@Rodal, a question of definition :You often mention "torsional inverted pendulum". I fail to see in what we have an inverted pendulum here (with Eagleworks balance). Isn't an inverted pendulum a device that is kept close to a situation of unstable equilibrium ? I understand how the nonlinear couplings with different axis of rotation/displacement with flexure bearings can make chaos, but around the principal movement of rotation around z we are quite stable with the spring restoring torque, aren't we ?
Revisited this Feigel paper from 2003 in more detail; attached. Page 3 is especially compelling and echoes the later Donaire, Tiggelen, Rikken (publications linked to below) paper discussed back around page 126. A quote from the Feigel paper to raise eyebrows:"Thus modification of the modes by matter can alter the momentum of the vacuum. The latter generally vanishes due to counter propagating modes that cancel each other’s contribution. This situation can be different however in materials that are temporally and spatially asymmetric."http://lpm2c.grenoble.cnrs.fr/spip.php?page=publications&id_auteur=18&clepubli=van%20Tiggelen&lang=fr
Quote from: Mulletron on 11/03/2014 06:20 amRevisited this Feigel paper from 2003 in more detail; attached. Page 3 is especially compelling and echoes the later Donaire, Tiggelen, Rikken (publications linked to below) paper discussed back around page 126. A quote from the Feigel paper to raise eyebrows:"Thus modification of the modes by matter can alter the momentum of the vacuum. The latter generally vanishes due to counter propagating modes that cancel each other’s contribution. This situation can be different however in materials that are temporally and spatially asymmetric."http://lpm2c.grenoble.cnrs.fr/spip.php?page=publications&id_auteur=18&clepubli=van%20Tiggelen&lang=frTaken at face value, this could add a momentum kick to the air (and/or dielectric) every half-cycle. How to calculate the momentum added in that case ?Reminds me once again, of the "optimized" NASA cone that we don't know the code for.See also news today: http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2014/11/two-photons-interact-using-ultra-thin-glass
Quote from: Notsosureofit on 11/03/2014 12:49 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 11/03/2014 06:20 amRevisited this Feigel paper from 2003 in more detail; attached. Page 3 is especially compelling and echoes the later Donaire, Tiggelen, Rikken (publications linked to below) paper discussed back around page 126. A quote from the Feigel paper to raise eyebrows:"Thus modification of the modes by matter can alter the momentum of the vacuum. The latter generally vanishes due to counter propagating modes that cancel each other’s contribution. This situation can be different however in materials that are temporally and spatially asymmetric."http://lpm2c.grenoble.cnrs.fr/spip.php?page=publications&id_auteur=18&clepubli=van%20Tiggelen&lang=frTaken at face value, this could add a momentum kick to the air (and/or dielectric) every half-cycle. How to calculate the momentum added in that case ?Reminds me once again, of the "optimized" NASA cone that we don't know the code for.See also news today: http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2014/11/two-photons-interact-using-ultra-thin-glassIndeed momentum can be transferred but there must be an asymmetry present in the system. Actually two. Without broken symmetries, there is an equal push/pull with each half cycle, amounting to zero. Since we're dealing with conservation of momentum and conservation of energy, we must create an asymmetry in the discrete P and T symmetries in order to get any work done, aka thrust. It is known that the discrete symmetry of parity is broken in everyday life. See Wu experiment 1957 Nobel Prize. There is evidence that T symmetry is broken at least once too; http://www2.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/05/2.html (see bottom 1964 "direct T violations") Now some perspective is required. Just because a single instance of P or T symmetry violation has been found in some interaction; that doesn't mean that those symmetries are broken everywhere. It does show precedent. Which means it is possible to be broken in other ways. That is a major caveat. This also doesn't mean that since P or T was broken, that they are broken together, which they must be for casimir momemtum transfer to be real (so they say, but who am I to argue, but I do agree because I understand the connection between symmetries and conservations). I'm playing Sherlock Holmes here more than Einstein. PT symmetry must be broken simultaneously. Chirality regularly breaks P symmetry. This presentation, slide 20: http://qvg2013.sciencesconf.org/conference/qvg2013/program/Donaire_qvg2013.pdf (thank you Rodal for finding this) suggests that T symmetry is also broken in the fashion described, but most importantly P and T can be broken simultaneously. I have also postulated that a chiral dielectric molecule present in an asymmetric spacetime (inside the conical frustum) will also simultaneously break PT symmetry, but have not formalized my ideas and it is not worthy of being called a hypothesis, thus it is just a crazy idea I have. I acknowledge this. Be that as it may, I hope that someone smarter than I am will be inspired and take the idea and run with it. I don't care about being right. I just care about the science. And I want my bleepin' hovercar and for my boy to get to Mars.
