Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 2  (Read 2165704 times)

Offline PushHigher

  • Member
  • Posts: 17
  • Nevada, USA
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 21
When matter is accelerated, length contracts and time dilates, this is a scale transformation. When the thrust is turned off and the coasting rocket finds itself is at rest relative to some distant planet. It's length does not spring back to "normal" and the clock does not speed up. They remain in this relative state until thrust is reversed and they return to the same vacuum energy state they started from.

WarpTech,

From my understanding the length contraction and time dialation (warping of space-time) is based on velocity.  From the perspective of point A, if a rocket zooms past it at constant velocity it will display the warped effect.  Lets say Planet B already matches the direction and velocity of the rocket and the rocket slows down relative to planet A.  Planet B would see the time dilation and length contraction start to change and that change would stop when deceleration of the rocket stops relative to planet A (at the same time - it is also accelerating away from planet B).

It is my personal feeling, and not something I've read nor can quantify - that acceleration has a sort of friction against space-time because it needs to bend it.  The EM Drive (if it works) bypasses this by spending it's energy on bending space-time rather than accelerating matter.  It is in essence falling.  I believe you are proving this but I may be wrong.

The only way I can explain this away is that the EM Drive creates two gravity wells with the same energy level on both sides.  The rear one is tightly focused and deep and the front one is broad and weak.  Both are centered within the frustum near the ends.  The reason there is motion is due to the larger/weaker gravity well extending beyond the bounds of the frustum more prominently in the front than the rear.  The rear well would be spending most of it's energy tugging at the walls of the frustum.  I cannot prove any of this so please consider it food for thought.

I love reading your posts, please keep up the great work!
« Last Edit: 05/07/2015 04:02 AM by PushHigher »

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1350
  • Likes Given: 1814
Quote from: WarpTech
I think I found the error in your analysis. You said,
v = a*t = (F/m)*t
This statement "assumes" acceleration is a constant. It is not a constant, so...
It is constant if and only if F is a constant of the motion.  Which, as I have argued with recourse to SR, it indeed is.

Did you find any other mistakes?

No, and I hear you. I believe energy is Force x Distance and Power in = Power out, and energy is conserved. I also believe SR is an "approximation" to a more accurate theory that includes the relative energy of the local quantum vacuum. That is how my model works, because that is how the Math in GR and QED tells us it should work.

Todd D.
My mention of SR is simply in order to highlight a core principle of Einstein's thinking about space and time; to whit, there is no preferred inertial frame, such that physics there is different to physics in another one.

Are you really saying that you reject this?

What about with respect to the "Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation" CMBR?  Couldn't we say the universe has this as an absolute frame? 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=16121186223305818545&hl=en&as_sdt=0,48

Lets say there is a God view looking above far from all gravitational fields observing the universe and stationary with respect to its boundaries.  (It should have a finite size if it had a beginning and an expansion.)  Light falling into gravity fields I would think should slow down, (considering the limit when light reaches an event horizon).  From inside a gravity field I should think light should still appear to be going c due the shrinking of the ruller.  This could give the appearance of the index of refraction (gravitational lensing).  Two objects traveling towards each other @ .6c still appear from the God view to be approaching at 1.2c though I suppose the two observers both have their (space/time) warped so it appears to them they are not approaching each other at 1.2c but rather v<c.  I mean sure time/space screws our perceptions all up but why not have an absolute frame of the universe or CMB where either we are moving with respect to it or we arent?  Or am I missing something.

Congratulations! You have just "correctly" described the Polarizable Vacuum Model of General Relativity. However, we do not need the CMBR. We simply define an observer "at infinity" to have a refractive index, K=1. From that perspective, he can observe the relative value of K, for all gravitational fields, where K > 1. If he sees something moving FTL, he will assign that space with a relative value of, K < 1.

