Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11  (Read 119611 times)

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9545
  • UK
  • Liked: 1757
  • Likes Given: 183
Maybe because as I said above did you actually answer anything or was it just a slight of hand.
Try actually reading my post.

I answered with a simple counterexample that shows that spupeng7's post was a fallacy.

I literally said that exact same thing in my previous response to you. You are trying to accuse me of "slight of hand" while you are ignoring what I said. Repeatedly. This is both rude and hypocritical.

You might find it that but Iíd say I found your OP in response to what seemed to me a genuine enquiry, if maybe mistaken, to be both rude and dismissive. Hence my response.

I donít generally post in here these days as the matter seems a lot settled now and thatís partly through your sterling work, and I wouldnít have posted now if not genuinely taken aback by OP.
I pointed out that a logical fallacy was being employed and demonstrated why it was a fallacy.For any given statement "X", a question of the form"why not X" is best answered by explaining "X is a fallacy, and here is why."  There is nothing inherently rude about doing that, and it is only dismissive in the sense that there is a solid and easy to state reason why what I was responding to should be dismissed.

If you think the original statement was anything less than a complete fallacy, you are going to have to say something that actually acknowledges the content of the original post.

But it appears to be you just assuming this person has fallen into this fallacy without actually knowing if they had or not. I donít see what was so wrong with what they said or more importantly that there was enough evidence in their post for you to be justified in making that assumption of their thinking that you gave it the response you did.

To sum up in my opinion you made an unjustified assumption of what they meant without the evidence in what they said to back it up.
« Last Edit: 09/17/2018 03:40 PM by Star One »

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 1566
  • Likes Given: 382
But it appears to be you just assuming this person has fallen into this fallacy without actually knowing if they had or not. I donít see what was so wrong with what they said or more importantly that there was enough evidence in their post for you to be justified in making that assumption of their thinking that you gave it the response you did.

To sum up in my opinion you made an unjustified assumption of what they meant without the evidence in what they said to back it up.
I made no assumptions other than that they were speaking standard English, and not some code where words don't represent their dictionary definitions. Their statement was the embodiment of the fallacy I referenced. I have explained repeatedly why that is the case, but you seem to continue ignoring the words I am saying.

In his most recent post spupeng7 changed what he said to something completely different, which avoids the fallacy, but which would make the make the original question pointless, because the relevant theories already meet the looser criteria he stated.

Offline VAXHeadroom

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 206
  • Whereever you go, there you are. -- BB
  • Baltimore MD
  • Liked: 285
  • Likes Given: 168
New interesting research paper (abstract only unfortunately)
"A Multiscale Unconditionally Stable Time-Domain (MUST) Solver Unifying Electrodynamics and Micromagnetics"
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8354926/?part=1
Emory Stagmer
  Executive Producer, Public Speaker UnTied Music - www.untiedmusic.com

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 1566
  • Likes Given: 382
Dear Meberbs.
The difficult to find the solution is not the point.
One can find a path integral representation of the problem.
The problem are the ad-hoc choices made in the process to mantain the unitarity of final form of the path integral representation of the simplified problem.
A lot of prescriptions to disapear with "unwanted" terms.
The "problem" emerge when the ad-hoc prescriptions cannot be applied because of topological restrictions.
As I said, the only simplification that makes the problem tractable is using the limit of large numbers so you don't need to track 10^23 electrons. After taking that limit, you are no longer in the quantum regime and nothing you are talking about is relevant.

If you had unlimited resources and hypothetically were going to solve that problem, to have the results at least have useful insight, you would want to account for the fact that electrons are fermions, and get rid of the 0-spin assumption. Not to mention that ignoring the arrangement of copper atoms makes it impossible to see any resistance related effects.

I'd suggest you reformulate the problem to one with a small enough number of particles to at least write down the first equation so we could actually talk about specifics, but that would miss the point, since that would just be a distraction unrelated to my original post. Something actually relevant to my original post would be if you could link to a paper showing that QED doesn't actually obey conservation laws. (But I sincerely doubt that there is one, at least not from someone who knows what they are talking about.)

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9545
  • UK
  • Liked: 1757
  • Likes Given: 183
But it appears to be you just assuming this person has fallen into this fallacy without actually knowing if they had or not. I donít see what was so wrong with what they said or more importantly that there was enough evidence in their post for you to be justified in making that assumption of their thinking that you gave it the response you did.

To sum up in my opinion you made an unjustified assumption of what they meant without the evidence in what they said to back it up.
I made no assumptions other than that they were speaking standard English, and not some code where words don't represent their dictionary definitions. Their statement was the embodiment of the fallacy I referenced. I have explained repeatedly why that is the case, but you seem to continue ignoring the words I am saying.

In his most recent post spupeng7 changed what he said to something completely different, which avoids the fallacy, but which would make the make the original question pointless, because the relevant theories already meet the looser criteria he stated.

