-
#640 by JohnFornaro on 16 Sep, 2014 13:47
-
The Wired UK article was very confusing to me ...
Wired is worse than the oracle, in that the articles never get vetted, and are rarely revisited. They just sell headlines, that I can tell. -
#641 by JohnFornaro on 16 Sep, 2014 13:48
-
1) So, sure it would cost a few $. But it could settle this debate once and for all. Think of the payoff!
2) Can anyone put forward a reasoned argument why high power devices haven't been made and tested?
1) Yahbut: you've just fallen into a trap: You don't experiment on a new expensive propellantless trampoline drive on the sole basis of: "Think of how great it would be if it works!"
Again:But (again) I'm against a "what if it works" scenario that wont go to all the inescapable consequences, when the consequences are on firm ground that couldn't possibly be overtaken by the hypothesis.
2) Because of the cost and difficulty combined with the reasonable doubt that such a scaling would even work. Furthermore, there has been no hard theoretical evidence suggested by the proponents that the device could be scaled. Heck. We still don't know the size of the Teflon resonator yet!
One of the points I've made over and over is the incredible amount of electric power that goes into this device compared with the amount of thrust they think they see.
If ya wanna dispute this with me, first, you need to pull out your checkbook. An ordinary "classical" checkbook will do. Trust me. I'll let ya know when I've had enough.
-
#642 by JohnFornaro on 16 Sep, 2014 13:48
-
...building a generator out of an EM drive would be no different than using an electric fan to drive a wind power generator.
That's just not even wrong. Everybody knows that you use an electric fan to power your sailboat. Sheesh. -
#643 by JohnFornaro on 16 Sep, 2014 13:48
-
I hope you understand there is a limit I am willing to go in playing messenger boy between Talk Polywell, NasaSpaceFlight Forum and NextBigFuture.
No problemo. NSF is the only forum worth this discussion. There's too many tiresome hominems on the other ones. -
#644 by Rodal on 16 Sep, 2014 13:49
-
The 2012 Yang Juan paper...there are a few others including a recent one I address in AvWeek.
@Wembley
Can you please provide a link to the "recent paper by Yang Juan"(after the one in 2012) that you address in AvWeek ? -
#645 by JohnFornaro on 16 Sep, 2014 13:49
-
Frobnicat is correct, but it is discussed in more detail here.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35332.0
Hah! Have you heard about his Frobnicat Class III device? -
#646 by Rodal on 16 Sep, 2014 13:54
-
First, to Rodal:
Can you provide a schematic drawing with all the known dimensions of the various structural members, arrows of the measured forces along with the quantities of those forces, and other explanatory information in a graphic format?
I'll buy ya a Scotch.
Scotch. It's a tempting offer, but first I need to understand precisely how were these devices tested. Waiting for Paul's response to my questions...
@Fornaro, chi va piano, va sano e va lontano -
#647 by GoatGuy on 16 Sep, 2014 14:00
-
I'll leave the math to you, then. However, without considerable evidence to the contrary, I'm going to treat the mathematical debate as an exercise in creative accounting. Free energy does not mix well with reality to date.
... creative accounting ... when I hear those two words, it inevitably means dishonest accounting in a cheeky way. But I hope that you just didn't take the time to follow along with the algebra, or don't quite remember the main formulas of physics. That's OK by me, RotoSequence ... it has taken me nearly a whole adult lifetime to become competent enough with the math-of-Physics so as to miss freeway exits, due to doing physics-math in my head. Silly, I know, but it happens with regularity.
Without considerable evidence to the contrary... sounds to me like you're saying, "yes, well, whatever. I still don't believe you've shown how this device can be a free-energy device. If a lot of others were saying it and had good proof, I'd change my mind".
I accept that, yet I also give you "the Physicists challenge".
Physics and Mathematics are utterly inseparable. It has often been said, Physics is the mathematical modeling of the physical universe of things. Physics has found predictive, descriptive math equations to describe basically every phenomenon that experimental scientists have discovered ... from quantum kinetics, to astronomical, from forces, and masses, energy and friction to materials science surface physics (semiconductors and chips!). Physics describes accurately why hydrogen atoms glow at incredibly specific wavelengths when ionized, to better than 6 digits of precision, which is pretty remarkable considering no one has ever imaged a single hydrogen atom.
The Physics Challenge is this: to debate an assertion in Physics, it is necessary to describe the debated assertion in mathematical terms. Words, phrases, similes, parables, examples are not sufficient, and actually detract from determining the outcome of the debate. It is math, and specifically, symbolic math first that makes brief and debatable that which is in question.
This is why I composed my argument as a mix of symbolic math, and supporting text. Not everyone is familiar even with algebra, let alone trigonometry or calculus. Fewer people still are "up" on the basic Newtonian physics formulae of our humanly tangible local space. (The physics of Newton's environment is mathematically exactly as he defined and derived. It is also the physics of the "macroscopic world", for things like spacecraft, EM-drive test-beds, Cannae drives, and so on. Macroscopic, non-quantum. )
And until a Physicist pops up here, armed with better math to disprove the Newtonian physics conclusion inside the realm of our tangible physics environment, the assertions I made will continue to show that at a velocity above 1/k, all force-making machines produce more kinetic power than the electrical, chemical, nuclear or whatever else power that the machine uses to create the force it produces.
That is a very powerful assertion, right there. It does not depend on a particular machine. It applies to all machines, anywhere in the universe. It is independent of Relativistic special physics. The Cannae and EM-Thruster and loaded horn and other experiments are just one kind of force-producing machines. They take electricity and with a "k" measured in "newtons per watt", produce some force from the energy.
The ONLY exception to this is where V = c, and where V = c = 1/k, and therefore k = 1/c. This particular case is the case where "light drives" or other electromagnetic emitters derive their force. They are not "free energy devices" either, because they can not go faster than c, by Einstein's relativity. Moreover, the energy (E) that they're beaming away, if one believes (E = mc˛), is actually equivalent to mass loss, so the device wouldn't be a reaction-massless thruster. It is a special case, but one that doesn't require changing the V=1/k identity.
Hope that helps soften your conviction, just a bit. If you read frobnicat's assertions (early in this forum thread), you will find them to be almost exactly the same mathematical derivation that I made much later on. It is deeply amusing (and pleasing) to me to see that the language of physics, which is mathematics isn't just universal enough for us to independently come to the same conclusion(s), but also that we took nearly the same reasoning path in the derivation.
That is the Physics Challenge.
GoatGuy -
#648 by sghill on 16 Sep, 2014 14:28
-
...building a generator out of an EM drive would be no different than using an electric fan to drive a wind power generator.
That's just not even wrong. Everybody knows that you use an electric fan to power your sailboat. Sheesh.
Or push your sail-powered wash tub along on roller skates! -
#649 by Star One on 16 Sep, 2014 14:29
-
shows that Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s EM drive is claimed (with "measurements" performed elsewhere -not at NASA-) to have a thrust force 2000 to 4000 times higher than the drives recently tested at NASA.
What information does WiredUK have in this regard?
Is Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s EM drive going to go into orbit soon - at a cost less than $100k-?
I'm a freelance, but Wired UK have been about the only people who will accept articles on this for the last few years.
Unfortunately, Roger Shawyer seems to have been left on the sidelines on this one and SPR are not in a position to launch. I'm currently trying to find out what happened to the UK evaluation of his technology in 2009, but that seems to have been lost. He looks like being a pioneer whose work was taken up by others.
Cannae are certainly continuing their work and have previously discussed a Cubesat mission with a thruster producing 3 micronewtons -- note their website is back up again now in slightly altered form --
http://cannae.com//2-uncategorised/48-cubesat
There is no indication who they are partnering with, but we they have talked to various aerospace players previously.
Yang Juan's work is also progressing largely undercover, but does appear to be progressing. I wrote a piece about this for Aviation Week which should appear shortly. My guess would be they will be the first to launch, unless NASA decide to sieze the initiative. However, the lack of comments from NASA suggests that the agency do not have any great appetitie for it, but I would be interested to hear otherwise. The lack of public statements for a new development doesn't seem normal to me, but others may know better?
Isn't the reason we haven't heard much from NASA because from what's been said a lot of the people involved in this work have NDAs in place concerning what they can & cannot talk about it? -
#650 by Rodal on 16 Sep, 2014 14:35
-
....
Isn't the reason we haven't heard much from NASA because from what's been said a lot of the people involved in this work have NDAs in place concerning what they can & cannot talk about it?
As a taxpayer, my expectation is that any NDA's between NASA and private companies would cover proprietary internal design of the EM drives but not the results of actual tests performed at NASA, including how the tests were conducted at NASA, details of NASA's inverted torsional pendulum set-up, etc., unless they would invoke issues of National Security, in which case it would not be a question of NDA's with private entities, but a matter of security. I have not seen anything published claiming National Security issues.
-
#651 by Star One on 16 Sep, 2014 14:47
-
....
Isn't the reason we haven't heard much from NASA because from what's been said a lot of the people involved in this work have NDAs in place concerning what they can & cannot talk about it?
As a taxpayer, my expectation is that any NDA's between NASA and private companies would cover proprietary internal design of the EM drives but not the results of actual tests performed at NASA, including how the tests were conducted at NASA, details of the inverted torsional pendulum set-up, etc., unless they would invoke issues of National Security, in which case it would not be a question of NDA's with private entities, but a matter of security. I have not seen anything published claiming National Security issues.
NDAs are used by the military, those who have flown as tanker pilots to refuel for experimental projects are made to sign them apparently. -
#652 by aceshigh on 16 Sep, 2014 14:47
-
Unless NASA has already built a device that can launch a missile, the amount of thrust reported would not be useful for anything other than VERY LONG range missile launches (from other planets), which obviously make no sense at all.
-
#653 by aceshigh on 16 Sep, 2014 14:50
-
It is deeply amusing (and pleasing) to me to see that the language of physics, which is mathematics isn't just universal enough for us to independently come to the same conclusion(s), but also that we took nearly the same reasoning path in the derivation.
"and there is a very important thing that people who study physics who come from mathematics do not appreciate: physics is not mathematics and mathematics is not physics. One HELPS the other.". -
#654 by Rodal on 16 Sep, 2014 14:55
-
....
Isn't the reason we haven't heard much from NASA because from what's been said a lot of the people involved in this work have NDAs in place concerning what they can & cannot talk about it?
As a taxpayer, my expectation is that any NDA's between NASA and private companies would cover proprietary internal design of the EM drives but not the results of actual tests performed at NASA, including how the tests were conducted at NASA, details of the inverted torsional pendulum set-up, etc., unless they would invoke issues of National Security, in which case it would not be a question of NDA's with private entities, but a matter of security. I have not seen anything published claiming National Security issues.
NDAs are used by the military, those who have flown as tanker pilots to refuel for experimental projects are made to sign them apparently.
The military restricts information for reasons of National Security.
NASA was set up, on purpose, by President Eisenhower as a Civilian Administration - not part of the Department of Defense. NASA is responsible for the civilian space program as well as for civilian aeronautics and aerospace research.
See the exceptions that apply to the Freedom of Information here:
Federal Government: http://www.foia.gov/ and here: http://www.foia.gov/about.html
Department of Defense Freedom of Information: http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/
NASA Freedom of Information: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/FOIA/
and here:
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=97fb51c6e62b667333b7f1645d203f11&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:5.0.1.1.8&idno=14 -
#655 by JohnFornaro on 16 Sep, 2014 15:17
-
Hah! I mentioned something along these lines in another propellantless thread:
The device aims to convert electricity to forward motion.
We already have a device which converts electricity to rotational motion, known as the electric motor. It depends upon the wheel, in order to instantaneously press, in a frictional fashion, against a local gravitational mass to convert the rotational force into forward motion.
These guys are claiming to have bypassed the wheel. My. Best. Invention. Ever.
There are two problems which have not yet been addressed or answered. "Push heavy, pull light", which is the summary of the M-E device's operation, relies upon action at a distance with the inertia of the entire Hubble sphere surrounding the device.Conservation of momentum.
[Edit 10-03-14: Struck out the above stray phrase.]
And then the free energy part, which I give little heed as a knee jerk reaction resulting from calculitis.Quote from: GoatGuyAnd until a Physicist pops up here, armed with better math to disprove the Newtonian physics conclusion ... the assertions I made will continue to show that at a velocity above 1/k, all force-making machines produce more kinetic power than the electrical, chemical, nuclear or whatever else power that the machine uses to create the force it produces.
That is a very powerful assertion .. It does not depend on a particular machine. -
#656 by aceshigh on 16 Sep, 2014 15:21
-
from Talk Polywell Forums
a little part of the post by GiThruster that I posted hereQuote from: GiThrusterI would never pretend to speak for Paul, but I can relate to you what his positions have been in the past. Last I heard, he was still maintaining he believed that Sonny's QVF model and Jim's M-E model were opposite sides of the same coin, despite Jim, Sonny and myself keep arguing this cannot be true.
Quote from: BirchoffWhy is it not possible for QVF and ME to be "opposite sides of the same coin"
Quote from: Paul MarchDr. Woodward maintains that the M-E's mass fluctuations occur in the "squishy" intermolecular chemical bonds of the dielectric and not in the rest mass of the ions in question. Next question is what are these squishy intermolecular chemical bonds made of? They are typically called covalent sharing of molecular electrons and/or an imbalance of ionic electric charges between the charged ions. Ok then what is in between the electrons and ions in these dielectric molecules that is affected by the M-E equation's transient gravity waves, or in other words what do the M-E's pressure transients in the cosmological gravitational field affect in between the molecules that for all practical purposes is a pure vacuum state. A vacuum state filled only with virtual photons of the electric fields and perhaps the virtual e/p pairs of the quantum vacuum. That is why I continue to say that Dr. White in only trying to answer what Woodward's M-E "gravity" pressure waves are effecting at the molecular and subatomic scales. A place that Dr. Woodward refuses to go to this date except perhaps in his musings on the ADM electron structure where the gravitational field is used to counter balance the electrostatic field forces, but once again ignoring the basic question of what either of these fields are composed of. That is supposed to be the realm of quantum gravity, but since no one has come up with an accepted answer for same, Dr. White is free to suggest his own.