It is still not a preferred frame, because K can be "defined" as 1 anywhere, and all observations are relative to that definition. Mark Millis has said that the CMBR is a preferred frame. IMO, it doesn't make the Math any easier, it just confuses people. As an engineer, I see all things as relative and take everything with a grain of salt. :)

Todd

Offline MrVibrating

  • Member
  • Posts: 5
  • London UK
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 5
@deltaMass

Glad you've broached the issue of net efficiency - i mentioned it previously but it sank like a lead baloon...

Thought experiment:

Suppose we sat our EM drive in an accurate calorimeter.  Switched on but restrained stationary, all of the input energy goes to heat via Joule's 2nd law.

If however we allow the drive to accelerate, then this further raises the temperature inside our perfectly insulated box.   Yet there's no causal reason why this should reduce the resistive losses - IOW this KE gain doesn't subtract from those baseline losses - for a given input energy they remain constant...

It costs nothing, in principle, to merely render a field.  Only if that field's force then performs work does that work present as a load upon the input energy.

Calorimetry of the stationary vs accelerating drive could prove extremely interesting...

My hunch is that, as it is the virtual photonsphere that mediates the EM interaction, then it is likewise responsible for the KE gain, essentially converting ambient momentum into mechanical energy.  The same conclusion would apply even if the reaction matter were virtual electrons / protons as has been postulated, since it's still virtual photons carrying the forces between them, and the drive.

Getting an N3 violation out of an energy symmetry break is seemingly impossible - the latter doesn't even speak to the former's problem.  But conversely, getting free energy from an N3 break is trivial, as you note.  Equally, this applies to the EM equivalent of N3 - CEMF / BEMF...  if you can spin a rotor without incurring counter EMF or back EMF, you gain 'free' energy...

Ultimately such asymmetric systems aren't thermodynamically closed at all, hence it's not really 'free'... rather they're in open circuit with the vacuum energy, sinking or sourcing energy to or from it, depending on the direction of the asymmetry.

Incidentally, if any of this does bear out, the EM drive presents a novel set of risks in that, while anchored to Earth, it can be used to affect the planet's KE (however infinitesimaly) - unless a pair of them were set in opposition... at sufficiently high powers though we could make significant alterations, given enough time.   The other risk pertains to perturbing, even very slightly, the balance of thermodynamic and vacuum energies and thus any constants that may be the result of delicate a homeostasis between them, such as the Higgs or alpha, as outlined in this article from PhyOrg a couple of years back:

http://phys.org/news/2013-12-collapse-universe-closer.html

Scaremongering no doubt, but raises the comic spectacle of the future dregs of humanity winging it across the cosmos Battlestar Galactica style, desperately trying to outrun the big rip their own drive systems are accelerating...   

But i digress.  Calorimetry.  That's the thing.

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1350
  • Likes Given: 1814
When matter is accelerated, length contracts and time dilates, this is a scale transformation. When the thrust is turned off and the coasting rocket finds itself is at rest relative to some distant planet. It's length does not spring back to "normal" and the clock does not speed up. They remain in this relative state until thrust is reversed and they return to the same vacuum energy state they started from.

WarpTech,

From my understanding the length contraction and time dialation (warping of space-time) is based on velocity.  From the perspective of point A, if a rocket zooms past it at constant velocity it will display the warped effect.  Lets say Planet B already matches the direction and velocity of the rocket and the rocket slows down relative to planet A.  Planet B would see the time dilation and length contraction start to change and that change would stop when deceleration of the rocket stops relative to planet A (at the same time - it is also accelerating away from planet B).

It is my personal feeling, and not something I've read nor can quantify - that acceleration has a sort of friction against space-time because it needs to bend it.  The EM Drive (if it works) bypasses this by spending it's energy on bending space-time rather than accelerating matter.  It is in essence falling.  I believe you are proving this but I may be wrong.

