Quote from: JohnFornaro on 09/14/2014 02:05 pmI have a readily detectable mass effect on my bookshelf at least.Thread winner! Nice quip John.As for the "why no cubesat test," so far I don't believe any of the testing of Eagleworks has been of steady-state devices, and when you factor in how much the power circuits would add to the mass, at current force levels you would need a lot of sustained thrust time to see an orbital mechanics effect from ground-based observation.
I have a readily detectable mass effect on my bookshelf at least.
Hi, @Rodal: For a long time there was social pressure against Shawyer results and people were reluctant to show support. Shawyer was not supported by a big organization, but when DARPA in 2011 gave lots of publicity to Dr White at 100YSS conference, people's stance changed. Because this time, such research was supported by big organisations (as Stormbringer just said in his last post).
Rodal-Regarding the tests of the Boeing Device, and how the thrust was much greater than with the Shawyer device:
Rodal-....You began your posts here with a strong suspicion the Shawyer results, at least were likely the result of thermal artifacts. Would such a suspicion still be warranted with the much more impressive results for the Boeing device?....
Rodal-...One of the reasons I brought up Dark Matter in the first place was because you were concerned that Doctor White postulated far to great a quantum vacuum density. ...
One of the reasons I brought up Dark Matter in the first place was because you were concerned that Doctor White postulated far to great a quantum vacuum density. I was wondering if the Dark Matter density might be sufficient to resolve this, and maybe better account for the 'arrow of time' issues you were discussing earlier. That said:[humor] possibly these various engineering teams could benefit from having a good English teacher writing, or at least critiquing their papers? Seems to me a fair part of what we are discussing here might be resolved with clearer writing in the reports. [/humor]
an interesting paper by Dr. White.http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140000851.pdfIn particular, I find the Math toward the end of the slide show interesting.
Quote from: cuddihy on 09/14/2014 03:35 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 09/14/2014 02:05 pmI have a readily detectable mass effect on my bookshelf at least.Thread winner! Nice quip John.As for the "why no cubesat test," so far I don't believe any of the testing of Eagleworks has been of steady-state devices, and when you factor in how much the power circuits would add to the mass, at current force levels you would need a lot of sustained thrust time to see an orbital mechanics effect from ground-based observation.Yet, that is exactly what is necessary. The terrestrial based apparatus seems subject to many more constraints than a free body experiment would be subject to. Don't tell the proponents that I'm suggesting an appropriate scaling up of their apparatus. They have neither a sense of humor nor perspective.
Everybody: please take a look at this comparison, and provide some feedback as to why the latest discussion in this forum is concentrating on the performance of the latest round of tested devices, when they appear to have among the lowest measured thrust forces and the lowest specific force ?
Quote from: Rodal on 09/14/2014 03:19 pmEverybody: please take a look at this comparison, and provide some feedback as to why the latest discussion in this forum is concentrating on the performance of the latest round of tested devices, when they appear to have among the lowest measured thrust forces and the lowest specific force ?Well, I'll tell ya. The "body" of the work, that I mentioned earlier, is based on an interpretation of Mach, as explained further by Sciama. With their successive experiments, the experimenters appear to move the mathematical goalposts. I know that I can't keep up. But pragmatically, what happens, is you guys up there talking about all sorts of "effects" and what-have-you, and no reasonably educated infividual can keep up.Assuming, of course, for purposes of argument, that the term "reasonably educated" only includes that group of people who completely and totally understand, including, without apparent limitations, how to recover the recover the Lamb Shift, radiation interactions, gravity waves, Wheeler and Feynman (their theory of the Weak Force), the advanced/retarded wave concept, the cosmological arrow of time, 2nd law of Thermodynamics (which should be sufficient), Weak Force arrow of time, particle radiation, Quantum Mechanics (which is to be expected), the concept of action at a distance, inertia, QM entanglement, prima facie rejection of various premises, time-asymmetry, Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory (oops, we already kinda sorta included that), the "Chung-Freese" metric (to which I admit freely and willingly, total ignorance of, even as a collection of letters)... I give up.My mathematical defeat doesn't prove success to the method, nor guarantee the expected operation of the experimental apparatus.Bottom line, and doubling as executive summary; the effect is not eplained for or to the edification of the reasonably educated individual.We give it our best shot.
As someone said before and in agreement on the experimentalist side of things...Why doesn't someone get a bloody big 100Kw setup of the devices discussed and measure thrust? We wouldn't need vacuum chambers or any nonsense.Why not?