-
#1420 by rfmwguy on 20 Apr, 2016 14:26
-
Nature has created the frustum shape throughout the solar system and probably throughout the universe, i.e. the sloped mountains, volcanoes and of course...humanity discovered it was the safest way to build a "stairway to heaven", the pyramid.
Gess why the nature haven't often formed large-scaled warping drives... Of course because using the air is much easier.
Axial signal injection, higher costs and uncertainty of payoff kept me from this. I expect this to be my last emdrive build and hope whatever results occur will help others in the future.
Considered spherical endplates with the same curvature center point?
I kept the 1mm copper. Its about as thin as I would want to go considering the mass of the endplates.Hand cut copper and basic edge finish. Now awaiting tooling. All major copper cuts all done...finally.
Did you stick with 1mm copper or go thinner?
For those who study this natural shape, a few claim magical powers which most discount. I'm sure nature was not creating an emdrive, but nature created the shape as an adversary of gravity. -
#1421 by Monomorphic on 20 Apr, 2016 14:38
-
if the EM Drive or similar propellant-less devices would be possible, they would probably occur in Nature, and hence be observable with astrophysical instruments, yet astrophysical data shows no such phenomena whatsoever, compatible with the notion of the EM Drive or Q-thrusters.
I'm trying to imagine how a natural astrophysical emdrive phenomenon would manifest. Where do we see cosmic-scale asymmetric cavities that can resonate?
If EM can induce virtual plasma drift (ŕ la quantum vacuum thruster), then wouldn't the virtual plasma in free space expand randomly without an asymmetric cavity? -
#1422 by Rodal on 20 Apr, 2016 14:46
-
I'll have to ask him next time I see him. What occurs to me right away is that an astrophysical maser is a naturally occurring source of stimulated spectral line emission, in the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. It arises in molecular clouds, comets, planetary atmospheres, stellar atmospheres, or various other conditions in interstellar space. See:if the EM Drive or similar propellant-less devices would be possible, they would probably occur in Nature, and hence be observable with astrophysical instruments, yet astrophysical data shows no such phenomena whatsoever, compatible with the notion of the EM Drive or Q-thrusters.
I'm trying to imagine how a natural astrophysical emdrive phenomenon would manifest. Where do we see cosmic-scale asymmetric cavities that can resonate?
If EM can induce virtual plasma drift (ŕ la quantum vacuum thruster), then wouldn't the virtual plasma in free space expand randomly without an asymmetric cavity?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_maser#Maser_environments
Asymmetry is not uncommon in nature. Perhaps the main issue is whether a true cavity is present in such phenomena, see: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1000892300429 -
#1423 by rfmwguy on 20 Apr, 2016 14:46
-
MIT Technology Review, 4/20/2016, The Curious Link Between the Fly-By Anomaly and the “Impossible” EmDrive Thruster:
http://tinyurl.com/hnf46q2 -
#1424 by Eusa on 20 Apr, 2016 14:56
-
MIT Technology Review, 4/20/2016, The Curious Link Between the Fly-By Anomaly and the “Impossible” EmDrive Thruster:
http://tinyurl.com/hnf46q2
My post: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1510968#msg1510968
-
#1425 by rfmwguy on 20 Apr, 2016 15:52
-
This is starting to be a lot clearer and is light-years ahead of my (weak) working theory about Cu+ and Cu++ inertia. I think this article from MIT is a significant moment for many of us who have been working with so much disparaging public commentary. Let hope they launch their own investigation and make it public.MIT Technology Review, 4/20/2016, The Curious Link Between the Fly-By Anomaly and the “Impossible” EmDrive Thruster:
http://tinyurl.com/hnf46q2 My post: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1510968#msg1510968 -
#1426 by Rodal on 20 Apr, 2016 16:05
-
OK, but to clarify the source, it is not an official MIT article, but instead it is a production from "Emerging Technology from the arXiv"
This is starting to be a lot clearer and is light-years ahead of my (weak) working theory about Cu+ and Cu++ inertia. I think this article from MIT is a significant moment for many of us who have been working with so much disparaging public commentary. Let hope they launch their own investigation and make it public.MIT Technology Review, 4/20/2016, The Curious Link Between the Fly-By Anomaly and the “Impossible” EmDrive Thruster:
http://tinyurl.com/hnf46q2 My post: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1510968#msg1510968
See: http://arxivblog.com/QuoteEmerging Technology from the arXiv produces daily coverage of the best new technologies from arXiv.org. Until September 2013 it was known as The Physics arXiv Blog, which now covers the latest ideas in physics and astronomy at https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog.