The only way I can explain this away is that the EM Drive creates two gravity wells with the same energy level on both sides.  The rear one is tightly focused and deep and the front one is broad and weak.  Both are centered within the frustum near the ends.  The reason there is motion is due to the larger/weaker gravity well extending beyond the bounds of the frustum more prominently in the front than the rear.  The rear well would be spending most of it's energy tugging at the walls of the frustum.  I cannot prove any of this so please consider it food for thought.

I love reading your posts, please keep up the great work!

Sort of.. A black hole is a gravity well. When light falls into a black hole, wave velocity goes to zero and the energy cannot escape. The momentum is absorbed by the black hole.

Inside the frustum, toward the large end is a reflector. Toward the small end, the taper is a high-pass filter. As waves are attenuated, they shift toward longer wavelengths and are cut-off by the dimensions of the waveguide. The cut-off is analogous to a black hole. The wave velocity goes to zero and that end of the frustum absorbs the momentum because it can't escape. There is only 1 gravity well inside it. That is in the direction of the lowest group velocity.

Thank you!
Todd
« Last Edit: 05/07/2015 04:11 AM by WarpTech »

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
I'm sorry, but I can only entertain a further discussion if we restrict ourselves to severely subrelativistic (i.e. slow) scenarios - since that is a constraint I've imposed upon myself for the purposes of the most elementary possible discussion of the dynamics.

In that framework then, and assuming (to first order, of course) a flat spacetime, do you now agree with Einstein's assertion about physics in inertial frames?

Okay then. If we are restricting ourselves to Newtonian mechanics, then we have a paradox that cannot be resolved. It leads to either an over-unity device or a preferred reference frame, and momentum is not conserved.

However, if we honestly want to resolve the paradox and conserve momentum, then we must use General Relativity to solve the problem, regardless of how fast it is going.

I'm sorry, that's just the way it is. There is no Newtonian resolution for this argument.

Thank you.
Todd
Excellent. Then we are in complete agreement. Phew. Let's let this sink in for everyone else.



If we are restricting ourselves to Newtonian mechanics, then we have a paradox that cannot be resolved. It leads to either an over-unity device or a preferred reference frame, and momentum is not conserved.



I know you're keen to wander off into PV, GR and QCD. I am content to stay with Newton and Galileo for the nonce,  "unambitiously" trolling around the solar system without carrying mondo tanks of fuel. Appreciable fractions of the speed of light can wait until later. This I say because this is how we begin to actually use a device like the EmDrive. We don't immediately leap off on an interstellar adventure (although I would welcome that too!).

I have suggested a resolution of the paradox - experiment. I think that's in the best scientific tradition.
I've also suggested the sort of apparatus we'd need to test the issue.

Offline LasJayhawk

Quote from: WarpTech
I think I found the error in your analysis. You said,
v = a*t = (F/m)*t
This statement "assumes" acceleration is a constant. It is not a constant, so...
It is constant if and only if F is a constant of the motion.  Which, as I have argued with recourse to SR, it indeed is.

Did you find any other mistakes?

No, and I hear you. I believe energy is Force x Distance and Power in = Power out, and energy is conserved. I also believe SR is an "approximation" to a more accurate theory that includes the relative energy of the local quantum vacuum. That is how my model works, because that is how the Math in GR and QED tells us it should work.

Todd D.
My mention of SR is simply in order to highlight a core principle of Einstein's thinking about space and time; to whit, there is no preferred inertial frame, such that physics there is different to physics in another one.

Are you really saying that you reject this?

What about with respect to the "Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation" CMBR?  Couldn't we say the universe has this as an absolute frame? 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=16121186223305818545&hl=en&as_sdt=0,48

Lets say there is a God view looking above far from all gravitational fields observing the universe and stationary with respect to its boundaries.  (It should have a finite size if it had a beginning and an expansion.)  Light falling into gravity fields I would think should slow down, (considering the limit when light reaches an event horizon).  From inside a gravity field I should think light should still appear to be going c due the shrinking of the ruller.  This could give the appearance of the index of refraction (gravitational lensing).  Two objects traveling towards each other @ .6c still appear from the God view to be approaching at 1.2c though I suppose the two observers both have their (space/time) warped so it appears to them they are not approaching each other at 1.2c but rather v<c.  I mean sure time/space screws our perceptions all up but why not have an absolute frame of the universe or CMB where either we are moving with respect to it or we arent?  Or am I missing something. 