This is getting really confusing because how can you claim you made no assumption when your OP was couched in terms of an assumption, and yes I have read what you posted several times?
« Last Edit: 09/17/2018 04:34 PM by Star One »

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 1566
  • Likes Given: 382
I made no assumptions other than that they were speaking standard English, and not some code where words don't represent their dictionary definitions. Their statement was the embodiment of the fallacy I referenced. I have explained repeatedly why that is the case, but you seem to continue ignoring the words I am saying.

In his most recent post spupeng7 changed what he said to something completely different, which avoids the fallacy, but which would make the make the original question pointless, because the relevant theories already meet the looser criteria he stated.

This is getting really confusing because how can you claim you made no assumption when your OP was couched in terms of an assumption, and yes I have read what you posted several times?
It really sounds like you are responding to something unrelated to my posts. Again, there is no assumption in my original post. I did use the word "sounds like" to soften the statement, mostly so that spupeng7 could rephrase, which he did, and in a way that negates any relevant meaning in the original question.

Rather than stating that you have read my posts, you could instead demonstrate some comprehension of them by making a post that actually addresses the content.

(For example, you could state an assumption I made rather than blindly accusing me of making assumptions, or you could actually make a comment related to the specific fallacy I mentioned.)

Offline Ricvil

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 103
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 46
Maybe EW will loan Jamie their cavity, so he can apply my alterations and start to see significant thrust?
Professor Yang and I have endorsed the theoretical explanations of Dr. Chen Yue and Cannae's patents that emdirve uses an asymmetric structure to induce the electromagnetic field distribution to form a gradient difference, which produces a radiation pressure difference. In order to achieve this goal, the cone cavity is not the best choice. It uses a more special induction structure to asymmetrically pull the electromagnetic field, such as a very asymmetrical shape, filling with a polymer, adding a metal diaphragm, and etching trenches. They are all common goals. My cavity is just a visual copy, and there is no strict theoretical calculation, so even in the TE013 mode, there is probably no obvious electromagnetic gradient distribution. I will next copy the cavity of Dr. Chen Yue and use the high K substance to further change the trapezoidal cavity.

Since we are on the subject of efficient cavity shapes (and I don't want to read yet another fight between TheTraveller and others). May I take us back to this dicussion:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1735418#msg1735418
and
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1736210#msg1736210

A trapezoidal cavity is a terrible resonant device. IMHO, Webster's Horn Equation is the direction to look for improved resonant cavity design, even if the analogies between EM and acoustic propagation don't completely overlap.
[/quote]
Find a geometry with high Q is not the principal problem.
The principal problem is know wich geometry will produce a stable and desirable behaviour under thermal and enviroment effects.

Offline TheTraveller

After some discussion with Roger, on the subject of altering my KISS Thruster dimensions to match that of the EW cavity, Roger sent me the attached, with permission to share, which I now intent to follow. It does mean I need to order a higher freq 100W Rf amp and maybe run the thruster and Rf system inside faraday cages, as the freq is outside the 2.45GHz ISM band.
« Last Edit: 09/17/2018 06:06 PM by TheTraveller »
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline X_RaY

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 820
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1073
  • Likes Given: 2338
After some discussion with Roger, on the subject of altering my KISS Thruster dimensions to match that of the EW cavity, Roger sent me the attached, with permission to share, which I now intent to follow. It does mean I need to order a higher freq 100W Rf amp and maybe run the thruster and Rf system inside faraday cages, as the freq is outside the 2.45GHz ISM band.
Is there any time in future you will present real experimental data? It is boring to hear the same or similar excuses again and again instead. If you are really so sure that it works as discussed show it to the public finally, show reliable results! Otherwise hold back the promise. This game is going on too long now, really.  >:(

EDIT
Monomorphic (and others, including official institutions*) are doing there best to test the device, but nothing changes**.
So let me ask: If the unconventional force as claimed for the EM-Drive exists, why no one else is able to reproduce it in respect / beside to the dominant effects like thermal or magnetic reasons/forces? ???

*  The EW result is still under discussion
** While Shawyer claims he was able to satisfy it... "easily since decades"
« Last Edit: Today at 07:28 PM by X_RaY »

Offline Ricvil

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 103
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 46
Dear Meberbs.
The difficult to find the solution is not the point.
One can find a path integral representation of the problem.
The problem are the ad-hoc choices made in the process to mantain the unitarity of final form of the path integral representation of the simplified problem.
A lot of prescriptions to disapear with "unwanted" terms.
The "problem" emerge when the ad-hoc prescriptions cannot be applied because of topological restrictions.
As I said, the only simplification that makes the problem tractable is using the limit of large numbers so you don't need to track 10^23 electrons. After taking that limit, you are no longer in the quantum regime and nothing you are talking about is relevant.

