Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3  (Read 1803933 times)

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1296
  • Likes Given: 1752
There is growing evidence (I think) that TM is the critical mode and not TE. While I'm not trying to throw stones, it is the direction I am going with my theory.

http://processmodeling.org/theory/physics/kinetic.htm

<snip>

"The conclusion - The kinetic energy of the electron is identical to its magnetic energy."

<snip>

"6. General conclusion. - Kinetic energies are electromagnetic energies

Kinetic energies can, in certain conditions, be restructured (converted) into tangible particles and vice versa, tangible particle can be restructured into field ones, i.e. into kinetic energy.

Kinetic energy is conveyed from one object to another in the form of electromagnetic waves (photons)."

Both Shawyer and Prof Yang say TE mode delivers more Force.

Me too, based on Zeng & Fan's Beta plots.
Todd

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
TheTraveller's post that graphed Shawyer's turnable velocity ( http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1411849#msg1411849 ) made me curious to see how that lined up with the "power off" event in the video ( http://www.emdrive.com/fullDMtest188.mpg ). Attached are my results.

To try to be consistent with TheTraveller's data, each 'rotation tick' is half of each line-separated segment on the turntable. There will be a small amount of drift from switching between one of the little black rods rotating around to another. The point's location on the time axis will also jitter a little, since I was only recording times with second resolution.
The plot is POSITION vs. TIME.
Here's some post-processing for velocity and acceleration. It could benefit from a better filter algorithm. But you get a rough idea. It doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?

Looks about right to me. Acceleration stops when the power is turned off, the velocity "slowly" decreases from there due to friction. Since there is very little friction, it keeps moving at nearly the same speed for quite a while but the acceleration stops when it's supposed to.
Todd
You don't see the velocity continuing to increase after power is turned off?
Perhaps a fan kicked on in one of those pieces of equipment on the table...but not that any of that is published.

Offline X_RaY

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 774
  • Germany
  • Liked: 993
  • Likes Given: 2144
I search for good solutions for such problems for over 10 years now. I do it with a well known Prof. of W engineering. I know what i am saying, believe it or not. If you like to do so, do it and measure and dont forget to post the results. OK?! I have no problem with that, its your turn

Can you please explain what bad and good coupling are in reference to an antenna design exciting a desired mode in a waveguide or resonant cavity?

The examples I have used are from microwave tech books. Are they incorrect or are there better ways and if so why are the better ways better?
OK. Give me a specific problem. Which mode do you like to excite?

PS:These books are really helpful, also helpful is to have experience.
Theory is right most time, but to bring special solutions into practice is a different thing.

Lets start simple and excite TE01 in a 200mm diameter circular waveguide using 2.45GHz (121.9mm wavelength) as the external drive frequency.

I get 164.0mm as the cutoff wavelength and 182.2mm as the guide wavelength. To excite I would place the 30.5mm long stub antenna (1/4 wavelength of the external frequency) at a right angle to the side wall length axis and 45.6mm away from an end plate (1/4 of the guide wavelength).

Is there a better way?
OK first with BD and SD equal to 200mm the wavelength inside the waveguide is: 2*91,906mm=183,812mm(lambda) at 2,45 GHz
not 182.2mm (no problem with that difference).

There are some possibilities:
1) use a bended stub antenna in direction of the E field (goes around the center)
2) use a waveguide coupling like tajmar
3) use a set of dipoles near one of the end plates
4) a loop like in the NASA cone

All of that will work as well and i think almost better than the stub in your drawing.

Test it with a VNA. If it isn't work (only one options) i will take my hat.

Ok understand your point. Interesting. Especially the curved antenna to follow the transverse E field.

BTW what equation did you use to get the guide wavelength? Did you use c in atmo of vac?