Contact the author at KentuckyFC @ arxivblog.com
Subscribe to the Physics arXiv Blog RSS Feed.
published in the Daily (onlne) MIT Technology Review, instead of the magazine.QuoteWho We Are
We're an innovative, digitally oriented global media company whose reach is rapidly expanding. Our mission is to equip our audiences with the intelligence to understand a world shaped by technology. Founded at MIT in 1899, MIT Technology Review derives its authority from the world's foremost technology institution and from our editors' deep technical knowledge, economic realism, and unequaled access to the world's preeminent innovators.
I look forward to the COMMENTS section (at the bottom of the article), there are now 3 comments. Sometimes good comments are posted. It would be interesting if somebody comments with a clear identification to a University or research institution or Government Lab or from an aerospace company. -
#1427 by tchernik on 20 Apr, 2016 16:14
-
if the EM Drive or similar propellant-less devices would be possible, they would probably occur in Nature, and hence be observable with astrophysical instruments, yet astrophysical data shows no such phenomena whatsoever, compatible with the notion of the EM Drive or Q-thrusters.
I'm trying to imagine how a natural astrophysical emdrive phenomenon would manifest. Where do we see cosmic-scale asymmetric cavities that can resonate?
If EM can induce virtual plasma drift (ŕ la quantum vacuum thruster), then wouldn't the virtual plasma in free space expand randomly without an asymmetric cavity?
Just a gut feeling: the Emdrive seems just complex enough to be rare or non existing in nature (solid microwave resonating frustum cavities simply don't emerge from random natural processes), but also it seems simple enough to elicit some as-of-yet unknown physical phenomenon, which could have been hidden due to the above mentioned complexity.
And also, it seems curiously simple enough to be made cheap and really useful.
-
#1428 by rfmwguy on 20 Apr, 2016 16:27
-
Wonder how many discoveries were delayed or simply overlooked because someone wouldn't consider the possibility and therefore not pursue research and testing. The EMDrive may or may not remake transport, but a very slim chance of success versus the potential revolution is what piqued my interest. Plus, I'm a Degreed Nonconformist from the School of Lifeif the EM Drive or similar propellant-less devices would be possible, they would probably occur in Nature, and hence be observable with astrophysical instruments, yet astrophysical data shows no such phenomena whatsoever, compatible with the notion of the EM Drive or Q-thrusters.
I'm trying to imagine how a natural astrophysical emdrive phenomenon would manifest. Where do we see cosmic-scale asymmetric cavities that can resonate?
If EM can induce virtual plasma drift (ŕ la quantum vacuum thruster), then wouldn't the virtual plasma in free space expand randomly without an asymmetric cavity?
Just a gut feeling: the Emdrive seems just complex enough to be rare or non existing in nature (solid microwave resonating frustum cavities simply don't emerge from random natural processes), but also it seems simple enough to elicit some as-of-yet unknown physical phenomenon, which could have been hidden due to the above mentioned complexity.
And also, it seems curiously simple enough to be made cheap to and really useful.