Quote from: francesco nicoli on 10/31/2014 11:49 amSorry for asking, but -as the discussion is getting very technical- could someone of you make a quick update for the non-physicists among us (like myself)? is there any tangible progress, or has the device been demistified once for all?thanks! Hi there. I wouldn't put much stock in the ostensibly technical speculations that fill this thread. The results are certainly wrong and are in clear violations of macroscopic conservation of momentum. All explanations or "models" proposed to explain this (quantum plasma, virtual particles, etc.) are all based on incredibly bad physics. Any signal these experimenters find is almost certainly due to a terrible experimental method and questionable data analysis. As far as I can tell, along with the greater physics and engineering communities (from what I have seen), this is a fantasy device.
Sorry for asking, but -as the discussion is getting very technical- could someone of you make a quick update for the non-physicists among us (like myself)? is there any tangible progress, or has the device been demistified once for all?thanks!
Quote from: Supergravity on 11/01/2014 12:23 am......Hi there. I wouldn't put much stock in the ostensibly technical speculations that fill this thread. The results are certainly wrong and are in clear violations of macroscopic conservation of momentum. All explanations or "models" proposed to explain this (quantum plasma, virtual particles, etc.) are all based on incredibly bad physics. Any signal these experimenters find is almost certainly due to a terrible experimental method and questionable data analysis. As far as I can tell, along with the greater physics and engineering communities (from what I have seen), this is a fantasy device.How many of the five competing models to explain thrust from these devices are you familiar with? I happen to agree with you about QVF and virtual particles, but there are 5 models to choose from and that's one.
......Hi there. I wouldn't put much stock in the ostensibly technical speculations that fill this thread. The results are certainly wrong and are in clear violations of macroscopic conservation of momentum. All explanations or "models" proposed to explain this (quantum plasma, virtual particles, etc.) are all based on incredibly bad physics. Any signal these experimenters find is almost certainly due to a terrible experimental method and questionable data analysis. As far as I can tell, along with the greater physics and engineering communities (from what I have seen), this is a fantasy device.
Quote from: Mulletron on 11/03/2014 05:07 pmQuote from: Notsosureofit on 11/03/2014 12:49 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 11/03/2014 06:20 amRevisited this Feigel paper from 2003 in more detail; attached. Page 3 is especially compelling and echoes the later Donaire, Tiggelen, Rikken (publications linked to below) paper discussed back around page 126. A quote from the Feigel paper to raise eyebrows:"Thus modification of the modes by matter can alter the momentum of the vacuum. The latter generally vanishes due to counter propagating modes that cancel each other’s contribution. This situation can be different however in materials that are temporally and spatially asymmetric."http://lpm2c.grenoble.cnrs.fr/spip.php?page=publications&id_auteur=18&clepubli=van%20Tiggelen&lang=frTaken at face value, this could add a momentum kick to the air (and/or dielectric) every half-cycle. How to calculate the momentum added in that case ?Reminds me once again, of the "optimized" NASA cone that we don't know the code for.See also news today: http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2014/11/two-photons-interact-using-ultra-thin-glassIndeed momentum can be transferred but there must be an asymmetry present in the system. Actually two. Without broken symmetries, there is an equal push/pull with each half cycle, amounting to zero. Since we're dealing with conservation of momentum and conservation of energy, we must create an asymmetry in the discrete P and T symmetries in order to get any work done, aka thrust. It is known that the discrete symmetry of parity is broken in everyday life. See Wu experiment 1957 Nobel Prize. There is evidence that T symmetry is broken at least once too; http://www2.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/05/2.html (see bottom 1964 "direct T violations") Now some perspective is required. Just because a single instance of P or T symmetry violation has been found in some interaction; that doesn't mean that those symmetries are broken everywhere. It does show precedent. Which means it is possible to be broken in other ways. That is a major caveat. This also doesn't mean that since P or T was broken, that they are broken together, which they must be for casimir momemtum transfer to be real (so they say, but who am I to argue, but I do agree because I understand the connection between symmetries and conservations). I'm playing Sherlock Holmes here more than Einstein. PT symmetry must be broken simultaneously. Chirality regularly breaks P symmetry. This presentation, slide 20: http://qvg2013.sciencesconf.org/conference/qvg2013/program/Donaire_qvg2013.pdf (thank you Rodal for finding this) suggests that T symmetry is also broken in the fashion described, but most importantly P and T can be broken simultaneously. I have also postulated that a chiral dielectric molecule present in an asymmetric spacetime (inside the conical frustum) will also simultaneously break PT symmetry, but have not formalized my ideas and it is not worthy of being called a hypothesis, thus it is just a crazy idea I have. I acknowledge this. Be that as it may, I hope that someone smarter than I am will be inspired and take the idea and run with it.When the author writes << This situation can be different however in materials that are temporally and spatially asymmetric.>> the author is explicitly discussing material asymmetry, what is known scientifically as anisotropy or aelotropy: different material properties in different intrinsic (materially embedded) directions. This should not be confused with asymmetrical geometry of an isotropic material. Moreover, the author requires a specific type of anisotropy: helical anisotropy, a type of anisotropy found in some (chiral) polymer chains, but unusual in a macro sample (typical fabrication methods like injection molding result in isotropic macro samples even when the polymer chains are chiral). The materials used in the EM Drives (copper) and the polymer dielectrics (Teflon and Polyethylene) are isotropic homogeneous materials and hence do not satisfy the condition required by the author.
Quote from: Notsosureofit on 11/03/2014 12:49 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 11/03/2014 06:20 amRevisited this Feigel paper from 2003 in more detail; attached. Page 3 is especially compelling and echoes the later Donaire, Tiggelen, Rikken (publications linked to below) paper discussed back around page 126. A quote from the Feigel paper to raise eyebrows:"Thus modification of the modes by matter can alter the momentum of the vacuum. The latter generally vanishes due to counter propagating modes that cancel each other’s contribution. This situation can be different however in materials that are temporally and spatially asymmetric."http://lpm2c.grenoble.cnrs.fr/spip.php?page=publications&id_auteur=18&clepubli=van%20Tiggelen&lang=frTaken at face value, this could add a momentum kick to the air (and/or dielectric) every half-cycle. How to calculate the momentum added in that case ?Reminds me once again, of the "optimized" NASA cone that we don't know the code for.See also news today: http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2014/11/two-photons-interact-using-ultra-thin-glassIndeed momentum can be transferred but there must be an asymmetry present in the system. Actually two. Without broken symmetries, there is an equal push/pull with each half cycle, amounting to zero. Since we're dealing with conservation of momentum and conservation of energy, we must create an asymmetry in the discrete P and T symmetries in order to get any work done, aka thrust. It is known that the discrete symmetry of parity is broken in everyday life. See Wu experiment 1957 Nobel Prize. There is evidence that T symmetry is broken at least once too; http://www2.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/05/2.html (see bottom 1964 "direct T violations") Now some perspective is required. Just because a single instance of P or T symmetry violation has been found in some interaction; that doesn't mean that those symmetries are broken everywhere. It does show precedent. Which means it is possible to be broken in other ways. That is a major caveat. This also doesn't mean that since P or T was broken, that they are broken together, which they must be for casimir momemtum transfer to be real (so they say, but who am I to argue, but I do agree because I understand the connection between symmetries and conservations). I'm playing Sherlock Holmes here more than Einstein. PT symmetry must be broken simultaneously. Chirality regularly breaks P symmetry. This presentation, slide 20: http://qvg2013.sciencesconf.org/conference/qvg2013/program/Donaire_qvg2013.pdf (thank you Rodal for finding this) suggests that T symmetry is also broken in the fashion described, but most importantly P and T can be broken simultaneously. I have also postulated that a chiral dielectric molecule present in an asymmetric spacetime (inside the conical frustum) will also simultaneously break PT symmetry, but have not formalized my ideas and it is not worthy of being called a hypothesis, thus it is just a crazy idea I have. I acknowledge this. Be that as it may, I hope that someone smarter than I am will be inspired and take the idea and run with it.