Now how about exciting this in TE013?
c in vacuum, but flat end plates may be thats why there is a difference in our calculations  :)

With BD=SD=200 L=lambda/2 i get 5,2233GHz (TE011)

For TE013 its the same game for the end plates, no difference. At the side walls the matching point is all lambda/2.
« Last Edit: 08/03/2015 09:42 PM by X_RaY »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
There is growing evidence (I think) that TM is the critical mode and not TE. While I'm not trying to throw stones, it is the direction I am going with my theory.

http://processmodeling.org/theory/physics/kinetic.htm

<snip>

"The conclusion - The kinetic energy of the electron is identical to its magnetic energy."

<snip>

"6. General conclusion. - Kinetic energies are electromagnetic energies

Kinetic energies can, in certain conditions, be restructured (converted) into tangible particles and vice versa, tangible particle can be restructured into field ones, i.e. into kinetic energy.

Kinetic energy is conveyed from one object to another in the form of electromagnetic waves (photons)."

You are correct.  NASA agrees with you: March made it clear in previous threads.  NASA measured no thrust whatsoever when resonating at mode TE012 without a dielectric.  Their computer modeling shows that TM modes are better.  Lastly, NASA is the only research organization up to this date that has clearly measured the resonance mode shape.  Shawyer and Yang never reported on any  measurements showing that the operating mode shape was the mode they thought it was.  Only NASA verified the mode shape with a thermal camera.

I hope that TheTraveller and others use a thermal camera to verify the mode shape of operation of the EM Drive under operation.

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
TheTraveller's post that graphed Shawyer's turnable velocity ( http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1411849#msg1411849 ) made me curious to see how that lined up with the "power off" event in the video ( http://www.emdrive.com/fullDMtest188.mpg ). Attached are my results.

To try to be consistent with TheTraveller's data, each 'rotation tick' is half of each line-separated segment on the turntable. There will be a small amount of drift from switching between one of the little black rods rotating around to another. The point's location on the time axis will also jitter a little, since I was only recording times with second resolution.
The plot is POSITION vs. TIME.
Here's some post-processing for velocity and acceleration. It could benefit from a better filter algorithm. But you get a rough idea. It doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?

Looks about right to me. Acceleration stops when the power is turned off, the velocity "slowly" decreases from there due to friction. Since there is very little friction, it keeps moving at nearly the same speed for quite a while but the acceleration stops when it's supposed to.
Todd
You don't see the velocity continuing to increase after power is turned off?
Perhaps a fan kicked on in one of those pieces of equipment on the table...but not that any of that is published.
Here's Shawyer's own data from the 2008 paper when the turntable was demonstrated seven years ago!!. My crude version below. Both show velocity increasing after power is removed. Thermal? Fans? Floobie Dust?
« Last Edit: 08/03/2015 09:49 PM by deltaMass »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
TheTraveller's post that graphed Shawyer's turnable velocity ( http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1411849#msg1411849 ) made me curious to see how that lined up with the "power off" event in the video ( http://www.emdrive.com/fullDMtest188.mpg ). Attached are my results.

To try to be consistent with TheTraveller's data, each 'rotation tick' is half of each line-separated segment on the turntable. There will be a small amount of drift from switching between one of the little black rods rotating around to another. The point's location on the time axis will also jitter a little, since I was only recording times with second resolution.
The plot is POSITION vs. TIME.
Here's some post-processing for velocity and acceleration. It could benefit from a better filter algorithm. But you get a rough idea. It doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?

Looks about right to me. Acceleration stops when the power is turned off, the velocity "slowly" decreases from there due to friction. Since there is very little friction, it keeps moving at nearly the same speed for quite a while but the acceleration stops when it's supposed to.
Todd
You don't see the velocity continuing to increase after power is turned off?
Perhaps a fan kicked on in one of those pieces of equipment on the table...but not that any of that is published.
Here's Shawyer's own data from the 2008 paper when the turntable was demonstrated seven years ago!!. My crude version below. Both show velocity increasing after power is removed. Thermal? Fans? Floobie Dust?

Excellent analysis and undeniable conclusions on your part.

