-
#2900
by
Mulletron
on 03 Nov, 2014 18:54
-
I'm only writing this for those who may appreciate a clarification on Donaire's formulation ( http://qvg2013.sciencesconf.org/conference/qvg2013/program/Donaire_qvg2013.pdf ).
Donaire explcitly requires a helical (chiral) anisotropic third order tensor (epsilon ijk) as shown in this attachment:
gamma is an antisymmetric T-P odd tensor resulting from the anisotropic product of epsilon ijk with the magnetic field B
(The word helical of course has multiple connotations, and this clarification only refers to how Donaire uses it)
helical:
The Oracle (gif above) points you in the right direction, but doesn't light the way........As I stated. Helicity and chirality are not the same thing. Please take the time to research it. As I have.
-
#2901
by
Ron Stahl
on 03 Nov, 2014 18:57
-
I wasn't even responding to you. Do you have these suspicions often about people talking about you behind your back? 
Um no, we've been here before. You refute every idea that isn't Woodward's. Then plug his book.
I am most familiar with Woodward's work because I dispensed with all the competition almost 10 years ago for good reasons. When someone makes a claim about Woodward or anyone else's work that I know is false, I simply post about it. It was in the context of the discussion. And I did not plug his book.
BTW, have you read it?
-
#2902
by
RotoSequence
on 03 Nov, 2014 19:06
-
I wasn't even responding to you. Do you have these suspicions often about people talking about you behind your back?
Um no, we've been here before. You refute every idea that isn't Woodward's. Then plug his book.
I am most familiar with Woodward's work because I dispensed with all the competition almost 10 years ago for good reasons. When someone makes a claim about Woodward or anyone else's work that I know is false, I simply post about it. It was in the context of the discussion. And I did not plug his book.
BTW, have you read it?
Why haven't you dispensed with Woodward's?
-
#2903
by
Notsosureofit
on 03 Nov, 2014 19:12
-
I'm only writing this for those who may appreciate a clarification on Donaire's formulation ( http://qvg2013.sciencesconf.org/conference/qvg2013/program/Donaire_qvg2013.pdf ).
Donaire explcitly requires a helical (chiral) anisotropic third order tensor (epsilon ijk) as shown in this attachment:
gamma is an antisymmetric T-P odd tensor resulting from the product of (helically anisotropic) epsilon ijk with the magnetic field B
(The word helical of course has multiple connotations, and this clarification only refers to how Donaire uses it)
helical:
Now, my understanding is the following: if a polymer material has chiral molecule chains, if the chains are like a "spaghetti" in random directions as usual isotropic polymers are (for example as a result of injection molding) , the chiral effect will be nullified by the random orientation of the polymer chain spaghetti.
For the Donaire effect to be mutually self-reinforcing and not self-cancelling, one needs the overall material to have a helical anisotropy.
Nice!
Spectral non-reciprocity is needed: Yes, that is the condition you will get from the "coffee can" resonator in an AFR.
From what I can gather reading the rest and trying to apply it to the cavity, it should be treated as a single quantum "oscillator" w/ the conduction electron bands providing the Doppler shift required.
Spectral non-reciprocity is as far as I've gotten on a GR basis.
-
#2904
by
RotoSequence
on 03 Nov, 2014 19:17
-
-
#2905
by
Mulletron
on 03 Nov, 2014 19:28
-
Moderators. Our discussions get intense at times, yet we remain respectful. Please bear with us. We're making progress. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In the end, all of us here are after the same thing. A way forward.....to advance knowledge, thus humanity if anything comes of this. The only way forward is the truth. We each have our own ideas of what the truth is. The real truth is somewhere in the middle, past egos and pet ideas, somewhere in there is the way forward.
-
#2906
by
Mulletron
on 03 Nov, 2014 19:30
-
I'm only writing this for those who may appreciate a clarification on Donaire's formulation ( http://qvg2013.sciencesconf.org/conference/qvg2013/program/Donaire_qvg2013.pdf ).
