-
#700 by RotoSequence on 17 Sep, 2014 18:58
-
And to think some people believe there's no point in building a bigger device to eliminate the doubt and skepticism about the source of the miniscule measurements on extremely fickle devices thus far.
-
#701 by Stormbringer on 17 Sep, 2014 19:00
-
In one word: Starlite. In two words: Maurice Ward. I think that about nips that line of argument.
-
#702 by Rodal on 17 Sep, 2014 19:01
-
I think cheapest and best way to prove, it will be build device that could be used on ISS(my understanding weight and power consumption are not overwhelming) and move it to ISS using one of the Dragon supply missions and tested on Orbit. I think in short time we will see if it is keeping ISS on same orbit or even raise orbit.
Well, regarding this, it is interesting (for comparison purposes) that Dipole Magnetic (propellant-less) "propulsion" for positioning of satellite formation is being tested in the ISS:
see: http://www.aero.umd.edu/news/news_story.php?id=7544
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/08/15/space-propulsion/
http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/793Miller.pdf
http://ssl.mit.edu/publications/theses/PhD-2005-SchweighartSamuel.pdf
http://ssl.mit.edu/publications/theses/SM-2007-SakaguchiAya.pdf
People involved in this technology are discussing it (they are not claiming NDA's), for example see Ph.D and S.M. thesis at MIT above, and Prof. Ray Sedwick at University of Maryland . One difference is that Dipole Magnetic propellant-less positioning of satellites relies on classical physics (no exotic physics like "quantum vacuum" or "transient changes in mass" is proposed to explain it) -so more "mainstream"-, and the work has been done at MIT and University of Maryland ? -
#703 by aero on 17 Sep, 2014 19:09
-
I think cheapest and best way to prove, it will be build device that could be used on ISS(my understanding weight and power consumption are not overwhelming) and move it to ISS using one of the Dragon supply missions and tested on Orbit. I think in short time we will see if it is keeping ISS on same orbit or even raise orbit.
I've got no problem with obtaining further (definitive) proof. Orbital decay of the ISS is like 2 km/month. If that is a velocity, then it is 7.716E-07 m/s which requires a continuous thrust of 350 mN to compensate. An EM thruster with that power should be achievable if results obtained in the lab are valid. Problem is, it would take years to prepare, schedule and then perform the experiment, all the while we are stuck with the debate of "it could work - no it couldn't - yes it could - no it can't, are you stupit ...
And hence never exploring any possible theories.
-
#704 by raketa on 17 Sep, 2014 19:28
-
1887 Michelson–Morley experiment find very strange behavior that completely question current understanding of universe physic . After Einstein publish his theory and explain experiment everything was clear, it was 18 years after experiment.
I will not judge results of EMDrive until we could replicated or disapprove it by other tests. I think our understanding universe and fabric is still not very clear. If by some luck we could interact and use resources that build our universe, to move us around solar system, it is worth of couple millions to spend and it is definitely purpose of NASA to do it. As I mention if other test replicate results,I will recommend to bring on ISS. This is exactly reason for ISS as orbital laboratory for space exploration.
-
#705 by Rodal on 17 Sep, 2014 20:51
-
1887 Michelson–Morley experiment find very strange behavior that completely question current understanding of universe physic . After Einstein publish his theory and explain experiment everything was clear, it was 18 years after experiment.
I will not judge results of EMDrive until we could replicated or disapprove it by other tests. I think our understanding universe and fabric is still not very clear. If by some luck we could interact and use resources that build our universe, to move us around solar system, it is worth of couple millions to spend and it is definitely purpose of NASA to do it. As I mention if other test replicate results,I will recommend to bring on ISS. This is exactly reason for ISS as orbital laboratory for space exploration.
The first experimental confirmation of Einstein's theory of General Relativity was the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, which was known much prior in time and yet was not satisfactorily explained up to that time. Neither the "experiment" nor the "effect" (the perihelion precession of Mercury) were in doubt.
Here, the NASA experimental results themselves involve very small measured forces (20 to 110 microNewtons) and have not yet been reproduced at JPL, Glenn or John Hopkins, for example. The explanations for the measured forces involve exotic physics which do not (yet, at least) command the acceptance that Einstein's theory had (recall that Poincare, Minkowski, etc. had greatly contributed, and that Eddington, among several scientists, was a big supporter of Einstein's GR theory.) Einstein was known to address criticisms of his theory (he did an excellent job doing that). On the other hand, I have not heard NASA respond to criticism from Prof. John Baez, or from Sean Carroll at CalTech. They claim they can't because of NDA's ?
Perhaps more to the point of propellant-less drives without classical external forces propelling it, there are cases as for example the case of Dean and Campbell who claimed that Newton’s laws of motion were only an approximation, and that Dean had discovered a fourth law of motion, described as a nonlinear correction to one of Newton’s laws, which, if correct, would allegedly have rendered a reactionless drive feasible.
<<His claims generated notoriety because, if true, such a device would have had enormous applications, completely changing human transport, engineering, space travel and more. Dean made several controlled private demonstrations of a number of different devices, however no working models were ever demonstrated publicly or subjected to independent analysis and Dean never presented any rigorous theoretical basis for their operation. Analysts conclude that the motion seen in Dean's device demonstrations was likely reliant on unsymmetrical frictional resistance between the device and the surface on which the device was set, resulting in the device moving in one direction when in operation, driven by the vibrations of the apparatus.>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_drive
The uncertainty in the scientific/technical community is what kind of effect this is...
I don't know. This is what we are discussing in this thread. Should it be tested in the ISS or in a satellite ? (if it can indeed be scaled-up)? I'm not opposed to it. Right now it is a question of whether there is a device that can be scaled-up and shown to produce a propulsion significant enough for detection in space (unless somebody can show that what has been shown ~50microNewtons for less than a minute operation is enough), and whether private funding for it or NASA support exists for such endeavor. Actually, I don't even know whether Dr.White himself has campaigned for one of these devices to be tested in space. My understanding (from his report) is that he is campaigning for independent testing at JPL, Glenn and John Hopkins.
-
#706 by birchoff on 17 Sep, 2014 21:01
-
...
6) Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
Yes. Three examples: A) [Dr. White] a MagnetoHydroDynamics model for the quantum vacuum, B) [Prof. Woodward] an unconventional Mach effect resulting in an “impulse” mass transient term and a second always-negative “wormhole” mass transient term, and C) [Prof. Brito] a Minkowski instead of an Abraham stress tensor explanation (to name three different explanations that have been proposed). "Conventional experience" has not shown A) translational momentum transfer imparted from (electron/positron pairs of) virtual particles from the quantum vacuum, B) transient changes in mass resulting from EM, and C) translational momentum imparted from EM explained in terms of (the unsymmetric) Minkowski 3D+time stress tensor (without addressing "hidden momentum" as done by Poincare, Shockley and others).
...
Not sure if this particular check, so to speak, is a valid one. Given the breadth of human experience I would be willing to wager that if one was to limit research to only things humanity has experienced then it would not be practical for humanity to colonize the galaxy much less the entire universe. If memory serves there is nothing in the breadth of human experience up to the discovery of superconductivity that would have suggested that it was possible.
I personally think as far as our understanding of reality as human beings currently experience it is concerned we have a pretty solid grasp. But since humanity has only been exposed physically to a very small part of the universe I would further argue limiting ones consideration of new ideas to only that which has been experienced or could be easily experienced would be detrimental to our development.
That said, in regards to Woodward's work there is at least one example of FTL travel as I understand it; The big bang. The only questions that remain from my perspective is whether or not it is possible to manipulate space in a controlled manner? And can we do it without the need for the extraordinary conditions that existed at that point in time. -
#707 by birchoff on 17 Sep, 2014 21:13
-
I think cheapest and best way to prove, it will be build device that could be used on ISS(my understanding weight and power consumption are not overwhelming) and move it to ISS using one of the Dragon supply missions and tested on Orbit. I think in short time we will see if it is keeping ISS on same orbit or even raise orbit.
I keep seeing comments lobbying for a bigger scale experiment. When we don't even have a solid understanding of how either all of these class of propulsion devices work, or how each specific type works. All we have is a small set of positive results. Lets expand the pool of highly controlled positive results from a number of different testing protocols, executed by different labs first. Then when we have a solid understanding we can scale up to something that can power a cube sat. The only reason to do the cube sat test is to basically put a cherry on the already exquisitely prepared cake. Since you will most likely not have access to the necessary data logging you would need to feed the creation of a theory/model of how/why these things work, on top of whether or not we need to begin adjusting our long held beliefs about the laws of physics.
From my perspective I feel these types of comments keep getting raised because the authors want something to force the collective community to either take notice or prove them right. Shouldn't the onus now be on the critics. Shouldn't the critics be required to attempt a reproduction and publish their results, even if it is in Conference Proceedings. -
#708 by aero on 17 Sep, 2014 21:23
-
Quote
From my perspective I feel these types of comments keep getting raised because the authors want something to force the collective community to either take notice or prove them right. Shouldn't the onus now be on the critics. Shouldn't the critics be required to attempt a reproduction and publish their results, even if it is in Conference Proceedings.
Maybe in a perfect world, but not this one. See GoatGuy's proofs that it cannot work. That's a proof easy to do, all you need do is ignore one source of energy while claiming that your argument is complete. It doesn't help that there is no agreement on what that ignored energy source is and only those who have positive experimental results "know" that it does exist. -
#709 by Rodal on 17 Sep, 2014 21:27
-
Or that one cannot propel a sailboat using the wind or get energy from windmills...
Or propel a Solar Sail using the Sun or get a huge amount of energy from the Sun...
-
#710 by aero on 17 Sep, 2014 21:46
-
Question: Does someone know what the diameter of the base of the NASA Tapered (Frustum) Cavity thruster is (was)?
-
#711 by Rodal on 17 Sep, 2014 21:56
-
Question: Does someone know what the diameter of the base of the NASA Tapered (Frustum) Cavity thruster is (was)?
Good question, I would also like to know the dimensions of the Frustum and the Cannae devices tested at NASA. Hopefully Paul March can answer.
In the interim perhaps you can guesstimate the dimensions from the photographs, using the fact that Paul March said that the total length of the pendulum arm (below the platform) was 24" with a 1.50" squarish cross section (Faztek) and they used this Faztek product in a number of other places. "Faztek 15QE1515UL Aluminum 6063-16 T-Slotted Ultra Light Extrusion with Clear Anodize Finish, 1-1/2" Width x 1-1/2" Height" website: http://www.faztek.net/technical.html -
#712 by GoatGuy on 17 Sep, 2014 21:58
-
Maybe in a perfect world, but not this one. See GoatGuy's proofs that it cannot work. That's a proof easy to do, all you need do is ignore one source of energy while claiming that your argument is complete. It doesn't help that there is no agreement on what that ignored energy source is and only those who have positive experimental results "know" that it does exist.
Quickly: I did not prove that it couldn't work, but rather that if it works then at some ΔV, the force is adding more kinetic energy than the electrical energy being invested.
This is V = 1/k where k is N/W of specific force.
The second is ΔV = 2/k, which is where a free floating space-based, untethered device will have incurred more additional kinetic energy than all the electric energy fed to the thruster, from the beginning of the experiment.
Neither of these 'disprove' the existence of a thruster that achieves k = some number of newtons for some number of watts. In the current context, Rodal and others are saying effectively, “there is a distant moving mass, that of the Universe, expanding in all directions (isotropically?); insofar as retaining the Holy Grail of Physics is concerned (either conservation of momentum, or conservation of energy, take your pick), Mach's Principle and Woodward's derivations postulate that the Universe's expanding mass is creating an Inertial Field, which is also in continuous expansion, and if this is true, then perhaps the impulse-energy and Q-thruster devices are conserving energy if the inertial field and Universe mass is brought into play”
I'm not even sure I paraphrased that correctly, but it meshes well with the snippets that people have gone so far either to quote, or to loosely infer.
To paraphrase more briefly: If one includes the Universe's mass, and if that mass creates an inertial field, which travels both backward and forward in time at “c”, then deflecting that inertial field ought to deliver force independent of apparatus orientation, speed, or acceleration history, if it is Lorentz-transform invariant.
Which is quite an amazing thing, if true.
Perhaps Rodal who's our physicist of note, will want to pitch in.
GoatGuy -
#713 by Rodal on 17 Sep, 2014 22:06
-
... In the current context, Rodal and others are saying effectively, “there is a distant moving mass, that of the Universe, expanding in all directions (isotropically?); insofar as retaining the Holy Grail of Physics is concerned (either conservation of momentum, or conservation of energy, take your pick), Mach's Principle and Woodward's derivations postulate that the Universe's expanding mass is creating an Inertial Field, which is also in continuous expansion, and if this is true, then perhaps the impulse-energy and Q-thruster devices are conserving energy if the inertial field and Universe mass is brought into play”....
GoatGuy
Ha. Are you serious? You can't be serious
For example, I'm the one that wrote:
[One of Langmuir's characteristic of PS]<<Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
Yes. Three examples: A) [Dr. White] a MagnetoHydroDynamics model for the quantum vacuum, B) [Prof. Woodward] an unconventional Mach effect resulting in an “impulse” mass transient term and a second always-negative “wormhole” mass transient term, and C) [Prof. Brito] a Minkowski instead of an Abraham stress tensor explanation (to name three different explanations that have been proposed). "Conventional experience" has not shown A) translational momentum transfer imparted from (electron/positron pairs of) virtual particles from the quantum vacuum, B) transient changes in mass resulting from EM, and C) translational momentum imparted from EM explained in terms of (the unsymmetric) Minkowski 3D+time stress tensor (without addressing "hidden momentum" as done by Poincare, Shockley and others).>>
___________
I won't say that the papers misquote me, but I sometimes wonder where Christianity would be today if instead of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, we would have had reporters.
Barry Goldwater -
#714 by aero on 17 Sep, 2014 22:08
-
@GoatGuy
Thank you for that clarification. I note in passing thatQuoteTo paraphrase more briefly: If one includes the Universe's mass, and if that mass creates an inertial field, which travels both backward and forward in time at “c”, then deflecting that inertial field ought to deliver force independent of apparatus orientation, speed, or acceleration history, if it is Lorentz-transform invariant.
may not be the only way to explain the positive result. -
#715 by GoatGuy on 17 Sep, 2014 22:21
-
Or that one cannot propel a sailboat using the wind or get energy from windmills...
Or propel a Solar Sail using the Sun or get a huge amount of energy from the Sun...
Yes, yes … this is what I just commented on above. The allusion has become something of a mantra: there's an inertial wind, and all such force-for-power-input devices are simply catching the breeze, not unlike a sailboat's sail or a windmill's enshrouded spars.
But is there a relatively simple derivation of this (that doesn't require 3 years of symbolic calculus and a head-full of opaque assertions) that can be set to type? I've seen simple, wordy accounts like I've just made, and I've seen 20 to 100 page papers. I have yet to see something that can fit in a few pages, and which ordinary mortals with basic physics smarts can follow. I welcome such a brief explanation; I mean that with honesty, and without rancor.
Perhaps Rodal you have the goods?
GoatGuy -
#716 by GoatGuy on 17 Sep, 2014 22:31
-
Ha. Are you serious? You can't be serious
For example, I'm the one that wrote:
[One of Langmuir's characteristic of PS]<<Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
Yes. Three examples: A) [Dr. White] a MagnetoHydroDynamics model for the quantum vacuum, B) [Prof. Woodward] an unconventional Mach effect resulting in an “impulse” mass transient term and a second always-negative “wormhole” mass transient term, and C) [Prof. Brito] a Minkowski instead of an Abraham stress tensor explanation (to name three different explanations that have been proposed). "Conventional experience" has not shown A) translational momentum transfer imparted from (electron/positron pairs of) virtual particles from the quantum vacuum, B) transient changes in mass resulting from EM, and C) translational momentum imparted from EM explained in terms of (the unsymmetric) Minkowski 3D+time stress tensor (without addressing "hidden momentum" as done by Poincare, Shockley and others).>>
OK, I get it. You're much to much a gentleman than to just outright call me an ignoramus. That's fine. I appreciate gallantry in the face of apparent stupidity.
And I also appreciate the at least three conjectures, and the at least three missing predictions of those conjectures. I'll further admit not having quite the math skills to take on debating the validity of any of the three conjectures, on their mathematical proof basis.
Do you see any of them that with your much higher mathematical/physics understanding hold water? They cannot all be right of course.
I may be an ignoramus, but I'll keep up the questions until the good professor tells me to shaddup.
GoatGuy -
#717 by aero on 17 Sep, 2014 22:33
-
If such a thing exists then Star-Drive is the one who would know. He would probably be the one who wrote it, as applied to the M-E thruster.Or that one cannot propel a sailboat using the wind or get energy from windmills...
Or propel a Solar Sail using the Sun or get a huge amount of energy from the Sun...
Yes, yes … this is what I just commented on above. The allusion has become something of a mantra: there's an inertial wind, and all such force-for-power-input devices are simply catching the breeze, not unlike a sailboat's sail or a windmill's enshrouded spars.
But is there a relatively simple derivation of this (that doesn't require 3 years of symbolic calculus and a head-full of opaque assertions) that can be set to type? I've seen simple, wordy accounts like I've just made, and I've seen 20 to 100 page papers. I have yet to see something that can fit in a few pages, and which ordinary mortals with basic physics smarts can follow. I welcome such a brief explanation; I mean that with honesty, and without rancor.
Perhaps Rodal you have the goods?
GoatGuy -
#718 by Brett_Bellmore on 17 Sep, 2014 22:34
-
The only explanation I demand at this time is, "Eppur si muove". Everything after that will just be detail. I just need to see it move a bit more clearly.
Once an unambiguous thrust signal is available, we can test it pointing in all directions, including up and down, at all times of day, at different altitudes, stationary and accelerating, on the ground and in orbit... We'll learn if it can be used as an over unity device or not, whether it's effected by the proximity of other masses, a lot of things.
Observational data is everything. Theory follows that. That's my view. -
#719 by aero on 17 Sep, 2014 22:57
-
I took dimensions of the Tapered (Frustum) Cavity thruster off the photo as suggested, using the 1.5 inch square beam end as reference. I got this in inches:
9.9 Major diameter, 6.6 Minor diameter, 9 Length.
It's probably a little bigger than that. I don't know how to deal with parallax.