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0306196
I brought this up in the other thread. In my mind the CMBR is our zero point for energy. Anything below it would look like negative energy from our frame of reference. Oddly enough, only the tests that had an odd harmonic close to 160200 MHz worked. I just believe that there is a "bingo frequency" that will make this thing go.

But no I can't provide the math. I've lost my slip-stick and walmart doesn't have log paper. :(

Offline PushHigher

  • Member
  • Posts: 17
  • Nevada, USA
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 21
Inside the frustum, toward the large end is a reflector. Toward the small end, the taper is a high-pass filter. As waves are attenuated, they shift toward longer wavelengths and are cut-off by the dimensions of the waveguide. The cut-off is analogous to a black hole. The wave velocity goes to zero and that end of the frustum absorbs the momentum because it can't escape. There is only 1 gravity well inside it. That is in the direction of the lowest group velocity.

What perplexes me is that the latest improvements to Shawyer's design have been to optimize reflectivity.  Which to me seems that the goal is to accumulate the energy within the frustum rather than trying to absorb the energy by capturing momentum.  In your opinion - does one exclude the other?

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1350
  • Likes Given: 1814
Inside the frustum, toward the large end is a reflector. Toward the small end, the taper is a high-pass filter. As waves are attenuated, they shift toward longer wavelengths and are cut-off by the dimensions of the waveguide. The cut-off is analogous to a black hole. The wave velocity goes to zero and that end of the frustum absorbs the momentum because it can't escape. There is only 1 gravity well inside it. That is in the direction of the lowest group velocity.

What perplexes me is that the latest improvements to Shawyer's design have been to optimize reflectivity.  Which to me seems that the goal is to accumulate the energy within the frustum rather than trying to absorb the energy by capturing momentum.  In your opinion - does one exclude the other?

I haven't read up on everything Shawyer has done yet. I have a lot of catching up to do. However, a narrow taper  that is more cylindrical will have a higher Q and resonate well, but it will have very little attenuation to provide thrust. Too much taper and it will be difficult to sustain resonance. Ideally, a balance needs to be engineered between how much energy can be stored in resonant modes, and how much needs to be attenuated to provide thrust. The higher the Q, the higher the reserve so increasing reflectivity reduces losses to heat. He's trying to maximize the energy stored, which is correct so that the percentage of attenuated modes will go up too.

Todd


Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
Consider the following thought experiment which takes place in free space (insignificant fields, flat spacetime). We have two propellantless propulsion craft A, B. They are identical in that a given input power P produces the same static thrust F in both of them, and their masses are the same too.

We let them both fly off on parallel courses in the same direction while both consume input power P. When A reaches a speed of 1 m/s, we switch it off and let it coast. Later, when B reaches 10 m/s, we also switch it off. Now both are coasting at their respective speeds. We switch them both back on at roughly the same time at the same input power level P. We measure the new accelerations of each and from these (knowing their masses) we deduce the thrusts acting via F = m a.

As discussed by WarpTech, Rodal and me, one of two things can happen:

1.  Energy is conserved, but there exists a preferred rest frame.
Because F = P/v, we must expect a 10:1 ratio between the two thrusts due to the different velocities.

2. Overunity will eventually obtain at v >= 2/k. There exists no preferred frame of reference.
Because F = k P and both k, P are constant, we must expect the two thrusts to be identical.

You choose how you expect the experiment to go.

Here's my thinking.
Both craft are coasting inertially at extremely low speed. Both craft, when switched back on, should exert the same thrust because their physics is identical. They have no way of knowing their speed because nothing here is remotely relativistic. There is no relativity to come to the rescue at 10 metres per second in a field-free flat spacetime. The gamma factor is 1.0000000000001 or suchlike. F = P/v is a ridiculous equation in this context. Therefore I vote for #2.

