Yeah I'm hearing you on pseudo-chirality. The monomers aren't chiral, but the repeating units are. We're lucky both PE and PTFE feature those Carbon atoms. Else, chirality would most certainly be dead. In the end, they are chiral. I think your ideas above could be ground breaking stuff. If correct. Certainly an improvement.
....Have also to check the heat(t) at the inner surface of copper (might be higher/faster than expected) as a rise of temperature of 10░ on 100cm^3 can give as much "oomph" as 5░ on 200cm^3 or 1░ on 1000cm^3, so lack of thermal conductivity of air might not be the relevant factor to set the typical Tau. + some heat equations........Maybe if you are working on heat conduction aspects at the cavity's wall, this might help me if you have an idea of the Temp(t) of the inner skin. I know that copper is a very good thermal, conductor. The epoxy behind the (probably) much thinner copper of PCBs end plate not that much. The RF power is dissipated in the first Ám depth skin. What gives instant temperature for the air molecules hitting the inner walls ? This could be a fast alternative to volumetric humid air heating.
No. The paper says it was 2, 6.25" x 1.06" PE discs. Aero pointed this out I think. That pink area looks to me like a copper cylinder structure to hold those disks in place.Do you see why my CAD had 6.25" for the minimum diameter possible for the small end now?
Quote from: frobnicat on 11/08/2014 08:33 pmReply #3038 on: November 08, 2014, 04:33:35 PM...oops, I see 93143 answered faster. Glad to hear someone of the million people...Quote from: JohnFornaro on 11/07/2014 07:40 pmReply #3013 on: November 07, 2014, 03:40:29 PMYour pragmatic inertial frame would be the galaxy, wouldn't it?So what am I, chopped liver?
Reply #3038 on: November 08, 2014, 04:33:35 PM...oops, I see 93143 answered faster. Glad to hear someone of the million people...
Reply #3013 on: November 07, 2014, 03:40:29 PMYour pragmatic inertial frame would be the galaxy, wouldn't it?
To elaborate, with words, not math, but hey:The phrase "sum the instantaneous frames of rest" has the same mathematical meaning as does the phrase "add up kinetic energy in different reference frames".
The Appendix spacecraft is said to go from 0 mph to 1 mph, in its reference frame. It doesn't go from 671 mph to 672 mph, except as a math exercise of intellectual interest, not as a matter pf pragmatic space travel. Besides 672 mph is not a relativistic speed, and neither is 672 km/s.
There is not a line of mathematical reasoning which adds up kinetic energy in different, presumably aritrarily preferred, reference frames, and results inexorably in a new type of propulsion.
... if the ends were made of extremely thin copper bonded on PCBoard, there are serious questions as to why would anybody do this aside from trying to maximize artificial heating of the ends
Quote from: Mulletron on 11/09/2014 03:05 pmYeah I'm hearing you on pseudo-chirality. The monomers aren't chiral, but the repeating units are. We're lucky both PE and PTFE feature those Carbon atoms. Else, chirality would most certainly be dead. In the end, they are chiral. I think your ideas above could be ground breaking stuff. If correct. Certainly an improvement.I would like somebody to conduct an experiment to show whether indeed the quantum vacuum can impart momentum to a chiral polymer. It sounds unphysical to me that this can happen (I interpret the Casimir effect as due to van der Waal forces and not to the QV). But, hey, I see all these theoretical papers you have uncovered, why don't they show this effect in an actual experiment?
For these reasons, we hope that the quantum vacuum momentum transfer investigated in this paper can be tested experimentally in the near future.
don't get what that reference to butchery might mean
...a bigger plastic bottle (PET) went deformed by the heat (varying volume of cavity) and went frankly hot. Can't tell if the PET was heated by the air or if PET was the coupling material. Don't know that plastic (non polar I think ?) could heat on microwave.....
I don't know why I argue at length, we agree on that (I think).
What is "your pragmatic inertial frame" depend on the dynamical system that's to be predicted but what is for sure is that you have the exact same predicted results whatever the inertial frame chosen (why "arbitrary frame") and even accelerated reference frame (done properly). There is often a "natural" frame that makes the calculations more elegant and simple and results easier to interpret, but such frame is still just an arbitrary choice to compare all velocities to the one and same, well, reference.
Ok...so if I correctly grasp the last page or two worth of posts(doubtful), the 'EM Drive' as tested by Eagleworks, is probably bogus, with the 'thrust' generated being the result of thermal heating, and this assessment may apply to Brady's design as well? (According to Doctor Rodal and Frobnicat).Though Mulletron, at least for the time being is still exploring Quantum options.
I can see that the experimenters recognize heat contributions to the thrust plots. Look at the screen shot below. Table 2 isn't reporting 130uN of thrust for TE012, it is reporting just 55uN, after subtracting artifacts from the total 130uN peak.They recognize da heat, which is apparent by that gentle rise over 30 seconds followed by a gentle fall over 30 seconds.The sudden rise and sudden fall is the real thrust here..../...