Por que latim, se estavam falando em italiano e depois em espanhol com termos típicos mexicanos? Línguas românticas, isso sim. ...
....
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.
in other news, GoatGuy is proclaiming victory, at the NextBigFuture comments section, because nobody countered his mathematics here.
No victory, just wondering at the quantitative / mathematical silence.
OK, that being what it is, then if we are pushing against the Universe, then it must be relative to our velocity compared to the universe's velocity frame. There is no way around that one, I'm afraid.
It also might imply that there wouldn't be directionality anisotropy, as the inertial wind could be directly related to the expansion of SpaceTime itself, which we now know to be ongoing, and accelerating itself. Energy from latching onto the expansion of the Universe. Wow. That'd be a big supply!
....
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.
Not sure how this isn't exactly the case preventing complete disclosure. As I see it, The paper that was published at the AIAA conference, included a lot of details on the testing protocol, which covers how the tests were performed along with information on the pendulum set-up. Now there are a few details that were missing, but your open letter to the research team prompted Paul March to fill those details in. The only thing that seems to have been left out from the published paper is the same level of detail about the Boeing SFE test article. Which we now know was covered by NDA, according to Paul March. A bare bones NDA would most likely cover the details about how the test article works and any analysis that could potentially allow someone to reverse engineer the device. Which means any inclusion in the AIAA paper alongside the descriptions of the Cannae and Tapered Frustum would amount to a foot note covering only the information found in the deck you previously linked to.
Now I am as annoyed as anyone else about this, as the inclusion of the information on the Boeing test article would most likely strengthen the case against the critics that there is a high statistical probability that there is a real effect being studied by EagleWorks.
According to a NASA contractor report, "the concept of accessing a significant amount of useful energy from the ZPE gained much credibility when a major article on this topic was published in Aviation Week & Space Technology (March 1st, 2004), a leading aerospace industry magazine".
Por que latim, se estavam falando em italiano e depois em espanhol com termos típicos mexicanos? Línguas românticas, isso sim.
in other news, GoatGuy is proclaiming victory, at the NextBigFuture comments section, because nobody countered his mathematics here.
Nope. No victory, just wondering at the quantitative / mathematical silence. ...
if [k] is the EM-drive thrust factor, in Newtons-per-Watt (which has been widely used and quoted) then...
V = 1/k ... is the velocity of the Q-device, where the kinetic energy it creates matches the input energy and...
V = 2/k ... is the velocity of a free-floating spacecraft employing the EM-thruster, where the TOTAL energy invested equals the TOTAL imparted kinetic energy of the spacecraft. ...
....
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.
Not sure how this isn't exactly the case preventing complete disclosure. ... The only thing that seems to have been left out from the published paper is the same level of detail about the Boeing SFE test article. Which we now know was covered by NDA, according to Paul March. A bare bones NDA would most likely cover ... any analysis that could potentially allow someone to reverse engineer the device. Which means any inclusion in the AIAA paper ... would amount to a foot note covering only the information found in the deck you previously linked to.
Now I am as annoyed as anyone else about this, as the inclusion of the information on the Boeing test article would most likely strengthen the case against the critics that there is a high statistical probability that there is a real effect being studied by EagleWorks.
...I'm not so sure about that; taking the Mach-effect case and assuming the gravity wave explanation is correct...
Certainly the Mach-effect equation itself is Lorentz invariant ...
I find it mildly interesting that in Sciama's Machian inertia derivation...
if [k] is the EM-drive thrust factor, in Newtons-per-Watt (which has been widely used and quoted) then...
V > 1/k ... is the velocity .. where the Ek exceeds the input energy and...
V > 2/k ... is the velocity of a spacecraft .. where Ek exceeds the TOTAL invested energy. ...
If velocity is m/sec, and k is N/W, work thru the derivation for v = 1/k for me?
1/k = 1/(N/W) = W/N
N = kg (m/sec²)
W = N m/s = kg m²/s³
Ergo:
k = (kg (m/s²))/(kg m²/s³)
k = (m/s²)/(m²/s³)
k = (m/s²)·(s³/m²)
k = s/m
Therefore:
1/k = m/s = v.
So I get that.
Where the heck does v = 2/k come from?
(Nomenclaturalistically speaking, I thought V was typically Volume, and v was typically velocity. Solo dicendo.)
Well, if it is any consolation (and rebuttal to your position), no one has actually disagreed with my mathematics, over on Next Big NASA Fornum.
Indeed, the silence has been veritably deafening.
I do believe that half the people there believe I fârted in the Flower Show.
The other half daren't perk up 'cuz they know my knives are sharp.
LOL
GoatGuy
Oh, please, RogerPenna … at least have a little more backbone than just to lecture me about the wrong way about having discourse on another forum. Since you apparently are good at reading, also note over yonder that I also said, "I'm not disclaiming the results, but rather, that the results imply a fundamental break in the laws of conservation, in Physics". (Paraphrased from 3 other comments I made.)
It is like this:
They - we have a marvelous new device that develops 51.7 µN with 2.73 watts of input microwave power.
Audience - yay! Cheers! WTG! Awesome!
Goat - (begins calculations from 51.7 µN and 2.73 W)
Goat - Yes, but that's 18.9 µN/W, and a 1/k of 52.8 km/s
Goat - Above which, kinetic energy is increasing faster than input energy.
Audience - Wait! What? Anyone know what Goat did wrong?
They - Well, its about Mach's Principle and moving the Universe.
Audience - See! You just don't know, Goat, anything but Newtonian Physics
Goat - That's nice, but my math, is still right. Its a perpetual motion machine
Audience - It doesn't matter: they're right and you're wrong.
Goat - Wait! What? How can the math be right, and wrong at same time?
They - You need to understand that conservation of energy is a Universe thing
Goat - Please, by all means, show the math
They - Its already been done. Do your own research.
Audience - Yah, take that, Goat.
Goat - Sigh… in other words, go on a goose chase, wade through a ton of abstruse math, figure out where they're fudging, come back, and lose everyone of the Audience in an abstract pedantic mathematical proof. Oh, that's rewarding. NOT.
Audience - Nya, nya, if you can't do it, why should we listen to you?
Goat - because, good reader, because the [V = 1/k] criterion is absolute.
And that's what you, Roger are missing. They have experiments which are claimed to produce a certain amount of thrust for a measured amount of input power. This comes out to newtons per watt. Using bog-standard Newtonian physics, I show that there will be a velocity above which more kinetic energy is being added to the physics package, than the amount of energy being poured into it. I further go on to state that at [V > 2/k], that the total amount of energy invested in the experiment from time=0 to whenever the V>2/k occurs … is less than the total amount of kinetic energy of the device.
This, as it turns out, requires the rewriting of Physics. Not just an eensy-weensy amount, but GIANT rewrite. Further, if the postulated practical levels of “k” are achieved (variously quoted as 1N/kW to even 10's of N/W), all power generation by any chemical, nuclear, geologic, renewable, or fossil source could be retired, and replaced with the magic reactionless thrusters. That's pretty sobering a rewrite of physics.
So, yah. I'm waiting for at least one of the physicists to say something other than a retort like, "well you explain how the experiments work then, Goat". I'm sorry, that's not good enough. I've presented a seriously important Physics objection that is quantitative, easily proven and dâmning to all of Physics, if true. It is not concomitant on me to prove this more than I have. It is concomitant on those who pander theory of an alternate reality, to bring forth the equally simple idea of where all the extra kinetic energy is coming from, in mathematically followable terms.
Jeez.
GoatGuy
According to a NASA contractor report, "the concept of accessing a significant amount of useful energy from the ZPE gained much credibility when a major article on this topic was published in Aviation Week & Space Technology (March 1st, 2004), a leading aerospace industry magazine".
For a destruction of several claims to tap energy from the zero-point quantum-vacuum see pages 65 to 80 of http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050170447.pdf]>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy
....
I'm not saying or believing that it is the cause of limited/clumsy/strange communication strategy of the experimenters (from a mainstream open fundamental research point of vue). The accumulation of various experiments and claimed results through the years without exponential spread of a reproducible successful reference setup is more reminiscent of the long history of self deceiving failed attempts at harnessing something from nothing. That is not by itself a proof of the later results being wrong, neither the opinion of analysts, reality has the last word, but it's indicative.
Again, Bravo!
Indeed, the silence has been veritably deafening.
Pathological science is the process by which "people are tricked into false results ... by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions".[1][2] The term was first[3] used by Irving Langmuir, Nobel Prize-winning chemist, during a 1953...