Donaire explcitly requires a helical (chiral) anisotropic third order tensor (epsilon ijk) as shown in this attachment:
gamma is an antisymmetric T-P odd tensor resulting from the product of (helically anisotropic) epsilon ijk with the magnetic field B
(The word helical of course has multiple connotations, and this clarification only refers to how Donaire uses it)
helical:
Now, my understanding is the following: if a polymer material has chiral molecule chains, if the chains are like a "spaghetti" in random directions as usual isotropic polymers are (for example as a result of injection molding) , the chiral effect will be nullified by the random orientation of the polymer chain spaghetti.
For the Donaire effect to be mutually self-reinforcing and not self-cancelling, one needs the overall material to have a helical anisotropy.
Nice!
Spectral non-reciprocity is needed: Yes, that is the condition you will get from the "coffee can" resonator in an AFR.
From what I can gather reading the rest and trying to apply it to the cavity, it should be treated as a single quantum "oscillator" w/ the conduction electron bands providing the Doppler shift required.
Spectral non-reciprocity is as far as I've gotten on a GR basis.
Can you break down what your interpretation of non-reciprocity means. Sounds like broken symmetry to me but I wasn't sure. I didn't quite get what they were meaning by that. Also what is an AFR? There is a lot in that presentation that I didn't quite understand.
-
#2907
by
Notsosureofit
on 03 Nov, 2014 19:36
-
I'm only writing this for those who may appreciate a clarification on Donaire's formulation ( http://qvg2013.sciencesconf.org/conference/qvg2013/program/Donaire_qvg2013.pdf ).
Donaire explcitly requires a helical (chiral) anisotropic third order tensor (epsilon ijk) as shown in this attachment:
gamma is an antisymmetric T-P odd tensor resulting from the product of (helically anisotropic) epsilon ijk with the magnetic field B
(The word helical of course has multiple connotations, and this clarification only refers to how Donaire uses it)
helical:
Now, my understanding is the following: if a polymer material has chiral molecule chains, if the chains are like a "spaghetti" in random directions as usual isotropic polymers are (for example as a result of injection molding) , the chiral effect will be nullified by the random orientation of the polymer chain spaghetti.
For the Donaire effect to be mutually self-reinforcing and not self-cancelling, one needs the overall material to have a helical anisotropy.
Nice!
Spectral non-reciprocity is needed: Yes, that is the condition you will get from the "coffee can" resonator in an AFR.
From what I can gather reading the rest and trying to apply it to the cavity, it should be treated as a single quantum "oscillator" w/ the conduction electron bands providing the Doppler shift required.
Spectral non-reciprocity is as far as I've gotten on a GR basis.
Can you break down what your interpretation of non-reciprocity means. Sounds like broken symmetry to me but I wasn't sure. I didn't quite get what they were meaning by that. Also what is an AFR? There is a lot in that presentation that I didn't quite understand.
no momentum transfer w/o a frequency change
Accelerating frame of reference
-
#2908
by
IslandPlaya
on 03 Nov, 2014 19:37
-
With respect guys.
Like my pc this thread needs to restart now
-
#2909
by
Mulletron
on 03 Nov, 2014 19:39
-
I wasn't even responding to you. Do you have these suspicions often about people talking about you behind your back?
Um no, we've been here before. You refute every idea that isn't Woodward's. Then plug his book.
I am most familiar with Woodward's work because I dispensed with all the competition almost 10 years ago for good reasons. When someone makes a claim about Woodward or anyone else's work that I know is false, I simply post about it. It was in the context of the discussion. And I did not plug his book.
BTW, have you read it?
Woodward's work is very closely related with EMdrive (those with dielectrics inserted). The theory presented by the original inventors describing the effects diverge. They are cousins. The same kind of relation as with jet engines and rockets. Similar but not the same.
-
#2910
by
Mulletron
on 03 Nov, 2014 19:44
-
-
#2911
by
IslandPlaya
on 03 Nov, 2014 19:46
-
Wow! New thread needed...
