It's useful to point out things that might create the appearance of thrust and to suggest a way to control for those things. It's not helpful to say that it can't work so stop experimenting.
Quote from: aminordisaster on 05/04/2015 01:23 amQuote from: Eye_one on 05/03/2015 11:15 pmI posted yesterday in this thread http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.300 hoping to get a reply to a question on if this device producing gravity I realize now the question I posted was vague and the way I comprised the post might look childish so I'll try to expand on it.The original post was as follows.QuoteI apologize in advance my understanding is likely no where near where it should be but, there are no stupid questions only stupid people so prove me stupid.Is it possible this device is condensing spacetime at one side and expanding it at the other creating a gravitational flow to one side? This could explain some things like why when more power is put in the force becomes more directional or why the force changes depending on its orientation to the Earth's gravitational field. Maybe somebody should place an atomic clock in the force it is producing.I would like to correct a mistake in my original question before I start. When I said expanding spacetime at one side that is wrong it would simply be less compressed than the other side. As I said in my original post my understanding of physics is not where it should be so it should be easy to prove this wrong for most of you and if you take 5 minutes to do so I will be extremely grateful.I'll explain how I think this might be happening. If there is a denser concentration of microwaves in one side of the chamber compared to the other and these groups of microwaves are manipulating spacetime it would create a gravitational flow. Basically I'm asking if it's possible this device is producing force by passing gravitons between groups of microwaves?Yes I realize this probably sounds like crazy pseudo-science so I apologize in advance if you think this wasted your time.Simply put, photons carry the electromagnetic force of which microwaves are a part of. Photons have no mass therefor do not manipulate spacetime, only travel through it. The term "denser" can not apply to a massless particle.The theoretical graviton is similar to the photon in that it is massless and it carries the gravitational force. Any mechanism for the absorption or emission of gravitons hasn't made much sense.If this interests you, may i suggest "The Theory of Almost Everything" by Robert Derter. It will introduce you to some basic principles you will need to know.Everyone knew nothing before they knew something!Confined photons in particular do have an energy density and affect spacetime as does any other (ie the cavity when filled w/ photons is heavier than when empty)
Quote from: Eye_one on 05/03/2015 11:15 pmI posted yesterday in this thread http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.300 hoping to get a reply to a question on if this device producing gravity I realize now the question I posted was vague and the way I comprised the post might look childish so I'll try to expand on it.The original post was as follows.QuoteI apologize in advance my understanding is likely no where near where it should be but, there are no stupid questions only stupid people so prove me stupid.Is it possible this device is condensing spacetime at one side and expanding it at the other creating a gravitational flow to one side? This could explain some things like why when more power is put in the force becomes more directional or why the force changes depending on its orientation to the Earth's gravitational field. Maybe somebody should place an atomic clock in the force it is producing.I would like to correct a mistake in my original question before I start. When I said expanding spacetime at one side that is wrong it would simply be less compressed than the other side. As I said in my original post my understanding of physics is not where it should be so it should be easy to prove this wrong for most of you and if you take 5 minutes to do so I will be extremely grateful.I'll explain how I think this might be happening. If there is a denser concentration of microwaves in one side of the chamber compared to the other and these groups of microwaves are manipulating spacetime it would create a gravitational flow. Basically I'm asking if it's possible this device is producing force by passing gravitons between groups of microwaves?Yes I realize this probably sounds like crazy pseudo-science so I apologize in advance if you think this wasted your time.Simply put, photons carry the electromagnetic force of which microwaves are a part of. Photons have no mass therefor do not manipulate spacetime, only travel through it. The term "denser" can not apply to a massless particle.The theoretical graviton is similar to the photon in that it is massless and it carries the gravitational force. Any mechanism for the absorption or emission of gravitons hasn't made much sense.If this interests you, may i suggest "The Theory of Almost Everything" by Robert Derter. It will introduce you to some basic principles you will need to know.Everyone knew nothing before they knew something!
