Author Topic: EM Drive Developments Thread 1  (Read 762360 times)

Offline Supergravity

  • Member
  • Posts: 43
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2620 on: 10/25/2014 09:40 PM »
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.

Eagleworks, why does that name sound familiar? Oh, you mean the guys who've been researching outlandish concepts like warp drives, believing it is actually a viable technology? I'm sorry if I'm just a tad bit skeptical of the claims of this group.

Just ask yourself this, if this group really did possibly stumble upon something, why is the engineering community (as whole) ignoring it, let alone the physics community? If this actually works in the way White et al. say it does, then they have stumbled upon a device that cannot be explained fundamentally by the standard model of particle physics. That may sound trivial, but it would be a complete disaster to many physicists.

If these scientists simply went to the scientific and engineering community and said, "look, we have these results, they appear to be inconsistent with everything we know about how the universe works and we'd like to know where we're going wrong", you'd see a lot more scientists and engineers look into it, just like the whole debacle with CERN and the superluminal neutrinos. They didn't invoke some fanciful string-theory explanations on their path-lengths being shortended via extra-dimensions (although some desperate theorists tried to push it), but they acted like how you'd expect professional scientists would when finding such controversial results.

Offline Supergravity

  • Member
  • Posts: 43
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2621 on: 10/25/2014 10:18 PM »

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.

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.
« Last Edit: 10/25/2014 10:27 PM by Supergravity »

Offline Supergravity

  • Member
  • Posts: 43
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2622 on: 10/25/2014 10:29 PM »


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 of
researching outlandish concepts like warp drives
)

You can see my opinion here in the actual  Woodward thread, and if you're interested, my back and forth exchange with 93143 on the physical plausibility of the Woodward effect.

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2623 on: 10/25/2014 11:21 PM »
I say be patient, showing some numbers specifically for "Brady a" and how a very specific combination of leak area and direction and volumetric air heating power can, to my surprise, reach reported result, this is a first shot. Before embarking onto Shawyer's devices leaks (BTW can someone answer to this apparently simple question : has superconducting EMdrive been tested yes or no ? Yes if I'm to interpret the rightmost big red dot page 2 of latest Shawyer presentation, but really ?) let's see more equations will you ?

It's awful to derive equations inside posts, just the results (basically from pV = nRT and orifice plate mass flows) are :

Where relatively constants are
> T=293K (20°C) average temperature
> C=1000 J/kg/K isobar specific heat of air (more like 1012)
> rho=1.2 kg/m^3 air density
> p=1e5 Pa absolute pressure (more like 1013, depending altitude and weather)
> Cf=0.6 dimensionless Coefficient of discharge I put at 0.6 for a "sharp-edged orifice" but could be 0.8 if smoother...

Fixed in the case of Brady a
> V=27e-3 m^3  (27 litres) volume of cavity

Things to explain
> F=100µN (about, reported result 91.2 µN)
> Tau=2s (really uncertain, typical rise time, could be much lower)

Unknowns
> Pow=?W  power effectively heating air inside cavity (must check less than total power 16.9W)
> A=?m^2 area of leaks

Going from Unknown to things to explain gives
(1) F = 1/( A*rho) ( Pow / (C*T) )^2
(2) Tau = V*Pow / (2*C*T*Cf^2*A^2*p)

If replacing relatively constant values :
(1') F = 9.7e-12 * Pow^2/A
(2') Tau = 4.74e-11 * V*Pow/A^2

The other way around yields something not nice
(3) Pow = C T ( (rho^2*V*F^2)/(2*Cf^2*p*Tau) )^(1/3)
(4) A = ( (rho*V^2*F)/(4*Cf^4*p^2*Tau^2 )^(1/3)

If replacing relatively constant values :
(3') Pow = 7950 * ( V*F^2/Tau )^(1/3)
(4') A = 6.14e-4 * ( V^2*F/Tau^2 )^(1/3)

Ok so now we see from (1) and (1') that, A being fixed (surely the experimenter don't track it actively) that force should rise to the (air absorbed) power squared. Surely the amount of power absorbed volumetrically would be linear to the total microwave power (?), so this effect would expect a force quadratic in the microwave power. This is apparently not the case for Shawyer's scatterplot (cited here by Aero).

I could have made some blunder, I double checked only twice. I think equation (1) is correct. To my surprise Volume is not involved. The Force goes to infinity when A goes to 0 (smaller and smaller hole) because it means pressure differential can get higher when pressure equilibrium occurs. A maximum tau of 2s limit this divergence : you can only get to those higher pressures by waiting for too long (with too small a leak).
edit: also too small a hole gives higher ejection velocities, at some points the flow goes sonic and the formulas used are no longer valid. The range of validity is respected as velocities are below 10m/s for 1mm² leaks or so.

