I think most people who have followed the EM drive threads for years will agree that monomorphic started as an enthusiast of EM drive. After all, a non-believer from beginning will not invest years of spare time and much of his own money on EM drive or MEGA work. So the thought of bad motive is groundless. That said, while simulations can give hints of what really happens, a test of the real drive is necessary. Dr. Woodward should consider lending a MEGA drive to monomorphic for testing. This or other interested group with money should consider granting some $ for this endeavor, for science's sake.
[..] the simulator argues that the vibration induced in the beam by the cage/device makes the beam vibrate to a new time-averaged position that is recorded as a thrust (because the vibrations are "asymmetric" supposedly).If the thrust balance were a simple pivoted beam, the simulator's scheme might work. But the thrust balance is NOT a simple pivoted beam. The pivot bearings (C-Flex E - 10 bearings in fact) provide a restoring torque that enforces the zero position of the beam. So, when the device starts vibrating, after perhaps a small transient response, the beam returns to its zero position notwithstanding that the cage and device are vibrating. The simulator and one of his supporters want you to believe that this restoring torque is so small as to be completely negligible. But this is wrong. The restoring torque IS NOT NEGLIGIBLE. Taking it as negligible is what gives his specious result and makes the simulation violate momentum conservation. [..]
Quote from: Augmentor on 11/10/2018 02:15 amI read your email that instead of just working out your differences with the author, that posting to NSF was in order.I thought that's what we were doing until I woke up to an email sent to a bunch of influential people I don't know disparaging my work and accusing me of ulterior motives. Speaking of ulterior motives, don't you think you should disclose you've been trying to get people together to start a business around propellantless propulsion, specifically the mach effect thruster and emdrive?
I read your email that instead of just working out your differences with the author, that posting to NSF was in order.
CLean up the flaws in the simulation; don’t get stuck on the stick-slip action only.So in fairness, I’ll add the Monomorphic Stiction (stick-slip) Drive to the Space Drive candidate list of propellentless drives.
Apologies, memory is a tad hazy.Didn't Rodal present a paper arguing that Woodward's device could not operate according to the stated principles?
Quote from: Augmentor on 11/10/2018 02:07 pmCLean up the flaws in the simulation; don’t get stuck on the stick-slip action only.So in fairness, I’ll add the Monomorphic Stiction (stick-slip) Drive to the Space Drive candidate list of propellentless drives.How is claiming with no evidence that the simulation is flawed fair?How is falsely claiming that Monomorphic is demonstrating a new type of propellantless drive fair? Monomorphic (sic) is demonstrating that certain tests of a supposed propellantless drive are invalid due to a major unaccounted for error which has nothing to do with propellantless propulsion.
Was stiction identified? Yes and compared to verifiable thrust by others at the 1 uN level Can stiction explain the data runs since 2012? No, it only explains 1 uN and not higher levels of thrust or nonlinear variations in frequency.
Did the Monomorphic simulation get to using active mass to produce relativistic internal changes from an electric pulse? No. Only Newtonian kinematics, resonance and stiction were required.
Since the incremental build and test procedure used by Monomorphic claims stiction thrust, he has effectively staked out what can be described and acknowledged author as the designated Monomorphic Stiction Drive.
Furthermore, there does not appear to be any accounting for the voltage to the 4th power seen since 2012 in numerous tests.
I’m surprised. 1 uN was verified in 2016 by three experts: one lab each in Canada, Germany and Austria. It’s been published data for sometime.
And now Tajmar states that they have falsified Woodward's results.
One of the major problems with proving or disproving the woodward-mach effect is that the used experimental devices operate in the noise-level.Does anybody know if there have been attempts to increase the effect by making the device smaller?E.g: rough estimation for decrease the size 10-fold would: * increase the resonance frequency by 10 ==> effect is 10^6 bigger. * reduce the energy fluctuation by 10^3 ==> effect 1000 times smaller. * reduce drive power by a factor 100 (would be 1000 for same frequency).Hence the force is 1000 time bigger while the drive power is 100 times smaller.Also: less power and smaller dimensions allow for continues operation because cooling can prevent overheating.Looks pretty good to me, or am i missing something?
Monomorphic has yet to provide a formula for the Stiction thruster so that a theoretical comparison could be performed.
Meberbs,No active mass; no Mach effect thrust.You misunderstand that this is not a generic version of MEGA. It’s only a partial build.
Monomorphic has only produced a device or two that relies on stick-slip aka stiction to produce a measurable force. Technically, the device is nothing more than a forced, damped harmonic oscillator that due to stick-slip action produces thrust.Of course, this is only the first half of a Machian thruster and lacks additional processes.
Can you do math? That might clear up some aspects of your insitance that an orange is an apple.