Quote from: Ron Stahl on 10/27/2014 09:07 pm... I'm simply saying that although there is a fantastical amount of great value here especially as regards Dr. Rodel's analysis to this point, this data is from a conference paper, written to gain funding. It is not a statistically valid sample..... And these other labs haven't put out data that we can look at. So how then can we compare them?I have said what I have said about Sonny's method on several occasions and the point here is to note, that this is a conference paper, with no statistically valid data, and so any comparison is doomed to mislead at best, ... There's nothing wrong with Dr. Rodel's method so far as I can see, save that he's straining to do a real analysis of something less than real data.You make valid points about error-bars and the paucity of data points.However you persist in your claim that it is not 'real' data and thus fabricated.Please stop this nonsense. Question everything by all means.
... I'm simply saying that although there is a fantastical amount of great value here especially as regards Dr. Rodel's analysis to this point, this data is from a conference paper, written to gain funding. It is not a statistically valid sample..... And these other labs haven't put out data that we can look at. So how then can we compare them?I have said what I have said about Sonny's method on several occasions and the point here is to note, that this is a conference paper, with no statistically valid data, and so any comparison is doomed to mislead at best, ... There's nothing wrong with Dr. Rodel's method so far as I can see, save that he's straining to do a real analysis of something less than real data.
Please, please, keep this place honest, open, and constructive by all means.
Wouldn't it be better to wait until you get more experimental information from those actually working in this area, it seems like there isn't enough data out there in the public domain at the moment to form a coherent answer to your questions?
Quote from: Star One on 10/28/2014 12:06 amWouldn't it be better to wait until you get more experimental information from those actually working in this area, it seems like there isn't enough data out there in the public domain at the moment to form a coherent answer to your questions?I'm with you on that. New data can't come soon enough.
Quote from: IslandPlaya on 10/27/2014 08:45 pmQuote from: Ron Stahl on 10/27/2014 08:32 pmQuote from: aero on 10/27/2014 08:22 pmThe more accurate model will fit the data points more accurately.This is the trouble, as this above is not true. Given at least one of the half dozen contenders to explain the lab findings at Eagleworks is correct (which we don't know), there is no reason to suppose that explanation would form the basis of a calculation that is closer to the lab data than those made by other models. When you don't know what is wrong with a model, or with the setup, or a host of other things, you cannot make these kinds of judgements. The thing to do is certainly to withhold judgement. There is no doubt that this above is a fallacy--an example of flawed logic--and Dr. White has deliberately exploited this sort of thing in the past in order to get funding. I kid you not, you should never play this game. It is wrong start to finish and has nothing to do with science. This is rhetoric.So you are stating that Dr White is a complete fraud and a liar?No - no. I believe the correct choice is to discard the top 6 models and start with a clean sheet. But since we don't have 6 models, we can't throw them out. @Dr. Rodal - Do you have current regression analysis for all the models so we will know which to discard. @ Frobnicat - Do you have some models we can discard, or are you still awaiting new dimensions?
Quote from: Ron Stahl on 10/27/2014 08:32 pmQuote from: aero on 10/27/2014 08:22 pmThe more accurate model will fit the data points more accurately.This is the trouble, as this above is not true. Given at least one of the half dozen contenders to explain the lab findings at Eagleworks is correct (which we don't know), there is no reason to suppose that explanation would form the basis of a calculation that is closer to the lab data than those made by other models. When you don't know what is wrong with a model, or with the setup, or a host of other things, you cannot make these kinds of judgements. The thing to do is certainly to withhold judgement. There is no doubt that this above is a fallacy--an example of flawed logic--and Dr. White has deliberately exploited this sort of thing in the past in order to get funding. I kid you not, you should never play this game. It is wrong start to finish and has nothing to do with science. This is rhetoric.So you are stating that Dr White is a complete fraud and a liar?
Quote from: aero on 10/27/2014 08:22 pmThe more accurate model will fit the data points more accurately.This is the trouble, as this above is not true. Given at least one of the half dozen contenders to explain the lab findings at Eagleworks is correct (which we don't know), there is no reason to suppose that explanation would form the basis of a calculation that is closer to the lab data than those made by other models. When you don't know what is wrong with a model, or with the setup, or a host of other things, you cannot make these kinds of judgements. The thing to do is certainly to withhold judgement. There is no doubt that this above is a fallacy--an example of flawed logic--and Dr. White has deliberately exploited this sort of thing in the past in order to get funding. I kid you not, you should never play this game. It is wrong start to finish and has nothing to do with science. This is rhetoric.
The more accurate model will fit the data points more accurately.
...
OK I run in my inverted torsional pendulum model in Mathematica (with coupled nonlinear equations) the decaying exponential rises of the form Fb(t)=80 microNewtons*(1-exp(-t/tau))and I can firmly state that any tau < 7 sec produces a pendulum response that is negligibly different from tau =0 (an impulse response). Any tau < 7 sec produces a response that is practically the same as an impulsive response.
Quote from: frobnicat on 10/28/2014 12:12 am...Sorry, I re-checked the code because that statement about the 7 sec didn't make sense to me and I found an error on my definition of the exponential function (I had the variable "time" instead of "t" which mean different things in my code. I'll be back with the correct result
Quote from: Rodal on 10/28/2014 12:30 amQuote from: frobnicat on 10/28/2014 12:12 am...Sorry, I re-checked the code because that statement about the 7 sec didn't make sense to me and I found an error on my definition of the exponential function (I had the variable "time" instead of "t" which mean different things in my code. I'll be back with the correct resultYes, any tau>0.2 sec is clearly discernable.For tau ~ 1 sec the difference is unacceptableI'll post some pictures tomorrow after I double check everything. I need to do some work for which I get real $$$ first
Quote from: Rodal on 10/28/2014 12:36 amQuote from: Rodal on 10/28/2014 12:30 amQuote from: frobnicat on 10/28/2014 12:12 am...Sorry, I re-checked the code because that statement about the 7 sec didn't make sense to me and I found an error on my definition of the exponential function (I had the variable "time" instead of "t" which mean different things in my code. I'll be back with the correct resultYes, any tau>0.2 sec is clearly discernable.For tau ~ 1 sec the difference is unacceptableI'll post some pictures tomorrow after I double check everything. I need to do some work for which I get real $$$ first All right. I'm a bit surprised then. Maybe not 7s but 2s seemed like possible to me (with eyeballs used to look at basic second order ringing oscillators).
John, could you please re-draw when you have a chance and the disposition
Quote from: zen-in on 10/27/2014 12:22 pmThis device is fictional. No one would build a dewar this way.Couple of random links for dewars:Buy it now at:http://www.cryofab.com/products/cmsh_serieshttp://nmrwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ice_in_my_dewar!_%28Liquid_helium_transport_dewar%29http://www.kadel.com/liquid-helium-dewars/The oracle:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryogenic_storage_dewarGravity Probe B:http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/hl_100104.html
This device is fictional. No one would build a dewar this way.
Quote from: Rodal on 10/26/2014 01:51 amJohn, could you please re-draw when you have a chance and the disposition Jose:What with the trolls spreading their puritannical dung over your and my hysterical repartee, I have lost a great deal of interest in doing something that is no longer fun and does not pay the bills.....
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 10/28/2014 01:05 amQuote from: Rodal on 10/26/2014 01:51 amJohn, could you please re-draw when you have a chance and the disposition Jose:What with the trolls spreading their puritannical dung over your and my hysterical repartee, I have lost a great deal of interest in doing something that is no longer fun and does not pay the bills.....Hey John could you take a look at this drawing please: http://web.archive.org/web/20121104025749/http://www.cannae.com/proof-of-concept/design"Figures 1 and 2 depict two halves of the QDrive cavity. The dimensions are in cms."Figure 2 is practically solid except for the slots, which we know from NASA to be spurious (from NASA's null test).So what I need to know is the height of the internal cavity in Fig. 1In Fig. 1 detail A it reads "R .1000" which to me means 0.1 cm or 1 mm. This would say that the height is 0.1 cm = 1 mmHowever, if done to scale, corresponding with the dimensions shown in Fig.2 the period may be in the wrong place and the Radius on Detail A may be 1 cm and hence the height be 1 cm.Particularly when compared to the radius labeled R.152 that in Detail A appears much smaller than the radius labeled R.1000What do you think ?
Regarding the radius of curvature .1 cm or whatever. Isn't that outside the cavity? Or is the drawing printed up side down? Not likely without deliberate deceit.As to the base drawing attached here, what is that detailed? Is it a 3 cm by 1 cm deep torus around the outer rim of the base? If the device is designed to bounce microwaves around the corner then what would the effective depth be? Before answering, please evaluate whether or not microwaves could behave in that fashion.If so, then Cannae's idea would be for all the end reflections to occur in the same axial direction.
I am starting to wonder if the info needed the most (predictive equations, measurements, frequencies) isn't hidden away by Non Disclosure Agreements. Might account for the lack of later papers (after 2007) by Doctor White, and why getting other info is like pulling teeth.There just doesn't seem to be all that much to most of these devices. A competent machinist could probably build one in a weekend from scratch for not much more than beer money. Oddly shaped and constructed microwave ovens basically.