Also instead of a smooth transition from isochore initial heating (transient) to isobare (almost steady state, pressure at equilibrium with heating rate) I considered the two phases separately, the second to derive F, and the first to derive Tau to get to that "steady state".

Has any of those thrusters ever thrusted for a loooong time ? I mean, more than 30 minutes ?
That also would be a strong argument against this warm air leak hypothesis (after too long there is thermal equilibrium, no more Tdot, no more gas dilation to sustain a jet, thrust would go to 0).

edit: oh yes and I use isobar specific heat capacity to derive Tau, when the start of the transient would be more isochore (divide specific heat by 1.4). That would give shorter Tau. But real transition would be smoother (a bit longer, asymptotically reaching the plateau of thrust). So take all that, how do you say, with a grain of salt ? I believe I'm within a factor 2 of more precise values, perhaps 1.5

« Last Edit: 10/25/2014 11:34 PM by frobnicat »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2624 on: 10/25/2014 11:30 PM »
Quote
Si vous voulez apprendre la physique, je recommande fortement de ne pas l'apprentissage basé sur les spéculations des ingénieurs ennuyer.

Eh bien. Pourquoi pas? Il est plus que un peu amusant, un apprentissage adéquat pour synapses congelés, et propose une thérapeutique de valeur affecte ainsi; que d'une redirection délibérée de l'obsession.

Dans l'ensemble, pas une mauvaise Ting.
« Last Edit: 10/25/2014 11:30 PM by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5831
  • USA
  • Liked: 5897
  • Likes Given: 5245
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2625 on: 10/25/2014 11:44 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 test

http://web.archive.org/web/20121102082714/http://www.cannae.com/proof-of-concept/experimental-results

Quote
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.

« Last Edit: 10/25/2014 11:47 PM by Rodal »

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2626 on: 10/26/2014 12:09 AM »
... 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 test

http://web.archive.org/web/20121102082714/http://www.cannae.com/proof-of-concept/experimental-results

Ok, thanks. Amazing this is to be excavated from the grave of the web.

You realised it was not really "during 2 minutes", but repeated "pulses" of unknown duration  ::)
On top of a drifting baseline ...
"The upward drift of the load-cell voltage output of Figure 1 occurred with and without power being sent to the POC cavity."
All right then, live with it.
"The dips in load-cell voltage output during power-pulse cycles is clearly visible against the background signal drift." Yeah, sure, something is going up and down. And we certify this is going more up than down.

Sigh. I'm starting to give up not to share the damning of Supergravity on the subject.
( je commence à renoncer à ne pas partager le constat accablant de Supergravity sur le sujet )
« Last Edit: 10/26/2014 12:11 AM by frobnicat »

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2627 on: 10/26/2014 12:14 AM »
This is what we have to work with

Do we have to ?
Should we ?
Can we?
Oui ?

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5831
  • USA
  • Liked: 5897
  • Likes Given: 5245
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2628 on: 10/26/2014 12:17 AM »
This is what we have to work with

Do we have to ?
Should we ?
Can we?
Oui ?

Well, in a manner of speaking  8)

« Last Edit: 10/26/2014 12:27 AM by Rodal »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5831
  • USA
  • Liked: 5897
  • Likes Given: 5245
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2629 on: 10/26/2014 01:34 AM »
Can 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?
« Last Edit: 10/26/2014 01:42 AM by Rodal »

Online aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2736
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 235
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2630 on: 10/26/2014 01:50 AM »
Can 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?
Sorry, This is not in response to your post, but rather to the top photo you attached.

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.
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5831
  • USA
  • Liked: 5897
  • Likes Given: 5245
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2631 on: 10/26/2014 01:50 AM »
....
> Tau=2s (really uncertain, typical rise time, could be much lower)
....
I modeled the nonlinear coupled equations of motion (obtained from solving the Lagrangian) of the inverted torsional pendulum with Mathematica.

The 2 seconds rise is purely due to the inertial response of the equations of motion to an impulsive rectangular pulse.   There is no doubt about it.  It is due purely to the mass, damping and stiffness matrices of the pendulum.  The 2 sec rise is not due to a time-dependent-loading that takes 2 sec to reach full load.

So what one needs to find is an experimental artifact that acts like an instantaneous  (within the time scale), impulsive pulse.  Not one that takes 2 sec to reach full load.  If the loading function itself would take 2 seconds to reach full load, the response (due to the pendulum equations of motion) would be taking longer than 2 sec.
« Last Edit: 10/26/2014 01:58 AM by Rodal »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5831
  • USA
  • Liked: 5897
  • Likes Given: 5245
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2632 on: 10/26/2014 01:51 AM »
....

