Quote from: Bob Woods on 12/05/2018 02:02 amWhat about side-to-side deformation?Much worse even than compression and tensile! These flexure bearings are NOT designed for shear forces whatsoever.
What about side-to-side deformation?
Very nice simulations!The used flex bearing are indeed only designed as zero-friction rotational bearings with a rotational freedom of a few degrees (if i remember correct up to +/-30 degrees max). However, when rotating they act as a torsion spring which is used in the balance to measure the force. A rough estimate with a deflection of 10um for a force measurement, means that the balance rotates about +-0.00001 degrees. I think that all other deformations can be considered constant during the measurements, so they should not be influencing the measurement.So, in what way are those simulations relevant?
Thanks Jamie!So following on your work and Shell's and others, folks need to build a better test apparatus. You have presented good evidence that false positives are possible or even likely. The Traveller talked about a rotary suspended rig but never published any results. (I'm guessing it has its own design problems such as coriolis effects.)So what the hell are Heide and Martin up to? Time to share with people who are very interested.We need DATA.
The heated materials would gain ~ .0000004% in mass , evidencing the veracity of E = MC2 once again . The uneven mass gain might seem tiny , but in a weightless environment the effect would soon become apparent .
This is the latest plot from Woodward regarding the TU Dresden replication efforts sent out to his email list several days ago. It appears that Heidi Fearn's visit was fruitful in that they were able to see the same signal shape as seen by Fullerton and Buldrini, and simulated/replicated by me. The big problem is the signal was measured at ~0.065uN, which is well over an order of magnitude less than what is being measured at Fullerton. TU Dresden's measurements are of the same order as the Buldrini measurements, but still less than half of those! Woodward claims there is only a "calibration" problem now, but I find it hard to believe that Fullerton's calibration was off by such an enormous amount. The more likely explanation, which I have written of before, is that Newtonian Artifacts caused by multi-body dynamics will show different magnitudes of apparent "thrust" on specific balances because of unique differences in the pendulum arm length, optical sensor specs, moment of inertia, spring stiffness, etc. If it was real thrust, it would show the same magnitude of thrust on all properly calibrated balances, regardless of the physical parameters of the balances.
What was the wattage? How does this new data compare to a photon rocket?
Quote from: WarpTech on 01/14/2019 02:26 pmWhat was the wattage? How does this new data compare to a photon rocket?I do not know yet as that info was not shared. I would suggest asking Woodward for this information. It seems the signal is getting smaller and smaller with every partial replication. My suspicion is that either the moment of inertia is very different on the Fullerton balance, or the laser displacement sensor used by Woodward has a very different displacement constant than that used by TU Dresden and Buldrini - or a combination of both. But these too should not have an influence on real thrust if the balance is properly calibrated. Now that TU Dresden can replicate the signal, it should be a simple matter for them to perform experiments suggested by those here and elsewhere that can determine if it is real thrust or a false-positive.
Yet another title, “Warp Drive, Dark Energy, and the Manipulation of Extra Dimensions,” was attributed to theoretical physicist Richard Obousy, director of the nonprofit Icarus Interstellar, which claims to be “researching technologies that will enable breakthroughs in interstellar travel.” Obousy was credited by Gizmodo in 2009 for creating “a scientifically accurate warpship design” that could hypothetically be propelled through space by manipulating dark energy.
Well it looks like at least someone in government was interested in warp drives.The Government’s Secret UFO Program Funded Research on Wormholes and Extra DimensionsQuoteYet another title, “Warp Drive, Dark Energy, and the Manipulation of Extra Dimensions,” was attributed to theoretical physicist Richard Obousy, director of the nonprofit Icarus Interstellar, which claims to be “researching technologies that will enable breakthroughs in interstellar travel.” Obousy was credited by Gizmodo in 2009 for creating “a scientifically accurate warpship design” that could hypothetically be propelled through space by manipulating dark energy.
I learnt today that there will be no proceedings of the 2018 Estes Park workshop edited, because Heidi Fearn received only 3 or 4 papers from attendees, even after sending reminders and having extended the initial deadline. What a shame!
Perhaps the raw video will be uploaded.
Quote from: Star One on 01/18/2019 05:04 pmWell it looks like at least someone in government was interested in warp drives.The Government’s Secret UFO Program Funded Research on Wormholes and Extra DimensionsQuoteYet another title, “Warp Drive, Dark Energy, and the Manipulation of Extra Dimensions,” was attributed to theoretical physicist Richard Obousy, director of the nonprofit Icarus Interstellar, which claims to be “researching technologies that will enable breakthroughs in interstellar travel.” Obousy was credited by Gizmodo in 2009 for creating “a scientifically accurate warpship design” that could hypothetically be propelled through space by manipulating dark energy.Screw all this physics talk about resonance and shear and wattage, just say "dark energy" and be done with it!
A problem a lot of people have is conveying ideas in a way other people understand. The "keep it simple..." being a related phrase. Some times it requires education to understand where they are coming from. Terminology is useless unless there is a mutual understanding. One of the reasons I hate abbreviations. What they mean can be ambiguous unless defined beforehand.