If you had unlimited resources and hypothetically were going to solve that problem, to have the results at least have useful insight, you would want to account for the fact that electrons are fermions, and get rid of the 0-spin assumption. Not to mention that ignoring the arrangement of copper atoms makes it impossible to see any resistance related effects.

I'd suggest you reformulate the problem to one with a small enough number of particles to at least write down the first equation so we could actually talk about specifics, but that would miss the point, since that would just be a distraction unrelated to my original post. Something actually relevant to my original post would be if you could link to a paper showing that QED doesn't actually obey conservation laws. (But I sincerely doubt that there is one, at least not from someone who knows what they are talking about.)

Dear Meberbs.
Your original post is citing the following definition:

"Nirvana fallacy

"The nirvana fallacy is the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives"

Then you make clear your point of view:

"Something actually relevant to my original post would be if you could link to a paper showing that QED doesn't actually obey conservation laws."

First point:  There is no affirmation at any point of my posts  about violation of conservation laws.

Second point: To me, your statement above only makes clear you can not find any path to satisfy the conservation laws and have an accelerating closed electromagnetic cavity, because this condition is not in your accepted knowledgment base, be on classical, or quantum physics.

So, I totally agree with you about actual statement of mandatory conservation laws.

And, that is all.
Best regards.
« Last Edit: Today at 01:02 AM by Ricvil »

Offline oyzw

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 158
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 1
Maybe EW will loan Jamie their cavity, so he can apply my alterations and start to see significant thrust?
Professor Yang and I have endorsed the theoretical explanations of Dr. Chen Yue and Cannae's patents that emdirve uses an asymmetric structure to induce the electromagnetic field distribution to form a gradient difference, which produces a radiation pressure difference. In order to achieve this goal, the cone cavity is not the best choice. It uses a more special induction structure to asymmetrically pull the electromagnetic field, such as a very asymmetrical shape, filling with a polymer, adding a metal diaphragm, and etching trenches. They are all common goals. My cavity is just a visual copy, and there is no strict theoretical calculation, so even in the TE013 mode, there is probably no obvious electromagnetic gradient distribution. I will next copy the cavity of Dr. Chen Yue and use the high K substance to further change the trapezoidal cavity.

Since we are on the subject of efficient cavity shapes (and I don't want to read yet another fight between TheTraveller and others). May I take us back to this dicussion:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1735418#msg1735418
and
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1736210#msg1736210

A trapezoidal cavity is a terrible resonant device. IMHO, Webster's Horn Equation is the direction to look for improved resonant cavity design, even if the analogies between EM and acoustic propagation don't completely overlap.
[/quote]I agree with you that these shaped structural cavities are very difficult to manufacture. According to Dr. Chen Yue's idea, adding metal sheets to cylindrical or other symmetrical structural cavities to induce electromagnetic field distribution differentiation is The low cost method and the contrast parameters are very intuitive.

Offline TheTraveller

....

Sadly your bias to cast anything that is outside your ability to comprehend, blinds you to understanding that which are beyond your capacity to understand.

Doubt about the absolutes of physics are at the heart of true physics, yet you have no doubt. Clearly your opinion is not that of any true physicist.

That is why you fail.


It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 1566
  • Likes Given: 382
....

Sadly your bias to cast anything that is outside your ability to comprehend, blinds you to understanding that which are beyond your capacity to understand.

Doubt about the absolutes of physics are at the heart of true physics, yet you have no doubt. Clearly your opinion is not that of any true physicist.

That is why you fail.
You say this as you ignore that recent experimental results all are indicating negative for the emDrive.

You have no idea what science is. Science is based on evidence, and ignoring the results of countless experiments for the sake of some vague "doubt" is as unscientific as it gets. Your baseless insults about my ability to understand are just that, insults with no basis in reality. (On the other hand, you have repeatedly demonstrated difficulty with understanding which direction and object moves when you apply a force to it, or definitions of basic terms such as conservation of momentum.)

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 1566
  • Likes Given: 382
First point:  There is no affirmation at any point of my posts  about violation of conservation laws.
The first post of mine that you responded had  me stating QED obeys conservation laws. If your posts weren't indirectly referencing (and contradicting) that statement, I am not sure what you were trying to say or respond to.

It sounds like we are in agreement on the basic principles, but we are talking past each other. Normally, I like to clearly resolve such things and completely fix the miscommunication. In this case I think that would take a lot of work, and would not be particularly useful or relevant.

Offline Ricvil

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 103
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 46
After some discussion with Roger, on the subject of altering my KISS Thruster dimensions to match that of the EW cavity, Roger sent me the attached, with permission to share, which I now intent to follow. It does mean I need to order a higher freq 100W Rf amp and maybe run the thruster and Rf system inside faraday cages, as the freq is outside the 2.45GHz ISM band.

What is the frequency of magnetron on/off switching?

Tags: