Quote from: Rodal on 05/03/2015 03:36 pmQuote from: ppnl on 05/03/2015 03:16 pmQuote from: Rodal on 05/03/2015 02:41 pmQuote from: ppnl on 05/03/2015 02:32 pm...Nobody here is addressing the frame problem either.I am not addressing the frame problem at this point in time because I think it is very premature to deal with future applications (for which the frame problem I agree is indeed important to address) when we are still discussing the experiments and the working theory.Can you address the frame problem for self-accelerating particles (shown to be a valid solution of Schrodinger's equation, for at least 36 years) ? http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2015/self-accelerating-particles-0120http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141030/ncomms6189/abs/ncomms6189.htmlYou cannot address the theory without addressing the frame problem. And no I can't address the frame problem of the self accelerating particle. At least not from a verbal description. But I bet dollars to donuts that they can. If they can't their work is nonsense. Actually I doubt there is a frame problem involved.The center of gravity for self-accelerating particles cannot be defined, because the Airy function is not square integrable: it corresponds to an infinite number of particles, just like the plane wave and other wave functions in scattering theory.Great, but unless it behaves differently depending on what frame of reference it is in it isn't a frame problem. For example if it works differently on Mars than on Earth because of the different orbital velocity.
Quote from: ppnl on 05/03/2015 03:16 pmQuote from: Rodal on 05/03/2015 02:41 pmQuote from: ppnl on 05/03/2015 02:32 pm...Nobody here is addressing the frame problem either.I am not addressing the frame problem at this point in time because I think it is very premature to deal with future applications (for which the frame problem I agree is indeed important to address) when we are still discussing the experiments and the working theory.Can you address the frame problem for self-accelerating particles (shown to be a valid solution of Schrodinger's equation, for at least 36 years) ? http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2015/self-accelerating-particles-0120http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141030/ncomms6189/abs/ncomms6189.htmlYou cannot address the theory without addressing the frame problem. And no I can't address the frame problem of the self accelerating particle. At least not from a verbal description. But I bet dollars to donuts that they can. If they can't their work is nonsense. Actually I doubt there is a frame problem involved.The center of gravity for self-accelerating particles cannot be defined, because the Airy function is not square integrable: it corresponds to an infinite number of particles, just like the plane wave and other wave functions in scattering theory.
Quote from: Rodal on 05/03/2015 02:41 pmQuote from: ppnl on 05/03/2015 02:32 pm...Nobody here is addressing the frame problem either.I am not addressing the frame problem at this point in time because I think it is very premature to deal with future applications (for which the frame problem I agree is indeed important to address) when we are still discussing the experiments and the working theory.Can you address the frame problem for self-accelerating particles (shown to be a valid solution of Schrodinger's equation, for at least 36 years) ? http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2015/self-accelerating-particles-0120http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141030/ncomms6189/abs/ncomms6189.htmlYou cannot address the theory without addressing the frame problem. And no I can't address the frame problem of the self accelerating particle. At least not from a verbal description. But I bet dollars to donuts that they can. If they can't their work is nonsense. Actually I doubt there is a frame problem involved.
Quote from: ppnl on 05/03/2015 02:32 pm...Nobody here is addressing the frame problem either.I am not addressing the frame problem at this point in time because I think it is very premature to deal with future applications (for which the frame problem I agree is indeed important to address) when we are still discussing the experiments and the working theory.Can you address the frame problem for self-accelerating particles (shown to be a valid solution of Schrodinger's equation, for at least 36 years) ? http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2015/self-accelerating-particles-0120http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141030/ncomms6189/abs/ncomms6189.html
...Nobody here is addressing the frame problem either.
Quote from: ppnl on 05/03/2015 03:42 pmQuote from: Rodal on 05/03/2015 03:36 pmQuote from: ppnl on 05/03/2015 03:16 pmQuote from: Rodal on 05/03/2015 02:41 pmQuote from: ppnl on 05/03/2015 02:32 pm...Nobody here is addressing the frame problem either.I am not addressing the frame problem at this point in time because I think it is very premature to deal with future applications (for which the frame problem I agree is indeed important to address) when we are still discussing the experiments and the working theory.Can you address the frame problem for self-accelerating particles (shown to be a valid solution of Schrodinger's equation, for at least 36 years) ? http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2015/self-accelerating-particles-0120http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141030/ncomms6189/abs/ncomms6189.htmlYou cannot address the theory without addressing the frame problem. And no I can't address the frame problem of the self accelerating particle. At least not from a verbal description. But I bet dollars to donuts that they can. If they can't their work is nonsense. Actually I doubt there is a frame problem involved.The center of gravity for self-accelerating particles cannot be defined, because the Airy function is not square integrable: it corresponds to an infinite number of particles, just like the plane wave and other wave functions in scattering theory.Great, but unless it behaves differently depending on what frame of reference it is in it isn't a frame problem. For example if it works differently on Mars than on Earth because of the different orbital velocity.OK we fully agree on that. But why is it necessary that if the EM Drive were to "work" as space propulsion in some restricted sense, that it necessarily would involve a frame problem? For example, the EM Drive could be given experimental force measurements just due to outgassing (which also would work in space -for a reduced amount of time ), which is a perfectly classical explanation. There are many other theories besides Dr. White's and Shawyer's.