Quote from: frobnicat on 11/02/2014 11:12 amQuote from: Mulletron on 11/02/2014 10:32 amI'm not seeing it that way. A Hall thruster is not propellant less. He never used the word propellant less to describe the paradox. I see a false paradox, which was created by bad methodology and bad math. Advanced propulsion does not equal propellant less propulsion."One of the issues to consider for a constant thrust system is the matter of conservation of energy."You can't have constant thrust with action/reaction scheme, because there can be a constant expelled mass flow for only so long. So for me this is broadly "we are talking about propellantless propulsion". And indeed any such propellantless scheme has an issue of energy conservation. In the terminology of this appendix, the Hall thruster is conventional, the EMdrive (propellantless whatever) is advanced.I see another spectacularly failed attempt at addressing the intrinsic issue with energy conservation of propellantless schemes, as bad as Shawyer's. Any serious physicist/engineer reading this appendix A will immediately see the plain absurdity of the argument, one way or another. This is not serious.What is most perplexing is that this report follows the "Anomalous..." Brady experiment report. It continues to insist on explaining the experimental results as being the result of the Quantum Vacuum of electron-positron virtual particles acting like a plasma that can be modeled with magnetohydrodynamics. It has not backed down at all from that claim, which remains entirely unsupported: it does not add any support to it. It takes for granted that these microwave propellant less thrusters work based on the Quantum Vacuum, it does not address the criticisms from the scientific community (except energy conservation by now creating a paradox questioning energy conservation ?) that has been raised against those claims and continues to build on this unsupported claim by further discussion of trips to the Jovian and Saturnian moons. I would have expected instead to address the criticisms about the Quantum Vacuum hypothesis and to further analyze the tests and to comment on future tests. I would have expected an effort to analyze the anomalous experimental results instead of trips to Enceladus with a propellant-less drive that has never been shown to operate in flight.
Quote from: Mulletron on 11/02/2014 10:32 amI'm not seeing it that way. A Hall thruster is not propellant less. He never used the word propellant less to describe the paradox. I see a false paradox, which was created by bad methodology and bad math. Advanced propulsion does not equal propellant less propulsion."One of the issues to consider for a constant thrust system is the matter of conservation of energy."You can't have constant thrust with action/reaction scheme, because there can be a constant expelled mass flow for only so long. So for me this is broadly "we are talking about propellantless propulsion". And indeed any such propellantless scheme has an issue of energy conservation. In the terminology of this appendix, the Hall thruster is conventional, the EMdrive (propellantless whatever) is advanced.I see another spectacularly failed attempt at addressing the intrinsic issue with energy conservation of propellantless schemes, as bad as Shawyer's. Any serious physicist/engineer reading this appendix A will immediately see the plain absurdity of the argument, one way or another. This is not serious.
I'm not seeing it that way. A Hall thruster is not propellant less. He never used the word propellant less to describe the paradox. I see a false paradox, which was created by bad methodology and bad math. Advanced propulsion does not equal propellant less propulsion.
The QV thrust scenario is the only method available to justify measuring thrust from an otherwise sealed rf cavity and still say that momentum was conserved.
Quote from: Rodal on 11/02/2014 11:23 amQuote from: frobnicat on 11/02/2014 11:12 amQuote from: Mulletron on 11/02/2014 10:32 amI'm not seeing it that way. A Hall thruster is not propellant less. He never used the word propellant less to describe the paradox. I see a false paradox, which was created by bad methodology and bad math. Advanced propulsion does not equal propellant less propulsion."One of the issues to consider for a constant thrust system is the matter of conservation of energy."You can't have constant thrust with action/reaction scheme, because there can be a constant expelled mass flow for only so long. So for me this is broadly "we are talking about propellantless propulsion". And indeed any such propellantless scheme has an issue of energy conservation. In the terminology of this appendix, the Hall thruster is conventional, the EMdrive (propellantless whatever) is advanced.I see another spectacularly failed attempt at addressing the intrinsic issue with energy conservation of propellantless schemes, as bad as Shawyer's. Any serious physicist/engineer reading this appendix A will immediately see the plain absurdity of the argument, one way or another. This is not serious.What is most perplexing is that this report follows the "Anomalous..." Brady experiment report. It continues to insist on explaining the experimental results as being the result of the Quantum Vacuum of electron-positron virtual particles acting like a plasma that can be modeled with magnetohydrodynamics. It has not backed down at all from that claim, which remains entirely unsupported: it does not add any support to it. It takes for granted that these microwave propellant less thrusters work based on the Quantum Vacuum, it does not address the criticisms from the scientific community (except energy conservation by now creating a paradox questioning energy conservation ?) that has been raised against those claims and continues to build on this unsupported claim by further discussion of trips to the Jovian and Saturnian moons. I would have expected instead to address the criticisms about the Quantum Vacuum hypothesis and to further analyze the tests and to comment on future tests. I would have expected an effort to analyze the anomalous experimental results instead of trips to Enceladus with a propellant-less drive that has never been shown to operate in flight.This is the way QVF and ZPF before it have always been. There has never been an attempt to answer the objections about how they predict the wrong mass for the proton, or violate EEP and GR.