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.

Great observation aero !

John, could you please re-draw when you have a chance and the disposition  :)
« Last Edit: 10/26/2014 01:57 AM by Rodal »

Offline zen-in

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 531
  • California
  • Liked: 468
  • Likes Given: 365
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2633 on: 10/26/2014 01:18 AM »
... 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 test

http://web.archive.org/web/20121102082714/http://www.cannae.com/proof-of-concept/experimental-results

Quote
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.



The boiling point of helium at atmospheric pressure is 4.2 K.   I have seen it boil at 4.3 K but that usually indicates a slight constriction in the vent tube.   At 4.2 K the liquid Helium in the dewar would have bubbles in it.   When a 10.5 Watt pulse of RF power is dissipated in the dewar the heat generated will boil off more Helium.   Not enough information has been provided to resolve this discrepancy.   

I don't understand this statement:
"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. "

If the pressure over the liquid Helium bath was 50 torr  (50/760 atmospheres) wouldn't the Helium just boil off?

It only takes a few microWatts to cause noticeable boil off in a Helium dewar.   10.5 Watts is a lot of power, even for a few seconds.
« Last Edit: 10/26/2014 01:30 AM by zen-in »

Offline ThinkerX

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Alaska
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 59
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2634 on: 10/26/2014 01:23 AM »
Quote
Can 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..987W

Abstract:

Quote
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.

The meat of the article runs $28, though. 

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5831
  • USA
  • Liked: 5897
  • Likes Given: 5245
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2635 on: 10/26/2014 01:50 AM »
Quote
Can 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..987W

Abstract:

Quote
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.

The meat of the article runs $28, though.

This is the 2007 presentation  "Inertial Mass Dependency on Local Vacuum Fluctuation Mean Free Path":  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13020.0;attach=173105

It contains his derivation for local vacuum energy density (simply the geometric average of the vacuum density and the local material density) but never an equation for the thrust force, just numerical results.

Readers: please notice that Dr. White's proposed force acts perpendicular to both the electric (E) and magnetic (B) fields, so for the transverse electric (TE) modes of resonance of the truncated cone that were researched, the force calculated by Dr. White would act in the radial direction of the truncated cone (because the B field is axial, and the E field is in the circumferential direction of the cone).

Notice that as early as 2007 Dr. White was writing that "a dielectric inside the cavity would increase the available Quantum Vacuum Plasma density", similar to what Brady wrote in the report when they were learning their way around and did not report the Q or any numbers, and tested at a frequency higher than the one for the reported values.

I don't understand what he means by "plasma" when referring to the quantum vacuum or why a dielectric would increase such plasma.  Apparently the "quantum vacuum plasma local density" he uses for his formula is the geometric average of the quantum vacuum density and the density of the dielectric.  Apparently he "models" the electron-positron virtual particle pairs as a plasma?  No explanation on what could make the virtual particles become real or behave like a plasma.  He writes that Woodward's model is "slightly different".

Maybe aero has more patience than me and can find an equation in this presentation that we can use to compare with Shawyer's and McCulloch's predictions.
« Last Edit: 10/26/2014 02:33 AM by Rodal »

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1106
  • Liked: 774
  • Likes Given: 1007
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2636 on: 10/26/2014 08:42 AM »

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.

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.

I can't begin to guess how many pages were about symmetries and conservation laws. Make sure you read before you criticize the group. How about you bring some new insight to the table?

Edited to be nice.
« Last Edit: 10/26/2014 09:30 AM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1106
  • Liked: 774
  • Likes Given: 1007
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2637 on: 10/26/2014 08:50 AM »
Can 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?

Well I assembled a team of maverick engineers and scientists. They said that metal bolts conduct electricity. I confirmed this experimentally with my multimeter. The same result with steel, aluminum and copper bolts, all short circuits. Nylon bolts measured as an open. A conference paper is to follow. Attached are the formulas I used in my derivation. Please standby for preprint.  :D
« Last Edit: 10/26/2014 08:51 AM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
  • Liked: 554
  • Likes Given: 762
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2638 on: 10/26/2014 09:39 AM »
Suffice to say, the only reason this thread has gone on as long as it has is because the people interested haven't been clever enough (myself certainly included) to devise a completely satisfactory, conventional, "the device doesn't actually do anything of interest" explanation for the measured thrust.

We're not all lunatic crackpots... honest!
« Last Edit: 10/26/2014 09:44 AM by RotoSequence »

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1106
  • Liked: 774
  • Likes Given: 1007
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2639 on: 10/26/2014 10:15 AM »
« Last Edit: 10/26/2014 10:58 AM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Tags: