-
#3500 by Rodal on 02 Dec, 2014 22:55
-
OK, third time is the charm (same error only twice) on the proposition that dispersion caused by an accelerating frame of reference implied an accelerating frame of reference caused by a dispersive cavity resonator to 1st order using massless, perfectly conducting cavity. Quickie calculation to rotate waveguide into doppler frame for acceleration g.
g = (X[subm,n])^2*(c/4*pi^2)*lambda^2*((1/a^2)-(1/b^2))
where a anb b are the end plate radii and the X are the Bessel function zeros.
X[subm,n] = m-th root of dJ[subn](x)/dx = 0
[1,0]=3.83, [1,1]=1.84, [1,2]=3.05, [2,0]=7.02, [2,1]=5.33, [2,2]=8.54, [3,0]=10.17, etc.
Lambda < cutoff wavelength.
Lambda is the free space wavelength c/f.
giving thrust per photon:
T = (X[subm,n])^2*(h/4*pi^2)*lambda*((1/a^2)-(1/b^2))
If the number of photons is power * Q / hf then I should be able to try some numbers.
T = P*Q*(X[subm,n])^2*(1/c*4*pi^2)*lambda^2*((1/a^2)-(1/b^2))
TM211 T=9.84e-5 vs 9.12e-5 P=16.9 Q=7320
TM211 T=2.39e-4 vs 5.01e-5 P=16.7 Q=18100
TE012 T=1.32e-4 vs 5.54e-5 P=2.6 Q=22000
Close enough for gummint work ?
So if you have the dispersion relation for any cavity, can you now directly calculate Thrust (force ?) as GR ??
Edit: Does it also mean, as in the acoustic case, that you can optimize the cavity shape ?
-
#3501 by Mulletron on 03 Dec, 2014 04:34
-
The Dr. White QV thrust model got a down peer review.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.5359
As I've said. It is best to not try and push on the QV. Let me count the ways.
1. Violation of conservation of energy AND momentum.
2. A measly 7.7751e-6 eV / 1.2457e-24 Joules of energy of a photon at 1880mhz is puny compared to estimates of the vacuum energy density.
3. A photon interaction with virtual particles is the stuff of high energy lasers, not low power microwaves. As is virtual particle pair production.
4. A vacuum fluctuation particle pair is both created an annihilated before ever leaving the cavity. So no wake can ever be measured.
The QV is already pushing on you in all directions at once, netting to zero momentum gained.
Instead let it push on you, in a direction biased in the direction you want to go. You achieve this by providing asymmetric radiation pressure on the atoms inside the cavity. Those atoms are in turn, what is interacting with the QV.
I agree with the paper in most respects, yet I note that the author didn't take into account the asymmetric RF environment inside the cavity nor the squeezed vacuum state within the cavity. The author's approach was essentially modeling the Dr. White conjecture in open air.
Neat tools to make things easier:
http://www.1728.org/freqwave.htm
https://www2.chemistry.msu.edu/faculty/reusch/virttxtjml/cnvcalc.htm
Interesting article:
http://davidaroffman.com/custom3_11.html
Put on a helmet first:
http://www.iesc-proceedings.org/articles/iesc/pdf/2012/01/iesc_qed2012_02004.pdf -
#3502 by Mulletron on 03 Dec, 2014 04:39
-
OK, third time is the charm (same error only twice) on the proposition that dispersion caused by an accelerating frame of reference implied an accelerating frame of reference caused by a dispersive cavity resonator to 1st order using massless, perfectly conducting cavity. Quickie calculation to rotate waveguide into doppler frame for acceleration g.
QuoteQuoting Rodal.
1) What is the actual acceleration (formula used for acceleration and variables inside it) of the accelerating frame of reference under your consideration?
2) Defining thrust force of a rocket to be in the same direction as the motion of the rocket, what is the direction of the thrust force according to your EM drive formula? Is it directed towards the small end or towards the large end?
3) For your formula, does it make a difference whether the cavity's mode is TE (outer circumferentially electric with an inner axial magnetic field) or TM (outer circumferentially magnetic with an inner axial electric field) ?
4) So the proposition that an accelerating frame of reference caused by a dispersive cavity resonator gives you a net thrust (as long as the ends have different diameter) proportional to Q even though there are no photons escaping the cavity? What is the explanation for conservation of momentum? That one has to consider an open system because of the accelerating frame of reference?
Would you mind answering these questions presented earlier? Particularly question 4. Are you interacting with anything that is outside of the cavity? -
#3503 by Notsosureofit on 03 Dec, 2014 12:00
-
OK, third time is the charm (same error only twice) on the proposition that dispersion caused by an accelerating frame of reference implied an accelerating frame of reference caused by a dispersive cavity resonator to 1st order using massless, perfectly conducting cavity. Quickie calculation to rotate waveguide into doppler frame for acceleration g.
QuoteQuoting Rodal.
1) What is the actual acceleration (formula used for acceleration and variables inside it) of the accelerating frame of reference under your consideration?
2) Defining thrust force of a rocket to be in the same direction as the motion of the rocket, what is the direction of the thrust force according to your EM drive formula? Is it directed towards the small end or towards the large end?
3) For your formula, does it make a difference whether the cavity's mode is TE (outer circumferentially electric with an inner axial magnetic field) or TM (outer circumferentially magnetic with an inner axial electric field) ?
4) So the proposition that an accelerating frame of reference caused by a dispersive cavity resonator gives you a net thrust (as long as the ends have different diameter) proportional to Q even though there are no photons escaping the cavity? What is the explanation for conservation of momentum? That one has to consider an open system because of the accelerating frame of reference?
Would you mind answering these questions presented earlier? Particularly question 4. Are you interacting with anything that is outside of the cavity?
At the moment I'm just looking at the math relationship between a cavity dispersion relation and the "thrust" magnitude. I think interesting cases to look at are the hemisphere and the dumbell if I can find those curves. There is a 4-vector relationship but I don't want to speculate. If I get any great insight I'll let you know. -
#3504 by Rodal on 03 Dec, 2014 12:22
-
#3505 by Ron Stahl on 03 Dec, 2014 14:07
-
Not really peer review. arxiv is the peerless reviewless. But a useful place to find quick opines. You'll find lots of terrible nonsense on arxiv, but you'll also find all sorts of pre-peer review stuff and all the guys from the national labs use it. It also has a lot of crank stuff that would never make it into any peer review journal, so you need to be careful.
-
#3506 by Rodal on 03 Dec, 2014 14:33
-
Not really peer review. arxiv is the peerless reviewless. But a useful place to find quick opines. You'll find lots of terrible nonsense on arxiv, but you'll also find all sorts of pre-peer review stuff and all the guys from the national labs use it. It also has a lot of crank stuff that would never make it into any peer review journal, so you need to be careful.
I agree from a strict point of view concerning the strict definition of peer-review, but I think that Mulll meant that a peer (another scientist or engineer), reviewed Dr. White's proposal and debunked it, which is also a true statement. Anyone can publish in arxiv: the papers in arxiv are not reviewed by anyone. Recently they added a requirement which (if I recall correctly) is that to publish in arxiv one needs to get endorsements from just two authors that have already published a few papers at arxiv. Arxiv has a disclaimer that this is not peer-review of course, and just a way to reduce the huge number of submissions to arxiv. Meanwhile a lot of the authors that got to publish in arxiv during the past few years without any endorsements, can continue to publish whatever they want in arxiv without any peer review or any endorsements.
What is even more concerning is that arxiv also admits that authors in arxiv may NOT have a relationship to the institution they claim to be associated with, as apparently arxiv does not check whether the author claim of institution association is correct (the institution as well as the author's name, etc., are just fields entered by the submitter). The only thing checked by arxiv appears to be the e-mail of the submitter. So, apparently unsophisticated robots are not arxiv authors
.
On the other hand "peer review" is not what it used to be. It used to be that there were a few major journals and they had strict peer review and papers were turned down regularly. Then the number of journals grew explosively and authors simply just published in less well known and newer journals with less strict requirements.
What I really appreciated and I see less and less of is open (rather than blind) peer-review. It used to be that papers published in journals were criticized in public. Journals had a section where articles could be criticized and it was up to the author to answer the criticism. This practice was fairly common in the 1920's through 1950's. This uncovered a lot of errors and it was a great practice. It was very enjoyable to see arguments between major scientists (for example Einstein vs. Bohr).
A great example is when Pauli replied to Landau, "What you said was so confused that one could not tell whether it was nonsense or not."
Nowadays there are only a few journals that keep this practice.
So, when authors nowadays publish in journals that supposedly are "peer-reviewed" but the journal does not have a section where other authors can criticize the paper, it really does not mean that much. Particularly when authors publish physics papers that are not cited, that is: they are ignored by the general physics community.
Citation has become a very important metric.
-
#3507 by Ron Stahl on 03 Dec, 2014 14:55
-
Agreed. Too note that we've developed a tiered system to some degree which is not really in keeping with the spirit of the thing. If someone can write a paper that is to the standards of their peers, it should be reviewed. Instead, the standard was changed from that of the peers--usually those holding PhD's in their fields, which is the sheepskin that says you're qualified to do independent research--to the standards of any particular journal, which is moving the goal posts for snobbish and self-interested reasons. Journal editors have taken to priding themselves in what they turn away, rather than in the quality of their analysis. This is a serious problem. Snobbery is really destructive to what makes good science.
As bad as it gets though, there is nothing to replace the high level analysis that happens in peer review journals. -
#3508 by Mulletron on 04 Dec, 2014 01:05
-
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA426465
This is an Air Force study I found. The PDF is messed up a little. Just zoom out to find the pages. Chapter 4 sure sounds familiar.....Pages 58-63.
They went ahead and threw gravity, inertia and c in there. Wouldn't that be a neat little bundle if the QV were responsible for all that.
I never thought I would see this stuff echoed in an Air Force study.
Is the answer to life, the universe and everything actually 376.73031?
I'm enjoying the mathematical coincidence of 120pi.
-
#3509 by SpoCk0nd0pe on 04 Dec, 2014 01:50
-
Just a quick question because it can be kind of hard to find this:
Has there been any news on experimental followups to the summer paper that got so much attention? How long would you expect it to take?
Thanks in advance! -
#3510 by Mulletron on 04 Dec, 2014 03:22
-
No, sorry, the answer to life, the universe and everything is not 376.73031
Don't view this report as an Air Force internal study. Rather, it is an AFRL contract report. The author of the contract report apparently has also made controversial statements regarding UFOs (he is quoted as saying UFOs Are "Supremely Advanced Technology") according to the following links and YouTube video:
http://www.theufochronicles.com/2013/05/ufo-research-by-nasa-affiliated.html
http://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1ed8uo/dr_eric_w_davis_of_nasas_breakthrough_propulsion/
http://massufosightings.blogspot.com/2013/07/exopolitical-disclosure-dr-eric-w-davis.html
Seems he must be pretty legit if the AF put him on contract, and actually allowed it to be published. Regardless of his views on aliens....(nice try).
He was a key player in the original Nasa Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project.
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/AFRL/
More about the author:
http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.eric.w.davis
http://www.icarusinterstellar.org/team/eric-davis/
http://www.tauzero.aero/about/who/#TAU%20ZERO%20PRACTITIONERS
From the abstract:
"The study also reviewed and evaluated a select number of credible far-term breakthrough
propulsion physics concepts pertaining to R&D work done on or related to gravity/inertia modification, spacetime metric modification, and the extraction of energy from the space vacuum environment."
It seems we're entering an era of postmodern physics, where old dogmas which limit inquiry are melting away. So many important questions remain to be answered. We've been given concepts like gravity, inertia, and c, and told how they work to great detail; but never adequately told why... The same answers for all three, they are because they just are. That pervasive attitude serves to limit our progress forward. If this EMdrive proves to be successfully reproduced over and over again; those old dogmas are history
Finally guys like Puthoff, Haisch and Davis; those who dare to question everything and go against the grain, will get a voice.
Case in point. I've known for many years that the impedance of free space is 377ohms. The point of a feed horn is to match a waveguide to the impedance of free space. Yet I never questioned why it is 377ohms. It turns out the reason is because the "vacuum" isn't really a vacuum at all. It has a complex structure, and behaves as a dielectric, and is the actual reason why light travels at the speed it does. -
#3511 by Stormbringer on 04 Dec, 2014 03:22
-
wut?
-
#3512 by Mulletron on 04 Dec, 2014 03:58
-
Just a quick question because it can be kind of hard to find this:
Has there been any news on experimental followups to the summer paper that got so much attention? How long would you expect it to take?
Thanks in advance!
Welcome to the forum. No clue. We're all chomping at the bit for official word. -
#3513 by Ron Stahl on 04 Dec, 2014 14:27
-
Don't view this report as an Air Force internal study. Rather, it is an AFRL contract report. The author of the contract report apparently has also made controversial statements regarding UFOs (he is quoted as saying UFOs Are "Supremely Advanced Technology") according to the following links and YouTube video
In the interests of full disclosure let me preface my comments here by noting Eric is a friend of mine. Indeed yes, the study was commissioned through another contractor, Frank Mead (recently retired) who had been a staple at Wright Patterson AFRL for decades. This is not to say USAF didn't have an interest. They commissioned the study. They cannot of course endorse Eric's view of UFO's because USG has set policy in this regard and until that changes, any interest USAF has concerning things like teleportation (which was the real focus of the study and was redirected to wormhole physics) has to be pursued through contractors. And I'd just note to you, the smartest guys at AFRL, are definitely the much better paid contractors.
That all said, Eric is a committed ZPFer and we completely disagree concerning what is at the core of this high tech stuff. Eric works at Earthtech, which is Hal Puthoff's lab down in Austin. Hal is one of the three guys who started the ZPF fuss when they published on stochastic electrodynamics and the polarizable vacuum back in the 90's (I believe it was the 90's). Hal was also one of three scientists who originally working for NRO and later CIA, developed the US's psychic spy program that was later turned over to CIA and became the "Stargate" program. One of the three guys who developed the protocols for that, which is what made it work to some small degree but was not useful; is another friend of mine, Christopher "Kit" Green. Puthoff is as near a legendary physicist as one could hope to find. He does great work, but I personally think the ZPF stuff is wrong.
And FYI, nearly everyone in the intelligence community that has anything whatsoever to do with energy and propulsion physics, believes just as Eric Davis believes--that we really did recover something amazing at Roswell. And these guys don't believe this stuff because they're quixotic, or delusional or having hallucinations. They believe it based on fact. So be careful what you say about them. Painting them as whackos is really just a USG propaganda thing. I was not myself a believer in any sense, until Kit, who is a senior officer at CIA who manned the desk for ten years looking into this stuff; challenged me to use my critical thinking skills as a philosopher and look carefully at the evidence. I did that, and became a "believer" in UFO's too. I doubt anyone can look at the evidence objectively, and not come to the conviction that UFO's are indeed visiting spacecraft. And despite the official policy of the US armed forces, EVERYONE involved believes in UFO's. Everyone. Half the guys involved claim to have seen the craft, including Hal Puthoff. According to Kit though, no one really understands how they work, and that's because they're trying to apply ZPF theory to them when they ought to be applying M-E theory to them. They're AC propulsion systems, so it ought to be obvious this is M-E, not ZPF. -
#3514 by Ron Stahl on 04 Dec, 2014 14:53
-
But if that picture cannot be reproduced regularly, at different times, viewing angles, lighting conditions, and so forth, how could it be called remote viewing?
Answer: Analytical overlay. Without corect analysis, the data is useless.
The data is useless regardless. It's not the analysis that is the problem. It's that the images have no context. It does not help to have a remote viewer actually see a pair of planes flying into the twin towers ten years in advance, when there is no detail of when this will happen. And in fact, there is every reason to believe there is no way to change the future by acting on this kind of intel. The future is really out there. What is going to happen will happen or we could not view it. CIA declassified the program because although interesting, it was useless. Some of the participants seem to be earning decent livings helping police departments track down missing children and the like, but other than that, there is no value in remote viewing, apart from informing religion. This seems to be the same stuff the prophets of old did.QuoteAt 30:25 or so, the lecturer talks about Ed, the scambuster, sent by the CIA to vet the results of the experimentors. Turns out, part of the procedure was a previous list of various sites kept in envelopes in a safe. The sites were chosen at random from a previously made list. This is not random enough.
Random is not the point. The point is to make the study double blind. It is the protocols like this that make the study and practice so interesting. When you look at the PEAR lab results from Princeton, they're unconvincing because they were not nearly as careful with their protocols. The work Hal, Kit and Russel did is convincing because they were much more careful. Doesn't matter though. You can't change the future by acting on this kind of information because it has no context. Prophets and viewers all see as if looking at a mountain range. They can see the peeks but not the valleys, and they have no apprehension of the distance between one peek and the one seemingly just behind it. It could be a week away, a month, a year, a millennia. You can't act on information like this. -
#3515 by SpoCk0nd0pe on 04 Dec, 2014 15:22
-
Thanks!Just a quick question because it can be kind of hard to find this:
Has there been any news on experimental followups to the summer paper that got so much attention? How long would you expect it to take?
Thanks in advance!
Welcome to the forum. No clue. We're all chomping at the bit for official word.
I must say though, that I'm not too fond of the reactions the paper evoked. The test were meant to have a quick look at it, the paper clearly states that further throughout lab testing is needed. The quick look was positive but by no means proofed a new effect.
The hateful reaction (of theoretical physicists) is really counter productive. Often in modern science people try to defend the big, long, ongoing projects because their jobs depend on it. Not to say those projects do not create results but they often drain the funding for alternative approaches that may be much cheaper to look at while some times creating no results themselves. Besides, theoretical physicists have their own skeletons in their closets, e.g. with all the popular black hole talk they hide that there can practically be no event horizon because it would take forever to form (infinite gravitational time dilatation) from our observation standpoint.
On the other hand the ones overstating the results risk the cold fusion fiasco. If this doesn't work, it could cost some scientists who where merely willing to take a look their career. It would also strengthen people trying to put a boot on other people who just try stuff. Sometimes science is about trying new stuff, that shouldn't be forgotten.
Sorry for my bumpy English, eagerly waiting for new lab results on this! -
#3516 by momerathe on 04 Dec, 2014 16:42
-
The hateful reaction (of theoretical physicists) is really counter productive.
The problem is that, to paraphrase Nima Arkani-Hamed, it's really hard to come up with something that's not obviously wrong.
Regardless of whether it works or not, many of the explanations* that have been put forward, like Shawyer's original EM Drive paper, are just nonsense. And I'm not talking about whether they disagree with known physics, people are pretty relaxed about that, rather the authors don't even understand the physical theories that they're employing to base their claims on. That's what gets peoples' backs up.
* Woodward, having an internally consistent theory (though I wouldn't put any money on it), being an exception to this.QuoteOften in modern science people try to defend the big, long, ongoing projects because their jobs depend on it. Not to say those projects do not create results but they often drain the funding for alternative approaches that may be much cheaper to look at while some times creating no results themselves.
really? funding conspiracy? that's where you're going with this?QuoteBesides, theoretical physicists have their own skeletons in their closets, e.g. with all the popular black hole talk they hide that there can practically be no event horizon because it would take forever to form (infinite gravitational time dilatation) from our observation standpoint.
that's.. not how it works.
I mean; there are plenty of brickbats you could throw at theoretical physics with great justification (the unfalsifiability of string theory, for example), but you've picked a really bad one here. -
#3517 by SpoCk0nd0pe on 04 Dec, 2014 18:42
-
I really don't know enough about physics to comment on the theoretical part. As a matter of fact it doesn't really matter imho as this could just be a new effect. Even saying that it contradicts known theories and there is no theory that harmonizes the results with conversation of momentum is completely legitimate. But calling the findings bs because they are "impossible" is too far fetched imho. The findings have to be verified or falsified by further experiments, that's it.
I'm not into conspiracy theories, I'm not saying that funding is the main reason for the hate. But I'm saying that it can produce questionable politics in the science community that hinder the science.
About the black hole stuff: My physics stopped at 10th grade school (we did some basic concepts of relativity though) but still raised the question of gravitational time dilatation. Because I don't know more, I wrote to three physicists with the question and they all told me the same thing. -
#3518 by Mulletron on 04 Dec, 2014 19:23
-
Posting these videos of remote viewing and alien conspiracy junk are simply ad hominem attacks directed to discredit these individuals. The fact is, these men, were (and still are) key players in the advanced propulsion research community and worked in the industry. They contributed to the original original Nasa Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project. Their side projects or beliefs in other esoteric phenomena has no bearing on this subject. If they choose to stare at goats, fine, whatever. If they choose to come up with ideas based on eyewitness reports of strange craft doing strange things(Eric Davis video 37:20), so be it. Those little green men
have to obey the same laws of physics we do (tongue in cheek). So it is probably a good idea to throw a critical eye at those reports, and think about the physics that could be behind it. Just in case. The underlying science is there to support it. Yes I find it curious that, if you follow these gentlemen's stories down the rabbit hole, they are all in one way or another, connected to some really strange stuff.
-
#3519 by Ron Stahl on 04 Dec, 2014 19:40
-
The book is actually very good,
http://www.amazon.com/Frontiers-Propulsion-Progress-Astronautics-Aeronautics/dp/1563479567
but I would note that it is as most studies of its kind, completely dominated by the ZPF concept. Since Millis was first tasked to do the BPP study, all of advanced propulsion here in the US has been in the pocket of the ZPFers. This is for many reasons, but it is good to note that Woodward did have an opportunity to publish in this and chose not to. He didn't have the time, so he asked Paul March to write something for Davis and Millis, and Paul was too busy. Then Paul and Jim both asked me to write something and I did not feel I have the technical expertise required for that venue. So a tiny blurb was offered by Martin Tajmar which hardly does the subject justice.
From reading this book, you would suppose that ZPF is the whole hope, and M-E is a side bet, but in fact there has been vastly more M-E research done over the years than all the ZPF stuff combined, and it has been hugely successful by comparison. You don't get that from reading this book. The authors who published here, had the time to write these essays because they aren't busy every day in the lab, the way Woodward is.
.
Finally guys like Puthoff, Haisch and Davis; those who dare to question everything and go against the grain, will get a voice.
have to obey the same laws of physics we do (tongue in cheek). So it is probably a good idea to throw a critical eye at those reports, and think about the physics that could be behind it. Just in case.