-
#2800
by
Mulletron
on 11 Feb, 2016 22:28
-
I suspect that as long as people keep testing the Shawyer hypothesis, they'll keep coming up with inconclusive or null results.
EMDrive in general or Shawyer Hypothesis? Not sure I could tell you the Shawyer Hypothesis.
High Q, empty copper cans excited with microwave radiation. Heck, Eagleworks disproved that one already.
IOW, dielectric needed?
Not necessarily, not since I've been getting smarter about gravitomagnetism. Wish I understood what the gravitomagnetic permeability of HDPE (or anything else) was. The correct type of insert to use depends on the correct theory of operation (if there is one). Floobie dust reflector?
-
#2801
by
Mulletron
on 11 Feb, 2016 23:31
-
What's wrong with this line of thinking?
I don't understand why phenomenon such as gravitomagnetism * and gravitational waves can't arise at laboratory scales too. It doesn't even seem like I'm acting cranky by thinking such things. To my knowledge, neither has been conclusively measured at laboratory scales, but that does not mean it isn't happening all around us.
I get it, there's no data available to support this. The technology required to take such measurements isn't there yet. Skeptics who are quick to dismiss the EmDrive may not have realized that it could be just such an experiment.
A prime example, good old magnetism; a purely quantum mechanical phenomenon, which exists all the way from subatomic particles to galactic scales.
When I see an experiment such as Gravity Probe B, or LIGO, each of their results tells me that what they have measured also exists at all scales, regardless if one has the technology to measure it yet.
* Tajmar reported this years ago, although inconclusive and 18 orders of magnitude larger than predicted from GR. Does GR even take into account quantum mechanical phenomena like intrinsic spin or orbital angular momentum? I don't remember learning anything to that effect.
Where's the disconnect? Does this require Quantum Gravity to make sense?
-
#2802
by
Stormbringer
on 12 Feb, 2016 00:13
-
Regretably; Tajmar felt he needed to retract his claim because he became convinced that his results were adulterated by sublimated gasses from the cooling portion of his test article. However, that does not affect the fact that the coverage of his experiment first revealed to me that GR actually does predict such a gravity magnetism connection in the first place. That this was mainstream science and not fringe stuff. I find that really important.
NOTE: I am not sure exactly how much his retraction effects the body of the original claims. It of course does not effect the GR sanctioned gravito-magnetism linkage. i mean that i am not sure how far his coolant discovery would negate all of the information in the original articles...
-
#2803
by
cee
on 12 Feb, 2016 00:14
-
I don't know man. That seems like a bit of a stretch. LIGO's data exactly matched prediction calculated from theory.
Don't get me wrong, I believe it 100%. I've followed that system for a while and am fascinated with it. They did a great job.
My point was it did confirm a theory and there was no instant call for lack of data or additional testing. I full well believe they detected gravitational waves.
On the emdrive side, people here have always said extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof on new physics and its understandable why...so, if anyone plans to DIY the emdrive, like shell says...data, data and more data.
Sparse data and no theory on emdrive? Yep, you got that right, my friend.
We're not even into the second gen EM Drive, LIGO has been around for awhile. Quote from the WIKI
"Initial LIGO operations between 2002 and 2010 did not detect any gravitational waves. This was followed by a multi-year shut-down while the detectors were replaced by much improved "Advanced LIGO" versions.[8] As of February 2015, two such advanced detectors (one in Livingston, Louisiana and the other in Hanford, Washington) have been brought into engineering mode.[9] On September 18, 2015, Advanced LIGO began its first formal science observations at about four times the sensitivity of the initial LIGO interferometers.[10] Its sensitivity will be further enhanced until it reaches design sensitivity around 2021.[11] "
-
#2804
by
spupeng7
on 12 Feb, 2016 00:16
-
...
Dr Rodal, a technician in Melbourne suggested a solid inner frustum a few years back, are you thinking the same thing?
Attached are two older papers about waveguide tapers. Not sure of their relevance...
Q1: Dr Rodal, a technician in Melbourne suggested a solid inner frustum a few years back, are you thinking the same thing?
No, I am not suggesting that. Actually I don't understand the suggestion: what is the solid inner frustum made of? (is it a dielectric?), what are its dimensions and location, and what is the reason for the suggestion?
Q2: Attached are two older papers about waveguide tapers. Not sure of their relevance...
Thank you so much for those two references 
which I had not previously seen.
The first one from the Bell Journal (1967) is excellent !
I think Dean's idea was to have a solid copper frustum and somehow make it resonate. An inside out, or rather an outside in, emdrive. Not sure if this would be feasible or useful or how it would work.
I don't know what he had in mind with a "solid copper frustum" resonating electromagnetically 
But, thinking instead of a cavity formed from coaxial cylinders (and hence one in the form of coaxial truncated cones) one inside the other, a double-walled cavity:
1) in addition to TE and TM modes would also have TEM modes for which the axial field would be zero: Ez = Bz = 0
2) There would even be a zero-frequency mode (DC) mode having no electric field components, corresponding to an upward current on the outside cylinder and a downward current in the inside cylinder.
