-
#560 by Paul451 on 22 Dec, 2015 14:41
-
I believe the argument is that constant power, creating constant thrust will -- with sufficient time -- result in the total kinetic energy in the system going over unity.
This is an incorrect characterisation of the overunity issue. I've heard others make similar statements, so I wonder if it's a common misunderstanding.
It's not an issue of the total kinetic energy of the system exceeding the total energy consumed by the system. The issue is that above the critical velocity, the rate of increase of kinetic energy of the system exceeds the rate of consumption of energy (ie, power input).We have no evidence that anything that is composed of atoms can be accelerated to relativistic velocities without being ionized, [...] 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.
You seem to be under the impression that the CoE issue has something to do with relativistic velocity.
It doesn't. Using the figures I believe come from Shawyer's rotating turntable experiment (96 mN from 334 W) and Yang's paper (750mN/2500W) the critical velocity is just 3.3 - 3.5km/s.the required densities [...] would be higher than dark matter, for which we already know there isn't quite enough even if it interacted with microwaves like crazy
Would this be the case if the dark matter was essentially non-rotating around the galaxy? So that the flow through the Earth was 200km/s +/- 30km/s. The V² in the Ek formula now drastically increases the amount of energy we can transfer from the dark matter, compared with a stationary (ie, low relative-v) "pool" around the Earth that the EMDrive is pushing against.
(I believe that previous testing has ruled out the implied directionality of this, I'm just wondering hypothetically.) -
#561 by Notsosureofit on 22 Dec, 2015 14:44
-
#562 by Rodal on 22 Dec, 2015 14:49
-
See Doc, I told you I am a non-conformist
...
"Follow the Data, Theory be Damned".
That may be the problem, right there: is that meant as a dogmatic assertion?. A non-dogmatic person would re-check the data for consistency and validity over and over again, and would learn mathematical physics to formulate consistent theories that are consistent with all experimental evidence.
A dogmatic person would stop all measurements after getting data that reinforces pre-held dogmatic opinions, instead of re-checking all data and theories for consistency.
My understanding is that Paul March, rather than stopping his experiments and declaring victory, has been consistently re-checking his experimental data, That's why the experiments in vacuum haven not been formally reported yet.
-
#563 by OnlyMe on 22 Dec, 2015 14:55
-
...
The hard sciences like mathematics and physics are the furthest removed from "dogma".
Psychologically speaking (another area I'm fascinated with) think its beneficial not to simply roll over and accept dogma. Its actually a skeptic's skeptical point of view if that makes sense (probably doesn't and that's OK).
...
On the contrary, dogma is associated with religion, politics, law, legislation, sociology, etc., and not with mathematical physics.
What are called "laws" in Physics are not dogmatic laws, they are mathematical statements that are derived mathematically under well defined assumptions (*). They are not concepts that people learn dogmatically (they are not like laws that a lawyer has to learn as dogmatically passed by a Legislature).
Skepticism is better directed at EM Drive assertions contradicted by experimental evidence (such as those by Shawyer) than at consistent physical concepts like conservation of momentum and conservation of energy that are so far supported by all the experimental evidence and that have been successful at bringing humanity into the Space Age.
Dogma is a somebody dogmatically asserting (because he says so) inconsistent, obviously wrong statements that are contradicted by experimental evidence, like "a frustum of a cone cavity excited by a spherical wave experiences no radiation pressure on the lateral surfaces of the frustum", or that "a closed cavity resonance is governed by the same cut-off frequency condition as an open waveguide", or that "the EM Drive experiences self-acceleration due to electromagnetism as explained by Classical Physics (Maxwell's laws and SR) and such self-acceleration is consistent with conservation of momentum and Newton's laws."
______
(*) Of course, no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" (i.e., any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths. Also, Newtonian physics was modified by General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics to extend to the very large and the very small dimensions, but the consistency of Newtonian Physics for its range of validity remains unadultered and used to this date.
Dr. Rodal, aside from my impression that most of your comments seem to ooze skepticism, I don't have many real objections to your above post. There are two things that do come up. One is a question concerning the cut-off frequency and the other an observation about math.
When you say, "Dogma is a somebody dogmatically asserting ... that "a closed cavity resonance is governed by the same cut-off frequency condition as an open waveguide"." the picture that comes to mind for me, is that many of the pictures of Shaweyer's frustum design of includes a cylindrical tuning cavity at the small end and that the cutoff should be just above resonance associated with the small end... Since his frustum ends in a cylindrical cavity, it would seem that cutoff frequencies derived from a cylindrical cavity should apply?.. And since he is suggesting a cutoff just above resonance the fact that it is not open, may be of no importance.
Second I come from a background of mathematicians and though my working career did not involve the physics or math I studied, I have on more than one occasion use what I understand of math to present a convincing and yet biased argument, to a governing board.., specifically to influence a corporate decision. All the while knowing myself that anyone who understood the math, though there was no flaw in mine, could have presented an equally convincing counter argument. The point is, that mathematics is not some holly Grail, of science. It is a very precise language, which can be used to describe both real and fictional cases. Theoretical physicists use math all of the time describing what they imagine may be. Something that most of the time does not describe what we ultimately come to know of as reality. And yet very often there is nothing wrong with their math aside from the fact that it does not describe reality. -
#564 by rfmwguy on 22 Dec, 2015 15:03
-
But...he never let math get into the way of experimentation, this was one of the reasons I think his work was not as highly regarding initially. You have to admit, scientific discovery can be happenstance, a mistake turned into something useful...an Edison light bulb...trial and error on filament material, etc.
(snip)...
The hard sciences like mathematics and physics are the furthest removed from "dogma".
Psychologically speaking (another area I'm fascinated with) think its beneficial not to simply roll over and accept dogma. Its actually a skeptic's skeptical point of view if that makes sense (probably doesn't and that's OK).
...
(snip)
See Doc, I told you I am a non-conformist
Goddard received a Ph.D. in physics in 1911 (this at a time when in US Universities, many Professors did not have a PhD). Goddard would be one of the last persons I would associate with rejection of mathematical physics ! Much on the contrary!
The practical use of Goddard's experiments was indeed discussed mathematically by Goddard himself, and most importantly before Goddard by pioneers like Konstantin Tsiolkovsky. Goddard in his elegant experiments and mathematical discussions, rather than rejecting existing mathematical physics, embraced mathematical physics !
So this leads me to play dissertation supervisor (which I have never been) but here goes:
A PhD candidate walks into my office, seeking guidance for their thesis and I say "What have you Observed? Avoid the mundane and redundant. Seek to push the boundaries of your discipline and demonstrate you can think outside the box and not rest on the shoulders of countless students before you. Make a difference even if it means not playing it safe."
So Doc, my point is the emdrive (in my view) would be ideal material for a PhD thesis. What systematic error has been overlooked in several designs, test methods and experiments? What singular error source has fooled so many for so many years after their initial Observations? If one is discovered, the body of knowledge would prosper mightily IMHO. Better test methodology down the road and perhaps a new discovery of the nature of confined photons. -
#565 by TheTraveller on 22 Dec, 2015 15:13
-
See Doc, I told you I am a non-conformist
...
"Follow the Data, Theory be Damned".
That may be the problem, right there: is that meant as a dogmatic assertion?. A non-dogmatic person would re-check the data for consistency and validity over and over again, and would learn mathematical physics to formulate consistent theories that are consistent with all experimental evidence.
A dogmatic person would stop all measurements after getting data that reinforces pre-held dogmatic opinions, instead of re-checking all data and theories for consistency.
My understanding is that Paul March, rather than stopping his experiments and declaring victory, has been consistently re-checking his experimental data, That's why the experiments in vacuum haven not been formally reported yet.
I'm building a special frustum to directly measure the radiation pressure generated on each end plate. Sensors should be fast enough to get at least 0.1us resolution on a frustum with a 5 x TC fill time of 30us. Should also be able to monitor end plate rad pressure as the frustum fills with Rf and to measure the dynamically changing amount of reflected Rf energy as the frustum fills.
With my latest frustum build technique is fairly easy to build frustums that can say confirm or deny Cullen 15, being end plate rad pressure varies as frustum diameter varies guide wavelength and guide momentum and to measure Shawyer's claimed small end cutoff dynamics. Should also be able directly measure the effect of different frustum Q on end plate rad pressure.
So in a few months most of your theoretical beliefs will have green ticks or red Xs.
Should create an interesting data trail to follow. Wonder where it may lead? -
#566 by Rodal on 22 Dec, 2015 15:22
-
...
Second I come from a background of mathematicians and though my working career did not involve the physics or math I studied, I have on more than one occasion use what I understand of math to present a convincing and yet biased argument, to a governing board.., specifically to influence a corporate decision. All the while knowing myself that anyone who understood the math, though there was no flaw in mine, could have presented an equally convincing counter argument. The point is, that mathematics is not some holly Grail, of science. It is a very precise language, which can be used to describe both real and fictional cases. Theoretical physicists use math all of the time describing what they imagine may be. Something that most of the time does not describe what we ultimately come to know of as reality. And yet very often there is nothing wrong with their math aside from the fact that it does not describe reality.
My experience in private industry has, apparently, been the complete opposite of yours. My colleagues and I have always successfully applied the mathematics we learnt at MIT to model reality, because experimentation and mathematical reality go in hand with each other. Since I was a freshman -all the way to PhD-, I have performed experiments together with numerical analysis and mathematical analysis.
If you know of instances where somebody's "math" did not describe reality, I suggest that there may be something wrong with their approach to mathematical physics and engineering. MIT's "mens et manus" approach involves experiments and mathematical theory hand in hand, all the time aiding each other. If somebody's "math" did not describe reality, I suggest it is because they were not simultaneously involved with experimental analysis. -
#567 by Rodal on 22 Dec, 2015 15:31
-
But...he never let math get into the way of experimentation, this was one of the reasons I think his work was not as highly regarding initially. ...
(snip)...
The hard sciences like mathematics and physics are the furthest removed from "dogma".
Psychologically speaking (another area I'm fascinated with) think its beneficial not to simply roll over and accept dogma. Its actually a skeptic's skeptical point of view if that makes sense (probably doesn't and that's OK).
...
(snip)
See Doc, I told you I am a non-conformist
Goddard received a Ph.D. in physics in 1911 (this at a time when in US Universities, many Professors did not have a PhD). Goddard would be one of the last persons I would associate with rejection of mathematical physics ! Much on the contrary!
The practical use of Goddard's experiments was indeed discussed mathematically by Goddard himself, and most importantly before Goddard by pioneers like Konstantin Tsiolkovsky. Goddard in his elegant experiments and mathematical discussions, rather than rejecting existing mathematical physics, embraced mathematical physics !
You are stating that Dr. Goddard <<never let math get into the way of experimentation>>
?
That does not correctly represent Dr, Goddard's approach to experiments.
Dr. Goddard was the first American to explore mathematically the practicality of using rocket propulsion to reach high altitudes and to traject to the moon (1912)
First to receive a U.S. patent on the idea of a multistage rocket (1914)
First to prove, by actual static test, that rocket propulsion operates in a vacuum, that it needs no air to push against (1915-1916)
First to develop gyroscopic control apparatus for guiding rocket flight (1932)
First to launch and successfully guide a rocket with an engine pivoted by moving the tail section (as if on gimbals) controlled by a gyro mechanism (1937)
By 1913 he had in his spare time, using calculus, developed the mathematics which allowed him to calculate the position and velocity of a rocket in vertical flight, given the weight of the rocket and weight of the propellant and the velocity of the exhaust gases.
In late 1919, the Smithsonian published Goddard's groundbreaking work, A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes. The report describes Goddard's mathematical theories of rocket flight.
/////////////////
(Goddard) <<never let math get into the way of experimentation, this was one of the reasons I think his work was not as highly regarding initially. ... this was one of the reasons I think his work was not as highly regarding initially. ...>>
On the contrary. Dr. Goddard's work was highly regarded by scientists with high education in mathematical physics. Also, Dr. Goddard's work was most highly regarded by Von Braun and his team.
It was the popular press: the New York Times (the New York Times journalists have never been a bastion of mathematical physics) and similar media that criticized Dr. Goddard, on a completely different basis (criticism which had nothing to do with mathematical physics)
-
#568 by Prunesquallor on 22 Dec, 2015 15:38
-
If the EMDrive is acting as say a dark matter parachute, then no. There's no issue with over-unity.
It would be a "free energy machine" in the sense that a solar panel or wind turbine is. But not in the sense of reversing entropy and injecting free energy into the universe. It would merely (!) be reducing the velocity difference between Earth and the dark matter flow, converting it (ultimately) into low quality waste heat while extracting useful work.
...
Which also means that Shawyer/et al invented a device based on a misunderstanding of electromagnatism and general relativity, that somehow accidentally stumbled into a completely different phenomena that would be the most revolutionary thing in physics since some guy¹ rubbed two dry sticks together and noticed they were getting hot.
¹ Ugg, U. Anomalous heat from resonant movement against desiccated high lignin content fibres. Actual Nature, 1, 16-17.
...
I've always considered this the "get out of jail free" card as far as CoM/E is concerned. To put another way, our understanding of the control volume for CoM/E is incomplete.
That reference is hilarious.
-
#569 by OnlyMe on 22 Dec, 2015 15:44
-
...
Second I come from a background of mathematicians and though my working career did not involve the physics or math I studied, I have on more than one occasion use what I understand of math to present a convincing and yet biased argument, to a governing board.., specifically to influence a corporate decision. All the while knowing myself that anyone who understood the math, though there was no flaw in mine, could have presented an equally convincing counter argument. The point is, that mathematics is not some holly Grail, of science. It is a very precise language, which can be used to describe both real and fictional cases. Theoretical physicists use math all of the time describing what they imagine may be. Something that most of the time does not describe what we ultimately come to know of as reality. And yet very often there is nothing wrong with their math aside from the fact that it does not describe reality.
My experience in private industry has, apparently, been the complete opposite of yours. My colleagues and I have always successfully applied the mathematics we learnt at MIT to model reality, because experimentation and mathematical reality go in hand with each other. Since I was a freshman, I have performed experiments together with numerical analysis and mathematical analysis.
If you know of instances where somebody's "math" did not describe reality, I suggest that there may be something wrong with their approach. The "mens et manus" approach involves experiments and mathematical theory hand in hand, all the time aiding each other. If somebody's "math" did not describe reality, I suggest it is because they were not simultaneously involved with experimental analysis.
You twisted the discussion above...
Most of the discussion here is theoretical and there are obviously many theoretical papers published where the math is not flawed and yet it does not describe reality.
An easy example is, the Swarzchild black hole solution of Einstein's field equations. No one believes that it describes any real blackhole. Few challenge the validity or value of the math.
And don't get me wrong I am not faulting theoretical physics and the involved math. We can and do learn a great deal from both. That does not mean they are describing reality.
And yes, math can also be used to describe the real world physics dealing with materials and systems that can be designed and tested.
As I said mathematics is a very accurate language that can be used to describe both what we imagine might be and what we can actually build and test... Fact and fiction so to speak. -
#570 by rfmwguy on 22 Dec, 2015 15:48
-
All well and good, but his (and Edison's) experiments were not all predicated on a specific math formulae nor equation...mainly because the math was not fully developed for their new technologies. Surely you cannot state that math was the only reason for these experimenter's success. Part of it, no doubt, due to it exclusively? Nope, have to temper you there, Doc.
But...he never let math get into the way of experimentation, this was one of the reasons I think his work was not as highly regarding initially. ...
(snip)...
The hard sciences like mathematics and physics are the furthest removed from "dogma".
Psychologically speaking (another area I'm fascinated with) think its beneficial not to simply roll over and accept dogma. Its actually a skeptic's skeptical point of view if that makes sense (probably doesn't and that's OK).
...
(snip)
See Doc, I told you I am a non-conformist
Goddard received a Ph.D. in physics in 1911 (this at a time when in US Universities, many Professors did not have a PhD). Goddard would be one of the last persons I would associate with rejection of mathematical physics ! Much on the contrary!
The practical use of Goddard's experiments was indeed discussed mathematically by Goddard himself, and most importantly before Goddard by pioneers like Konstantin Tsiolkovsky. Goddard in his elegant experiments and mathematical discussions, rather than rejecting existing mathematical physics, embraced mathematical physics !
You are stating that Dr. Goddard <<never let math get into the way of experimentation>> ?
That does not correctly represent Dr, Goddard's approach to experiments.
Dr. Goddard was the first American to explore mathematically the practicality of using rocket propulsion to reach high altitudes and to traject to the moon (1912)
First to receive a U.S. patent on the idea of a multistage rocket (1914)
First to prove, by actual static test, that rocket propulsion operates in a vacuum, that it needs no air to push against (1915-1916)
First to develop gyroscopic control apparatus for guiding rocket flight (1932)
First to launch and successfully guide a rocket with an engine pivoted by moving the tail section (as if on gimbals) controlled by a gyro mechanism (1937)
By 1913 he had in his spare time, using calculus, developed the mathematics which allowed him to calculate the position and velocity of a rocket in vertical flight, given the weight of the rocket and weight of the propellant and the velocity of the exhaust gases.
In late 1919, the Smithsonian published Goddard's groundbreaking work, A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes. The report describes Goddard's mathematical theories of rocket flight.
In my long career of filter design, engineering and tuning, math lead the way but in itself could not provide the working model. Choose the multilayer chip cap value, wind the air core inductors and TRY to make it work purely on the math. You cannot. Board layout and propagation, proximity to other components, ad nauseum, prevents you from creating the perfect linear phase bandpass filter in a TO-8 case as mathematically modeled. Only experimentation with layouts, technician tuning and instincts made the thing work. This is the practical application of math. Use it as a guide, not a means to an end. /end soapbox speech -
#571 by SeeShells on 22 Dec, 2015 15:48
-
Test test test and retest it needs to become a mantra.See Doc, I told you I am a non-conformist
...
"Follow the Data, Theory be Damned".
That may be the problem, right there: is that meant as a dogmatic assertion?. A non-dogmatic person would re-check the data for consistency and validity over and over again, and would learn mathematical physics to formulate consistent theories that are consistent with all experimental evidence.
A dogmatic person would stop all measurements after getting data that reinforces pre-held dogmatic opinions, instead of re-checking all data and theories for consistency.
My understanding is that Paul March, rather than stopping his experiments and declaring victory, has been consistently re-checking his experimental data, That's why the experiments in vacuum haven not been formally reported yet.
I saw something with "my first light" and I don't truly know what it was. It looked like a pressure and thrust but I will not know more until I test this device in multiple configurations. I will know, but right now all I have is a great starting point.
Shell -
#572 by rfcavity on 22 Dec, 2015 15:55
-
The equations you are using for that kind of design are approximations and won't work when utilized outside of the assumptions that made the approximations possible. These days we use more complete set of equations that are complicated, but computers are up to the task. In a way it's vile how close the current stuff comes to actual on board components inside an enclosure when only a decade ago agonizing over Smith charts was still useful.
Anyway there seems to be a large misconception about how graduate school works and the advisor student relationship. I've never seen it so follow the leader as you often insinuate here.
-
#573 by Rodal on 22 Dec, 2015 16:18
-
...
Second I come from a background of mathematicians and though my working career did not involve the physics or math I studied, I have on more than one occasion use what I understand of math to present a convincing and yet biased argument, to a governing board.., specifically to influence a corporate decision. All the while knowing myself that anyone who understood the math, though there was no flaw in mine, could have presented an equally convincing counter argument. The point is, that mathematics is not some holly Grail, of science. It is a very precise language, which can be used to describe both real and fictional cases. Theoretical physicists use math all of the time describing what they imagine may be. Something that most of the time does not describe what we ultimately come to know of as reality. And yet very often there is nothing wrong with their math aside from the fact that it does not describe reality.
My experience in private industry has, apparently, been the complete opposite of yours. My colleagues and I have always successfully applied the mathematics we learnt at MIT to model reality, because experimentation and mathematical reality go in hand with each other. Since I was a freshman, I have performed experiments together with numerical analysis and mathematical analysis.
If you know of instances where somebody's "math" did not describe reality, I suggest that there may be something wrong with their approach. The "mens et manus" approach involves experiments and mathematical theory hand in hand, all the time aiding each other. If somebody's "math" did not describe reality, I suggest it is because they were not simultaneously involved with experimental analysis.
You twisted the discussion above...
Most of the discussion here is theoretical and there are obviously many theoretical papers published where the math is not flawed and yet it does not describe reality.
An easy example is, the Swarzchild black hole solution of Einstein's field equations. No one believes that it describes any real blackhole. Few challenge the validity or value of the math.
And don't get me wrong I am not faulting theoretical physics and the involved math. We can and do learn a great deal from both. That does not mean they are describing reality.
And yes, math can also be used to describe the real world physics dealing with materials and systems that can be designed and tested.
As I said mathematics is a very accurate language that can be used to describe both what we imagine might be and what we can actually build and test... Fact and fiction so to speak.
On the contrary, I did not twist things. Somebody was advocating that Dr. Goddard "did not let math to get in the way of his experiments". On the contrary, the evidence shows the complete opposite.
Somebody else advocated for "theory be damned"
I never advocated mathematics for mathematics sake, on the contrary, I have advocated for mathematical physics and engineering mathematics to go together with experiments, hand in hand, one with the other. -
#574 by rfmwguy on 22 Dec, 2015 16:35
-
What you did shell, is what I did. You Observed something. Its what science begins with...an observation. You're fine. Now comes the tedious stuff which I could not do...I lost my space to my old car
Test test test and retest it needs to become a mantra.See Doc, I told you I am a non-conformist
...
"Follow the Data, Theory be Damned".
That may be the problem, right there: is that meant as a dogmatic assertion?. A non-dogmatic person would re-check the data for consistency and validity over and over again, and would learn mathematical physics to formulate consistent theories that are consistent with all experimental evidence.
A dogmatic person would stop all measurements after getting data that reinforces pre-held dogmatic opinions, instead of re-checking all data and theories for consistency.
My understanding is that Paul March, rather than stopping his experiments and declaring victory, has been consistently re-checking his experimental data, That's why the experiments in vacuum haven not been formally reported yet.
I saw something with "my first light" and I don't truly know what it was. It looked like a pressure and thrust but I will not know more until I test this device in multiple configurations. I will know, but right now all I have is a great starting point.
Shell
Next spring, it get all fired back up, by then, you'll have reams of data.
p.s. Now post some pics
-
#575 by CraigPichach on 22 Dec, 2015 16:55
-
Dr. Rodal said it best, this is a deliberate attempt to test for anomalous thrust forces that are beyond the forces produced by thermal effects. It should not be assumed that the thermal effects will scale linearly with input power. The goal will be to get an anomalous force that you can confidentially measure that, when subtracting thermal effects, has a value above our measurement device significant figures. Even the thermal effects on the larger scale will be easier to measure (if we just fill the frustrum with hot air at temp) we can get a better null value. We will be using a magnetron set up that is available and set up right now, granted for other applications.
Shawyer and NASA have talked 10N/kW, data is showing 0.006N/kW to 0.330N/kW. Right now at 1kW you are looking for 0.006N and 0.330N. Even if you model Navier Stokes equations of fluid dynamics governing thermal natural convection I just don't see being able to effectively measure the forces involved to get a definitive experiment.
If we fire 100kW into a unit with a Q of >1 *10^5 and it all goes to heat and we see no thrust apart from buoyant effects than I think we have some real data to show a) either we are in the wrong "mode" or b) some data pointing to experimenters seeing thermal forces. If we see anomalous thrust in the 33N-1000N (!!); maybe even 1N (6mN/kW) in the downward direction than I think we will know that there is something actually happening.
If it all goes to heat than a) there is no EM-Drive/Q-Thruster effect or b) the "magnetohydrodynamic fluidization of the quantum vacuum" is not happening at our mode and at our dimensions. I think that is a real learning too. At the very least talk of Jupiter thrust shots and flying cars at 10N/kW would be shown to be premature. If it works, well, wouldn't that be fun?
NOTE - I am trying to get permission to show the HFSS results E field picture.An update on our 100kW test project. Model using HFSS using eigenmode solver, TE013 mode 914.85MHz Q=133526. Loop coupled design for ease of build, cost and stress concerns.
As we are planning to use a high power coax line and are designing as a pressure vessel, one recommendation is to use copper cladded stainless steel... does anyone see any objections to the use of this material so long as we clad the internals with copper? This would help us with vessel integrity and cooling; while I do think we will achieve resonance is there any EM-Drive Q thruster theories that say not to do this (i.e. impacting the quantum vacuum??).
It is noteworthy to remark that this is the ONLY test by anyone (as far as I know) where there is a deliberate attempt to test for anomalous thrust forces that are way beyond the forces produced by thermal effects.
Assuming the frustum is resonating with 100KW input, won't we see 100KW of heat generated by the furstum? If we see 100W heat only, we can only assume that 99.9% power are reflected back and this test is no better than a 100W test. -
#576 by rfmwguy on 22 Dec, 2015 17:04
-
The equations you are using for that kind of design are approximations and won't work when utilized outside of the assumptions that made the approximations possible. These days we use more complete set of equations that are complicated, but computers are up to the task. In a way it's vile how close the current stuff comes to actual on board components inside an enclosure when only a decade ago agonizing over Smith charts was still useful.
You've made my point, Anatol I. Zverev's math failed when matched up against the real world senarios. Technicians and production engineers added tweaks to these base formulae and practical software emerged. Thanks for helping me make my point. Math is a beginning, not an end.
Anyway there seems to be a large misconception about how graduate school works and the advisor student relationship. I've never seen it so follow the leader as you often insinuate here.
I've not insinuated nor commented on a PhD advisor before. It was simply what I would tell a student. Do something different, take a risk, push the envelope, etc.,
Surely you're not making the case that Risk Aversion is not a serious problem in the workplace, are you? If you are, check out hbr: https://hbr.org/2009/01/trapped-in-a-riskaverse-workpl/ plus many other articles. Been there, lived that.
-
#577 by cee on 22 Dec, 2015 17:05
-
Zellerium also had a nice simple approach, connect a SMA connector to the modified maggie output loop.rfmwguy... You still have that picture of the maggie that you modified for your VNA scan, could you post it again?
Thanks,
Shell
Shell,
This is the best image I could find in his image archive.
Phil
-
#578 by RotoSequence on 22 Dec, 2015 17:09
-
While I'm not qualified to debate the mathematics and theories of electromagnetic fields or the kinematics of a conventional or over-unity device, I would be happier to hold off on the debate on the utility of mathematics in EM drive experimentation until Shells has completed enough testing to provide some data points.
For what it's worth, if the models don't work, it's probably time to build a better model.
-
#579 by Rodal on 22 Dec, 2015 17:10
-
No it doesn't apply....
The hard sciences like mathematics and physics are the furthest removed from "dogma".
Psychologically speaking (another area I'm fascinated with) think its beneficial not to simply roll over and accept dogma. Its actually a skeptic's skeptical point of view if that makes sense (probably doesn't and that's OK).
...
On the contrary, dogma is associated with religion, politics, law, legislation, sociology, etc., and not with mathematical physics.
What are called "laws" in Physics are not dogmatic laws, they are mathematical statements that are derived mathematically under well defined assumptions (*). They are not concepts that people learn dogmatically (they are not like laws that a lawyer has to learn as dogmatically passed by a Legislature).
Skepticism is better directed at EM Drive assertions contradicted by experimental evidence (such as those by Shawyer) than at consistent physical concepts like conservation of momentum and conservation of energy that are so far supported by all the experimental evidence and that have been successful at bringing humanity into the Space Age.
Dogma is a somebody dogmatically asserting (because he says so) inconsistent, obviously wrong statements that are contradicted by experimental evidence, like "a frustum of a cone cavity excited by a spherical wave experiences no radiation pressure on the lateral surfaces of the frustum", or that "a closed cavity resonance is governed by the same cut-off frequency condition as an open waveguide", or that "the EM Drive experiences self-acceleration due to electromagnetism as explained by Classical Physics (Maxwell's laws and SR) and such self-acceleration is consistent with conservation of momentum and Newton's laws."
______
(*) Of course, no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" (i.e., any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths. Also, Newtonian physics was modified by General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics to extend to the very large and the very small dimensions, but the consistency of Newtonian Physics for its range of validity remains unadultered and used to this date.
... "Dogma is a somebody dogmatically asserting ... that "a closed cavity resonance is governed by the same cut-off frequency condition as an open waveguide"." the picture that comes to mind for me, is that many of the pictures of Shaweyer's frustum design of includes a cylindrical tuning cavity at the small end and that the cutoff should be just above resonance associated with the small end... Since his frustum ends in a cylindrical cavity, it would seem that cutoff frequencies derived from a cylindrical cavity should apply?..
First of all only a few of Shawyer's EM Drive's end with a cylindrical cavity (mainly the Demonstrator). Many of them do not, most importantly Shawyer's later designs, yet he continues to insist on quoting open waveguide cut-off frequency formulas.
Shawyer's prescription is that a conical EM Drive should not be continued too close to the apex of the cone, and it should be terminated into a frustum of a cone that does not depart too much from a cylindrical shape (based on the cut-off condition for an open waveguide with the same diameter as the small end), because according to him, doing otherwise will result in poor resonance.
This is indeed a dogmatic prescription, it is not backed by analysis, and it is not backed by any published experimentation (*). He quotes equations for open waveguides that are known NOT to apply to closed cavities. I wrote a paper (discussed in previous threads) showing that this concept of open waveguide cut-off frequency equations does not apply to closed cavities (something known since some time ago, as I refer to in my paper). Furthermore the EM Drive analysis of Shawyer's Demonstrator by Frank Davis at NASA shows this to be the case.
It is dogmatic prescriptions such as this cut-off frequency prescription that have limited experimentation: as EM Drive experimenters (NASA, RFMWGUY, etc.) have followed this dogmatic prescription for their tested geometry, limiting how close to the apex of the cone does the frustum get. RFMWGUY has departed from this dogmatic prescription as of late, as he is testing a tuba with a geometry that does not follow Shawyer's prescription.
________
(*) One would have hoped that he would have described an experiment backing his assertion, but there is no such experiment available.
?