Quote from: Mulletron on 11/02/2014 11:56 amThe QV thrust scenario is the only method available to justify measuring thrust from an otherwise sealed rf cavity and still say that momentum was conserved.I'm sorry but that's not true. M-E theory makes such an explanation and QVF model does not. Sonny clearly owns that he is proposing a violation of conservation whereas M-E theory does not require this.The point however in regards to M-E is that though the cavity is sealed, in M-E theory it is part of the larger system including all the mass in the universe. You cannot talk about conservation in open systems and the M-E system is the universe under all circumstances.
Quote from: Ron Stahl on 11/03/2014 05:42 pmQuote from: Supergravity on 11/01/2014 12:23 am......Hi there. I wouldn't put much stock in the ostensibly technical speculations that fill this thread. The results are certainly wrong and are in clear violations of macroscopic conservation of momentum. All explanations or "models" proposed to explain this (quantum plasma, virtual particles, etc.) are all based on incredibly bad physics. Any signal these experimenters find is almost certainly due to a terrible experimental method and questionable data analysis. As far as I can tell, along with the greater physics and engineering communities (from what I have seen), this is a fantasy device.How many of the five competing models to explain thrust from these devices are you familiar with? I happen to agree with you about QVF and virtual particles, but there are 5 models to choose from and that's one.Here is his (Supergravity's) opinion on Woodward's theory: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1065368#msg1065368, which Supergravity has discussed at length in that thread dedicated to Woodward's thread.
Quote from: Mulletron on 11/03/2014 05:56 pm...When the author writes << This situation can be different however in materials that are temporally and spatially asymmetric.>> the author is explicitly discussing material asymmetry, what is known scientifically as anisotropy or aelotropy: different material properties in different intrinsic (materially embedded) directions. This should not be confused with asymmetrical geometry of an isotropic material. Moreover, the author requires a specific type of anisotropy: helical anisotropy, a type of anisotropy found in some (chiral) polymer chains, but unusual in a macro sample (typical fabrication methods like injection molding result in isotropic macro samples even when the polymer chains are chiral). The materials used in the EM Drives (copper) and the polymer dielectrics (Teflon and Polyethylene) are isotropic homogeneous materials and hence do not satisfy the condition required by the author.Well a quick fact check on what you are saying finds no mention of the word "helical" or "anisotrop" or "anisotropic' or "anisotropy" in either publication. So it sounds like that is your interpretation not the information reported.........am I sensing obstructionism?
...When the author writes << This situation can be different however in materials that are temporally and spatially asymmetric.>> the author is explicitly discussing material asymmetry, what is known scientifically as anisotropy or aelotropy: different material properties in different intrinsic (materially embedded) directions. This should not be confused with asymmetrical geometry of an isotropic material. Moreover, the author requires a specific type of anisotropy: helical anisotropy, a type of anisotropy found in some (chiral) polymer chains, but unusual in a macro sample (typical fabrication methods like injection molding result in isotropic macro samples even when the polymer chains are chiral). The materials used in the EM Drives (copper) and the polymer dielectrics (Teflon and Polyethylene) are isotropic homogeneous materials and hence do not satisfy the condition required by the author.
Concerning "am I sensing obstructionism?", I'm only writing this for those who may appreciate such a clarification.
Quote from: Rodal on 11/03/2014 05:54 pmQuote from: Ron Stahl on 11/03/2014 05:42 pmQuote from: Supergravity on 11/01/2014 12:23 am......Hi there. I wouldn't put much stock in the ostensibly technical speculations that fill this thread. The results are certainly wrong and are in clear violations of macroscopic conservation of momentum. All explanations or "models" proposed to explain this (quantum plasma, virtual particles, etc.) are all based on incredibly bad physics. Any signal these experimenters find is almost certainly due to a terrible experimental method and questionable data analysis. As far as I can tell, along with the greater physics and engineering communities (from what I have seen), this is a fantasy device.How many of the five competing models to explain thrust from these devices are you familiar with? I happen to agree with you about QVF and virtual particles, but there are 5 models to choose from and that's one.Here is his (Supergravity's) opinion on Woodward's theory: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1065368#msg1065368, which Supergravity has discussed at length in that thread dedicated to Woodward's thread.Yes well, he's entirely wrong. He's pretending to dispense with a theory that's been through 20 years of peer review, and that is gaining an ever increasing following amongst the physics community, by simply stating it is not consistent with GR when in fact it is required by GR. I'll bet beers he hasn't read the book or the papers. I would note too, the references are all of people doing this same thing--don't know the theory, haven't read the papers, making sweeping claims. That's not science.
I wasn't even responding to you. Do you have these suspicions often about people talking about you behind your back?