The reason I mention it again is I have been catching up on my back issues of New Scientist magazine and a fairly small report, though prominently placed on page seven, headlined ’Impossible’ space drive doesn’t work can be found in issue number 3179 for those interested.
Is that because you believe we cannot generate high enough energies on the Earth for the foreseeable future? That the more interesting physics exists in the extremely high energy realms?
It annoys me about the Tajmar paper that even though on here his setup has received criticism and the sceptics elsewhere have criticised his setup as well its still been widely reported.
Quote from: Star One on 06/16/2018 04:55 pmThe reason I mention it again is I have been catching up on my back issues of New Scientist magazine and a fairly small report, though prominently placed on page seven, headlined ’Impossible’ space drive doesn’t work can be found in issue number 3179 for those interested.Yes, the sceptics often need even less thoroughness of the scientific reports in order to see their premises confirmed than the "wishful thinkers" do.
Quote from: Star One on 06/16/2018 01:57 pmIt annoys me about the Tajmar paper that even though on here his setup has received criticism and the sceptics elsewhere have criticised his setup as well its still been widely reported.And it annoys me when people claim that the paper has been criticized despite the fact that no valid criticisms have been provided. (The only provided criticisms have been saying that they should do the things that the paper explicitly states they plan to do as part of future work.)If you want to criticize the way the media is reporting on the paper, that is fine, but old news since the media exaggerates every scientific report they can (which annoys me too). Making false claims about criticisms of the paper is just as bad as any misrepresentations the media makes though.Quote from: Peter Lauwer on 06/16/2018 06:58 pmQuote from: Star One on 06/16/2018 04:55 pmThe reason I mention it again is I have been catching up on my back issues of New Scientist magazine and a fairly small report, though prominently placed on page seven, headlined ’Impossible’ space drive doesn’t work can be found in issue number 3179 for those interested.Yes, the sceptics often need even less thoroughness of the scientific reports in order to see their premises confirmed than the "wishful thinkers" do. There is a reason for this, and it is rooted in actual scientific data:https://xkcd.com/1132/
You say that yet this very thread criticism of his setup is clearly given.https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1823724#msg1823724
I clearly stated that the only things provided have just been repeating the "future work" information in the paper, which is not criticism, just an indication that the person saying those things did not read the paper.
Quote from: meberbs on 06/17/2018 12:09 amI clearly stated that the only things provided have just been repeating the "future work" information in the paper, which is not criticism, just an indication that the person saying those things did not read the paper. I read the paper and watched Tajmar's presentation, thank you very much. The criticisms noted are valid even though Tajmar plans on ruling most of them out in future experiments. Some of the items pointed out, such as why they claim to be exciting mode TM212 during their presentation, when that mode is 500Mhz away in simulations, and why they are 15Mhz away from any known mode for those dimensions, AND the fact that they chose not to share their smith chart plot, are serious problems that need to be addressed specifically in the next paper. We also pointed out that the wiring was sophomoric at best as the twisted pairs were not twisted very well, the main power leads were over a meter long, and the ground loops have not been identified. We also pointed out that the amplifier and most other electrical components rotate with the copper frustum, instead of only the frustum rotating. It is not clear if Tajmar plans on addressing these issues in the future. Once Tajmar confirms the resonant mode with IR camera, or other means, then that will alleviate most of my concerns. I am glad this is planned and look forward to the results. I know that is one of the last hurdles I am working on before I throw in the towel...
Quote from: meberbs on 06/17/2018 12:09 amI clearly stated that the only things provided have just been repeating the "future work" information in the paper, which is not criticism, just an indication that the person saying those things did not read the paper. I read the paper and watched Tajmar's presentation, thank you very much. The criticisms noted are valid even though Tajmar plans on ruling most of them out in future experiments.
Some of the items pointed out, such as why they claim to be exciting mode TM212 during their presentation, when that mode is 500Mhz away in simulations, and why they are 15Mhz away from any known mode for those dimensions, AND the fact that they chose not to share their smith chart plot, are serious problems that need to be addressed specifically in the next paper.
We also pointed out that the wiring was sophomoric at best
We also pointed out that the amplifier and most other electrical components rotate with the copper frustum, instead of only the frustum rotating.
Strange, none of those things were pointed out in the referenced post. If you read the paper carefully, they claim to be using the resonance at 1865 MHz, while they show TM212 at 1971MHz by simulation. They don't claim to be exciting TM212 in the paper, though they should have explicitly stated which mode they are exciting. While more data is always good, I am not aware of any specific information from a Smith chart that is required for a good emDrive experiment.
Quote from: meberbs on 06/17/2018 02:34 pmStrange, none of those things were pointed out in the referenced post. If you read the paper carefully, they claim to be using the resonance at 1865 MHz, while they show TM212 at 1971MHz by simulation. They don't claim to be exciting TM212 in the paper, though they should have explicitly stated which mode they are exciting. While more data is always good, I am not aware of any specific information from a Smith chart that is required for a good emDrive experiment.I'm sorry you missed it, but this and more was posted in follow-up posts by me and others such as this one: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1825716#msg1825716
They did make the claim in their presentation that they thought they were exciting mode TM212 (at time 48:20). This was in response to a question from Dr. Rodal. But TM212 is 570Mhz away according to COMSOL and FEKO. Perhaps they meant TE212, but that is 15Mhz away from where they are seeing the RL. The student clearly said he thinks it is TM212, but that he is not sure.
Another thing to note is the mode Tajmar claims is TM212 at 1971 Mhz (1.971 Ghz) was identified as Tx3xx by NASA using COMSOL. If they are not sure, or are confused on this, then they need to get it straight soon.
The smith chart plot is necessary to 1. make sure there is a circular plot, which indicates resonance, and 2. to make sure there are no modes too close, as there appears to be with Tajmar's RL plot. Every serious experiment I know of has provided a smith chart plot.
Then you lament about personal insults directly after insulting our intelligence by claiming we didn't read the paper.
Here is the first attempt at confirming mode shape using a probe inside the cavity. Of course, it sounds a lot easier than it actually is. Not only is it hard to know if i'm aligned with the side-wall, small movements with my hand have a huge effect. A probe mount that can slide in and out in a controlled fashion would be very helpful. Drilling the holes seemed to have had a very large effect on Q as the RL dip wasn't nearly as narrow after each hole. It could be because there are little bits of copper in the cavity from drilling that I need to clean out, or it could be the holes themselves. This is why I hate the idea of drilling into the 3D printed cavity or Oyzw's solid copper cavity.