Next, in regards to the Boeing SFE work that the Eagleworks Lab performed back in the spring of 2013, since it was and is covered by NDAs, all I can comment on is the already released Eagleworks 2013 newsletter that has been pointed to on this forum. I can however assure you that these results were run in a hard vacuum (~5x10^-6 Torr) and are categorically NOT ion wind or unbalanced electrostatic charges.
from Ron Stahl: "I am still on record that I don't trust the data coming from Eagle, but..."
I have to reassure Mr. Stahl that I have always reported and will continue to report the actual data that I recorded In our Eagleworks Lab reports and that Dr. White has never asked me to falsify any of this data we have presented. If you think otherwise that is your privilege, but it's not an accurate picture in any way.
Best,Quote from: GiThrusterWell Paul, two things. First, in your analysis of the two models, you fail to note that they have completely contradictory positions about where inertia comes from. They in fact form an exhaustive disjunction. Either inertia comes from the ZPF, or it comes from gravity, but certainly it makes no sense to say it comes from both. These are not the same. And this is why Sonny has always argued that Jim must be wrong, and Jim has always argued that Sonny must be wrong. They could both be wrong. Inertia could be an intrinsic property of matter, but they cannot both be right and this is just what they say about what they propose.
Second thing yes, I understand you are reporting accurately as possible about what has been done in the lab. I also understand that (he makes here some accusations about Sonny White's character, which I preffer to not post here)
I am curious though, about one seemingly noteworthy part of this puzzle. Who had you sign an NDA? Sonny and Eagleworks, yes? Okay. Could you explain to me why Sonny said in his interview with PopSci that what he could say was restrained by an NDA? Who did Sonny sign an NDA with?
last paragraph in bold seems to ask questions relevant to the last posting on this thread, regarding NDAs. -
#657 by Rodal on 16 Sep, 2014 15:25
-
...
The point about the Cannae drive is not how much thrust it produced in the NASA test compared to other designs, but whether their 3 micronewton design is plausible. Because if they have backing, it will be built and launched.
..
@Wembley
I still don't understand why would somebody want to put in orbit the "Cannae drive [with] their 3 micronewton design " as you suggest, when Paul March's Woodward-Effect device has been repeatedly tested by him, and reported by NASA's Dr. White (slide 40 of previously linked reference) as having measured 1000 (one thousand) times greater thrust. What is the advantage of the Cannae device compared to Paul March's? Do you have information that its minute measured thrust is more trustworthy or better in some sense?
__
PS: the actual reported measured thrust by NASA for the Cannae device was 40 microNewtons (not 3 microNewtons) -
#658 by mheney on 16 Sep, 2014 15:37
-
...
The point about the Cannae drive is not how much thrust it produced in the NASA test compared to other designs, but whether their 3 micronewton design is plausible. Because if they have backing, it will be built and launched.
..
@Wembley
I still don't understand why would somebody want to put in orbit the "Cannae drive [with] their 3 micronewton design " as you suggest, when Paul March's Woodward-Effect device has been repeatedly tested by him, and reported by NASA's Dr. White (slide 40 of previously linked reference) as having measured 1000 (one thousand) times greater thrust.
That argument is the equivalent of saying "I don't see why you'd want to spend money on spaceflight when there are so many starving people in the world."
Everyone has their own priorities - and that's a good thing, as it means many different things get tried (and done.) What others choose to do (or not do) are a distraction to the case you want to make. -
#659 by Rodal on 16 Sep, 2014 15:43
-
from Talk Polywell Forums
Quote from: Paul March
......
Next, in regards to the Boeing SFE work that the Eagleworks Lab performed back in the spring of 2013, since it was and is covered by NDAs, all I can comment on is the already released Eagleworks 2013 newsletter that has been pointed to on this forum. I can however assure you that these results were run in a hard vacuum (~5x10^-6 Torr) and are categorically NOT ion wind or unbalanced electrostatic charges.
Interesting new information: the Boeing SFE device, which has a specific force thousands of times larger than the Cannae or the Frustum (Tapered Cavity) devices, was tested in a vacuum. On the other hand, the Cannae or the Frustum (Tapered Cavity) devices were not tested in a vacuum, as of the "Anomalous thrust..." paper.
Scotch. It's a tempting offer, but first I need to understand precisely how were these devices tested. Waiting for Paul's response to my questions...