Shawyer developed a theory and built a device to test it. If his theory is nonsense then the first conclusion we should reach is that his test results are nonsense. Either that or he is the luckiest person in the world. If he cannot see and address the violation of Galilean relativity then I wouldn't trust him to test a light bulb.
...If his theory is nonsense then the first conclusion we should reach is that his test results are nonsense. Either that or he is the luckiest person in the world. ..
Quote from: Rodal on 05/03/2015 01:30 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 05/03/2015 01:25 pmMight be useful to listen to what Shawyer has to say:http://www.emdrive.com/interview.htmlI listened to those some time ago, and my recollection is that he does not answer this question in that inverview, that still remains unanswered: How did Shawyer achieve thrust in opposite directions for the same Demonstrator engine?We need to ask Shawyer as maybe a typo.Maybe Mulletron can ask him as he has email contact and the data is in the public domain?
Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/03/2015 01:25 pmMight be useful to listen to what Shawyer has to say:http://www.emdrive.com/interview.htmlI listened to those some time ago, and my recollection is that he does not answer this question in that inverview, that still remains unanswered: How did Shawyer achieve thrust in opposite directions for the same Demonstrator engine?
Might be useful to listen to what Shawyer has to say:http://www.emdrive.com/interview.html
I'm sorry if this question is covered somewhere else, but is there a list of recent force plots that were posted on this forum?
If it works by reacting against something like the quantum vacuum you have to either violate relativity or COE.
In order for White's proposed explanation to make any sense at all, you need to assume 3 things: ...
Quote from: ppnl on 05/03/2015 04:18 pm...If his theory is nonsense then the first conclusion we should reach is that his test results are nonsense. Either that or he is the luckiest person in the world. ..Science is full of experimental results that were found by accident, without meeting the theoretical expectations of the experimenter. Do I need to name them? Probably not, I'm sure you know about them too.You can state that it is "unlikely" in some sense, but I haven't seen a Bayesian analysis of what is the probability (do you know of any such Bayesian analysis ?).In any case, whatever the probability has to be based on at least three independent testing centers: the reason why this is being discussed in this forum, and I'm still here is not just because of Shawyer's experimental claims, but it is mainly due to NASA's Dr. White's report and also due to Prof. Yang's experiments in China.
Quote from: Mulletron on 05/03/2015 12:59 pm...I'm hopeful we can get Mr. Shawyer to participate here IF folks are civil.I would not bet on that. The uncivil level of attack displayed by several new posters in this thread during the last few days has been such that I would not be surprised if Star-Drive decides not to post any further Eagleworks test information here. These uncivil attacks are launched by anonymous posters that hide behind monickers without ever revealing their real names. I very much doubt that these uncivil posters would dare to express themselves this way, face-to-face in a public presentation, as in an AIAA meeting, for example. I very much doubt that they would express themselves that way in writing if they would do it under their real name. It is certainly conduct never seen at professional meetings or in academia.
...I'm hopeful we can get Mr. Shawyer to participate here IF folks are civil.
...
Quote from: ppnl on 05/03/2015 04:18 pmIf it works by reacting against something like the quantum vacuum you have to either violate relativity or COE.Interacting with the quantum vacuum doesn't require violating COE or COM, but it still wouldn't generate any thrust without making additional assumptions that are even harder to swallow, as I discuss here:Quote from: SH on 05/01/2015 07:12 pmIn order for White's proposed explanation to make any sense at all, you need to assume 3 things: ...
Quote from: Rodal on 05/03/2015 01:09 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 05/03/2015 12:59 pm...I'm hopeful we can get Mr. Shawyer to participate here IF folks are civil.I would not bet on that. The uncivil level of attack displayed by several new posters in this thread during the last few days has been such that I would not be surprised if Star-Drive decides not to post any further Eagleworks test information here. These uncivil attacks are launched by anonymous posters that hide behind monickers without ever revealing their real names. I very much doubt that these uncivil posters would dare to express themselves this way, face-to-face in a public presentation, as in an AIAA meeting, for example. I very much doubt that they would express themselves that way in writing if they would do it under their real name. It is certainly conduct never seen at professional meetings or in academia.I must say I'm rather perplexed and puzzled by the sudden hostility that some of the newer participants demonstrate...There is absolutely nothing wrong with being skeptic but i thought that curiosity was one of the key characteristics of being a scientist/researcher/engineer. There is no better way to make progress then to have a thesis and antithesis collide in a civil manner.I really do not understand what can be obtained or achieved by aggressively attacking people or their ideas. If you aim to disprove a theory then all you need to do is mass enough evidence that their theory is flawed.Personally I find it still too early trying to come up with theories until the effect has been validated or not.For me the most compelling evidence so far is still the 2007 rotating Demonstrator video by R Shawyer. All we can do now is wait for Eagleworks to duplicate that test (and improve on some of the possible setup flaws, like hot jet exhaust nullification).If the test fails, then the credibility of the device will get a serious hit...If the test succeeds, it will most likely be a turning point in the research (and funding) of the EM drive.So, instead of shooting lead at each other, why don't we just all relax and be supportive to the Eagleworks team so they can finalize that crucial test by July?Pro or contra, you'll have your answer by July...That said, it was to foresee that giving more publicity to the research through the NASA publication article, would attract some of the most aggressive opinionated people inhere.On the positive side however, it also attracted some very much needed new participants that have clearly high level qualifications... (be them pro or contra, it doesn't matter)I suppose it is up to the mods to weed out the offensive ones...As for mr Shawyer, i think it is already obvious that he will not engage into the discussion here, partially because of the engagements he already has with other parties, as he explained in that private conversation, partially because he had his share of abusive language in the past........eagerly anticipating the next , high power test from Eagleworks...
Shawyer has been doing this for longer than anybody. My eng gut says follow Shaywer's lead as he has already gone down many dead ends. Why try to reinvent the wheel and repeat his failures?
Quote from: Mulletron on 05/02/2015 09:41 amQuote from: dustinthewind on 05/02/2015 08:36 amQuote from: Rodal on 05/01/2015 03:53 pmNot according to Maxwell's linear, isotropic equations.The small base of the EM Drive is not open. It is a closed cavity. As such, the waves inside it are not travelling waves, but standing waves. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_waveThe energy flux is pointed towards one end during half a (Poynting vector) period and it is pointed towards the opposite end during the next half-period. Hence the net energy flux over a whole period is completely self-cancelling.......the ac power in power lines can be modeled as standing waves but if no one is using power. When power starts being consumed the standing waves begin to travel towards the object consuming the power. The moving bulges of magnetic/electric field can be thought of as transporting power from the power station to the consumer. There should be some traveling of the standing waves bulges from the power supply towards areas of heat loss in the cavity I would assume. I can't say the power dissipated into heat loss is significant but it does seem to buck the perfect standing wave view for me a bit...In ref to the image above, there is wealth of information buried within the earlier pages of this thread. A more accurate representation of what it looks like inside the cavity is available here:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1333246#msg1333246Paul March was kind enough to attach the Frustrum modes overview 2A.pdf which has all the mode shapes and characteristics of their test article.So things are a bit more complicated than photons bouncing around like marbles in a can. For example, I know that I can only excite TM212 and TM311 (thanks @Rodal for modeling this) with my little setup at home.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1353372#msg1353372http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1352878#msg1352878Paul March has shown clearly in his many posts that there is a clear correlation between mode shape and magnitude and direction of thrust. This is where input from RF Engineers would be extremely valuable.Just food for thought, it is worth going back to page 1 and commenting on the stuff starting there. That way the conversation can keep building on ideas....I think we may be losing information by the idea of the standing wave model with out considering the power losses (due heating of the cavity and any propulsion) and the transport of energy by [E^2+B^2] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/engfie.html where the stading wave bulges tend to move towards the areas of consumed energy (heating + sparks + propulsion +ect). I was paralleling it to energy consumption in power lines...I agree in the line of thinking of what is going on in the cavity as more of a wave model than thinking of them as marbles bouncing inside the cavity... It is interesting to note that as the wave modes travel towards the small end of the cavity they are being squeezed but if the wave peaks are traveling towards the larger end they are experiencing expansion. It looks like as a result we see the increased B field near the tight end of the cavity and small B field near the big end. I almost want to think of this squeezing as a form of propulsion in the form of resistance of the traveling of the semi-standing waves as they transport energy to areas of heat loss.
Quote from: dustinthewind on 05/02/2015 08:36 amQuote from: Rodal on 05/01/2015 03:53 pmNot according to Maxwell's linear, isotropic equations.The small base of the EM Drive is not open. It is a closed cavity. As such, the waves inside it are not travelling waves, but standing waves. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_waveThe energy flux is pointed towards one end during half a (Poynting vector) period and it is pointed towards the opposite end during the next half-period. Hence the net energy flux over a whole period is completely self-cancelling.......the ac power in power lines can be modeled as standing waves but if no one is using power. When power starts being consumed the standing waves begin to travel towards the object consuming the power. The moving bulges of magnetic/electric field can be thought of as transporting power from the power station to the consumer. There should be some traveling of the standing waves bulges from the power supply towards areas of heat loss in the cavity I would assume. I can't say the power dissipated into heat loss is significant but it does seem to buck the perfect standing wave view for me a bit...In ref to the image above, there is wealth of information buried within the earlier pages of this thread. A more accurate representation of what it looks like inside the cavity is available here:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1333246#msg1333246Paul March was kind enough to attach the Frustrum modes overview 2A.pdf which has all the mode shapes and characteristics of their test article.So things are a bit more complicated than photons bouncing around like marbles in a can. For example, I know that I can only excite TM212 and TM311 (thanks @Rodal for modeling this) with my little setup at home.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1353372#msg1353372http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1352878#msg1352878Paul March has shown clearly in his many posts that there is a clear correlation between mode shape and magnitude and direction of thrust. This is where input from RF Engineers would be extremely valuable.Just food for thought, it is worth going back to page 1 and commenting on the stuff starting there. That way the conversation can keep building on ideas.
Quote from: Rodal on 05/01/2015 03:53 pmNot according to Maxwell's linear, isotropic equations.The small base of the EM Drive is not open. It is a closed cavity. As such, the waves inside it are not travelling waves, but standing waves. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_waveThe energy flux is pointed towards one end during half a (Poynting vector) period and it is pointed towards the opposite end during the next half-period. Hence the net energy flux over a whole period is completely self-cancelling.......the ac power in power lines can be modeled as standing waves but if no one is using power. When power starts being consumed the standing waves begin to travel towards the object consuming the power. The moving bulges of magnetic/electric field can be thought of as transporting power from the power station to the consumer. There should be some traveling of the standing waves bulges from the power supply towards areas of heat loss in the cavity I would assume. I can't say the power dissipated into heat loss is significant but it does seem to buck the perfect standing wave view for me a bit...
Not according to Maxwell's linear, isotropic equations.The small base of the EM Drive is not open. It is a closed cavity. As such, the waves inside it are not travelling waves, but standing waves. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_waveThe energy flux is pointed towards one end during half a (Poynting vector) period and it is pointed towards the opposite end during the next half-period. Hence the net energy flux over a whole period is completely self-cancelling....
Can you please answer, according to your conjecture,when the thrust force is measured towards the small end of the truncated cone:1) Are there any particles being emitted, according to your conjecture, out of the cavity in the axial direction towards the big base ?[If nothing is being emitted, then there cannot be any propulsion, because it would violate conservation of momentum. If nothing is being emitted, please skip the next question]2) what particle is being emitted, out of the cavity, in the axial direction towards the big base ?[for example, if you conjecture that photons are being emitted, even if that conjecture would be true, it would be contradicted by what is claimed, because what is claimed is a thrust thousands of times better than the thrust of a perfectly collimated photon rocket]So, if you are attempting to explain the claimed thrust just based on Maxwell's equations, I still don't understand your conjecture. If I misunderstood something, please correct me. Thanks.
Quote from: dustinthewind on 05/03/2015 05:42 pmIn your image, you have a T-Junction from a waveguide into the EM Drive truncated cone.Although Prof. Yang used such construction (for at least part of her tests), to my knowledge, NASA Eagleworks does not have any such T-Junction between the NASA truncated cone and a waveguide.If I am incorrect, I would appreciate being corrected.If I am correct, I don't understand the rationale that would support travelling waves in a completely enclosed truncated cone, as a travelling wave will not satisfy the boundary conditions necessary to solve Maxwell's equations for the tests performed by NASA Eagleworks.
Quote from: Rodal on 05/03/2015 05:47 pmQuote from: dustinthewind on 05/03/2015 05:42 pmIn your image, you have a T-Junction from a waveguide into the EM Drive truncated cone.Although Prof. Yang used such construction (for at least part of her tests), to my knowledge, NASA Eagleworks does not have any such T-Junction between the NASA truncated cone and a waveguide.If I am incorrect, I would appreciate being corrected.If I am correct, I don't understand the rationale that would support travelling waves in a completely enclosed truncated cone, as a travelling wave will not satisfy the boundary conditions necessary to solve Maxwell's equations for the tests performed by NASA Eagleworks.Dosn't a standing wave assume 100% power reflection? Such as a powerline with no one consuming power. I thought the moving magnetic field modes were a symbol or illustration of power transport to a location (thermal loss). Maybe I am mistaken?