Quote from: Notsosureofit on 10/22/2014 07:59 pmA much higher frequency......My impression is that the discrepancy...
A much higher frequency...
Another device of equivalent preagmatic utility.
Quote from: Rodal on 10/22/2014 07:56 pmQuote from: aero's doppelganger on 10/22/2014 07:52 pmI ... estimate ... the Flight thruster dimensions ...w-small = 1"w-big = 2"height = 3"...I am dizzy with all the tests that Shawyer has conducted and with the different names he gives the tested device. ... This is circumstantial and corroborating evidence supporting the conjecture regarding the intentional reluctance of the experimentors to freely share their data.The reluctance is certainly understandable, for at least three reasons, none of which can be discussed except on an informal basis among disinterested professional friends:1. A surfeit of professional pride in understanding the obscure physics, combined with the typical disregard paid by professionals to amateur website contributors.B. A pragmatic need to share without sharing, knowing full well the economic benefits of a vastly superior propulsive method.iii. A stubborn refusal to realize that nothing is being seen.Vee. Other reasons, such as keeping the rabble occupied with measuring Faztek thingies, so as to keep them off the streets protesting the forty year lack of accomplishment at NASA at doing what was promised back then; a peaceful future realizing mankind's destiny in the universe at large.As I mentioned at:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1274449#msg1274449I note that we are spending a lotta time arguing about these dimensions. The good Doctor asked, rather politely, a hundred or more pages ago, but got only partial dimensional answers. Since then Paul March decided to go mum. Easily answered questions go without answer, which reflects on those who experiment, not on those who try to understand.I'd like to thank the EagleWorks team for their help and cooperation. (They should probably set up shop in Awizona; 'twould help their worldview.)On the plus side, thanks to decent forum moderation, we no longer have to hear from those who disparage everybody's credentials.
Quote from: aero's doppelganger on 10/22/2014 07:52 pmI ... estimate ... the Flight thruster dimensions ...w-small = 1"w-big = 2"height = 3"...I am dizzy with all the tests that Shawyer has conducted and with the different names he gives the tested device. ...
I ... estimate ... the Flight thruster dimensions ...w-small = 1"w-big = 2"height = 3"...
Does this mean we have collectively gotten to the point that there is not enough information available to make any conclusions?
The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 10/23/2014 12:57 pmQuote from: Rodal on 10/22/2014 07:56 pmQuote from: aero's doppelganger on 10/22/2014 07:52 pmI ... estimate ... the Flight thruster dimensions ...w-small = 1"w-big = 2"height = 3"...I am dizzy with all the tests that Shawyer has conducted and with the different names he gives the tested device. ... Does this mean we have collectively gotten to the point that there is not enough information available to make any conclusions?Yes, unequivocally.Tried have you, young Paduan. Now, looook harder must you, if to find a new force you seek.I've been following that work since '09, and the reported effects continue to verge on noise, lack repeatability, are not supported by a fuller disclosure, and are largely ignored by paid and tenured faculty. Each successive experiment claims a subtly different operating principle; still, the trendline for results is flat at best, and not pragmatically applicable at worst.If you, Frob, Mull, NotSo, Zen, and who all else, believe that there is a line of inquiry which would support a theory of pushing against, for want of a better term, the ether, then maybe it's time for a new thread, laying out the hardware and protocol for a new experiment.I offer to buy the five of you a Scotch, served by my mixologist, natch, the day after the device is truthfully floated across the conference room table.Edit: Uhhhh.... the six of you. How could I have forgotten the good doctor?
Quote from: Rodal on 10/22/2014 07:56 pmQuote from: aero's doppelganger on 10/22/2014 07:52 pmI ... estimate ... the Flight thruster dimensions ...w-small = 1"w-big = 2"height = 3"...I am dizzy with all the tests that Shawyer has conducted and with the different names he gives the tested device. ... Does this mean we have collectively gotten to the point that there is not enough information available to make any conclusions?
Quote from: birchoff on 10/23/2014 01:43 pmDoes this mean we have collectively gotten to the point that there is not enough information available to make any conclusions?No:QuoteThe reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.Collective interested in finding out the reason for EMDrive's measured thrust
Quote from: Rodal on 10/23/2014 01:55 pmQuote from: birchoff on 10/23/2014 01:43 pmDoes this mean we have collectively gotten to the point that there is not enough information available to make any conclusions?No:QuoteThe reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.Collective interested in finding out the reason for EMDrive's measured thrustDisagree. Time to create theory, not attempt to understand that which is being kept under wraps.
In the realm of ideas everything depends on enthusiasm... in the real world all rests on perseverance.Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Quote from: Notsosureofit on 10/22/2014 07:59 pmA much higher frequency might indicate flex in the arm itself.Prima facie evidence that not all that much is happening.
A much higher frequency might indicate flex in the arm itself.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 10/23/2014 12:59 pmQuote from: Notsosureofit on 10/22/2014 07:59 pmA much higher frequency might indicate flex in the arm itself.Prima facie evidence that not all that much is happening.Could you repeat that? Concerning NotSoSureOfIt question regarding March perhaps not quoting the lowest mechanical natural torsional frequency of the inverted pendulum, why would that be "Prima facie evidence that not all that much is happening" ? Why would arm-bending-motion of 1.5"by1.5" Aluminum beams be evidence of "not all that much happening"?. ...
Of course the original comment was to address the time delay.
Prima facie evidence that not all that much is happening.
Quote from: Notsosureofit on 10/23/2014 04:18 pmThere are microneutons of force moving lbs of mass against an unknown damped spring constant to equilibrate after an unknown distance in an unknown time.I attach the time response I computed for the nonlinear coupled equations of motion for the torsional inverted pendulum using Mathematica, and the known parameters. I obtained the nonlinear coupled equations of motion computing the Lagrangian also using Mathematica.As it is evident from the graph the 2 sec time delay comes straight from the dynamics of the torsional inverted pendulum. The 2 sec time delay is certainly not a thermal effect, it is fully explained by classical inertia response. Any mechanical system of the form m d2xdt2 + c dx/dt + k x = F(t) has a time-dependent response.I have published articles in peer-reviewed journals as the Journal of Applied Mechanics concerning calculation of much more complicated response than this. See for example: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/article.aspx?articleid=1407189A simple calculation of the Fourier dimensionless time based on the known heat capacity, density and thermal conductivity for the materials involved, as well as characteristic dimensions, readily shows that this 2 sec time delay cannot be due to thermal effects, as also remarked by Paul March (using other words) early on in this thread.
There are microneutons of force moving lbs of mass against an unknown damped spring constant to equilibrate after an unknown distance in an unknown time.
...No doubt there is an inertial component to the thrust step response. However its presence doesn't negate a thermal signature in the thrust step response. The graphs we have seen do not rule that out. If an exponential step response, due to a thermal effect, was convolved with the step response you derived it would show the exponential shape of Shawyer's and the JSC thrust plots. It also doesn't explain why the thrust continues after the RF is turned off. The plots record thrust, not velocity. Inertia of the balance system and apparatus can explain continued velocity but not a continued force after the RF is switched off. The continued force seen in both Shawyer's and the JSC graphs indicate stored energy that is being released after the RF is switched off.
All these time delays cannot be juxtaposed together into one big messy ball to ... conclude this as "Prima facie evidence that nothing is happening."
...throwing the baby with the bathwater...