Perhaps there is much greater degree of latitude with which people that have been in this thread for a while are willing to look at EM Drive data, and that's the reason for some responses.

Look at it this way: when EM Drive thust results between different experimenters differ by ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE (not just a few percent) , and since people have seen such huge variations in data, then people are willing to forgive time delays of seconds, or even really anomalous response like the velocity increasing after power is turned off.  Our human tolerance on deviations is highly dependent on what we are accustomed to see.  Some time ago one poster was asking for 4 sigma experimental results.  Ha Ha. That will be the  day 4 sigma for the EM Drive.

There are a number of anomalous time delays associated with EM Drive experiments that are very difficult to reconcile with electromagnetism.
« Last Edit: 08/03/2015 09:59 PM by Rodal »

Offline TheTraveller

There is growing evidence (I think) that TM is the critical mode and not TE. While I'm not trying to throw stones, it is the direction I am going with my theory.

http://processmodeling.org/theory/physics/kinetic.htm

<snip>

"The conclusion - The kinetic energy of the electron is identical to its magnetic energy."

<snip>

"6. General conclusion. - Kinetic energies are electromagnetic energies

Kinetic energies can, in certain conditions, be restructured (converted) into tangible particles and vice versa, tangible particle can be restructured into field ones, i.e. into kinetic energy.

Kinetic energy is conveyed from one object to another in the form of electromagnetic waves (photons)."

You are correct.  NASA agrees with you: March made it clear in previous threads.  NASA measured no thrust whatsoever when resonating at mode TE012 without a dielectric.  Their computer modeling shows that TM modes are better.  Lastly, NASA is the only research organization up to this date that has clearly measured the resonance mode shape.  Shawyer and Yang never reported on any  measurements showing that the operating mode shape was the mode they thought it was.  Only NASA verified the mode shape with a thermal camera.

I hope that TheTraveller and others use a thermal camera to verify the mode shape of operation of the EM Drive under operation.

NASA uses TM mode as they need a axial electric field to excite their dielectric. When Shawyer used dielectrics he also excited in TM mode but how that he no longer uses dielectrics, TE013 is his mode of choice. Why? Because as Prof Yang found and reported, the H field being axial imparts more momentum transfer than does an axial E field.

As for the EW null Force in TE mode without a dielectric, we both know there is no resonance in any mode for their copper frustum at 2.45GHz. So it is not that TE mode doesn't produce Force, just no resonance, no Force.
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline TheTraveller

TheTraveller's post that graphed Shawyer's turnable velocity ( http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1411849#msg1411849 ) made me curious to see how that lined up with the "power off" event in the video ( http://www.emdrive.com/fullDMtest188.mpg ). Attached are my results.

To try to be consistent with TheTraveller's data, each 'rotation tick' is half of each line-separated segment on the turntable. There will be a small amount of drift from switching between one of the little black rods rotating around to another. The point's location on the time axis will also jitter a little, since I was only recording times with second resolution.
The plot is POSITION vs. TIME.
Here's some post-processing for velocity and acceleration. It could benefit from a better filter algorithm. But you get a rough idea. It doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?

Looks about right to me. Acceleration stops when the power is turned off, the velocity "slowly" decreases from there due to friction. Since there is very little friction, it keeps moving at nearly the same speed for quite a while but the acceleration stops when it's supposed to.
Todd
You don't see the velocity continuing to increase after power is turned off?
Perhaps a fan kicked on in one of those pieces of equipment on the table...but not that any of that is published.
Here's Shawyer's own data from the 2008 paper when the turntable was demonstrated seven years ago!!. My crude version below. Both show velocity increasing after power is removed. Thermal? Fans? Floobie Dust?

You will not give it up will you? Shawyer has explained why that happened. You know what he reported yet refused to quote it above. So why hide what you know he said?

Please note when power was on there was acceleration and when power was turned off there was no acceleration.
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline Flyby

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 384
  • Belgium
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 47
Wow!  Is everyone crabby today!!!   :o

Actually, I have been waiting for this.  It has been my personal experience that, when dealing a very complex knowledge domain, that just before anyone  "Groks" that domain they start to get really quite crabby.  It is like a rite of passage it seems - growth pains!  :)

Nah, most of us ran out of coffee this morning.. that's why.... ;)

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
...
NASA uses TM mode as they need a axial electric field to excite their dielectric. When Shawyer used dielectrics he also excited in TM mode ...

I fully agree,

...As for the EW null Force in TE mode without a dielectric, we both know there is no resonance in any mode for their copper frustum at 2.45GHz. So it is not that TE mode doesn't produce Force, just no resonance, no Force.

Please go back and re-check your notes:  without a dielctric they tested TE012 mode at 2.168 GHz, not 2.45 GHz.
This is very close to both the NASA COMSOL FEA prediction for TE012 and to my prediction (I think I calculated around 2.2 GHz from memory).

Your Excel spreadsheet may predict a higher frequency (I recall you predicted 2.3 GHz) but usually your Excel spreadsheet predicts natural frequencies higher than my calculations, depending on the mode shape.

If you are performing an integration, do you have the means to increase the number of integration points by a multiplying factor of 100 and see what difference it makes in your predicted results?
« Last Edit: 08/03/2015 09:57 PM by Rodal »

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
TheTraveller's post that graphed Shawyer's turnable velocity ( http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1411849#msg1411849 ) made me curious to see how that lined up with the "power off" event in the video ( http://www.emdrive.com/fullDMtest188.mpg ). Attached are my results.

To try to be consistent with TheTraveller's data, each 'rotation tick' is half of each line-separated segment on the turntable. There will be a small amount of drift from switching between one of the little black rods rotating around to another. The point's location on the time axis will also jitter a little, since I was only recording times with second resolution.
The plot is POSITION vs. TIME.
Here's some post-processing for velocity and acceleration. It could benefit from a better filter algorithm. But you get a rough idea. It doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?

Looks about right to me. Acceleration stops when the power is turned off, the velocity "slowly" decreases from there due to friction. Since there is very little friction, it keeps moving at nearly the same speed for quite a while but the acceleration stops when it's supposed to.
Todd
You don't see the velocity continuing to increase after power is turned off?
Perhaps a fan kicked on in one of those pieces of equipment on the table...but not that any of that is published.
Here's Shawyer's own data from the 2008 paper when the turntable was demonstrated seven years ago!!. My crude version below. Both show velocity increasing after power is removed. Thermal? Fans? Floobie Dust?
Please note when power was on there was acceleration and when power was turned off there was no acceleration.
Rubbish. Look at the data. From the paper:
When the power is turned off, at 210 secs, there is a coast period as the slosh effects of 5kg of coolant maintain a reduced acceleration. This is followed by the deceleration due to the friction torque

Slosh. Ah yes.



Offline TheTraveller

TheTraveller's post that graphed Shawyer's turnable velocity ( http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1411849#msg1411849 ) made me curious to see how that lined up with the "power off" event in the video ( http://www.emdrive.com/fullDMtest188.mpg ). Attached are my results.

To try to be consistent with TheTraveller's data, each 'rotation tick' is half of each line-separated segment on the turntable. There will be a small amount of drift from switching between one of the little black rods rotating around to another. The point's location on the time axis will also jitter a little, since I was only recording times with second resolution.
The plot is POSITION vs. TIME.
Here's some post-processing for velocity and acceleration. It could benefit from a better filter algorithm. But you get a rough idea. It doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?

Looks about right to me. Acceleration stops when the power is turned off, the velocity "slowly" decreases from there due to friction. Since there is very little friction, it keeps moving at nearly the same speed for quite a while but the acceleration stops when it's supposed to.
Todd
You don't see the velocity continuing to increase after power is turned off?
Perhaps a fan kicked on in one of those pieces of equipment on the table...but not that any of that is published.
Here's Shawyer's own data from the 2008 paper when the turntable was demonstrated seven years ago!!. My crude version below. Both show velocity increasing after power is removed. Thermal? Fans? Floobie Dust?

Excellent analysis and undeniable conclusions on your part.

Perhaps there is much greater degree of latitude with which people that have been in this thread for a while are willing to look at EM Drive data, and that's the reason for some responses.

Look at it this way: when EM Drive thust results between different experimenters differ by ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE (not just a few percent) , and people have seen such huge variations in data, then people are willing to forgive time delays of seconds, or even really anomalous response like the velocity increasing after power is turned off.

There are a number of anomalous time delays associated with EM Drive experiments that are very difficult to reconcile with electromagnetism.

You also know what Shawyer said caused that event, yet did not quote it. Selective use of data to make a point?

Trust me I will really enjoy watching quite a few of you, in a few months, eat your hats as you try to climb out of the holes you have dug for yourselves.

BTW a friend has helped me to fine tune my frustum dimensions so it will operate extremely well at 2.45GHz, excited in TE013 mode via a coax excited antenna. Am I confident? 100%. Better get those hats ready guys.
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline TheTraveller

TheTraveller's post that graphed Shawyer's turnable velocity ( http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1411849#msg1411849 ) made me curious to see how that lined up with the "power off" event in the video ( http://www.emdrive.com/fullDMtest188.mpg ). Attached are my results.

To try to be consistent with TheTraveller's data, each 'rotation tick' is half of each line-separated segment on the turntable. There will be a small amount of drift from switching between one of the little black rods rotating around to another. The point's location on the time axis will also jitter a little, since I was only recording times with second resolution.
The plot is POSITION vs. TIME.
Here's some post-processing for velocity and acceleration. It could benefit from a better filter algorithm. But you get a rough idea. It doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?

Looks about right to me. Acceleration stops when the power is turned off, the velocity "slowly" decreases from there due to friction. Since there is very little friction, it keeps moving at nearly the same speed for quite a while but the acceleration stops when it's supposed to.
Todd
You don't see the velocity continuing to increase after power is turned off?
Perhaps a fan kicked on in one of those pieces of equipment on the table...but not that any of that is published.
Here's Shawyer's own data from the 2008 paper when the turntable was demonstrated seven years ago!!. My crude version below. Both show velocity increasing after power is removed. Thermal? Fans? Floobie Dust?
Please note when power was on there was acceleration and when power was turned off there was no acceleration.
Rubbish. Look at the data. From the paper:
When the power is turned off, at 210 secs, there is a coast period as the slosh effects of 5kg of coolant maintain a reduced acceleration. This is followed by the deceleration due to the friction torque

Slosh. Ah yes.

The only rubbish is the spin you put on the data.

I will really enjoy watching you eat your hat as you climb out of the pit you have dug for yourself.
"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
I've become a big fan of the slosh propellantless drive.

Seriously, in seven whole years this is the best data available?
You'd think at least the slosh would be fixed.
And the fans.
And all the extra weight.
And curves showing position against time for different all-up masses.
And...and....ah nebbermind
« Last Edit: 08/03/2015 10:09 PM by deltaMass »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
...
You also know what Shawyer said caused that event, ...
Come on. Why would you think that I would recall what Shawyer may have said or didn't say?
Many other things to entertain my mind with...
I recall my children as they were growing up, how much fun I had when I was in school, loving faces.
What Shawyer said... not so much :)
« Last Edit: 08/03/2015 10:14 PM by Rodal »

Offline TheTraveller

...
NASA uses TM mode as they need a axial electric field to excite their dielectric. When Shawyer used dielectrics he also excited in TM mode ...

I fully agree,

...As for the EW null Force in TE mode without a dielectric, we both know there is no resonance in any mode for their copper frustum at 2.45GHz. So it is not that TE mode doesn't produce Force, just no resonance, no Force.

Please go back and re-check your notes:  without a dielctric they tested TE012 mode at 2.168 GHz, not 2.45 GHz.
This is very close to both the NASA COMSOL FEA prediction for TE012 and to my prediction (I think I calculated around 2.2 GHz from memory).

Your Excel spreadsheet may predict a higher frequency (I recall you predicted 2.3 GHz) but usually your Excel spreadsheet predicts natural frequencies higher than my calculations, depending on the mode shape.

If you are performing an integration, do you have the means to increase the number of integration points by a multiplying factor of 100 and see what difference it makes in your predicted results?

I use 10,000 points in a Trapezoid based numerical integration analysis model.

Just rechecked 16 modes for the EW frustum at 2.45GHz. No resonance. At 2.168GHz there is a weak resonance in TM013 mode.
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
There is growing evidence (I think) that TM is the critical mode and not TE. While I'm not trying to throw stones, it is the direction I am going with my theory.

http://processmodeling.org/theory/physics/kinetic.htm

<snip>

"The conclusion - The kinetic energy of the electron is identical to its magnetic energy."

<snip>

"6. General conclusion. - Kinetic energies are electromagnetic energies

Kinetic energies can, in certain conditions, be restructured (converted) into tangible particles and vice versa, tangible particle can be restructured into field ones, i.e. into kinetic energy.

Kinetic energy is conveyed from one object to another in the form of electromagnetic waves (photons)."

Both Shawyer and Prof Yang say TE mode delivers more Force.
I am aware of that Mr. T. I just happen to respectfully disagree and am pursuing a TM theory. Why? In the simple course of nature, I've not seen electricity, by itself, move anything. I cannot say that about magnetism.

Too simple? Perhaps, but nature gives us the clues if we just follow her. I am also not trying to convince or dissuade or argue with anyone else. I find it extremely...uhhhh...distasteful and counterproductive.

Offline TheTraveller

There is growing evidence (I think) that TM is the critical mode and not TE. While I'm not trying to throw stones, it is the direction I am going with my theory.

http://processmodeling.org/theory/physics/kinetic.htm

<snip>

"The conclusion - The kinetic energy of the electron is identical to its magnetic energy."

<snip>

"6. General conclusion. - Kinetic energies are electromagnetic energies

Kinetic energies can, in certain conditions, be restructured (converted) into tangible particles and vice versa, tangible particle can be restructured into field ones, i.e. into kinetic energy.

Kinetic energy is conveyed from one object to another in the form of electromagnetic waves (photons)."

Both Shawyer and Prof Yang say TE mode delivers more Force.
I am aware of that Mr. T. I just happen to respectfully disagree and am pursuing a TM theory. Why? In the simple course of nature, I've not seen electricity, by itself, move anything. I cannot say that about magnetism.

Too simple? Perhaps, but nature gives us the clues if we just follow her. I am also not trying to convince or dissuade or argue with anyone else. I find it extremely...uhhhh...distasteful and counterproductive.

To get a magnetic (H) field banging strongly against those end plates, you need your cavity to be excited in TE mode.
"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
About Slosh.

We have only Shawyer's word for it. It couldn't possibly be an artifact, could it? When fluid under constant acceleration suddenly has the acceleration removed, there tends to be an impulse as the fluid hits "the front end" and rebounds. The motion of any following fluid is effectively cancelled by the rebounding fluid. You will only get acceleration when there's a force, and you will only get force from slosh when the initial leading edge hits the front wall. But what the data shows is a constant force being applied after power is removed for about one full minute. How the hell can that be "slosh"? Slosh is an impulsive force, not a sustained one.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
...I am also not trying to convince or dissuade or argue with anyone else. I find it extremely...uhhhh...distasteful and counterproductive.
For business my favorite partners are people that can strongly disagree with me, have different points of view and not be afraid to tell me so.  I really appreciate their disagreements as they have saved me from making bad trades.  Same for engineering projects and starting business ventures. 

Tags: