Quote from: Notsosureofit on 10/04/2014 04:38 pmhttp://space.gotnewswire.com/news/particle-antiparticle-scientists-make-strange-discovery-capitalbergWow !The Majorana fermion may have been finally found, after 77 years !
http://space.gotnewswire.com/news/particle-antiparticle-scientists-make-strange-discovery-capitalberg
For there to be 2 TM211 modes that close means the dielectric is splitting the mode. I would guess the higher frequency is from the dielectric surface and the lower from the end wall (but including the dielectric) but the COMSOL diagram would appear to me to be of the higher frequency mode ?
Figure 22 on page 18 worries me. That upward slope over 30 seconds while the rf was on and a slow fade after rf was off says heat was the cause. 70uN thrust/60uN heat.
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/05/2014 01:43 pmFigure 22 on page 18 worries me. That upward slope over 30 seconds while the rf was on and a slow fade after rf was off says heat was the cause. 70uN thrust/60uN heat.Bingo!Yes, that's the coupling between the magnetic damping and the field from the power cable I have been writing about. Notice that the coupling is HUGE. By their own admission the "null" signal is 25% of the good signal !!!!!And they subtract the coupling "null" signal as if the problem would be linear. They do not take into account any nonlinearities. There is no finite element (No COMSOL) analysis of the magnetic coupling problem
Quote from: Rodal on 10/05/2014 01:55 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 10/05/2014 01:43 pmFigure 22 on page 18 worries me. That upward slope over 30 seconds while the rf was on and a slow fade after rf was off says heat was the cause. 70uN thrust/60uN heat.Bingo!Yes, that's the coupling between the magnetic damping and the field from the power cable I have been writing about. Notice that the coupling is HUGE. By their own admission the "null" signal is 25% of the good signal !!!!!And they subtract the coupling "null" signal as if the problem would be linear. They do not take into account any nonlinearities. There is no finite element (No COMSOL) analysis of the magnetic coupling problemYeah all the modes show some heat or something else too.
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/03/2014 10:45 pmGravity is a how not a why.QuoteTwo points for Gryffindor on that one.Still, isn't it a property of matter? If it should be a property, then the question is, how does it work. If not a property, then I don't know the question to ask.If we knew how gravity really worked, we'd all have hovercars. I just want my darn hovercar and hoverboard already. We have 1 year left!Quote from: Mulletron on 10/04/2014 01:56 amI marked up the Nasa paper with a line showing where to lop off the bell pillbox because it makes no difference.QuoteThen what's the function of the "pillbox" after all? It would seem that the very geometry of the apparatus is not conducive to maximizing the anomalous thrust.I think both the cannae and tapered cavity were derived by inventors who had no idea how it worked, just that it worked. The pillbox and the slots are evidence of that. It doesn't matter how it works to crank out a cool gizmo that does neat stuff that makes people like us write 100 page forums. It takes knowing why to optimize it and make it take us to the stars. Unless we brute force it with high power/energy/superconductors and have it work but work like s#@t.Quote from: Mulletron on 10/04/2014 02:46 amMaybe we'd be better off using sound instead of rf and use a sound room to create boundaries.QuoteI'd like you to expand on that idea a little bit. Sound is at least metaphysically fundamental on one level, and physically all around us on another. Plus, it can be used to levitate or manipulate objects in certain environments. One question I would ask, is, at what frequency does sound no longer exist? Both high end and low end.I picture sound just like any other particle/wave situation. It is much easier to work with too. Sound recently has been show to have particle behaviors. Phonons. Could there be a neat casimir effect too when in a sound proof room? Probably not, just thinking of impossible stuff.Quote from: Mulletron on 10/04/2014 11:53 amSilly question and may sound of topic but I assure you it is relevant. Are causality and information conjugate variable pairs?QuoteThere is some kind of connection between information and causality. This is my intuition. The obvious, extreme interpretation of that connection, from a pragmatic standpoint, should it be confirmed, would be teleportation.I agree. Seriously, and AND logic gate is a transducer from information to heat. And no I don't mean like how a computer heats up, that happens too but that isn't where I'm going. That is the most exciting thing I have ever read. It is backed up by conservation of information in black holes too!Quote from: Mulletron on 10/04/2014 12:24 pmThe internet isn't helping me much.This problem is related to a whole other nother obsession I had since I learned about "A new kind of Science" where I was trying to make sense of information and computation giving rise to the universe.QuoteFixed that for ya.The problem that I had with Wolfram's book is that he has to assume that there is a preexisting "matrix", and that there has to be sufficient time for his single celled spreadsheet (Or whatever it's called) to create a universe. It's a Godelian problem, I'd say. That was my takehome from the book. As an aside, a related problem, in my mind, would be the apparent irreducible complexity of the DNA molecule. One faction insists on the faith that random matter, immediately upon it's creation at the big bang, embarks on evolution, which can only and inevitably, in the one universe that we witness, results in DNA and intelligent life. This, despite there being no possible mechanism nor sufficient time to so evolve from randomness.Neat, wish I understood that. I really am very interested in genetics, but not the beauty of the double helix. I should be. Quote from: Mulletron on 10/04/2014 01:01 pm...why emdrive might have produced a small force really boils down the one fundamental problem, ... the problem being the origin of inertial mass.QuoteWhat I bin sayin'. Start with Sciama '53.I've been trying to break Sciama all day and I'm not smart enough.QuoteI'll keep an edit on this thing til we have it nailed down.Thank you. What I bin askin' for.
Gravity is a how not a why.
Two points for Gryffindor on that one.Still, isn't it a property of matter? If it should be a property, then the question is, how does it work. If not a property, then I don't know the question to ask.
I marked up the Nasa paper with a line showing where to lop off the bell pillbox because it makes no difference.
Then what's the function of the "pillbox" after all? It would seem that the very geometry of the apparatus is not conducive to maximizing the anomalous thrust.
Maybe we'd be better off using sound instead of rf and use a sound room to create boundaries.
I'd like you to expand on that idea a little bit. Sound is at least metaphysically fundamental on one level, and physically all around us on another. Plus, it can be used to levitate or manipulate objects in certain environments. One question I would ask, is, at what frequency does sound no longer exist? Both high end and low end.
Silly question and may sound of topic but I assure you it is relevant. Are causality and information conjugate variable pairs?
There is some kind of connection between information and causality. This is my intuition. The obvious, extreme interpretation of that connection, from a pragmatic standpoint, should it be confirmed, would be teleportation.
The internet isn't helping me much.This problem is related to a whole other nother obsession I had since I learned about "A new kind of Science" where I was trying to make sense of information and computation giving rise to the universe.
Fixed that for ya.The problem that I had with Wolfram's book is that he has to assume that there is a preexisting "matrix", and that there has to be sufficient time for his single celled spreadsheet (Or whatever it's called) to create a universe. It's a Godelian problem, I'd say. That was my takehome from the book. As an aside, a related problem, in my mind, would be the apparent irreducible complexity of the DNA molecule. One faction insists on the faith that random matter, immediately upon it's creation at the big bang, embarks on evolution, which can only and inevitably, in the one universe that we witness, results in DNA and intelligent life. This, despite there being no possible mechanism nor sufficient time to so evolve from randomness.
...why emdrive might have produced a small force really boils down the one fundamental problem, ... the problem being the origin of inertial mass.
What I bin sayin'. Start with Sciama '53.
I'll keep an edit on this thing til we have it nailed down.
At the radius of Earth's orbit: 1.4×10 −19 g/cm 3 that is 7.868x10^4 GeV/cm^3 = 78680 GeV/cm^3Quote from: frobnicat on 10/04/2014 11:42 pm....At about 1Gev/cm^3 (as seen on this seemingly optimistic paper, maybe more optimistic is possible) and .01m˛ csection and 250km/s dark flow velocity that is mflow=1e9*1.8e-36/1e-6 * 2.5e5 * 1e-2 = 4.5e-18 kg/s.With about 45*µN thrusters that yields Vej = F / mflow = 4.5e-5 / 4.5e-18 = 1e12m/s Pow = .5 mflow Vej˛ = = .5 * 4.5e-18 * 1e24 = 2.25 e6 = 2.25MW hence the 6 orders of magnitude boast (more like 5 actually with those numbers) when comparing to 20W power....So @frobnicat used 1Gev/cm^3 which is 78680 times less than this estimate !
....At about 1Gev/cm^3 (as seen on this seemingly optimistic paper, maybe more optimistic is possible) and .01m˛ csection and 250km/s dark flow velocity that is mflow=1e9*1.8e-36/1e-6 * 2.5e5 * 1e-2 = 4.5e-18 kg/s.With about 45*µN thrusters that yields Vej = F / mflow = 4.5e-5 / 4.5e-18 = 1e12m/s Pow = .5 mflow Vej˛ = = .5 * 4.5e-18 * 1e24 = 2.25 e6 = 2.25MW hence the 6 orders of magnitude boast (more like 5 actually with those numbers) when comparing to 20W power....
***there is also the question about the square cross section, previously posted by @aero ***
So now we are now much closer to the ballpark
Quote from: Notsosureofit on 10/05/2014 01:28 pmFor there to be 2 TM211 modes that close means the dielectric is splitting the mode. I would guess the higher frequency is from the dielectric surface and the lower from the end wall (but including the dielectric) but the COMSOL diagram would appear to me to be of the higher frequency mode ?The COMSOL plot is for the LOWER frequency mode (1932.6 MHz) (the mode that has the thrust force 2 times higher):COMSOL® field plot for 1932.6 MHz, TM211 also shown for reference - red is electric, blue is magnetic
Quote from: Rodal on 10/05/2014 01:34 pmQuote from: Notsosureofit on 10/05/2014 01:28 pmFor there to be 2 TM211 modes that close means the dielectric is splitting the mode. I would guess the higher frequency is from the dielectric surface and the lower from the end wall (but including the dielectric) but the COMSOL diagram would appear to me to be of the higher frequency mode ?The COMSOL plot is for the LOWER frequency mode (1932.6 MHz) (the mode that has the thrust force 2 times higher):COMSOL® field plot for 1932.6 MHz, TM211 also shown for reference - red is electric, blue is magneticSorry about that, I was thinking of Fig. 26, the next generation, where the field intensity is maximized at the dielectric surface.
Quote from: Rodal on 10/05/2014 01:34 pmQuote from: Notsosureofit on 10/05/2014 01:28 pmFor there to be 2 TM211 modes that close means the dielectric is splitting the mode. I would guess the higher frequency is from the dielectric surface and the lower from the end wall (but including the dielectric) but the COMSOL diagram would appear to me to be of the higher frequency mode ?The COMSOL plot is for the LOWER frequency mode (1932.6 MHz) (the mode that has the thrust force 2 times higher):COMSOL® field plot for 1932.6 MHz, TM211 also shown for reference - red is electric, blue is magneticSorry about that, I was thinking of Fig. 26, the next generation, where the field intensity is maximized at the dielectric surface. If the dielectric is a lot thicker in the tested cavity the intensity could maximize within the dielectric for the lower frequency mode. I wish they would have shown more diagrams, I don't have access to COMSOL.
Having said that, my Mathematica analysis of the coupled nonlinear differential equations of the inverted pendulum is showing that the NASA Eagleworks results may be due to real thrust.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 10/04/2014 02:43 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 10/03/2014 10:45 pmGravity is a how not a why.Two points for Gryffindor on that one....Hey: Did you just hit the "quote" button by accident? 'Cause there was not an actual response from you.
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/03/2014 10:45 pmGravity is a how not a why.Two points for Gryffindor on that one....
...I think this pretty much discards "naturally occurring DM background in a classical framework" hypothesis as an explanation to even the lower thrust/power positive results.
Yes, but it looks like there is something real exciting the system. The only argument I see now for an artifact would be that the magnetic damping is interacting with the power cable AND the dielectric effect. Because they measure no thrust without the dielectric. And because flipping the orientation of the dielectric flips the direction of the thrust. So if it is an artifact one would have to explain it as a result of the magnetic fields (from the damping and the power cable) interacting with the dielectric.
Quote from: Rodal on 10/05/2014 01:59 pmHaving said that, my Mathematica analysis of the coupled nonlinear differential equations of the inverted pendulum is showing that the NASA Eagleworks results may be due to real thrust.Why? If ya don't mind? In plain French, Spanish, or Italian. Your choice.