Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 7  (Read 1853958 times)

Offline zen-in

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 541
  • California
  • Liked: 483
  • Likes Given: 371
Fine go ahead assume that your process is ergodic, but your comparison of 0.1 mN for you with 3 mN of Yang is comparing different things.
50 points! This clearly is the most obscure possible impassioned statement in the English language. :D

//BREAK BREAK//

I understand that Yang's previously-reported force was two orders of magnitude higher than McCullough's theory predicts, and significantly higher than all other reported data.

That said, [Conspiracy Theory] what are the odds this follow-up is a track-covering mechanism for a device with clear national security implications?
...

Love these threads. :D
Why publish any results in the first place if they show an unequivocal confirmation of significant thrust?   Their goal in that case would be to minimize disclosure.   And anyway the likelyhood that Yangs' first results were valid has always been low.   No one has replicated those results and there is no generally accepted theory that explains this claimed effect.
[/quote]
« Last Edit: 05/04/2016 05:49 pm by rfmwguy »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5568
...You're very correct! Force vs time data is critically important even post a digital frame grab off a scale or VNA or O-Scope, or a cheap video from your iPhone or camera. ...

Shell

I am confident that one of (several) reasons you are taking your time to report your experiments is because you appreciate the importance of running many tests without changing parameters under well controlled conditions, in order to be able to quantify uncertainty   :)

Godspeed !

Dr Rodal, I am perplexed by your willingness to declare that the recently reported Yang results nullify all of her previous results.  By Yang changing from an Magnetron, presumably powered by an AC supply, to Solid State RF source powered by DC, it seems that more then enough experimental conditions have changed to make these different experiments beyond the changing of measurement techniques.  While the results may be suggestive, to say that they nullify the previous work is to assume that the change in RF source and power supplies are not consequential. I don't think that is a supportable assumption.
Thank your for your post.

Please read Prof. Yang's report, these are her conclusions, as also remarked by TellMeAgain.  As to the emphasis you are now placing on the Solid State RF, please consider that I was the one (as recently recalled by JMossman) that pointed out the possible contradiction in experimenters wanting to "clean up" the Magnetron by various means, which flies in the face of prior threads, pointing to the possible benefits of the frequency, amplitude and phase modulation of a magnetron.

Concerning the use of Solid State in Prof Yang's latest test, this was a subject of controversy between Mr. Li (TellMeAgain) and NSF member from China that collaborated with Yang.  I understand that Mr. Li has shown that indeed Prof Yang's experiments without the battery used solid state.

As to the emphasis you are placing on "nullification".

People cannot have it both ways, either the use of solid state instead of a magnetron as good or better, or it is worse. If it is as good or better, the change is immaterial to the nullification.  One cannot say that it is better to "clean the magnetron" or not to use magnetrons (as Shawyer is being quoted by TT) and simultaneously claim that Prof Yang's latest choice not to use a magnetron is faulty.

Should I remind you of the arguments that proponents of not using a magnetron or "cleaning up a magnetron" have used? They claim that it is better to operate at the natural frequency and use a control loop (*)

We presume that since Yang made this change, she thinks that it is immaterial.  That seems like a very fair conclusion.  It would not make logical sense for her to change her test to different conditions that she would think result in no thrust.

I can see that her thinking is due to her theoretical model.  I think people may be forgetting that Yang's latest results are more importantly a falsification of her theoretical model. According to Yang's theoretical model solid-state excitation should be as good or better than using a magnetron.

I understood from Star-Drive's posts that Dr. White's QV computer program hinted at some benefits of phase modulation, as well as frequency modulation.  There is no such benefit in Yang's theory.

Furthermore a number of EM Drive experimenters: NASA and Shawyer (TT states that Shawyer did not use a magnetron for Boeing's flight thruster and that is his standard as of late) have not used magnetrons.

Given this state of affairs it is only logical to conclude that since Yang is the one that conducted the tests with solid state, that she thinks that this is immaterial and therefore it constitutes a nullification of her prior tests.

Furthermore, since Shawyer is being quoted by TT as now not using magnetrons, the same conclusion applies to his tests and to any test from those that claim that it is better not to use magnetrons.

So yes, I logically conclude that according to Yang's formalism, this is a nullification of her prior results.

From an experimental viewpoint I would never, ever have changed the magnetron. I agreed with SeeShells: she should have used an inverter to power it from batteries.  I don't think it is good testing methodology to change several things at once without being to discriminate their influence.


