Quote from: Rodal on 04/30/2016 03:14 pmQuote from: rfmwguy on 04/30/2016 03:04 pm...Anyone who challenges such a patched and falsified authodoxy with a testable hypotheses should be welcomed, not scorned, particularly where it has been peer reviewed in a perfectly acceptable publication. A shabby attempt at a denouncement Mr Baez[/i]Precisely, Prof. John Baez tested McCulloch's hypothesis and showed it to be wrong, on several counts. If you or others think otherwise, they should address Baez technical points, for example: that McCulloch equations don't contain Planck's constant, and that's how he's able to predict an effect vastly larger than anything the Unruh effect could account for.Talking about the fact that we don't know everything about the Universe is neither here nor there. (With that premise, that since we don't know everything about the Universe, we cannot discuss technical points, I doubt that science would have progressed ) .What we need instead is people to explain what happened to Plank's constant in McCulloch's equations and how does he answer Baez other technical points.I think what the other poster and perhaps myself are trying to get across is Planck's constant is an example of a fairly recent belief that may or may not apply for this anomaly. My position on the Constant is fine...but has there ever been a single experiment to disprove the constant or observe an anomaly which does not need it?
Quote from: rfmwguy on 04/30/2016 03:04 pm...Anyone who challenges such a patched and falsified authodoxy with a testable hypotheses should be welcomed, not scorned, particularly where it has been peer reviewed in a perfectly acceptable publication. A shabby attempt at a denouncement Mr Baez[/i]Precisely, Prof. John Baez tested McCulloch's hypothesis and showed it to be wrong, on several counts. If you or others think otherwise, they should address Baez technical points, for example: that McCulloch equations don't contain Planck's constant, and that's how he's able to predict an effect vastly larger than anything the Unruh effect could account for.Talking about the fact that we don't know everything about the Universe is neither here nor there. (With that premise, that since we don't know everything about the Universe, we cannot discuss technical points, I doubt that science would have progressed ) .What we need instead is people to explain what happened to Plank's constant in McCulloch's equations and how does he answer Baez other technical points.
...Anyone who challenges such a patched and falsified authodoxy with a testable hypotheses should be welcomed, not scorned, particularly where it has been peer reviewed in a perfectly acceptable publication. A shabby attempt at a denouncement Mr Baez[/i]
...I remember watching a back and white film of one of his lectures in collage on this very thing. I remember so little of it though. It should be on youtube now, geez everything in on youtube. I also understand that my beam moved a few microns to be able to measure this thrust on the digital scale and it's wrong for me to think that the power source didn't. So according to conservation of momentum the power source 3 foot away would show a equal opposing vectored force?Shell
Quote from: rfmwguy on 04/30/2016 03:28 pmQuote from: Rodal on 04/30/2016 03:14 pmQuote from: rfmwguy on 04/30/2016 03:04 pm...Anyone who challenges such a patched and falsified authodoxy with a testable hypotheses should be welcomed, not scorned, particularly where it has been peer reviewed in a perfectly acceptable publication. A shabby attempt at a denouncement Mr Baez[/i]Precisely, Prof. John Baez tested McCulloch's hypothesis and showed it to be wrong, on several counts. If you or others think otherwise, they should address Baez technical points, for example: that McCulloch equations don't contain Planck's constant, and that's how he's able to predict an effect vastly larger than anything the Unruh effect could account for.Talking about the fact that we don't know everything about the Universe is neither here nor there. (With that premise, that since we don't know everything about the Universe, we cannot discuss technical points, I doubt that science would have progressed ) .What we need instead is people to explain what happened to Plank's constant in McCulloch's equations and how does he answer Baez other technical points.I think what the other poster and perhaps myself are trying to get across is Planck's constant is an example of a fairly recent belief that may or may not apply for this anomaly. My position on the Constant is fine...but has there ever been a single experiment to disprove the constant or observe an anomaly which does not need it?Can you offer a technical point, or not? If you are going to make a QM argument about this effect, it needs to be correct mathematically. MucCulloch is wrong. Regardless of how valiant his efforts are in the face of totalitarian, Stalinist scientific orthodoxy.If this thread is to move forward I think people should be more willing to decisively cull bad theories and experiments....
Quote from: SeeShells on 04/30/2016 03:38 pm...I remember watching a back and white film of one of his lectures in collage on this very thing. I remember so little of it though. It should be on youtube now, geez everything in on youtube. I also understand that my beam moved a few microns to be able to measure this thrust on the digital scale and it's wrong for me to think that the power source didn't. So according to conservation of momentum the power source 3 foot away would show a equal opposing vectored force?ShellOne would have to address conservation of energy and conservation of momentum, and E=mc2. This is impossible to do on the forum at this point as it would involve an intimate knowledge of your whole experiment and complete modeling of it.I think that it would be simpler and most convincing to have the power source self-integrated with the moving EM Drive to completely eliminate this issue.I hope that you eventually get the time to perform the experiment as done by Brito, Marini and Galian to falsify a propellant-less thruster:* self-integrated power source (batteries) with the moving EM Drive* torsional pendulum
The point is that MiHsC is all about information horizons making the zero point field non-uniform, so that unexpected energy can be extracted. An equivalent viewpoint that I'm working on now is that information stored on horizons can be released by 'squeezing the horizon' (an intro) but that's another blog..
MiHsC technically breaks equivalence, but only for tiny accelerations and also the anomalous dynamics predicted by MiHsC are 'independent of the mass' so won't show up in the torsion balance experiments that are used to test equivalence, or in the Microscope satellite just launched. Galileo's two balls still fall together, but both slightly faster.
In my opinion the emdrive is only tickling the dragon, and a lot of mass-energy is there to be got out. Look at the size of dark energy (that MiHsC predicts). To get at it we need to learn how to put better horizons in the vacuum. In my view, what is mass-energy but the consequence of a horizon? Lots of scope for sci-fi there.
Quote from: rfmwguy on 04/30/2016 03:28 pmQuote from: Rodal on 04/30/2016 03:14 pmQuote from: rfmwguy on 04/30/2016 03:04 pm...Anyone who challenges such a patched and falsified authodoxy with a testable hypotheses should be welcomed, not scorned, particularly where it has been peer reviewed in a perfectly acceptable publication. A shabby attempt at a denouncement Mr Baez[/i]Precisely, Prof. John Baez tested McCulloch's hypothesis and showed it to be wrong, on several counts. If you or others think otherwise, they should address Baez technical points, for example: that McCulloch equations don't contain Planck's constant, and that's how he's able to predict an effect vastly larger than anything the Unruh effect could account for.Talking about the fact that we don't know everything about the Universe is neither here nor there. (With that premise, that since we don't know everything about the Universe, we cannot discuss technical points, I doubt that science would have progressed ) .What we need instead is people to explain what happened to Plank's constant in McCulloch's equations and how does he answer Baez other technical points.I think what the other poster and perhaps myself are trying to get across is Planck's constant is an example of a fairly recent belief that may or may not apply for this anomaly. My position on the Constant is fine...but has there ever been a single experiment to disprove the constant or observe an anomaly which does not need it?Can you offer a technical point, or not? If you are going to make a QM argument about this effect, it needs to be correct mathematically. MucCulloch is wrong. Regardless of how valiant his efforts are in the face of totalitarian, Stalinist scientific orthodoxy.If this thread is to move forward I think people should be more willing to decisively cull bad theories and experiments. Otherwise people will just keep posting them here, the same lengthy and polite debates will ensue, and no progress will be made.
one must have the power source self-integrated with the EM Drive moving in the same platform (with batteries).
Quote from: Rodal on 04/30/2016 06:59 pmone must have the power source self-integrated with the EM Drive moving in the same platform (with batteries).I'm working towards this. The way I see it, there are two possibilities: 1. Power a magnetron using a 12V lipo and inverter. This is a common set-up seen in recreational vehicles, and is also used by truckers. This can be accomplished relatively cheaply. The problem is the inverter relies on fans to keep cool. Those would have to be disabled and overheating dealt with another way, possibly a larger heatsink. The major downside to this method is weight, counting the batteries, magnetron, HV tranformer, capacitor, inverter, heatsink, frustum, and wiring. Tuning is limited to signal drift as the magnetron heats. 2. Power an s-band RF amplifier using batteries. This is the method that Shawyer appears to be using with the wedge geometry and the air-track. S-band amplifiers in the ~100+ watt range, and other necessary equipment, can be very expensive. So expensive that you have to ask for a quote, they don't post the price on the web! Major benefit of this method is the RF frequency is tunable. Downside is the entry cost and relatively low power.
If Dr. McCulloch's theory is a total dud due to a missing Planck constant, then how come that his published calculation results for galaxy rotations and a number of phenomena seem to give the best approximations for real observations made? Also, having zero adjustable parameters and still giving the best approximations, seems to give his theory an edge over the ad-hoc hypothesis of dark matter or even MOND. So I wonder, what this is all about. I think that not having hand-tailored parameters within the theory gives Dr. McCulloch's theory some basic starting credibility, considering the precision of the calulations in regards to observations.Oh well, it's a WIP. Perhaps there is some nonsense in there, too. I'd say trim it away, and continue from there. Maybe, just maybe.. something wonderful will happen .
(..)
Geez, i miss a few days reading and everything goes manic. Serves me for trying to lead a normal life.Exciting stuff no matter what the outcome. Especially Dr. Rodal's nondisclosure disclosure of doing something that is probably nothing but may be something. Add to that the BBC, and everyone all a-twitter, and Monomorphic using and air beam that now we see Shawyer also used.Enough to make an old fart like me lose faith in lurking.At least I can still cook a hot dog in my microwave. Unless it hits light speed...
Quote from: Bob Woods on 03/25/2016 04:55 amGeez, i miss a few days reading and everything goes manic. Serves me for trying to lead a normal life.Exciting stuff no matter what the outcome. Especially Dr. Rodal's nondisclosure disclosure of doing something that is probably nothing but may be something. Add to that the BBC, and everyone all a-twitter, and Monomorphic using and air beam that now we see Shawyer also used.Enough to make an old fart like me lose faith in lurking.At least I can still cook a hot dog in my microwave. Unless it hits light speed... I know the same goes for me, there is so much happening here if you even lose a day or so and it becomes tough to catch up.My dogs in the microwave just warp BTW.Shell
Quote from: rfmwguy on 04/27/2016 09:56 pmQuote from: VAXHeadroom on 04/27/2016 08:25 pmQuote from: rfmwguy on 04/27/2016 05:32 pmEMDrive talk on "new age" science show starts about 29 minutes in. NSF and Chris Bergin get a plug @ about 33 minutes in.I'm very involved with TMRO and have been a guest 6 times. I was at Hershey Park on Saturday. I'm quite embarrassed for them, this show was not up to their usual standard - they didn't even pronounce 'magnetron' correctly.It's not really 'new age' science, it's mostly space and space news (where they do have expertise).I am, in fact, here on the forum because they asked me to do a short video on the EMDrive last August. It's taken me until about now to be able to understand most of the physics discussed here I'm going to respond to their show, probably with a short video which I hope will get played next week...Thanks Emory...new age as in younger, more hip science shows I guess is what I was thinking Great! Feel free to download any of my youtube clips if you need some filler. Here they are: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm54FS3u2aDeutnMsV0cITg/videosRoyalty free as well Give us a peek at the vid if you get the chance. - DaveI was actually going to suggest they have you on as a guest for a follow-up show
Quote from: VAXHeadroom on 04/27/2016 08:25 pmQuote from: rfmwguy on 04/27/2016 05:32 pmEMDrive talk on "new age" science show starts about 29 minutes in. NSF and Chris Bergin get a plug @ about 33 minutes in.I'm very involved with TMRO and have been a guest 6 times. I was at Hershey Park on Saturday. I'm quite embarrassed for them, this show was not up to their usual standard - they didn't even pronounce 'magnetron' correctly.It's not really 'new age' science, it's mostly space and space news (where they do have expertise).I am, in fact, here on the forum because they asked me to do a short video on the EMDrive last August. It's taken me until about now to be able to understand most of the physics discussed here I'm going to respond to their show, probably with a short video which I hope will get played next week...Thanks Emory...new age as in younger, more hip science shows I guess is what I was thinking Great! Feel free to download any of my youtube clips if you need some filler. Here they are: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm54FS3u2aDeutnMsV0cITg/videosRoyalty free as well Give us a peek at the vid if you get the chance. - Dave
Quote from: rfmwguy on 04/27/2016 05:32 pmEMDrive talk on "new age" science show starts about 29 minutes in. NSF and Chris Bergin get a plug @ about 33 minutes in.I'm very involved with TMRO and have been a guest 6 times. I was at Hershey Park on Saturday. I'm quite embarrassed for them, this show was not up to their usual standard - they didn't even pronounce 'magnetron' correctly.It's not really 'new age' science, it's mostly space and space news (where they do have expertise).I am, in fact, here on the forum because they asked me to do a short video on the EMDrive last August. It's taken me until about now to be able to understand most of the physics discussed here I'm going to respond to their show, probably with a short video which I hope will get played next week...
EMDrive talk on "new age" science show starts about 29 minutes in. NSF and Chris Bergin get a plug @ about 33 minutes in.
Breaking news! Yang's new result ---- submitted in Oct, 2014 and published in Feb, 2016 ---- was negative. See Wikipedia for details. Under the section "Chinese Northwestern Polytechnical University (NWPU)".
Abstract: In order to explore the thrust performance of microwave thruster, the thrust produced by microwave thruster system was measured with three-wire torsion pendulum thrust measurement system and the measurement uncertainty was also studied, thereby judging the credibility of the experimental measurements. The results show that three-wire torsion pendulum thrust measurement system can measure thrust not less than 3mN under the existing experimental conditions with the relative uncertainty of 14%. Within the measuring range of three-wire torsion pendulum thrust measurement system, the independent microwave thruster propulsion device did not detect significant thrust. Measurement results fluctuate within ±0.7mN range under the conditions 230W microwave power output and the relative uncertainty is greater than 80%.