I posted yesterday in this thread http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.300 hoping to get a reply to a question on if this device producing gravity I realize now the question I posted was vague and the way I comprised the post might look childish so I'll try to expand on it.The original post was as follows.QuoteI apologize in advance my understanding is likely no where near where it should be but, there are no stupid questions only stupid people so prove me stupid.Is it possible this device is condensing spacetime at one side and expanding it at the other creating a gravitational flow to one side? This could explain some things like why when more power is put in the force becomes more directional or why the force changes depending on its orientation to the Earth's gravitational field. Maybe somebody should place an atomic clock in the force it is producing.I would like to correct a mistake in my original question before I start. When I said expanding spacetime at one side that is wrong it would simply be less compressed than the other side. As I said in my original post my understanding of physics is not where it should be so it should be easy to prove this wrong for most of you and if you take 5 minutes to do so I will be extremely grateful.I'll explain how I think this might be happening. If there is a denser concentration of microwaves in one side of the chamber compared to the other and these groups of microwaves are manipulating spacetime it would create a gravitational flow. Basically I'm asking if it's possible this device is producing force by passing gravitons between groups of microwaves?Yes I realize this probably sounds like crazy pseudo-science so I apologize in advance if you think this wasted your time.
I apologize in advance my understanding is likely no where near where it should be but, there are no stupid questions only stupid people so prove me stupid.Is it possible this device is condensing spacetime at one side and expanding it at the other creating a gravitational flow to one side? This could explain some things like why when more power is put in the force becomes more directional or why the force changes depending on its orientation to the Earth's gravitational field. Maybe somebody should place an atomic clock in the force it is producing.
I just wish we could remain on topic and talk about Emdrive experimental results, instead of the umpteenth attempt of refutation from new comers, that add nothing to the same umpteenth+1 reasons already brought and discussed here.I'm not hostile to criticism, but the arguments of violation of conservation momentum, conservation of energy and relativity are well known. Just read the thread history people.
Shawyer has also made it clear there is no need to put a dielectric inside the cavity & stated that doing so will reduce cavity Q (which will reduce thrust) and increase losses.Seems to me that if anyone wishes to test an EM Drive, they should follow what Shawyer has said in what to avoid inside the cavity and how to put the drive into either Motor mode or Generator mode.{snipped to keep the focus on my target}His testing instructions are very clear.http://www.emdrive.com/EmDriveForceMeasurement.pdf{snipped to keep focus on my target}This seems clear from my reading of the data & emails Shawyer has provided.
Quote from: SH on 05/03/2015 11:55 pmQuote from: Rodal on 05/03/2015 11:05 pmVery interesting suggestion. But I would have expected random vibrations to produce random walk motion in one direction with a ratchet form of stick-slip friction or a bearing acting with a ratchet-like action, as found in molecular motors...The ratchet-like action would explain why it wants to move in only one direction (a factor TheTraveller has pointed out). (Without the ratchet-like action, just with stick slip friction it would initially move in either direction, depending on initial conditions)The direction of motion could be controlled with a ratchet, but that would be pretty difficult to conceal and so would be an unlikely way to cheat.More likely would be to have a very slight inclination, or to set it up so there is slightly more friction on one side than the other, thus controlling the initial otherwise random direction of movement. I didn't mean that an actual ratchet was used to conceal the motion of course, instead I meant that something in the system is naturally acting as a ratchet, that's why I gave the example with references about molecular motors whose motion work as a ratchet random walk. The references I gave in my prior post actually deal with random walks that have a preferred direction, called in academia ratchet motion.A biased random walk is another type of possible random walk. But due to biased stick-slip it would be a ratchet random walk. One would have to examine the system, for anything that unintentionally acts like a ratchet.just a few examples of a ratchet mechanism due to stick slip friction:
Quote from: Rodal on 05/03/2015 11:05 pmVery interesting suggestion. But I would have expected random vibrations to produce random walk motion in one direction with a ratchet form of stick-slip friction or a bearing acting with a ratchet-like action, as found in molecular motors...The ratchet-like action would explain why it wants to move in only one direction (a factor TheTraveller has pointed out). (Without the ratchet-like action, just with stick slip friction it would initially move in either direction, depending on initial conditions)The direction of motion could be controlled with a ratchet, but that would be pretty difficult to conceal and so would be an unlikely way to cheat.More likely would be to have a very slight inclination, or to set it up so there is slightly more friction on one side than the other, thus controlling the initial otherwise random direction of movement.
