-
#500 by OnlyMe on 21 Dec, 2015 16:55
-
Interesting, so if I follow this correctly, there is a terminal velocity or point of diminishing returns?
Other way around.
The critical velocity is the point where kinetic energy is being produced at a higher rate than (electrical) energy is consumed by the thruster. Conveniently, it happens to be when Velocity = Power/Force (normal units).
Below that velocity, the device is mundane (from a conservation of energy point of view), it consumes more energy than it produces. At the critical velocity, the energy produces equals the energy consumed, and the device is at unity. Above the critical velocity, the device will be producing more energy than it consumes. And you've broken the laws of physics. (Hurrah!)
Conventional devices always conspire the stay below their critical velocity, usually be changing the thrust/power ratio.
A theoretically perfect photon emitter happens to have a critical velocity of "c", and so can never reach overunity. A realistic photon drive has a critical velocity above "c", and really can't reach overunity.
A device with a constant thrust to power ratio, and a thrust to power ratio higher than a theoretically perfect photon emitter, has a critical velocity that can be reached by a real system. It can therefore be used to violate CoE. Even these lab-scale result are much greater than the thrust of a photon drive, and so if it's a genuine propellantless/reactionless effect, such devices can violate CoE.
[frobnicat covered it better, of course.]
The problem I see here, is that it assumes something that has never been tested.
We have no evidence that anything that is composed of atoms can be accelerated to relativistic velocities without being ionized, to the point that you wind up with bare nuclei or less. Not in an accelerator. Not in nature.
Say the EMDrive outperforms all previous claims. Before I ever jump into one and head off for the stars I am going to insist that either someone else do so.., and return, or that it is tested with an unmanned probe.
The CoM/CoE concerns being raised here are sterile, because they depend entirely on hypotheticals and assumptions about fundamental physics, which while proven locally and at classical velocities, have never been tested or observed to occur naturally. Yes, we have accelerated protons and heavy nuclei to relativistic velocities, but not baseballs or even marbles.
Even if the fears about CoM/CoE have any merit, no one will ever know one way or the other until an interstellar probe/mission is funded and carried out. You are not going to be jumping to even 10-20% c, on the way to Mars, Jupiter or even Neptune.
Bottom line is.... When — (if to satisfy skeptics) useable thrust is confirmed, it will not be free, it will not be reactionless and it will require more than classical mechanics, Maxwell's equations and general/special relativity to explain. -
#501 by rfmwguy on 21 Dec, 2015 17:11
-
NSF-1701A update - dimensions given to brassmith today for solid walled frustum:
-
#502 by ThereIWas3 on 21 Dec, 2015 17:16
-
I will be happy to add any more derived dimensions that people think might be interesting. I will be adding the distance of the feedline attachment from the small end, and the diameter of the frustrum at that point, once I get the code added for feedlines.
In looking at Shell's thermals, I have a question for you and your royal MEEPness.
Can you add shell's waveguide to the simulation and if so, here's what would be helpful to understand.
Assume 100 joules of RF power enters the frustum. Is there any way to see how many joules exit back through the waveguide?
If so, is there any way to see if that would change depending on whether the frustum had a high Q vs the lowest possible Q?
Such a simulation would be very helpful in predicting and thereby eliminating thermal effects from measurements.
I am planning on adding the feedlines eventually, but I have to wait for Shell to publish the precise measurements first. In the meantime I am working on the logic that models stub antennas inserted into the cavity on the sides of the cones. There is some vector math involved to properly rotate the stub to be at right angles to the wall, and a specified distance down from the top. Provided the multiple feedlines deliver power to all the injection sites in-phase, what goes inside the feedlines themselves may not be crucial to simulate in order to understand what the frustrum is doing, but I have to do the injection antennas anyway.
What you are asking for about reflected power is a measurement of the VSWR, Voltage Standing Wave Ratio. I have not seen that meep will just output a nice VSWR number for you, but it certainly has all the knowledge from which that could be computed. Meep does not directly model power flow - it measures electical and magnetic fields and their interaction with conductors and dialectrics, so it is indirect. -
#503 by OnlyMe on 21 Dec, 2015 17:24
-
@SeeShells,
It is now what 4 pages since you posted your bombshell, which even considering the cryptic hints from a few earlier posts caught me off guard and struck dumb. Something a few who know me personally wish they could do, shut me up.