-
#1429 by SeeShells on 20 Apr, 2016 17:16
-
No surprise here, just because we are trying to pinch out a tiny action in a high Q resonating, asymmetrical metallic frustum, RF point driven, enclosed cavity? We then ask why nature hasn't done it?if the EM Drive or similar propellant-less devices would be possible, they would probably occur in Nature, and hence be observable with astrophysical instruments, yet astrophysical data shows no such phenomena whatsoever, compatible with the notion of the EM Drive or Q-thrusters.
I'm trying to imagine how a natural astrophysical emdrive phenomenon would manifest. Where do we see cosmic-scale asymmetric cavities that can resonate?
If EM can induce virtual plasma drift (ŕ la quantum vacuum thruster), then wouldn't the virtual plasma in free space expand randomly without an asymmetric cavity?
Just a gut feeling: the Emdrive seems just complex enough to be rare or non existing in nature (solid microwave resonating frustum cavities simply don't emerge from random natural processes), but also it seems simple enough to elicit some as-of-yet unknown physical phenomenon, which could have been hidden due to the above mentioned complexity.
And also, it seems curiously simple enough to be made cheap and really useful.
It also could be buried into high energy actions we can not resolve. Let's say the low rumblings of magma under a cone shaped volcano shows upwards thrust. How would we know? Or the Great Pyramid's weighs 500 pounds less because of upward thrusts?
Once we get a handle of the theory maybe we can see it in other processes.
Shell
-
#1430 by Rodal on 20 Apr, 2016 17:34
-
There appears to be some misunderstanding here.
No surprise here, just because we are trying to pinch out a tiny action in a high Q resonating, asymmetrical metallic frustum, RF point driven, enclosed cavity? We then ask why nature hasn't done it?if the EM Drive or similar propellant-less devices would be possible, they would probably occur in Nature, and hence be observable with astrophysical instruments, yet astrophysical data shows no such phenomena whatsoever, compatible with the notion of the EM Drive or Q-thrusters.
I'm trying to imagine how a natural astrophysical emdrive phenomenon would manifest. Where do we see cosmic-scale asymmetric cavities that can resonate?
If EM can induce virtual plasma drift (ŕ la quantum vacuum thruster), then wouldn't the virtual plasma in free space expand randomly without an asymmetric cavity?
Just a gut feeling: the Emdrive seems just complex enough to be rare or non existing in nature (solid microwave resonating frustum cavities simply don't emerge from random natural processes), but also it seems simple enough to elicit some as-of-yet unknown physical phenomenon, which could have been hidden due to the above mentioned complexity.
And also, it seems curiously simple enough to be made cheap and really useful.
It also could be buried into high energy actions we can not resolve. Let's say the low rumblings of magma under a cone shaped volcano shows upwards thrust. How would we know? Or the Great Pyramid's weighs 500 pounds less because of upward thrusts?
Once we get a handle of the theory maybe we can see it in other processes.
Shell
The argument is not why one doesn't see a shiny copper EM Drive cavity in Nature shaped like the man-made ones tested by Shawyer and behaving according to its claims
Instead, the argument is, whether astrophysical data validates or not a given theory X used to explain the claimed effects. The example of astrophysical masers is a case in point.
Astrophysical masers don't look like man-made masers, yet physicists see the same physical principles at work
For example:
Theory X = McCulloch's theory involving Unruh radiation and self-acceleration
Theory X = Shawyer's theory that self-acceleration can be explained solely in terms of Maxwell and Newton's classical physics.
and so on with other EM Drive theories: what do astrophysical measurements have to say regarding such explanatory theories?
Such arguments are routinely used in Physics to analyze theories, and have proven to be very ellucidating, as any physical theory has to be compatible with the Universe as a whole.
-
#1431 by tchernik on 20 Apr, 2016 17:45
-
Risking to talk way out of my knowledge league, but we do know the universe's expansion is accelerating, don't we?
We also know there is some mysterious real stuff we can't see or touch that keeps the galaxies together.
Theories like Mike MCCulloch's are motivated precisely by the knowledge that something is actually missing in the picture.
-
#1432 by rfmwguy on 20 Apr, 2016 17:52
-
Here is something artificial that may not have been observed or predicted by science...definitely not Newton, Mach et al: Self-accelerating electrons:
http://news.mit.edu/2015/self-accelerating-particles-0120
"The findings, based on a theoretical analysis, were published in the journal Nature Physics by MIT postdoc Ido Kaminer and four colleagues at the Technion.
The new findings are based on a novel set of solutions for a set of basic quantum-physics principles called the Dirac equations; these describe the relativistic behavior of fundamental particles, such as electrons, in terms of a wave structure....By manipulating the wave structure, the team found, it should be possible to cause electrons to behave in unusual and counterintuitive ways.
Lets hope they tried to prove their hypothesis... -
#1433 by Rodal on 20 Apr, 2016 17:56
-
Risking to talk way out of my knowledge league, but we do know the universe's expansion is accelerating, don't we?
The question was not whether there is mysterious stuff that mankind has not yet fully explained (yes, we all agree that the true nature of dark energy, dark mass, time, the origin of the Big Bang, etc., remains a mistery) but the question is whether astrophysical data validates or nullifies explicit theories being brought forward to explain the EM Drive.
We also know there is some mysterious real stuff we can't see or touch that keeps the galaxies together.
Theories like Mike MCCulloch's are precisely motivated by the knowledge that something is actually missing in the picture.
Thus, astrophysical data invalidates the epicycles upon epicycles Ptolemaic theory of planetary bodies around the Sun,
even though it was able to explain their motions to a first degree of approximation. Ptolemaic theory was useful as a first approximation but now that we have much more astrophysical data it is considered a historical curiosity.
I think that astrophysical data nullifies Shawyer's theory (that a body can self-accelerate and that this can be explained solely on the basis of Classical Physics of Maxwell and Newton).
Concerning Unruh's radiation, it is my understanding that it has not yet been experimentally confirmed and remains controversial (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect#Unruh_radiation). The notion that a cavity will self-accelerate at the extremely small accelerations present in EM Drive experiments (not anywhere close to a black hole's horizon) due to Unruh radiation, and contemplating a Rindler horizon for the EM Drive is even more controversial.
-
#1434 by Vesc on 20 Apr, 2016 18:38
-
I look forward to the COMMENTS section (at the bottom of the article), there are now 3 comments. Sometimes good comments are posted. It would be interesting if somebody comments with a clear identification to a University or research institution or Government Lab or from an aerospace company.
Me too. And we have the first one here:Quoteishango 40 minutes ago
Assuming this thing is a copper vessel and the big end is the back, when microwaves are bounced around inside, they aren't going to bounce forever and eventually will be absorbed by the copper. If the vessel heats up uniformly and since it's in a vacuum, it will radiate heat as em waves. The back end having a larger perpendicular surface will radiate more generating a tiny amount of thrust.
Much like a Crookes radiometer.
Has any of these experiments ruled this out?
My thinking here was the reason this had been ruled out was because the "thrust" phenomena was directly related to the application of input power. In other words, the apparent force ceased as soon as the RF was shut off as per a square wave. Whereas if the force were due to IR radiation, the expected result would have been a reverse saw-tooth.
Was this not so? Am I mis-remembering this? To me this was my very first reaction when I heard about positive EM Drive thrust results as well... (Well not the first, the first was when I heard the original EW experiment was done in AIR and I assumed they were measuring convection forces. So call it the 2nd reaction when the reported anomalies were observed in vacuum.)
-
#1435 by Rodal on 20 Apr, 2016 18:47
-
I look forward to the COMMENTS section (at the bottom of the article), there are now 3 comments. Sometimes good comments are posted. It would be interesting if somebody comments with a clear identification to a University or research institution or Government Lab or from an aerospace company.
Me too. And we have the first one here:Quoteishango 40 minutes ago
Assuming this thing is a copper vessel and the big end is the back, when microwaves are bounced around inside, they aren't going to bounce forever and eventually will be absorbed by the copper. If the vessel heats up uniformly and since it's in a vacuum, it will radiate heat as em waves. The back end having a larger perpendicular surface will radiate more generating a tiny amount of thrust.
Much like a Crookes radiometer.
Has any of these experiments ruled this out?
My thinking here was the reason this had been ruled out was because the "thrust" phenomena was directly related to the application of input power. In other words, the apparent force ceased as soon as the RF was shut off as per a square wave. Whereas if the force were due to IR radiation, the expected result would have been a reverse saw-tooth.
Was this not so? Am I mis-remembering this? To me this was my very first reaction when I heard about positive EM Drive thrust results as well... (Well not the first, the first was when I heard the original EW experiment was done in AIR and I assumed they were measuring convection forces. So call it the 2nd reaction when the reported anomalies were observed in vacuum.)
Yes, it will <<radiate heat as em waves>> and this will be done asymmetrically, just like the official explanation of the Pioneer anomaly by NASA JPL.
The problem is that the radiation of heat in a vacuum are photons in black body radiation. This photon emission can be calculated, (just like NASA JPL calculated the Pioneer anomaly).
Such photon emission or radiated heat is a less efficient form of propulsion than a perfectly collimated photon rocket, because the heat emitted as radiation is a less energetic form of photon radiation.
And the problem is that the EM Drive experiments claim orders of magnitude greater force/PowerInput than a perfectly collimated photon rocket. That's why I endeavored to make all experimental claims tabulations vs. a perfectly collimated photon rocket when I put together the emdrive.com experimental data (http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results which I no longer curate). -
#1436 by rfmwguy on 20 Apr, 2016 19:51
-
"gubrud 6 minutes ago...Why is the author of this post anonymous?"
Disingenuous question...it is obvious. -
#1437 by tchernik on 20 Apr, 2016 19:58
-
"gubrud 6 minutes ago...Why is the author of this post anonymous?"
Disingenuous question...it is obvious.
After seeing what happens to people in serious academia that is too friendly towards some fringe-y ideas, one doesn't have to wonder too much why anyone being at least open to the idea of Emdrive would publish an article anonymously.
There are ideas that are simply career poison, until they either prove themselves or fade away due to lack of proof.
Then everyone is in favor since the beginning. -
#1438 by Rodal on 20 Apr, 2016 20:04
-
"gubrud 6 minutes ago...Why is the author of this post anonymous?"
Disingenuous question...it is obvious.
After seeing what happens to people in serious academia that is too friendly towards some fringe-y ideas, one doesn't have to wonder too much why anyone being at least open to the idea of Emdrive would publish an article anonymously.
There are ideas that are simply career poison, until they either prove themselves or fade away due to lack of proof.
Then everyone is in favor since the beginning.
But then hooray to those that openly discuss this in other articles : Dr. White, Paul March, Brady, Vera, et.al. at NASA. Prof. Woodward, Prof. Yang, Prof. Tajmar, Dr. McCulloch, Dr. Trunev, Dr. Frasca, Dr. Minotti, Brito, Marini, Galian, Dr. Montillet, Dr. DeAquino and so many others (how many do I unintentionally forget ? )
-
#1439 by Vesc on 20 Apr, 2016 21:02
-
But then hooray to those that openly discuss this in other articles
: Dr. White, Paul March, Brady, Vera, et.al. at NASA. Prof. Woodward, Prof. Yang, Prof. Tajmar, Dr. McCulloch, Dr. Trunev, Dr. Frasca, Dr. Minotti, Brito, Marini, Galian, Dr. Montillet, Dr. DeAquino and so many others (how many do I unintentionally forget ? )
um. Dr. Rodal?
c'mon frobnicat & notsosureofit you know you want to....
My post: 