Very interesting suggestion. But I would have expected random vibrations to produce random walk motion in one direction with a ratchet form of stick-slip friction or a bearing acting with a ratchet-like action, as found in molecular motors...The ratchet-like action would explain why it wants to move in only one direction (a factor TheTraveller has pointed out). (Without the ratchet-like action, just with stick slip friction it would initially move in either direction, depending on initial conditions)
It would seem Yang Juan uses a very similar explanation in her recent EM Drive paper. In case you have not had an opportunity to read it, here is the link: http://www.emdrive.com/yang-juan-paper-2012.pdf
Based on the installation orientation of Figure 2, when the thruster is working normally, if the electromagnetic coil 3 is working, the net thrust is from the microwave resonator large end to the small end; if the electromagnetic coil 4 is working, the net thrust is from the microwave resonator small end to the large end.
if what you say is true there is no way Boeing or anyone else involved with any form of propulsion but especially aviation or space flight would lose interest. any reduced mass is astoundingly useful. Even if the thing only reduced mass by 1 percent it would revolutionize everything. Nothing would ever be the same again. Automobiles, trains, planes, rockets; everything.
Simply put, photons carry the electromagnetic force of which microwaves are a part of. Photons have no mass therefor do not manipulate spacetime, only travel through it. The term "denser" can not apply to a massless particle.The theoretical graviton is similar to the photon in that it is massless and it carries the gravitational force. Any mechanism for the absorption or emission of gravitons hasn't made much sense.If this interests you, may i suggest "The Theory of Almost Everything" by Robert Derter. It will introduce you to some basic principles you will need to know.Everyone knew nothing before they knew something!
Quote from: Stormbringer on 05/04/2015 05:01 amif what you say is true there is no way Boeing or anyone else involved with any form of propulsion but especially aviation or space flight would lose interest. any reduced mass is astoundingly useful. Even if the thing only reduced mass by 1 percent it would revolutionize everything. Nothing would ever be the same again. Automobiles, trains, planes, rockets; everything.Is not what I say. Is what Shawyer explains in his how to measure the forces pdf and in his explanation of how his space plane would do a 0.05g vertical lift.As another example of EM Drive ratchet mode operation, assume we had a EM Drive with a motor & generator mode maximum force generation of 9.8 Newtons and the device had a mass of 0.5kg.Now support it 1 mtr off the ground via say a small pedestal table, oriented such that the force of gravity would put the EM Drive into Generator / force resistance mode.Next switch it on.Now remove the pedestal support table.Observe it is hovering as the downward 0.5kg weight is opposed by generator mode, which has a max ability to resist 9.8 Newtons of force or 1kg of mass at the Earth's surface.