There is nothing I can add that has not been said by many far better than I might have. When I joined the discussion just a little over a moth ago, I came in as a skeptic, hoping my skepticism would be proven wrong and there would be a possibility, that I might witness something truly.., in the way of New Physics. The most exciting thing anyone interested in physics could hope for, whether they are directly or indirectly involved or just watching from the sidelines as am I.
Thank you for the hope!
Now, slow down just a bit. Take a deep breath. Soak in the hot tub. Enjoy the holidays, family and friends... And when you do get back to testing.., if what you find and share is really out of the noise.., and the better testing equipement mentioned earlier will make some difference, I will dig in and see what I can do to help make that possible.
Merry Christmas. -
#504 by Rodal on 21 Dec, 2015 18:05
-
The notion of a "terminal velocity" (other than the speed of light) would go against the principle of frame indifference. Define such "terminal velocity" in one frame, and one can come up with an infinity of other frames in which that "terminal velocity" has a different value.
Interesting, so if I follow this correctly, there is a terminal velocity or point of diminishing returns?
Even with the EMDrive you have a finite energy source, so there is no differenceGiven an unlimited fuel supply,
And there's your problem. You need to define an impossible thing in order for a conventional system to mimic a reactionless thruster. Without that, no conventional device can achieve constant force/power
There really is. Solar panels or some other transfer of power is fundamentally different from the transfer of fuel, or some other transfer of force.
(...)The equation for thrust from a photon rocket is N=W/C where N is newtons and W is watt seconds of energy. Doesn't that equation also imply constant thrust from constant power? Doesn't a photon rocket suffer from the same problem? Remember, photon rockets have been experimentally observed.
When calculating "overunity", the critical cross-over velocity occurs when Velocity = Power / Force, where velocity is in m/s, power in watts, force in newtons. Try working out the critical velocity for a photon emitter. (Hint: Don't solve the equations numerically. Only cancel like-terms.)
Some of the earlier threads discussed this as well. Dr. Rodal do you remember any of the specific discussion points?
It would not make sense (using Occam's razor) to have a Universe specially designed to accommodate that "terminal velocity" privileged frame because someone insists on a theory of getting constant acceleration for constant power input (particularly so for an electromagnetic drive that is proposed as not interacting with external fields, as per Yang and Shawyer, and that does not emit mass or energy: photon rockets emit photons). The one "terminal velocity" is the speed of light, and that is the limit for the photon rocket.
Getting around this problem by defining a "terminal velocity" in some privileged frame would be akin to explaining the motions of the planets and the sun around the Earth by epicycles upon epicycles, purely out of insistence that the Earth must be the privileged center of revolution of celestial bodies.
Even the EM Drive experimental data claimed by Yang, clearly shows that there is no constant acceleration for constant power input in Yang's data (see graphs by Flyby). -
#505 by SeeShells on 21 Dec, 2015 18:10
-
I would love to make it to see you both and share a cold brewsky and chat, I can't. So while your there getting rosy cheeks and smiling and laughing with Christmas cheer, raise your glasses and give a toast for the future. I'll join you here in a virtual glass clink with a BOMC.
PM'd you w/my cell in anticipation of the 1st Annual East Coast Emdrive Conference....
p.s. I'll be in dc later this week vax, perhaps there will be enough time to have a beer or two. Holiday travels to see the kids in MD.
DUDE. I'm off all week. THIS NEEDS TO HAPPEN
I'll PM with phone number.
-- Emory
Shell
Shell -
#506 by SteveD on 21 Dec, 2015 18:30
-
Conclusion, it is simply wrong to say that conventional proven propulsive schemes suffer from the same apparent conservation of energy issue as the propellantless schemes claiming above 3.33 µN/kW "figure of merit". Only propellantless schemes claiming above 3.33 µN/kW have this problem. It is "instantaneous", it appears on any (non 0) arbitrarily small delta time interval. At a minimum, such propellantless schemes shouldn't be longer qualified as drives, but rather as sails or generators, i.e. systems which are known to exhibit net power output production while remaining in a stationary situation (because fed by an "infinite" or huge enough reserve of energy).
To comment, please refer only to units of power(W), force(N), relative velocities(m/s), mass flow rates (kg/s), as nothing else is needed and those eschew the problems with arbitrary choices of reference frames.
Yeah, I was a bad person and used the example most people were likely to be familiar with (photon rocket) instead of the most relevant one. Photonic laser thruster. Peer reviewed paper available here http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187538921202514X Experimental report available here http://www.ykbcorp.com/downloads/Photonic-Laser-Thruster-Propels-Simulated-Spacecraft_MP_ykb_ejw05-12-15.pdf. Wikipedia entry here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_laser_thruster.
Please explain how your objections do not apply to a photonic laser thruster. -
#507 by SeeShells on 21 Dec, 2015 18:31
-
@SeeShells,
And a very Merry Christmas to you and your's.
It is now what 4 pages since you posted your bombshell, which even considering the cryptic hints from a few earlier posts caught me off guard and struck dumb. Something a few who know me personally wish they could do, shut me up.
There is nothing I can add that has not been said by many far better than I might have. When I joined the discussion just a little over a moth ago, I came in as a skeptic, hoping my skepticism would be proven wrong and there would be a possibility, that I might witness something truly.., in the way of New Physics. The most exciting thing anyone interested in physics could hope for, whether they are directly or indirectly involved or just watching from the sidelines as am I.
Thank you for the hope!
Now, slow down just a bit. Take a deep breath. Soak in the hot tub. Enjoy the holidays, family and friends... And when you do get back to testing.., if what you find and share is really out of the noise.., and the better testing equipement mentioned earlier will make some difference, I will dig in and see what I can do to help make that possible.
Merry Christmas.
I'm not going to be pushing very hard this week being close to the holiday with people to visit, friends to see and friends dropping in. The hot tub will be enjoyed as well.... well not as a group splash.
I hope to get something done. I'm hand filing the waveguides for a fine fit and will be attaching later with the new antennas but also getting the stands leveled and positioned plus bring in a few other things from the shop.
Yes, a few extra would help bring the testing up a notch and thank you beforehand.
Shell -
#508 by SteveD on 21 Dec, 2015 18:39
-
NSF-1701A update - dimensions given to brassmith today for solid walled frustum:
So this is going to be a "traditional" frustum or is the shaping just not being shown on the diagram? -
#509 by Flyby on 21 Dec, 2015 18:42
-
......
I think I can follow the reasoning, but allow me to turn it 180° around...
A device with a constant thrust to power ratio, and a thrust to power ratio higher than a theoretically perfect photon emitter, has a critical velocity that can be reached by a real system. It can therefore be used to violate CoE. Even these lab-scale result are much greater than the thrust of a photon drive, and so if it's a genuine propellantless/reactionless effect, such devices can violate CoE.
[frobnicat covered it better, of course.]
The only way for the device to comply to CoE, would be NOT to have a constant thrust to power ratio ?
We have not yet tested a static device yet, let alone one moving at high speeds.
Would/could the relative speed of the cavity itself have an impact on how the force is generated internally?
What does the velocity of the EMdrive mean for the electromagnetic waves that bounce around and their resonance patterns?
Isn't an electromagnetic wave limited to the speed of light, regardless the reference frame it bounces in?
so if the cavity moves, it takes light less time to travel the distance in one direction then in the other direction. (Doppler effect?)
So the question is then what effect has that on the possible force generation in the frustum?
I know it doesn't look good on paper, but... IF the tests show there is some force going on, how on earth is that apparent violation of Energy going to be explained then?
Or do we reside right away that it is "not possible" from start and that all measurements are flawed?
Are you 110% sure we don't take a flawed assumption somewhere that is counter-intuitive?
I am in doubt...seriously...
I can see where it goes wrong. You and frobnicat (and doc Rodal before that) explained it well, but I'm not yet prepared to throw all testing results overboard. Maybe we're overlooking something, made wrong assumptions?
From the apparent violation of CoE there are 2 pathways to go: either dismiss the whole concept as being ridiculous "impossible" or ask yourself where we made a conceptual mistake?
Until the experiments can clearly identify the EMdrive as a measurement mistake, I'm inclined to question our understanding about whats happening, rather then to dismiss it as impossible... -
#510 by Rodal on 21 Dec, 2015 18:52
-
......
I think I can follow the reasoning, but allow me to turn it 180° around...
A device with a constant thrust to power ratio, and a thrust to power ratio higher than a theoretically perfect photon emitter, has a critical velocity that can be reached by a real system. It can therefore be used to violate CoE. Even these lab-scale result are much greater than the thrust of a photon drive, and so if it's a genuine propellantless/reactionless effect, such devices can violate CoE.
[frobnicat covered it better, of course.]
The only way for the device to comply to CoE, would be NOT to have a constant thrust to power ratio ?
We have not yet tested a static device yet, let alone one moving at high speeds.
Would/could the relative speed of the cavity itself have an impact on how the force is generated internally?
What does the velocity of the EMdrive mean for the electromagnetic waves that bounce around and their resonance patterns?
Isn't an electromagnetic wave limited to the speed of light, regardless the reference frame it bounces in?
so if the cavity moves, it takes light less time to travel the distance in one direction then in the other direction. (Doppler effect?)
So the question is then what effect has that on the possible force generation in the frustum?
I know it doesn't look good on paper, but... IF the tests show there is some force going on, how on earth is that apparent violation of Energy going to be explained then?
Or do we reside right away that it is "not possible" from start and that all measurements are flawed?
Are you 110% sure we don't take a flawed assumption somewhere that is counter-intuitive?
I am in doubt...seriously...
I can see where it goes wrong. You and frobnicat (and doc Rodal before that) explained it well, but I'm not yet prepared to throw all testing results overboard. Maybe we're overlooking something, made wrong assumptions?
From the apparent violation of CoE there are 2 pathways to go: either dismiss the whole concept as being ridiculous "impossible" or ask yourself where we made a conceptual mistake?
Until the experiments can clearly identify the EMdrive as a measurement mistake, I'm inclined to question our understanding about whats happening, rather then to dismiss it as impossible...
Experimental data?
The experimental data claimed by Yang, clearly shows that there is no constant acceleration for constant power input in Yang's data (see graphs, kudos to Flyby
).
So, constant (higher than a photon' rocket) acceleration for constant power input is not only a bad idea (from a conservation of energy viewpoint) for a propellant-less drive that does not emit mass or energy and that does not rely on external fields, but it is not even justified by the claimed data.
Other's data?
Any smooth nonlinear function will appear linear (and hence force = constant*powerInput) over a small enough range (of power input). Yang is the experimenter that has reported the highest force/power input claimed, hence her claimed data is relevant for illustration's purpose.
-
#511 by Rodal on 21 Dec, 2015 19:01
-
Conclusion, it is simply wrong to say that conventional proven propulsive schemes suffer from the same apparent conservation of energy issue as the propellantless schemes claiming above 3.33 µN/kW "figure of merit". Only propellantless schemes claiming above 3.33 µN/kW have this problem. It is "instantaneous", it appears on any (non 0) arbitrarily small delta time interval. At a minimum, such propellantless schemes shouldn't be longer qualified as drives, but rather as sails or generators, i.e. systems which are known to exhibit net power output production while remaining in a stationary situation (because fed by an "infinite" or huge enough reserve of energy).
To comment, please refer only to units of power(W), force(N), relative velocities(m/s), mass flow rates (kg/s), as nothing else is needed and those eschew the problems with arbitrary choices of reference frames.
Yeah, I was a bad person and used the example most people were likely to be familiar with (photon rocket) instead of the most relevant one. Photonic laser thruster. Peer reviewed paper available here http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187538921202514X Experimental report available here http://www.ykbcorp.com/downloads/Photonic-Laser-Thruster-Propels-Simulated-Spacecraft_MP_ykb_ejw05-12-15.pdf. Wikipedia entry here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_laser_thruster.
Please explain how your objections do not apply to a photonic laser thruster.
There are two spacecrafts involved in this concept. While there was only one spacecraft involved in the discussion by Frobnicat. Take a gander at what happens to the other spacecraft and you will then understand how energy and momentum is conserved in this concept, and why it does not make sense (for energy and momentum conservation) to take a look at only one of the two spacecrafts without taking into account what happens to the other. And why it does not make sense to associate the EM Drive with this concept, as the EM Drive is conceived as one undivided engine instead of two spacecrafts becoming further and further apart from each other. -
#512 by rfmwguy on 21 Dec, 2015 19:07
-
Vax and I will conspire to set up a Rocky Mountain Conference...details I'm sure will follow
I would love to make it to see you both and share a cold brewsky and chat, I can't. So while your there getting rosy cheeks and smiling and laughing with Christmas cheer, raise your glasses and give a toast for the future. I'll join you here in a virtual glass clink with a BOMC.
PM'd you w/my cell in anticipation of the 1st Annual East Coast Emdrive Conference....
p.s. I'll be in dc later this week vax, perhaps there will be enough time to have a beer or two. Holiday travels to see the kids in MD.
DUDE. I'm off all week. THIS NEEDS TO HAPPEN
I'll PM with phone number.
-- Emory
Shell
Shell
Any others in/near Washington DC/Baltimore want to partake, PM me. Think we might try for this Saturday at noon. Details via PM. -
#513 by JaimeZX on 21 Dec, 2015 20:13
-
First - heartiest congratulations to Shells! While maintaining a healthy skepticism, I'm letting my hopes rise a bit over here in the peanut gallery.
Second - rfmwguy et al... of course I just moved FROM the DC area. Would love to join the inaugural Conference otherwise. I am in awe of you all! IF all this turns out... Shells & Rodal & rfmwguy are going to be remembered like this:
-
#514 by rfmwguy on 21 Dec, 2015 20:54
-
First - heartiest congratulations to Shells! While maintaining a healthy skepticism, I'm letting my hopes rise a bit over here in the peanut gallery.
Thanks, skeptics do compel experimenters to do better design work and more thorough testing. They are actually quite valuable to the process provided they offer specific critiques like many here. Unfortunately, some of it is merely dismissive with general, repetitious commentary.
Second - rfmwguy et al... of course I just moved FROM the DC area. Would love to join the inaugural Conference otherwise. I am in awe of you all! IF all this turns out... Shells & Rodal & rfmwguy are going to be remembered like this:
Tellmeagain, or Mr Li here, took it one step further and designed an experiment then published Lorentz force error possibilities. This was an excellent effort and adds to the body of knowledge. Not many have the skills or ambition to do this.
All us diyers appreciate you following and being civil...2016 should be quite a year...Shells data should start appearing soon. With mine, I put out raw data and professionals here helped dissect it much better than I could. Pretty close-knit community here... -
#515 by Chrochne on 21 Dec, 2015 21:11
-
First - heartiest congratulations to Shells! While maintaining a healthy skepticism, I'm letting my hopes rise a bit over here in the peanut gallery.
Thanks, skeptics do compel experimenters to do better design work and more thorough testing. They are actually quite valuable to the process provided they offer specific critiques like many here. Unfortunately, some of it is merely dismissive with general, repetitious commentary.
Second - rfmwguy et al... of course I just moved FROM the DC area. Would love to join the inaugural Conference otherwise. I am in awe of you all! IF all this turns out... Shells & Rodal & rfmwguy are going to be remembered like this:
Tellmeagain, or Mr Li here, took it one step further and designed an experiment then published Lorentz force error possibilities. This was an excellent effort and adds to the body of knowledge. Not many have the skills or ambition to do this.
All us diyers appreciate you following and being civil...2016 should be quite a year...Shells data should start appearing soon. With mine, I put out raw data and professionals here helped dissect it much better than I could. Pretty close-knit community here...
I second to that. For us, lurkers in the shadow and hopeless dreamers.
SeeShell dropped the Bomb on us and what is better for Christmas than message of hope.
Most importantly it really feels great to be part of this community. Even if we are lurking in the shadows
-
#516 by oliverio on 21 Dec, 2015 21:37
-
So one large error is being overlooked here. That is the difference between power input, resonance density, and force output. Even if we don't assume that resonance creates thrust this is still just as relevant because resonance is an easy way to measure accumulated power.
What do we know about the elasticity of a linear function? That it is nonlinearly varying over the course of a straight line.
That is to say that if thrust power output is a linear function of resonance power, this still wouldn't make thrust a linear function of power input. If you have 1000 photons bouncing in a cavity (let's assume perfect reflectors, and that we aren't even extracting work from their momenta), it takes 100 photons to scale the power of resonance up by 10%. To scale resonance power up another 10% will require 110 photons, which is nonconstant returns to thrust from input power.
Because other forms of thrust do not work by accumulating resonance of thrust energy, I think some of the calculations being done here are mistaken. Note again, this should be true even if resonance is not the creator of thrust but an indicator of energy density. -
#517 by Flyby on 21 Dec, 2015 21:39
-
Experimental data?
The experimental data claimed by Yang, clearly shows that there is no constant acceleration for constant power input in Yang's data (see graphs, kudos to Flyby ).
So, constant (higher than a photon' rocket) acceleration for constant power input is not only a bad idea (from a conservation of energy viewpoint) for a propellant-less drive that does not emit mass or energy and that does not rely on external fields, but it is not even justified by the claimed data.
Other's data?
Any smooth nonlinear function will appear linear (and hence force = constant*powerInput) over a small enough range (of power input). Yang is the experimenter that has reported the highest force/power input claimed, hence her claimed data is relevant for illustration's purpose.
hmmmm... the graph showed that the relation between an increase of power (power variation) and the resulting force was non-linear.
However, If you maintain the power levels at the same level , the force variations in Yang's graphs were far less pronounced. I took averages of those values to obtain a clearer picture for the specific thrust graph.
However, because there is no clear and obvious linear relations to be found, I think these type of curves are typical for different interacting parameters (like the pseudo chaotic double pendulum) that either reinforce or diminish the resulting forces.
A few of these parameters are : thermal wall deformation, variation in Q due to thermal effects or oxidation, creation of dynamic/moving resonance patterns (E & B fields), evanescent waves, etc....
But I'm sure there are other effects at play that we didn't cover yet...
All these parameters seem to interact, making it extremely hard to fine tune or pinpoint what to adjust to get a better output.
fe
I'm still trying to understand how EMwaves interact with a copper atomic lattice and how they're getting reflected. Classic mechanic pictures that as a pure optics (angle of incidence/reflection on a flat surface)... but is that really happening?
Although we see a smooth copper surface, in reality, it looks more like a fishing net with large gaps.
How does a wave interact with that? Could it be that some angles result in a larger absorption/moment transfer due to the geometric positioning of the copper atoms?
The scientific academic world is not my playground , so i do not have insight what the status is of such a fundamental research...
But - on condition the EM-effect is real - I think we will have to challenge what we know and what we consider to be acquired...
-
#518 by rfmwguy on 21 Dec, 2015 22:02
-
So one large error is being overlooked here. That is the difference between power input, resonance density, and force output. Even if we don't assume that resonance creates thrust this is still just as relevant because resonance is an easy way to measure accumulated power.
How would you design an experiment to test for this?
What do we know about the elasticity of a linear function? That it is nonlinearly varying over the course of a straight line.
That is to say that if thrust power output is a linear function of resonance power, this still wouldn't make thrust a linear function of power input. If you have 1000 photons bouncing in a cavity (let's assume perfect reflectors, and that we aren't even extracting work from their momenta), it takes 100 photons to scale the power of resonance up by 10%. To scale resonance power up another 10% will require 110 photons, which is nonconstant returns to thrust from input power.
Because other forms of thrust do not work by accumulating resonance of thrust energy, I think some of the calculations being done here are mistaken. Note again, this should be true even if resonance is not the creator of thrust but an indicator of energy density. -
#519 by SeeShells on 21 Dec, 2015 22:31
-
First - heartiest congratulations to Shells! While maintaining a healthy skepticism, I'm letting my hopes rise a bit over here in the peanut gallery.
Thanks, skeptics do compel experimenters to do better design work and more thorough testing. They are actually quite valuable to the process provided they offer specific critiques like many here. Unfortunately, some of it is merely dismissive with general, repetitious commentary.
Second - rfmwguy et al... of course I just moved FROM the DC area. Would love to join the inaugural Conference otherwise. I am in awe of you all! IF all this turns out... Shells & Rodal & rfmwguy are going to be remembered like this:
Tellmeagain, or Mr Li here, took it one step further and designed an experiment then published Lorentz force error possibilities. This was an excellent effort and adds to the body of knowledge. Not many have the skills or ambition to do this.
All us diyers appreciate you following and being civil...2016 should be quite a year...Shells data should start appearing soon. With mine, I put out raw data and professionals here helped dissect it much better than I could. Pretty close-knit community here...
Here here, well said and rings with well observed truths.
Shell
).