Abstract from Yangs Paper:Quote Abstract: In order to explore the thrust performance of microwave thruster, the thrust produced by microwave thruster system was measured with three-wire torsion pendulum thrust measurement system and the measurement uncertainty was also studied, thereby judging the credibility of the experimental measurements. The results show that three-wire torsion pendulum thrust measurement system can measure thrust not less than 3mN under the existing experimental conditions with the relative uncertainty of 14%. Within the measuring range of three-wire torsion pendulum thrust measurement system, the independent microwave thruster propulsion device did not detect significant thrust. Measurement results fluctuate within ±0.7mN range under the conditions 230W microwave power output and the relative uncertainty is greater than 80%. 1 - Was this with an 'onboard' power source?2 - 'relative uncertainty is greater than 80%' AND 'did not detect significant thrust.' If there was an 'onboard' power source, perhaps this is evidence the EM Drive does not work? Or does that uncertainty leave room for some sort of 'reduced thrust' (roughly photon equivalent) effect?3 - 2014 paper. Perhaps these results are the reason for the apparent abandonment of Chinese EM Drive research?
Quote from: ThinkerX on 05/01/2016 08:49 amAbstract from Yangs Paper:Quote Abstract: In order to explore the thrust performance of microwave thruster, the thrust produced by microwave thruster system was measured with three-wire torsion pendulum thrust measurement system and the measurement uncertainty was also studied, thereby judging the credibility of the experimental measurements. The results show that three-wire torsion pendulum thrust measurement system can measure thrust not less than 3mN under the existing experimental conditions with the relative uncertainty of 14%. Within the measuring range of three-wire torsion pendulum thrust measurement system, the independent microwave thruster propulsion device did not detect significant thrust. Measurement results fluctuate within ±0.7mN range under the conditions 230W microwave power output and the relative uncertainty is greater than 80%. 1 - Was this with an 'onboard' power source?2 - 'relative uncertainty is greater than 80%' AND 'did not detect significant thrust.' If there was an 'onboard' power source, perhaps this is evidence the EM Drive does not work? Or does that uncertainty leave room for some sort of 'reduced thrust' (roughly photon equivalent) effect?3 - 2014 paper. Perhaps these results are the reason for the apparent abandonment of Chinese EM Drive research? I just finished reading a very poorly translated version of the PDF. Here is what I gather. 1. The experiment was performed two ways: with a battery and with power provided externally. 2. I did not see any mention of dialectric inserts3. Their conclusion is that "heat distortion power line has caused a very large dry interference" and "thus thrust measurement result is mainly produced by dry wire connection interferences."EDIT: Just saw this from /u/pomezi: "It should be noted, however, that the measurement system was only capable of measuring performance greater than 3mN. This is much more than the results claimed by Eagleworks and Tajmar."
Quote from: Monomorphic on 05/01/2016 01:32 pmQuote from: ThinkerX on 05/01/2016 08:49 amAbstract from Yangs Paper:Quote Abstract: In order to explore the thrust performance of microwave thruster, the thrust produced by microwave thruster system was measured with three-wire torsion pendulum thrust measurement system and the measurement uncertainty was also studied, thereby judging the credibility of the experimental measurements. The results show that three-wire torsion pendulum thrust measurement system can measure thrust not less than 3mN under the existing experimental conditions with the relative uncertainty of 14%. Within the measuring range of three-wire torsion pendulum thrust measurement system, the independent microwave thruster propulsion device did not detect significant thrust. Measurement results fluctuate within ±0.7mN range under the conditions 230W microwave power output and the relative uncertainty is greater than 80%. 1 - Was this with an 'onboard' power source?2 - 'relative uncertainty is greater than 80%' AND 'did not detect significant thrust.' If there was an 'onboard' power source, perhaps this is evidence the EM Drive does not work? Or does that uncertainty leave room for some sort of 'reduced thrust' (roughly photon equivalent) effect?3 - 2014 paper. Perhaps these results are the reason for the apparent abandonment of Chinese EM Drive research? I just finished reading a very poorly translated version of the PDF. Here is what I gather. 1. The experiment was performed two ways: with a battery and with power provided externally. 2. I did not see any mention of dialectric inserts3. Their conclusion is that "heat distortion power line has caused a very large dry interference" and "thus thrust measurement result is mainly produced by dry wire connection interferences."EDIT: Just saw this from /u/pomezi: "It should be noted, however, that the measurement system was only capable of measuring performance greater than 3mN. This is much more than the results claimed by Eagleworks and Tajmar."Thank you. These points (less the dialectic part) were also what I summarized in Wikipedia. One other important point is that they nullified the 720mN 2008 result.