Wanna buy some Free Energy?  8)

« Last Edit: 05/07/2015 08:52 AM by deltaMass »

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1350
  • Likes Given: 1814
It's good that at least one person understands what I'm on about. :-\

Consider an EmDrive in free space and accelerating. We switch it off temporarily and let it coast at speed v relative to the inertial frame in which it began its acceleration. When we switch it back on, are we going to assert that somehow the thrust F  knows what speed it's going and adjusts the thrust like F = P/v?

I assert again that this kind of thinking requires a preferred frame, and thus violates SR.

Or you could also give the example of EM Drive ship 1 (which started from a different place) being overtaken by EM Drive ship 2 ...

EDIT:

See White and Joosten, Appendix :

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140013174.pdf

I just read this... Oh my!

deltaMass, I owe you an apology. I thought this was your derivation. I did not realize they published it that way. It was an assumption right from the start that acceleration is constant for constant input power. A "what if?" scenario. Fine, that's how the game is played if you want to get funded.

Thank you.
Todd

« Last Edit: 05/07/2015 06:03 AM by WarpTech »

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
@WarpTech:
No problem! You are a worthy debater indeed and it sharpens both of us up to kick the can around like this (pun intended  ;D).

In case you didn't see my response to the doc - I don't accept the content of Appendix A for reasons that by now should be crystal clear to you.


Offline TheTraveller

Interesting way to do an experiment:

Stream it live via You Tube and include real time data logging.

This is about MFMP's replication of the Parkhomov LENR results, so sure OFF TOPIC, but how they are doing their testing is not: https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

When I get my test rig up and working, will do this. Others may also like to consider going live with their EM Drive experiments. BTW using this media channel, many can join the conversation using audio and/or textual comments, so it becomes a 2 way event. All recorded, so there forever.
« Last Edit: 05/07/2015 06:29 AM by TheTraveller »
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
Quote from: WarpTech
Hypothetically, if there were a black box with a gravitational field "inside", i.e., it has a NET acceleration vector along the X axis, pointing toward the blue side of the box..., (which is opposite the red side of the box)  but has no discernible gravitational field "outside" of the box other than what a normal box of that mass would have. Let's say that inside the box there is all the equipment and energy storage, necessary to generate this field. Nothing comes in or goes out, but the energy stored inside it (battery) is being dissipated without being expelled.

What sort of motion would YOU expect to see?

1. Will it move forward with the blue side leading?

2. Will it move forward with the red side leading?

3. Will it not move at all because nothing is coming out?

Keep in mind, by definition, it has a NET acceleration vector inside along the X axis.

Todd
I must confess that I don't understand this system. It seems to suggest that a gravitational field can be generated at will de novo and also shielded. I wouldn't know where to start with something like that.

Offline StrongGR

Hi guys, on the theoretical side, has someone looked into this:


http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0508246
Using strong external fields to modify locally a space-time

I wrote this paper. It went published in IJMPD thanks to the Editor Jorge Pullin. The example given there can well represent a traveling microwave with an electric field in the dipole approximation. Something of interest to discuss here. This approach could be also used for the device discussed here. I am evaluating this.

Offline TheTraveller

If my EM Drive experiment generates significant thrust, it will be time to move onto the next experiment which will answer the COE question.

Plan is to build a rotary test device that drives a DC generator and it a variable load. Then can vary the load on the DC generator and observe changes in the energy delivered by the power supply to the RF amp versus energy consumed by the load. All data logged. Will draw a line in the sand about if an EM Drive obeys COE while it delivers energy to it's load.

While you guys debate theory, which is good, I've engaged the process to turn my initial test plans into reality.

My goal is to give you some solid experimental data on which to move forward.
« Last Edit: 05/07/2015 07:06 AM by TheTraveller »
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
If my EM Drive experiment generates significant thrust, it will be time to move onto the next experiment which will answer the COE question.

Plan is to build a rotary test device that drives a DC generator and it a variable load. Then can vary the load on the DC generator and observe changes in the energy delivered by the power supply to the RF amp versus energy consumed by the load. All data logged. Will draw a line in the sand about if an EM Drive obeys COE while it delivers energy to it's load.
It is going to be a mechanical challenge! I wish you all the best though.

And you are quite correct that such a rotary device can answer the CofE question without going all the way up to breakeven. It is a rotary version of the thought experiment I wrote about above. The principle of operation can be tested at quite low speeds. For some stupid brainfarty reason I had imagined that one had to go right up to breakeven speed.

If you believe Appendix A (and I hope you don't) then you do have to get up to breakeven and beyond, because of the strange knee function that is proposed there. It can't be like that.
« Last Edit: 05/07/2015 07:31 AM by deltaMass »

Offline TheTraveller

If my EM Drive experiment generates significant thrust, it will be time to move onto the next experiment which will answer the COE question.

Plan is to build a rotary test device that drives a DC generator and it a variable load. Then can vary the load on the DC generator and observe changes in the energy delivered by the power supply to the RF amp versus energy consumed by the load. All data logged. Will draw a line in the sand about if an EM Drive obeys COE while it delivers energy to it's load.
It is going to be a mechanical challenge! I wish you all the best though.

And you are quite correct that such a rotary device can answer the CofE question without going all the way up to breakeven. It is a rotary version of the thought experiment I wrote about above. The principle of operation can be tested at quite low speeds. For some stupid brainfarty reason I had imagined that one had to go right up to breakeven speed.

If you believe Appendix A (and I hope you don't) then you do have to get up to breakeven and beyond, because of the strange knee function that is proposed there. It can't be like that.
Rotary test rig is not that hard or complex to build. Will be self powered with recharge Lithium batts as the counter balance and 2 way WiFi data links. No wires to worry about. So many really nice & inexpensive tools today.

Oh have added a Faraday Cage around the EM Drive.

What I believe is "Follow the Data, Ignore the Theory".
« Last Edit: 05/07/2015 07:30 AM by TheTraveller »
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
The main attraction would be to get an EmDrive to accelerate a wheel from rest, period.
That would be a Red Letter Day indeed - irrespective of the CofE issue.
That would be headline news.

Because of the coax RF feed I assume you'll mount the RF amp and any associated electronics next to the cavity?
« Last Edit: 05/07/2015 07:36 AM by deltaMass »

Offline TheTraveller

The main attraction would be to get an EmDrive to accelerate a wheel from rest, period.
That would be a Red Letter Day indeed - irrespective of the CofE issue.
That would be headline news.

Because of the coax RF feed I assume you'll mount the RF amp and any associated electronics next to the cavity?
Already been done.
http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.html
Watch the videos.

RF amp will be mounted next to the cavity but outside the Faraday Cage. If it leaks too much RF, will put it in it's own Faraday Cage.

Note this comment.
« Last Edit: 05/07/2015 07:45 AM by TheTraveller »
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 777
  • Liked: 572
  • Likes Given: 780
The main attraction would be to get an EmDrive to accelerate a wheel from rest, period.
That would be a Red Letter Day indeed - irrespective of the CofE issue.
That would be headline news.

Because of the coax RF feed I assume you'll mount the RF amp and any associated electronics next to the cavity?
Already been done.
http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.html
Watch the videos.

RF amp will be mounted next to the cavity but outside the Faraday Cage. If it leaks too much RF, will put it in it's own Faraday Cage.

The videos are nice, but until the mechanisms are replicated by an independent third party, it doesn't count for beans. Third party replication and verification is what makes the scientific method such a powerful tool. If the replication experiments are successful, then it'll be time to shout it from the rooftops.  ;D
« Last Edit: 05/07/2015 07:46 AM by RotoSequence »

Tags: