QuoteTime permitting I will try to find and read it. If I don't find it factual you owe me a bear.If it isn't enjoyable I'll owe you a beer, or a scotch or whatever, but not a bear. Bear's are expensive and ill-mannered.
Time permitting I will try to find and read it. If I don't find it factual you owe me a bear.
Quote from: frobnicat on 10/01/2014 11:07 pmQuoteThe experimental setup is not the trouble. Since they cannot do a real evaluation of theory, what they've asked for is more thrust, which is what Jim is working on. That makes no sensible sense to me. In this context this would be an application driven research ? So the trouble is the experimental setup. Why should they care about theories ? If the effect is hinting at being anything like it says it is, then pour the money and hire the third party experimentalists to do an all or nothing confirmation of any real effect at all. Even if all it takes is a mW thruster mounted on an atomic force microscope cantilever to get a few pN of thrust, just to see it's real. Then make phenomenological model. Then build better/bigger devices and see if it fits such or such ground breaking theory.Even if the fact to pursue a higher thrust might contribute to show this is not a real effect and therefore allow for a progress, my point is that putting the focus on that is not the best way to assert the reality of any effect at all.Again, the "this is impossible" hypothesis appears not well accommodated by the strategy.I think we're talking past each other because you're not familiar with what I've been relating, which is Woodward's work. I have little interest in the work at Eagle because I know the QVF hypothesis is wrong. The Eagle work interests me in as much as it may be stumbling across M-E evidence, but this would be by mistake. For example, it works only with a dielectric and during switching transients which bear enough in common with an AC signal they can produce decent thrust. But the DC signal doesn't do this.Keep in mind the contrast here. Woodward's scheme does not violate conservation. There's nothing "new" in his work, nor any contradictions with conventional science. In fact, while explaining his work, he very ably answered questions about the classical and semi-classical electron models we've had for decades, and as I said, he deserves a Nobel for this alone. I'm not suggesting you skip ahead, but chapter 7 is a nail-biter.In any event, I agree the "this is impossible" kinds of statements are unhelpful. And the statement that QVF violates conservation is not really true. That's a distraction fallacy intended to be later explained away as one becomes aware of what QVF is proposing. However what is not a distraction is that QVF violates Einstein's Equivalence Principle (EEP). In that scheme, the virtual proton/electron pairs cannot gravitate or they would have collapsed the universe, and yet they mediate momentum transfer. This means they have to have different values for their gravitational and inertial masses, which violates EEP and all of GR. QVF is therefore not true.Woodward's work has done the opposite of deny what we know about life the universe and everything. He has added to what we know by explaining how the surface of the electron can spin at 100c. This is an amazing accomplishment since before Woodward's work, that seemed like a violation of GR, and as it turns out, it is required by GR.As to your frustration in general, I feel your pain. I would just point out however, that frustration does not justify failure to do due diligence. As I explained earlier, the experimental setup does not lend itself to the kinds of simplification you're requiring. You therefore need to invest the time to look at how the setup actually works, rather than stipulate it ought to work how you'd like. The self-contained setup is NOT the best setup for the work Woodward has been doing to date. Along these same lines I'd note to you, that you justify the work of others who did not provide vacuum, and appear to presume Woodward did not provide vacuum. This is not true. All of the spurious sources one can imagine have been dealt with one by one on Woodward's balance, including thermal, ion, Dean Drive effects, displacement effect, etc. All of this is in the book.http://www.amazon.com/Making-Starships-Stargates-Interstellar-Exploration/dp/1461456223QuoteTime permitting I will try to find and read it. If I don't find it factual you owe me a bear.If it isn't enjoyable I'll owe you a beer, or a scotch or whatever, but not a bear. Bear's are expensive and ill-mannered.
QuoteThe experimental setup is not the trouble. Since they cannot do a real evaluation of theory, what they've asked for is more thrust, which is what Jim is working on. That makes no sensible sense to me. In this context this would be an application driven research ? So the trouble is the experimental setup. Why should they care about theories ? If the effect is hinting at being anything like it says it is, then pour the money and hire the third party experimentalists to do an all or nothing confirmation of any real effect at all. Even if all it takes is a mW thruster mounted on an atomic force microscope cantilever to get a few pN of thrust, just to see it's real. Then make phenomenological model. Then build better/bigger devices and see if it fits such or such ground breaking theory.Even if the fact to pursue a higher thrust might contribute to show this is not a real effect and therefore allow for a progress, my point is that putting the focus on that is not the best way to assert the reality of any effect at all.Again, the "this is impossible" hypothesis appears not well accommodated by the strategy.
The experimental setup is not the trouble. Since they cannot do a real evaluation of theory, what they've asked for is more thrust, which is what Jim is working on.
I think we should be mindful to separate the "how" from the "why" until the effect has been scaled up and proven/dis proven.
Yes, the basic issue is whether rest mass can change at the particle level and not just as a rearrangement of kinetic energy.
Quote from: wembley on 10/01/2014 03:24 pm...But I don't think he uses that approach any more:"The first thruster built by SPR Ltd and tested in 2003 also used a dielectric section, but to obtain our subsequent high thrust levels, we abandoned the dielectric and concentrated on our present cavity design."Where is the above quotation from? (I would appreciate a link for it so that I can further understand the context)Thanks for your response_________PS: I looked for it , but I could not find that statement in this 2006 report: http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf
...But I don't think he uses that approach any more:"The first thruster built by SPR Ltd and tested in 2003 also used a dielectric section, but to obtain our subsequent high thrust levels, we abandoned the dielectric and concentrated on our present cavity design."
...these few pages are not a complete derivation of the operating principles
When there are equations, I prefer to just go with equations -that's my personal viewpoint. If I am missing some new equation, I would appreciate it being pointed out. Thank you.
Quote from: Rodal on 10/01/2014 03:50 pmQuote from: wembley on 10/01/2014 03:24 pm...But I don't think he uses that approach any more:"The first thruster built by SPR Ltd and tested in 2003 also used a dielectric section, but to obtain our subsequent high thrust levels, we abandoned the dielectric and concentrated on our present cavity design."Where is the above quotation from? (I would appreciate a link for it so that I can further understand the context)Thanks for your response_________PS: I looked for it , but I could not find that statement in this 2006 report: http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdfThis was in an email from Dr Shawyer in response to the NASA paper. Have you tried contacting him?
He also concludes that they should have gravitational repulsion and could be used as a gravity shield.
Quote from: Rodal on 10/02/2014 07:44 pmHe also concludes that they should have gravitational repulsion and could be used as a gravity shield.This is a common mistake even physicists make very often. Although negative mass has negative gravitational action and is thus repelled by other matter, it also has negative inertial action so the direction of the former is reversed by the latter. So negative mass actually acts like normal mass, despite it's backward inertia.
How can we get instantaneous thrust if the action depends on a gravinertial field propagating at C.
Quote from: Ron Stahl on 10/02/2014 08:06 pmQuote from: Rodal on 10/02/2014 07:44 pmHe also concludes that they should have gravitational repulsion and could be used as a gravity shield.This is a common mistake even physicists make very often. Although negative mass has negative gravitational action and is thus repelled by other matter, it also has negative inertial action so the direction of the former is reversed by the latter. So negative mass actually acts like normal mass, despite it's backward inertia.This is a paper from a paper written by Sciama one year after he wrote the 1953 paper that Woodward uses as the foundation for his transient equations based on Machian inertia. Please reconsider your statement that Sciama made a mistake in 1954 in not properly considering Machian "inertial action" Sciama's negative energy particles in this paper are not due to or related to what Woodward considers negative energy due to the quadratic of the transient term.
Sciama mentions in his introduction accelerations in reference to the fixed stars. His ideas didn't enjoy the benefit of knowing the universe is expanding and accelerating.
This isn't relevant anymore.
negative inertial action reverses this otherwise backward action
Quote from: Ron Stahl on 10/02/2014 08:30 pmnegative inertial action reverses this otherwise backward actionIsn't that only true for the negative mass? Positive mass would still be repelled by it.