I don't immediately see why this would be of any help, but it is interesting 
Dr Rodal, please forgive my lack of clarity. What Dean the RF technician from Melbourne was suggesting was a completely solid copper frustum, the shape of the inside of a Shawyer emdrive but solid all the way through. Outside of this a dielectric such as air and applied to it a signal in the hope of achieving an oscillation within the conductive body of it. It is easy to see that the I^2 x R losses would mean a very low Q at room temperature and that the oscillations would be limited to the same skin depth as they would in any other shape of copper conductor. To see that the whole exercise would be redundant really.
The suggestion was made in 2009 and I would have forgotten all about it if he was not reputed to have vastly more experience than myself concerning all things RF. Maybe I should have listened to myself and not brought it before your helpful selves for fear of wasting your time. My thinking was to reality check all suggestions and, not being accustomed to having this forum as a resource for such checking, I unthinkingly brought it to you. Thanking you anyways and hoping to make a more useful contribution next time...
-
#2805
by
glennfish
on 12 Feb, 2016 00:24
-
-
#2806
by
glennfish
on 12 Feb, 2016 00:26
-
LIGO has been around for awhile.
40 years as I recall?
-
#2807
by
glennfish
on 12 Feb, 2016 00:26
-
Regretably; Tajmar felt he needed to retract his claim because he became convinced that his results were adulterated by sublimated gasses from the cooling portion of his test article.
Do you have a citation for his retraction?
-
#2808
by
spupeng7
on 12 Feb, 2016 00:28
-
Data recording for emdrive experiments -
Congrats to LIGO today. I did follow their disclosure a bit. One of their charts is below. A couple of things struck me:
1) Signal to noise is low.
2) Nice residual channel....will steal that idea for my next data set.
3) Space propagated what is effectively an acoustic frequency for billions of light years.
4) It was a one-time event of a very short duration and very low energy (here on earth).
5) A definitive statement was made about the discovery of gravitational waves and immediately accepted by the press.
I'm sure a peer-reviewed paper published in a leading journal will appear shortly and look forward to reading it.
This does illustrate (to me anyway) the differences between proving a widely accepted theory and proving a new theory such as the emdrive.
Far more rigorous testing and standards are required of new ideas. So be it. Think that's the way it needs to be 
Very impressed, I am. But firmly convinced that what they are seeing is electromagnetic. A Machian complex-time universe would surely allow both gravity and inertia to act electromagnetically.
-
#2809
by
Mulletron
on 12 Feb, 2016 00:42
-
-
#2810
by
Stormbringer
on 12 Feb, 2016 01:43
-
Regretably; Tajmar felt he needed to retract his claim because he became convinced that his results were adulterated by sublimated gasses from the cooling portion of his test article.
Do you have a citation for his retraction?
Not at hand. I just remember citing his original work and having my happiness crushed by someone telling me he had retracted it. But if it is about a different experiment that means...
-
#2811
by
dustinthewind
on 12 Feb, 2016 05:55
-
-
#2812
by
Rodal
on 12 Feb, 2016 12:00
-
-
#2813
by
rfmwguy
on 12 Feb, 2016 13:31
-
Please comment on the theory.
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/%7B$cat_name%7D/View/6323
Jerry, I was looking over some older posts and I'm afraid people here might have missed your paper announcement regarding your theory of operation of the EMDrive.
Dr Hynecek bio:
http://tinyurl.com/zuk27w8I am bumping this to the top. Hope you get some more feedback.
"The paper presented a possible explanation of the EM Drive operation without violating the Newton’s third law, momentum conservation law, and the energy conservation law. A simple formula was derived for the force based on the assumption that the propellant that actually drives the EM Drive is the flow of emitted gravitons."
-
#2814
by
Notsosureofit
on 12 Feb, 2016 13:56
-
Please comment on the theory.
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/%7B$cat_name%7D/View/6323
Jerry, I was looking over some older posts and I'm afraid people here might have missed your paper announcement regarding your theory of operation of the EMDrive.
Dr Hynecek bio: http://tinyurl.com/zuk27w8
I am bumping this to the top. Hope you get some more feedback.
"The paper presented a possible explanation of the EM Drive operation without violating the Newton’s third law, momentum conservation law, and the energy conservation law. A simple formula was derived for the force based on the assumption that the propellant that actually drives the EM Drive is the flow of emitted gravitons."
While it is quite easy to show that a postulated interaction with a heavy "dark" particle can account for COM and COE. I can't quite see how a subsequent conversion to gravitons (speed of light particles) would not reduce the force to that of a photon rocket.
Unless I'm reading it wrong, the paper seems to say that the photon is capable of repeatedly transferring momentum w/o losing any itself.
-
#2815
by
Rodal
on 12 Feb, 2016 14:03
-
Please comment on the theory.
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/%7B$cat_name%7D/View/6323
Jerry, I was looking over some older posts and I'm afraid people here might have missed your paper announcement regarding your theory of operation of the EMDrive.
Dr Hynecek bio: http://tinyurl.com/zuk27w8
I am bumping this to the top. Hope you get some more feedback.
"The paper presented a possible explanation of the EM Drive operation without violating the Newton’s third law, momentum conservation law, and the energy conservation law. A simple formula was derived for the force based on the assumption that the propellant that actually drives the EM Drive is the flow of emitted gravitons."
Comments were made here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1482071#msg1482071Further discussion of this topic requires the author's direct involvement in the forum, addressing the above and other topics: and also regarding Mulletron's comments:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1491009#msg1491009 and Dr. Notsosureofit's comment regarding the above:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1491009#msg1491009For example, as recently addressed by Dr. Notsosureofit', the author could explain why would his theory produce a force/power exceeding that of a photon rocket, if hypothetical gravitons, like photons travel at the speed of light and are massless.
If gravitational waves were observed to propagate slower than c (the speed of light in vacuum), that would imply that the graviton has mass . However, the LIGO measurement of gravitational waves announced yesterday shows that the gravitational waves propagated at the speed of light, apparently showing that hypothetical gravitons should indeed be massless, like photons.http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2016/feb/11/ligo-detects-first-ever-gravitational-waves-from-two-merging-black-holesThe data also showed that gravitational waves travel at light speed and that gravity has no mass, as predicted by general relativity.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/02/gravitational-waves-einstein-s-ripples-spacetime-spotted-first-timeThe 0.007-second delay between the signals in Louisiana and Washington is the right timing for a light-speed wave zipping across both detectors.
The expected difference between photons and gravitons is in their spin, photons having spin 1 and hypothetical gravitons having spin 2. Why would the spin make a difference to the force/power ?
-
#2816
by
JaimeZX
on 12 Feb, 2016 14:28
-
Here is a nice explanation by Prof. Jens Uwe Nöckel that does not involve much math:
http://pages.uoregon.edu/noeckel/gooshanchen/
This was a fascinating read for someone unfamiliar with that effect.
Tangentially-related: I read in Scientific American maybe a few years back about technological progress as it relates to human interaction. It blew my mind that essentially 40,000 generations passed between the earliest stone tool and then the earliest stone tool WITH A WOODEN HANDLE ON IT. (The idea being that early populations didn't have a lot of interaction, and that interaction and discussion drives innovation.)
This forum is at the opposite end of that spectrum: near-real-time interaction between experimenters and theorists allowing (essentially) immediate feedback on test results and experimental modifications based on updated modeling with very short turn times...
It makes me proud of our species to observe the process and grateful to our fore-bearers for providing the knowledge and situation we are in that enable this discussion to take place... regardless of whether, at the end of the day, a practical application emerges. As always, my hat's off to all of you!
-
#2817
by
SeeShells
on 12 Feb, 2016 16:16
-
Here is a nice explanation by Prof. Jens Uwe Nöckel that does not involve much math:
http://pages.uoregon.edu/noeckel/gooshanchen/
This was a fascinating read for someone unfamiliar with that effect.
Tangentially-related: I read in Scientific American maybe a few years back about technological progress as it relates to human interaction. It blew my mind that essentially 40,000 generations passed between the earliest stone tool and then the earliest stone tool WITH A WOODEN HANDLE ON IT. (The idea being that early populations didn't have a lot of interaction, and that interaction and discussion drives innovation.)
This forum is at the opposite end of that spectrum: near-real-time interaction between experimenters and theorists allowing (essentially) immediate feedback on test results and experimental modifications based on updated modeling with very short turn times...
It makes me proud of our species to observe the process and grateful to our fore-bearers for providing the knowledge and situation we are in that enable this discussion to take place... regardless of whether, at the end of the day, a practical application emerges. As always, my hat's off to all of you!
Very true and funny we're still smashing things together.
Nice post.
Shell
-
#2818
by
CW
on 12 Feb, 2016 17:21
-
Here is a nice explanation by Prof. Jens Uwe Nöckel that does not involve much math:
http://pages.uoregon.edu/noeckel/gooshanchen/
This was a fascinating read for someone unfamiliar with that effect.
Tangentially-related: I read in Scientific American maybe a few years back about technological progress as it relates to human interaction. It blew my mind that essentially 40,000 generations passed between the earliest stone tool and then the earliest stone tool WITH A WOODEN HANDLE ON IT. (The idea being that early populations didn't have a lot of interaction, and that interaction and discussion drives innovation.)
This forum is at the opposite end of that spectrum: near-real-time interaction between experimenters and theorists allowing (essentially) immediate feedback on test results and experimental modifications based on updated modeling with very short turn times...
It makes me proud of our species to observe the process and grateful to our fore-bearers for providing the knowledge and situation we are in that enable this discussion to take place... regardless of whether, at the end of the day, a practical application emerges. As always, my hat's off to all of you!
Very true and funny we're still smashing things together.
Nice post.
Shell
Ironically, an EM-drive on a balance beam has an uncanny resemblance to a stone axe on a wooden handle.. just saying. Maybe we are on the brink of a new 'Stone Age' ? Getting ready to split the Heavens..
-
#2819
by
JaimeZX
on 12 Feb, 2016 18:17
-
Very true and funny we're still smashing things together.
Different scale, though. haha
which I had not previously seen.