...I trust this shows how the EM Drive is unlike anything humanity has experienced before. So please do not move forward thinking it is like a propellantless Hall thruster or rocket motor that generates thrust when the cavity is filled with microwave energy.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/04/2015 06:10 amQuote from: Stormbringer on 05/04/2015 05:01 amif what you say is true there is no way Boeing or anyone else involved with any form of propulsion but especially aviation or space flight would lose interest. any reduced mass is astoundingly useful. Even if the thing only reduced mass by 1 percent it would revolutionize everything. Nothing would ever be the same again. Automobiles, trains, planes, rockets; everything.Is not what I say. Is what Shawyer explains in his how to measure the forces pdf and in his explanation of how his space plane would do a 0.05g vertical lift.As another example of EM Drive ratchet mode operation, assume we had a EM Drive with a motor & generator mode maximum force generation of 9.8 Newtons and the device had a mass of 0.5kg.Now support it 1 mtr off the ground via say a small pedestal table, oriented such that the force of gravity would put the EM Drive into Generator / force resistance mode.Next switch it on.Now remove the pedestal support table.Observe it is hovering as the downward 0.5kg weight is opposed by generator mode, which has a max ability to resist 9.8 Newtons of force or 1kg of mass at the Earth's surface. So if I read you well and equivalence principle holds, having a rocket in deep space accelerating, by conventional mean, at 1g, a floor that is orthogonal to this acceleration, a pedestal resting on this floor, a powered EM drive resting on this pedestal in same configuration, remove the pedestal and one will observe the EM drive hovering above that floor (that is still accelerating at 1g). Meaning we now have a powered EM drive not needing to be "pushed" to accelerate at 1g (there is no longer any interaction between rocket and device). Stop the conventional thrust of the rocket : the rocket will stop accelerating and proceed as an inertial mass at constant velocity (relative to whatever inertial frame). Let the device escape from an open front bay : it will continue to accelerate at 1g since it was no longer interacting with the rocket when the change in acceleration of the rocket occurred (no interaction => whatever change in rocket trajectory ignored). We now have a "conventionally" accelerating (thrusting) EM drive needing no added force.So why bother with a Hall thruster ? Just put behind a big dumb powder booster that makes your EM drive accelerate at 1g for a fraction of a second the time it takes for the EM drive to "record" that acceleration as a "starting point". BTW, same argument above could be made if acceleration was 0.5g instead of 1g : this means we now have to add a new intrinsic variable to a moving object. What physical mechanism explains this memory effect of "initial acceleration" into an ongoing acceleration of given magnitude ?Quote...I trust this shows how the EM Drive is unlike anything humanity has experienced before. So please do not move forward thinking it is like a propellantless Hall thruster or rocket motor that generates thrust when the cavity is filled with microwave energy.Don't underestimate the aptitude of intelligent people to integrate counter intuitive formal systems when they show internal consistency.
Quote from: Mulletron on 05/03/2015 05:18 pmThere's other perfectly sane ways of interacting with the QV which have been posted literally a thousand times in THIS forum over and over again since October.I have been reading these threads quite diligently lately but I am not sure what you are referring to. A link would be appreciated!
There's other perfectly sane ways of interacting with the QV which have been posted literally a thousand times in THIS forum over and over again since October.
Mr. Shawyer passed this along to share. See attachment. I didn't see it on his website. Maybe I missed it.Looks like it goes along with the IAC-14 presentation here:http://www.emdrive.com/iac2014presentation.pdfThe conference, page 133:http://www.iafastro.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/IAC-2014-Final-Programme.pdfHe didn't give permission to share the email text this time. If he ever emails back, I'll ask for permission.We're all very fortunate to have the inventor of EmDrive contributing to the discussion.
Quote from: Mulletron on 05/04/2015 10:24 amMr. Shawyer passed this along to share. See attachment. I didn't see it on his website. Maybe I missed it.Looks like it goes along with the IAC-14 presentation here:http://www.emdrive.com/iac2014presentation.pdfThe conference, page 133:http://www.iafastro.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/IAC-2014-Final-Programme.pdfHe didn't give permission to share the email text this time. If he ever emails back, I'll ask for permission.We're all very fortunate to have the inventor of EmDrive contributing to the discussion.Please thank Roger Shawyer for this information and thank you for sharing.Seems Shawyer has thrown down a gauntlet.Let the games begin.
Concerning the phrase “Shawyer has thrown down a gauntlet” , my understanding is that it means to challenge or confront someone. Please explain further:Who is being challenged by Shawyer? What is the challenge?