...
I'm pretty sure the "LA Company" is the work by James Spottiswoode. His results have never been published here as the author has chosen not to. However, I just checked his Linkedin page and he has a picture posted! He achieved the proper resonance, which he confirmed with IR camera, but his results were ultimately null. From James, "I designed and constructed a replication of a NASA experiment that claimed to demonstrate a novel propellant-less rocket thruster. As this device appears to violate the laws of conservation of momentum and energy I did not expect it to produce thrust, as has turned out to be the case in experiments so far. Such an experiment is technically challenging as it involves measuring μNewton level forces in a large apparatus consuming over 1 kW of electrical power. Many possibilities for artifacts, thermal, electrical and magnetic, exist and have to be eliminated. A paper on this failed replication is in preparation."
EmDrive is not an reactionless drive. It generates assymetric radiation pressure due to the tapered cavity.
TT seems to have trouble understanding that the photons inside the cavity are not external, and no amount of talking about internal photons changes that what he is describing is a reactionless drive.
You are entitled to you opinion. However it is incorrect and the EmDrive works just fine.
Might be time for you and others here to look outside the square for why it does so. Maybe study what Roger shares, instead of just ignoring it?
The work done to accelerate a mass for say 1 sec from a state of constant velocity never varies. What some observer in another frame observes as the mass' velocity has no effect on the work that is needed to be done to accelerate a mass.
This may not be what you were taught but it is correct and does work to produce a frame invarient way to calc the work done, resultant change in KE, momentum and velocity when accelerating mass.Or do it you way and get a useless frame varient result.
Hi Mr. Jamie, I haven't seen your speech for a long time. It’s been a long time, how is your experiment going? Is the work not going well?
Quote from: oyzw on 07/18/2018 12:13 amHi Mr. Jamie, I haven't seen your speech for a long time. It’s been a long time, how is your experiment going? Is the work not going well?The torsional pendulum works great now that I switched to liquid metal contacts and covered everything in insulation. I have a sensitivity of ~0.2uN, which I am very pleased with. However, now that I've eliminated most of the error sources, I only appear to be seeing what I think is asymmetric thermal expansion of the amplifier PCB board. This is also what I suspect is behind the ~10uN that the Polish group has also detected as we use identical main amplifiers. Next, I plan on modifying the cavity you sent me so that I can attempt to create traveling waves instead of standing waves. This may involve drilling a hole into the side so I can insert the antenna along the side-walls as recommended by Shawyer. It may also be useful to run some simulations in the time domain rather than only the frequency domain, that way we can see if there are traveling waves in specific configurations. I'm also interested in testing some of the lower order modes such as TM010, TE111, TM011 and Tx11x - but that will require a couple of more cavities, albeit smaller than the huge TE013 cavity.
The work done to accelerate a mass for say 1 sec from a state of constant velocity never varies.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 07/17/2018 11:59 pmThe work done to accelerate a mass for say 1 sec from a state of constant velocity never varies. This is so wrong... it is clearly easier to accelerate an object to a certain dV when it's standing still than to accelerate it by the same amount when it's already moving. This follows right from the formula for kinetic energy. The work required to accelerate an object clearly depends on the ref. frame. I'm really confused as to why this is not obvious... anyone care to explain?
This is so wrong... I'm really confused as to why this is not obvious... anyone care to explain?
Jim - maybe it has something to do with the EMdrive being worth $10^13 or so if real.
Personally, I still keep a ten year old spot in my heart and mind, and I do it on purpose.Children in general are true scientists, discovering the world as it is without preconceptions unless we stop them. Education, even good well meaning one, takes off some of that child like curiosity. Life tends to peel off the rest if we allow it.It is very easy to overlook many things in your older ages if you don't keep some of this ability to keep your eyes open and see things as they are before making your own opinion.So, I try to keep and open mind and an evidence based approach, even with weird, unlikely assertions.You say this contraption pushes when microwaves are resonating inside it? good. Prove it.While the information about this particular assertion is still inconclusive, I feel as time passes that such inconclusiveness is never going to end, precisely because we are dealing with real things (thermal and EM noise) and wishes (we want this to be real).In any case, I still think it's necessary to go to the bottom of this, regardless of the conclusions. At least it will become a lesson on the pitfalls of wishful thinking, or a body of experience for those making similar claims in the future, about the many challenges there are to prove any similar claims.Who knows? we may be seeing things that really linger at the limit of measurement, but that we may learn eventually that were true, but only after the 'magic ingredient' to amplify them is found.