutation from new comers, that add nothing to the same umpteenth+1 reasons already brought and discussed here.I'm not hostile to criticism, but the arguments of violation of conservation momentum, conservation of energy and relativity are well known. Just read the thread history people.
"High Fidelity Test Article" is just a name/label... Copied from Shawyer's literature.It could have been named "1000N/kW Test Article"Would that have made any difference without independent testing?