-
#2912
by
Mulletron
on 03 Nov, 2014 19:59
-
I'm only writing this for those who may appreciate a clarification on Donaire's formulation ( http://qvg2013.sciencesconf.org/conference/qvg2013/program/Donaire_qvg2013.pdf ).
Donaire explcitly requires a helical (chiral) anisotropic third order tensor (epsilon ijk) as shown in this attachment:
gamma is an antisymmetric T-P odd tensor resulting from the product of (helically anisotropic) epsilon ijk with the magnetic field B
(The word helical of course has multiple connotations, and this clarification only refers to how Donaire uses it)
helical:
Now, my understanding is the following: if a polymer material has chiral molecule chains, if the chains are like a "spaghetti" in random directions as usual isotropic polymers are (for example as a result of injection molding) , the chiral effect will be nullified by the random orientation of the polymer chain spaghetti.
For the Donaire effect to be mutually self-reinforcing and not self-cancelling, one needs the overall material to have a helical anisotropy.
Nice!
Spectral non-reciprocity is needed: Yes, that is the condition you will get from the "coffee can" resonator in an AFR.
From what I can gather reading the rest and trying to apply it to the cavity, it should be treated as a single quantum "oscillator" w/ the conduction electron bands providing the Doppler shift required.
Spectral non-reciprocity is as far as I've gotten on a GR basis.
Can you break down what your interpretation of non-reciprocity means. Sounds like broken symmetry to me but I wasn't sure. I didn't quite get what they were meaning by that. Also what is an AFR? There is a lot in that presentation that I didn't quite understand.
no momentum transfer w/o a frequency change
Accelerating frame of reference
Want to throw any more details at that? I need help. I am not a smart man......(from Dumb and Dumber and Forrest Gump). My knowledge of the term reciprocity is, "If you obey my rules, I'll obey your rules."
-
#2913
by
aero
on 03 Nov, 2014 20:01
-
-
#2914
by
aero
on 03 Nov, 2014 20:19
-
You know, that looks an awfully lot like orbital angular momentum.
That long URL is breaking the formatting.
Please replace with this short URL
http://goo.gl/WCzDMw
for the same item
Thanks
Like that?
-
#2915
by
Rodal
on 03 Nov, 2014 21:12
-
I'm only writing this for those who may appreciate a clarification on Donaire's formulation ( http://qvg2013.sciencesconf.org/conference/qvg2013/program/Donaire_qvg2013.pdf ).
Donaire explcitly requires a helical (chiral) anisotropic third order tensor (epsilon ijk) as shown in this attachment:
gamma is an antisymmetric T-P odd tensor resulting from the product of (helically anisotropic) epsilon ijk with the magnetic field B
(The word helical of course has multiple connotations, and this clarification only refers to how Donaire uses it)
helical:
Now, my understanding is the following: if a polymer material has chiral molecule chains, if the chains are like a "spaghetti" in random directions as usual isotropic polymers are (for example as a result of injection molding) , the chiral effect will be nullified by the random orientation of the polymer chain spaghetti.
For the Donaire effect to be mutually self-reinforcing and not self-cancelling, one needs the overall material to have a helical anisotropy.
Yes a polarized lens is a good
analogy for illustration of a commonly known effect [although like every analogy never a substitute for the real thing] why the material
needs to be polarized throughout to be effective. A polarized material is anisotropic: it has different properties along different material axes. It has the long-chain molecules aligned in the same direction (perpendicular to the polarization axis). During manufacture the long-chain molecules are stretched to align them in a particular direction, this direction is perpendicular to the polarization axis. The electromagnetic vibrations parallel to the alignment of the long-chain molecules are absorbed. Only EM vibrations perpendicular to the the alignment of the long-chain molecules pass through.