___________
(*) I previously pointed out the problems with this: if the EM Drive behavior is nonlinear and stochastic, a typical control loop may not converge rapidly or not at all to the natural frequency and what you will have is a repeatable null test if the EM Drive deforms due to induction heating and hence changing the natural frequency in a complicated way with respect to time.

« Last Edit: 05/04/2016 01:16 am by Rodal »

Offline RotoSequence

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2208
  • Liked: 2068
  • Likes Given: 1535
On a bit of a tangent (kicked off by wondering which variables affect the output bandwidth), it mildly amuses me that a magnetron is a concentric ring of resonating wedges, and they apparently strive for the TE011 mode.

http://www.cpii.com/docs/related/2/Mag%20tech%20art.pdf

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5568
On a bit of a tangent (kicked off by wondering which variables affect the output bandwidth), it mildly amuses me that a magnetron is a concentric ring of resonating wedges, and they apparently strive for the TE011 mode.

http://www.cpii.com/docs/related/2/Mag%20tech%20art.pdf
The TE011 mode may be better than TE012: energy density away from center (towards big end so expect thrust in opposite direction than TE013) .

Offline Tellmeagain

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 252
  • maryland
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 34
...But we still have hope, not for human beings to go to outer space, but for artificial intelligence to go to outer space for us. I feel that a great revolution is imminent, and the project to build a true AI is the very last project for human beings. Maybe you should be like me, to spend almost all spare time in that direction.
Please note that a Wikipedia user who signs Wikipedia under the name Shengchao Alfred Li, and started editing the RF resonant cavity thruster Wikipedia article since August 2015, this last May 1, 2016 has edited the previously called EM Drive article to now read:

Quote
which they later pointed out to suffer from excessive force caused by heat related deformation of the flexible waveguide used to connect the microwave source and the cavity

Mr. Li, could you be so nice as to go over Prof. Yang's latest paper (2016  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39772.0;attach=1113532 ) again to clarify whether the thermal deformation addressed by Prof. Yang in her latest paper is due to:

1) the thermal expansion (and resulting thermal stresses) of the power cable connecting the power source to the resonant cavity (as described in several of the last posts in the NSF EM Drive thread)

She experimented two settings in the 2016 paper. One was the "independent" (self-contained) experiment that she used battery and got <0.7mN thrust; The other was the "dependent" experiment (power from outside) that she got 8~10mN which she attributed to the heating of the power wires (30A DC).

Quote
or

2) the thermal deformation of the waveguide used to connect the microwave source and the cavity as recently edited by Shengchao Alfred Li in Wikipedia

I have translated what Yang said in her 2016 paper about her 2008 results; It is in this post,
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1527350#msg1527350
This is the base of the Wiki text you quoted.

Quote
Thanks
You are welcome.

Offline spupeng7


It is to her credit that Yang has disclosed these new experiments.     The 20 experimental results shown in the graph don't look to me like convincing argument for any force.   I don't see a need for fitting a curve to these data.    If all 20 force measurements are averaged the result is -74 microNewtons.   If the outliers are thrown out first (any force measurement greater than .4 mN or less than -.4 mN) the average becomes -30 microNewtons.   While these calculations are just estimates themselves they do show a trend approaching zero.

Yes I admit you were right Zen-In from the begining of this thing. That makes a fool of me to believe in such device and advance of the humanity. Guess I need to chill for a while.

So much hope destroyed.. lets keep to exploding engines.. Just hope it will not cost us of too much lives of astronauts

I think we are a long way from replacing rockets to escape Earth's gravity well and anyone who claimed the em-drive would do that was unrealistic.

Zen-in,

the thrust levels which we do appear to be achieving, multiplied by the attainable increase in Q, could be very handy indeed, non?  JMN..

Optimism equals opportunity.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5568
Dr Rodal, I am perplexed by your willingness to declare that the recently reported Yang results nullify all of her previous results.  By Yang changing from an Magnetron, presumably powered by an AC supply, to Solid State RF source powered by DC, it seems that more then enough experimental conditions have changed to make these different experiments beyond the changing of measurement techniques...
Upon further thought prompted by your post, I have to logically conclude what you bring up is an argument for nullification, not only of Yang's tests but also of Shawyer's tests:

as I have shown previously taking the threshold for Yang's instrument to be +/- 3mN @ 220 Watts, besides Yang's tests, the following tests by Shawyer are way above this threshold of detection:

Shawyer DEMONSTRATION (uses magnetron)
Shawyer FLIGHT THRUSTER (does not use a magnetron)

1) IF THE MAGNETRON IS NECESSARY TO PRODUCE THRUST

It is not possible that both Shaywer DEMONSTRATION and FLIGHT THRUSTER are true.  At least one of them must be false: the FLIGHT THRUSTER, since it has no magnetron. 

So, this would mean that Shawyer's FLIGHT THRUSTER is false.  It also implies that all of Shawyer's latest EM Drive's that do not use a magnetron are also false, that claim levels of force/InputPower above Yang's threshold level.


2) IF THE MAGNETRON IS NOT NECESSARY TO PRODUCE THRUST

Then it is possible that both Shaywer DEMONSTRATION and FLIGHT THRUSTER are true. 
However, this is in flagrant contradiction with Yang's 2016 tests with batteries and no magnetron, showing no thrust (above the threshold).

Since the DEMONSTRATION and FLIGHT THRUSTER are above the threshold of detection, the way to resolve this contradiction is to conclude that the Shawyer DEMONSTRATION and FLIGHT THRUSTER are both false for other reasons  (for example: the use of power cords instead of batteries)

It could also be that all of Shawyer's and Yang tests are null because they do not use a polymer insert, because they never understood that the function of NASA's polymer insert is as a piezoresistive or electrostrictive material, and never as a dielectric.  In other words because they do not understand Woodward's Mach Effect, and the role of the polymer insert. (*)

There are other solutions (for example that all of Shawyer's and Yang's EM Drive tests are atrocious, all false, due to using teeter-totters, scales, power cords, lack of error analysis, thermal convection because they do not use a vacuum chamber, etc.).  The above appear to be the least pathological,  (there are other extreme pathological solutions involving conspiracy theories,  etc).

Maybe somebody can come with a solution that is not pathological that does not involve contradictions?

____________
(*) Maybe the Hackaway tiny battery-powered-EM-Drive positive results with the polymer insert are hinting in this direction?

« Last Edit: 05/04/2016 02:10 am by Rodal »

Offline zen-in

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 541
  • California
  • Liked: 483
  • Likes Given: 371

It is to her credit that Yang has disclosed these new experiments.     The 20 experimental results shown in the graph don't look to me like convincing argument for any force.   I don't see a need for fitting a curve to these data.    If all 20 force measurements are averaged the result is -74 microNewtons.   If the outliers are thrown out first (any force measurement greater than .4 mN or less than -.4 mN) the average becomes -30 microNewtons.   While these calculations are just estimates themselves they do show a trend approaching zero.

Yes I admit you were right Zen-In from the begining of this thing. That makes a fool of me to believe in such device and advance of the humanity. Guess I need to chill for a while.

So much hope destroyed.. lets keep to exploding engines.. Just hope it will not cost us of too much lives of astronauts

I think we are a long way from replacing rockets to escape Earth's gravity well and anyone who claimed the em-drive would do that was unrealistic.

Zen-in,

the thrust levels which we do appear to be achieving, multiplied by the attainable increase in Q, could be very handy indeed, non?  JMN..

While Q multiplication does work with ruby/yag lasers I have doubts a high Q (Q > 5000)  is attainable in a fustrum or that any increase in Q will produce more thrust.   There is a basic contradiction there.   A very high Q means almost no power during each wave of the RF is leaving the fustrum.   So it is another case of free energy.   Historically experimenters who have quoted a high Q for their fustrum used a questionable method of calculation or used a simulation program.  Yang has retracted her earlier Q value.  There has been a lot of discussion on this subject in this forum and unless I am mistaken the high values of Q some DIY experimenters have reported were derived from a simulation program.    Both methods produce a non-realistic value.   There is a physical definition of Q.  When Q is measured correctly these unrealistic high values are not seen.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2016 03:19 am by zen-in »

Offline TheTraveller

My next build is in progress.

The flat & spherical end plate frustum is being manufactured to very high physical tolerance and polish standard as recommended by Roger Shawyer. It is being machined from a solid block of copper, highly polished, then silver and gold plated. Min sidewall and end plate thickness are 6mm. The frustum can be fitted with either flat or spherical end plates and can operate internally at high vac or be filled with various gases at adjustable pressure as the end plate to flange interface will form a high pressure & high vac rated seal. This frustum will basically look like a bigger Flight Thruster. Not cheap, expected final cost around $7k. I will visit the manufacturer to run tests before acceptance.

The 0.4N/kW rated S band thruster will be driven initially by a wide freq range 100W Rf amp that has the ability to control Rf output power over a 31dB range and provides real time forward & reflected power output. Work is also ongoing to develop an integral smart 250Wrf module that can be installed in multiples on the thruster, if higher than 100mN of reaction force generation is required. Max thruster power should be around 2.5kWrf or 1,000mN of reaction force generation.

Both static and dynamic reaction force generation will be monitored.

When a reaction force generation level of at least 20mN has been achieved and expected rotation of the rotary test table in a high vac has been achieved the data and video will be presented via YouTube.

Following that successful result, a business entity will be formed and potential customers will be invited to view, inspect & do their own tests on our in house test setup as part of their order process.

My next post here will be with the YouTube link and company contact details.
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline Eusa

  • Member
  • Posts: 82
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 118
There is ~15% difference in scale between TE013 and TE012 in the wedge geometry. In anticipation of signal drift from the hot magnetron, I optimized wedge dimensions for strongest TE012 at 2.445Ghz - so that as the magnetron heats up, resonance should grow stronger.

I am thinking the TE013 is a little too cumbersome and may go with the smaller mode wedge.

...
TE013 is strongly recommended (over TE012) because:

1) TT quoting direct communications with Shawyer attributes to Shawyer a recommendation for TE013 over TE012

2) As I am showing in detail, step by step elsewhere (post under construction) the electromagnetic stress field is due to the energy density.  The energy density is close to the small end for TE013 while it is in about the middle of the frustum for TE012.

3) The recent falsification of Yang's prior results apparently involve TE012

4) According to Dr. White's theory the QV effect is most related to the energy density, which supports TE013 much more than TE012.  Ditto for gravitational theories.

5) TE013 larger frustum may also result in higher Q and the ability to input more power into it while keeping the same energy density.

Energy density for TE012: located in the middle of the truncated cone cavity:



Energy density for TE013:  clearly located towards the small end of the truncated cone cavity:


I suppose the mode should be uneven and energy density having maximums along cavity from large end to small end. Hence, how about TE015, TE017,... Obviously a prime factor can be effective: TE01-23? TE03-13? Possible?

Those thoughts are based on the gravity warping hypothesis.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2016 05:59 am by Eusa »

Offline Tellmeagain

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 252
  • maryland
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 34
My next build is in progress.

The flat & spherical end plate frustum is being manufactured to very high physical tolerance and polish standard as recommended by Roger Shawyer. It is being machined from a solid block of copper, highly polished, then silver and gold plated. Min sidewall and end plate thickness are 6mm. The frustum can be fitted with either flat or spherical end plates and can operate internally at high vac or be filled with various gases at adjustable pressure as the end plate to flange interface will form a high pressure & high vac rated seal. This frustum will basically look like a bigger Flight Thruster. Not cheap, expected final cost around $7k. I will visit the manufacturer to run tests before acceptance.

The 0.4N/kW rated S band thruster will be driven initially by a wide freq range 100W Rf amp that has the ability to control Rf output power over a 31dB range and provides real time forward & reflected power output. Work is also ongoing to develop an integral smart 250Wrf module that can be installed in multiples on the thruster, if higher than 100mN of reaction force generation is required. Max thruster power should be around 2.5kWrf or 1,000mN of reaction force generation.

Both static and dynamic reaction force generation will be monitored.

When a reaction force generation level of at least 20mN has been achieved and expected rotation of the rotary test table in a high vac has been achieved the data and video will be presented via YouTube.

Following that successful result, a business entity will be formed and potential customers will be invited to view, inspect & do their own tests on our in house test setup as part of their order process.

My next post here will be with the YouTube link and company contact details.

Please provide some high resolution photos of your test settings along with the YouTube link so we can evaluate your experiment.

Offline spupeng7


It is to her credit that Yang has disclosed these new experiments.     The 20 experimental results shown in the graph don't look to me like convincing argument for any force.   I don't see a need for fitting a curve to these data.    If all 20 force measurements are averaged the result is -74 microNewtons.   If the outliers are thrown out first (any force measurement greater than .4 mN or less than -.4 mN) the average becomes -30 microNewtons.   While these calculations are just estimates themselves they do show a trend approaching zero.

Yes I admit you were right Zen-In from the begining of this thing. That makes a fool of me to believe in such device and advance of the humanity. Guess I need to chill for a while.

So much hope destroyed.. lets keep to exploding engines.. Just hope it will not cost us of too much lives of astronauts

I think we are a long way from replacing rockets to escape Earth's gravity well and anyone who claimed the em-drive would do that was unrealistic.

Zen-in,

the thrust levels which we do appear to be achieving, multiplied by the attainable increase in Q, could be very handy indeed, non?  JMN..

While Q multiplication does work with ruby/yag lasers I have doubts a high Q (Q > 5000)  is attainable in a fustrum or that any increase in Q will produce more thrust.   There is a basic contradiction there.   A very high Q means almost no power during each wave of the RF is leaving the fustrum.   So it is another case of free energy.   Historically experimenters who have quoted a high Q for their fustrum used a questionable method of calculation or used a simulation program.  Yang has retracted her earlier Q value.  There has been a lot of discussion on this subject in this forum and unless I am mistaken the high values of Q some DIY experimenters have reported were derived from a simulation program.    Both methods produce a non-realistic value.   There is a physical definition of Q.  When Q is measured correctly these unrealistic high values are not seen.


       It is my understanding that high quality linear accelerators can achieve Q exceeding 10^9. Is there any reason why that cannot be done for an emdrive? Providing someone is willing to pay for it ...

Optimism equals opportunity.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14166
  • UK
  • Liked: 4052
  • Likes Given: 220
I see my last post in here has now been deleted, so this comment is going to seem rather out of context. The point that post was trying to make is that nothing in physics is set in stone or immune from challenge even the standard model which I felt was relevant to this thread but obviously somebody disagreed.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2016 08:01 am by Star One »

Offline RotoSequence

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2208
  • Liked: 2068
  • Likes Given: 1535
My next build is in progress.

What were the results with your previous build?
« Last Edit: 05/04/2016 08:57 am by RotoSequence »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5568
My next build is in progress.

What were the results with your previous build?
Being interested only in the possible spaceflight applications of such a device:
QUESTIONS related to these posts ending with future promotion of business entity, order process and "company contact details."

....Following that successful result, a business entity will be formed and potential customers will be invited to view, inspect & do their own tests on our in house test setup as part of their order process.
My next post here will be with the YouTube link and company contact details.

Last time he was posting here:

1) he was arguing that Shawyer's superconducting EM Drives did not have any side walls.

Has this been recanted or is this still being argued?

2) he was claiming that he was going to next perform and report on experiments that were going to prove Shawyer correct on his contested assertions regarding the magnitude and direction of the forces present at the end plates of the EM Drive.

Has there been a report on these experiments?  Or have these experiments been abandoned?

3) are any of his tests going to be performed using a battery-powered torsional pendulum as in Yang's latest tests nullifying her previous tests using other instruments? and as in Brito, Marini and Galian's tests that nullified the decades old work on propellant-less electromagnetic propulsion by Brito using other instruments?

4) is his rotary test rig going to be battery powered?  (Hackaday's Aachen tiny EM Drive is battery powered)
(Cannae's torsional pendulum is battery powered)

As spacecrafts cannot have a power cord from the Earth supplying power to the spacecraft in space, and previous tests by Yang and Shawyer using power cords from stationary power sources have been scientifically falsified by the peer-reviewed publication of Yang, and by the peer-reviewed article in the Journal of Propulsion and Power, AIAA of Marini and Galian.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2016 01:19 pm by Rodal »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2207
  • Liked: 2715
  • Likes Given: 1134
I see my last post in here has now been deleted, so this comment is going to seem rather out of context. The point that post was trying to make is that nothing in physics is set in stone or immune from challenge even the standard model which I felt was relevant to this thread but obviously somebody disagreed.
Your last post was removed by NSF staff based on someone's complaint it was off-topic. Myself, the new particle possibilities does lend itself to possible emdrive applications. However, this is very speculative and the tests were at multiple GeV, far above anything we are dealing with.

Different moderators may look at things differently, but NSF staff takes precedence as they are our honorable benefactors and we must give them the respect they deserve for permitting our humble threads to continue.

Most of my time these past few days are taken up by the build and have not always been around to address issues. Glad they can help me from time to time.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14166
  • UK
  • Liked: 4052
  • Likes Given: 220
I see my last post in here has now been deleted, so this comment is going to seem rather out of context. The point that post was trying to make is that nothing in physics is set in stone or immune from challenge even the standard model which I felt was relevant to this thread but obviously somebody disagreed.
Your last post was removed by NSF staff based on someone's complaint it was off-topic. Myself, the new particle possibilities does lend itself to possible emdrive applications. However, this is very speculative and the tests were at multiple GeV, far above anything we are dealing with.

Different moderators may look at things differently, but NSF staff takes precedence as they are our honorable benefactors and we must give them the respect they deserve for permitting our humble threads to continue.

Most of my time these past few days are taken up by the build and have not always been around to address issues. Glad they can help me from time to time.

I can't help wondering if this hair trigger reporting  isn't a contributory factor to the reduction in posting in this thread that I have noticed of late, but then who am I to say. I concede my initial wording was a touch limited but I never had a chance to expand it.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2016 01:42 pm by Star One »

Offline JaimeZX

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 226
  • Virginia
  • Liked: 173
  • Likes Given: 339
My understanding is that as a result of the exchange, a useful conclusion was agreed to: that the addressed experiment cannot be compared to Yang's latest experimental report, including her uncertainty threshold of +/- 3 mN .
I don't disagree. My comment meant to imply "taken out of context, that's the most obscure possible..." ;)

Why publish any results in the first place if they show an unequivocal confirmation of significant thrust?   Their goal in that case would be to minimize disclosure.   And anyway the likelihood that Yangs' first results were valid has always been low.   No one has replicated those results and there is no generally accepted theory that explains this claimed effect.
I didn't say she DID falsify the second data, I just said it's plausible. I also acknowledged that her first results were outside the realm reported by others. ;)

My Conspiratorial scenario is that she published her first paper in good faith as an academic / scientist and it took the ChiCom machine a little while to spool up as to the possible implications. When the Machine figured it out, they directed her to chaff while appropriating the research for "national security" purposes.
Again. I'm not even accusing Yang of this. Just saying it's a plausible scenario:P
edit:... "plausible on the surface." My understanding of the math behind all this is limited enough that people like (cough cough Rodal cough) probably see right through my scenario. :)
« Last Edit: 05/04/2016 05:50 pm by rfmwguy »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5568
I see my last post in here has now been deleted, so this comment is going to seem rather out of context. The point that post was trying to make is that nothing in physics is set in stone or immune from challenge even the standard model which I felt was relevant to this thread but obviously somebody disagreed.
Your last post was removed by NSF staff based on someone's complaint it was off-topic. Myself, the new particle possibilities does lend itself to possible emdrive applications. However, this is very speculative and the tests were at multiple GeV, far above anything we are dealing with.

Different moderators may look at things differently, but NSF staff takes precedence as they are our honorable benefactors and we must give them the respect they deserve for permitting our humble threads to continue.

Most of my time these past few days are taken up by the build and have not always been around to address issues. Glad they can help me from time to time.

I can't help wondering if this hair trigger reporting  isn't a contributory factor to the reduction in posting in this thread that I have noticed of late, but then who am I to say. I concede my initial wording was a touch limited but I never had a chance to expand it.
OK let's try to work constructively on this:

As Dave correctly states, the new particle that may have been found (is that what your post was about?) if real and not an experimental artifact appears at 750 Giga Electron Volts.

Mass-energy of a W boson (80.4 GeV)
Mass-energy of a Z boson (91.2 GeV)
Mass-energy of the Higgs Boson (125.1 GeV)


Perhaps somebody more knowledgeable about this than me (Notsosureofit can you help us in this regards) can point out how can that relate to the EM Drive at microwave frequencies.

We had some interesting discussions in the past regarding Axions and the EM Drive.  However this new particle seems to be supermassive. Is there anyway that this could have an effect in the microwave frequency spectrum at ~1 kW?

There’s a long list of possible things it could be beyond what we already know the universe contains,” says Jim Olsen, a Princeton University physicist who presented the CMS results.

If not, the suggestion is to move this admittedly very interesting discussion to a new thread on massive new particle may have been found at CERN...

Personally how this is being treated by the physics community (they are checking and re-checking) is a shining example of how physics is conducted.   Ken Bloom of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, a member of the CMS team said: “My own personal guess is that it’s most likely a fluctuation. We see relatively low-significance things like this all the time.”
« Last Edit: 05/04/2016 02:34 pm by Rodal »

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1730
  • United States
  • Liked: 4392
  • Likes Given: 1407
As Dave correctly states, the new particle that may have been found (is that what your post was about?) if real and not an experimental artifact appears at 750 Giga Electron Volts.

Mass-energy of a W boson (80.4 GeV)
Mass-energy of a Z boson (91.2 GeV)
Mass-energy of the Higgs Boson (125.1 GeV)


Mass-energy of a 2.45Ghz Microwave photon (1.0132-5 eV)

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0