We all know we cannot use a copper metal as a Polaroid lens, neither can we use an isotropic sheet of Teflon or Polyethylene as a Polaroid lens. And not every polymer lens is a polarized lens: to achieve polarization one has to have a suitable material that can be polarized and then utilize a suitable means of manufacture that will achieve the polarization.
One needs to have the whole polymer lens oriented along the same axis to achieve polarization. Similarly with the proposed chirality of Donaire: the whole dielectric material would have to have chirality oriented in the same direction,and to achieve this, one has to use a suitable means of manufacture (not just injection molding into a mold). Using a material with chiral polymer chains that are (as usual in polymers) like a random spaghetti, would be like having a lens with the chains oriented in random orientations: it could not work as intended, and neither can the randomly oriented chiral material.
-
#2916
by
Rodal
on 03 Nov, 2014 23:16
-
Next batch of scraped data from figure 19 page 15 of "anomalous thrust..." from Brady et al. The top (result1.txt) and middle (result2.txt) graphs are scraped.
Same caveats as previously posted. For first curve (top figure 19) I removed the (non existent) flat last sampled data of the previous version to avoid artefacts when analysing with filters.
Each line of those files is the value in µN at each .1 s interval (linearly interpolated from manual reconstruction). The vertical scale were roughly given by the calibration pulses at about 30µN (expect no more than 5% precision). Absolute values are arbitrary (because of the drifting baseline). Horizontal scale given by the indication of 196 s for the whole display graph window of the pictures.
Will proceed with other graphs when time permits. Will post attempts at original signal reconstruction : thrust(t) while what we see is only balance displacement(t). Since the balance is underdamped, a lot can hide behind those oscillations and drifts in position.
Frobnicated Top of Fig. 19 page 15 of anomalous (Mean and Linear Least Squares Fit)
Autocorrelation of Top of Fig. 19 page 15 (from FFT) on raw data detrended by Mean (Blue)
Autocorrelation of Top of Fig. 19 page 15 (from FFT) on raw data detrended by Linear LS (Red)
Power Spectral Density (from FFT) on raw data detrended by Linear LS (Red)
horizontal scale = frequency(Hz) * 0.1 * (DataLength/2) = frequency(hz)*94.6
Peaks Period (seconds)
3 1/(3/(94.6)) = 31.53 s Pulse period
5 1/(5/(94.6)) = 18.92 s
4*Pendulum Period7 1/(7/(94.6)) = 13.51 s
10 1/(10/(94.6)) = 9.46 s
2*Pendulum Period15 1/(15/(94.6)) = 6.31 s <---- This unidentified frequency appears strongly on both Top and Middle
18 1/(18/(94.6)) = 5.26 s
20 1/(20/(94.6)) = 4.73 s
Pendulum Period25 1/(25/(94.6)) = 3.78 s
41 1/(41/(94.6)) = 2.31 s
1/2 Pendulum Period
-
#2917
by
aero
on 03 Nov, 2014 23:35
-
I had the thought a long time ago that the measured thrust might have to do with photon angular momentum. That's why I knew where to find the paper I linked above.
It occurs to me now that this phenomenon might hint at an explanation of the difference in thrust between Brady a" and Brady b" which differ in measured force, but otherwise very little.
-
#2918
by
Rodal
on 03 Nov, 2014 23:53
-
Well Brady "A" and Brady "B" truncated cone results can be explained by drifting frequency away from amplitude due to the extremely small bandwidth associated with high Q and their lack of suitable equipment as proposed by R. Ludwick
-
#2919
by
aero
on 04 Nov, 2014 05:01
-
Well Brady "A" and Brady "B" truncated cone results can be explained by drifting frequency away from amplitude due to the extremely small bandwidth associated with high Q and their lack of suitable equipment as proposed by R. Ludwick
That means, then that the outlier Bradly b" relative to Bradly a" is explained by equipment limitations. That explains the relationship, one relative to the other but does not address the fundamental forces. Still, it does rule out drawing conclusions relying on that difference because there is no substantive information contained within that difference.
