-
#2140 by rfmwguy on 09 May, 2016 13:15
-
Thank you Mr Li for your help and again for your Paper that you took the time to experiment with and publish! There is always room at the table here for constructive criticism. Even though English is not your first language, you have given us plenty to think about as we move forward. Yes, it is easy to be skeptical, not much effort in reverting back to theories we were taught or read about in school, but your critiques have been specific to each experiment or theory. THIS is lacking by so many of those who dismiss the emdrive project...most simply say people are wrong and don't take the time to try and understand specific experiments and their potential problems. I speak for myself of course, but also as moderator...you are welcome back at any time even to simply say hello.(snip)
You wrote out my thoughts. Thank you! I think I have contributed all I can to this thread and will spend time on my other field. If anybody is calling me please send me message. I may come back when there is news. Thank you! -
#2141 by Rodal on 09 May, 2016 13:21
-
It doesn't help to see Shawyer send an e-mail to NSF where he rehashes his same old, tired, stuff that has been debunked so many times. It doesn't help to see Shawyer ignore the recent tests by Yang where she nullifies all her previous work by conducting tests with batteries. An e-mail where he fails to address the fact that although Shawyer started this whole stuff, Shawyer has never yet reported a single test that meets any of the three standards expected for a micro-thrusting spacecraft engine test:Well, to be fair the geomagnetic field can be rigorously excluded from a small volume. Its done all the time in zero field magnetic resonance spectroscopy.
I think it is correct to say that there is consensus in the thread now on a few points.
1) Shawyer's "data" is unreliable/nonexistent and his ideas are nonsense. Shawyer's wrong claims got this whole thing started.
2) None of Yang's positive results were real. She retracted her earlier claims and is no longer working in this area.
...
You wrote out my thoughts. Thank you! I think I have contributed all I can to this thread and will spend time on my other field. If anybody is calling me please send me message. I may come back when there is news. Thank you!
* a torsional pendulum
* with batteries
* in a vacuum chamber
in his entire life. There is something so strange about this, with Shawyer clinging to his same wrong explanations, claiming that there is no pressure on the side walls, and getting wrong a simple balance of Newtonian forces. In contrast with NASA's team: when they are asked about how can energy and momentum be extracted from the Quantum Vacuum, they answer that they propose something different: a mutable, degradable vacuum. Now, people may disagree whether such a thing as a degradable Quantum Vacuum exists, but with Shawyer is different: as he persists with explanations that he has a rocket engine that can work solely on the basis of classical theories of electromagnetism and special relativity, that nothing new is required for his concept to work, when it has been shown over and over that that cannot be the case, ignores current events (Prof. Yang's nullification of her prior work), and presents no new experimental data. -
#2142 by Rodal on 09 May, 2016 14:03
-
...Yes, it is easy to be skeptical, not much effort in reverting back to theories we were taught or read about in school...
Dave, I will leave it up to your personal opinion on whether it is easy or not to write skeptical opinions when the interest from the greater part of the audience is naturally to have good news, that the EM Drive works and that we will be able to use it to cheaply go to Mars and beyond.
But your comment on "not much effort in reverting back to theories we were taught or read about in school", I don't understand, because those are precisely the theories that Shawyer has written are all that is needed to explain the EM Drive. In his presentation, which he titled "EM Drive Basic Science" Shawyer told you that all that is needed to explain the EM Drive is "reverting back to theories we were taught or read about in school".
What theory is the inventor of the EM Drive proposing that we were not taught or read in school?
On the contrary, Shawyer writes that all you need to understand the EM Drive is to revert to theories that have been around for over 100 years , and the inference is that anybody that fails to understand the EM Drive just does not understand this "basic" old theories
-
#2143 by Tellmeagain on 09 May, 2016 14:11
-
Thank you all. I can't like your responses because I may not read them all.
I come back just to contribute one more thought about the vacuum test. Remember that NASA cited not vacuum-compatible amplifier? Also I think most of the Lithium batteries available are not compatible with vacuum. Actually there is an easy way out. Just enclose the amplifier or battery pack in a smaller air tight, pressure proof enclosure. There exist air tight go-through type connectors that can be used for the leads. Through in pressure monitor and temperature monitor too.
When you run out of enthusiasm you are welcome to my new field, AI. True AI is imminent. You can believe in my intuition, reinforced by my 1.5 year spare time worth, 4 inch thick worth, word-by-word style reading of state of the art scientific literature. Thanks! Back to work . -
#2144 by rfmwguy on 09 May, 2016 14:20
-
Doc, its not your critique style at all that I was referring to. Its the generalists who do not specifically critique a written theory, design or test. By far, these are the more frequent ones elsewhere on the internet from my past experience. An example is, their test is wrong. They did not use proper error analysis...then leave it at that...or add in an ad hominem or derogatory comment...basically kid stuff....Yes, it is easy to be skeptical, not much effort in reverting back to theories we were taught or read about in school...
Dave, I will leave it up to your personal opinion on whether it is easy or not to write skeptical opinions when the interest from the greater part of the audience is naturally to have good news, that the EM Drive works and that we will be able to use it to cheaply go to Mars and beyond.
But your comment on "not much effort in reverting back to theories we were taught or read about in school", I don't understand, because those are precisely the theories that Shawyer has written are all that is needed to explain the EM Drive. In his presentation, which he titled "EM Drive Basic Science" Shawyer told you that all that is needed to explain the EM Drive is "reverting back to theories we were taught or read about in school".
What theory is the inventor of the EM Drive proposing that we were not taught or read in school?
On the contrary, Shawyer writes that is "Basic Science" that all you need to understand the EM Drive is to revert to theories that have been around for over 100 years !
I suppose its how I learn, it cannot be general, but specific to what I am working on so I can test and validate it myself. I learned a lot about theory and even more when you SPECIFICALLY commented on shawyers slides. Hope I explained this adequately...I had to see for myself that the Galinstan liquid contacts put too much drag on my first teeter-totter setup...this type of thing. -
#2145 by rfmwguy on 09 May, 2016 14:59
-
I got the sense that they heard about it but really didn't have a feel for the concept. They certainly understood what it could mean, thus their interest in hoping it becomes spaceflight ready someday. They are advocates of getting us into space they same way our ancestors wanted to explore the oceans. A noble concept that many of us share. Good folks for sure...also like their informal style where they don't take themselves too seriously. Much more entertaining and informative IMHO.Here's the hd webcast I was on:
Good job Dave. It's good to see those folks that have a keen interest in science, helping others understand. -
#2146 by rfmwguy on 09 May, 2016 15:03
-
***Emdrive News Update***
Professor and NSF poster Mike McCullouch writes a response to John Baez regarding MiHsc and the Emdrive:
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2016/05/response-to-john-baez-1.html -
#2147 by Rodal on 09 May, 2016 15:17
-
***Emdrive News Update***
Excellent !
Professor and NSF poster Mike McCullouch writes a response to John Baez regarding MiHsc and the Emdrive:
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2016/05/response-to-john-baez-1.html
That's how science is supposed to work, skeptical points being addressed. It doesn't matter what side will turn out to be right, what matters is that the technical questions are seriously debated. Mother Nature will decide who is right (one of them, or neither of them), but this is how science and technology progresses
Also, excellent way to begin, instead of being defensive, welcoming the debate:Quote from: McCullochI sincerely appreciate his [Baez] comments and they are useful since they show up what is not yet understood by the mainstream about MiHsC.
Notice title: Response to John Baez: 1 (promising more to come: "response 2" ) -
#2148 by Gilbertdrive on 09 May, 2016 15:23
-
3) His summary (last slide, in red) states that "no new physics is required". There is nothing about the Quantum Vacuum here, on the contrary he still repeats the same old stuff, that according to him self-acceleration of the EM Drive can be explained "with Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell's equations and Special Relativity".
Shawyer's argument relies on a false sense of evidence, a common intuition (of Earth dwellers) that has been proven wrong : not only there is no such thing as "intrinsic kinetic energy" to start with but there is no "intrinsic delta kinetic energy" either. Same observed deltaV will yield wildly different deltas in kinetic energy even in Newtonian relativity (where deltaV is invariant because of simple additivity of velocities) depending on frame. Introducing a term that is ill defined in an equation can't give correct results. This would be evidenced if he did explain us what his theory predicts quantitatively for an EMdrive as thrust=function(history of spent flows and of trajectory wrt. environment). And of course a trajectory doesn't depend only on a single propulsive device, trajectory can be forced by other devices attached to same hull (rails, chemical propulsion, whatever).
I am sure that most of us have automaticallay translated, without conscient reflexion "No New Physics" to "No other physics than standard physics"
Maybe Shawyer is an adept of old Aether thory.
If there is a strong Aether against what we can push, we can define an intrinsic Kinetic energy, relatively to this Aether. If the Aether is needed, it is still true to write that no new physics are needed. Old and obsolete physics are needed 
On the contrary, Shawyer writes that is "Basic Science" that all you need to understand the EM Drive is to revert to theories that have been around for over 100 years !
Yep, the Aether is even older than that
More seriously, following my preceding message, and the answers from Dr Rodal and Pr Frobnicat, I agree to what they have written.
In fact, the Shawyer slide Conservation of Energy has a very big hole. And there are several ways to fill the holes.
The uses of "Kinetic Energy" without a referential indicated is a giant hole, since, as Frobicat put the light on it, there is no intrinsic Kinetic Energy.
And this hole can not be filled in a consistent way with standard physics. We can fill it by some Aether, or something else, but nothing standard.
Since Shawyer pretends to demonstrate that 1=2 with the slide Conservation of Momentum, I perfectly understand the point of View of Pr Frobnicat. Trying to get something from these Shawyer explanations is a loss of time. If at least he has explained that his drive was pushing against the Aether, there would be some consistency.
But, not here. It is like if I was propulsing myself by pulling on my hairs, but with applicing a complicate force to my hairs, so I can forget a force vector
and find a thust. Hope than Dr Rodal and Pr Frobnicat will not see the mistake. Oups, they saw it. No problem, I have done it on my little sister (by pulling his hair) and it was working. There is no reason it does not also work on me. So my theory is correct, because is correspond to my experiment.
I project to send a mail to Shawyer. This mail would be.
Mr Shawyer
In the document named EmDrive Basis Science, at the slide Conservation of Energy, you mention the Kinetic Energy of the frustrum. In standard physics, the Kinetic Energy is only defined in a referential. You do not indicate this referential in your EmDrive Basis Science
We can not suppose that this referential would be the depart point of a ship powered by an Emdrive. It would means that if a ship has leaved the moon, and another has leaved the Earth, and they go to the same deep space aera, they would not have the same Q factor, nor the same thrust, even if they are identical, at the same speed, and very near each other.
We would be thankful if you indicate us what referential you are using for Kinetic Energy. Without this missing information, we can not understand correctly the Slide Conservation of Energy -
#2149 by Rodal on 09 May, 2016 15:29
-
...
I like the idea and I hope he responds.
I project to send a mail to Shawyer. This mail would be.
Mr Shawyer
In the document named EmDrive Basis Science, at the slide Conservation of Energy, you mention the Kinetic Energy of the frustrum. In standard physics, the Kinetic Energy is only defined in a referential. You do not indicate this referential in your EmDrive Basis Science
We can not suppose that this referential would be the depart point of a ship powered by an Emdrive. It would means that if a ship has leaved the moon, and another has leaved the Earth, and they go to the same deep space aera, they would not have the same Q factor, nor the same thrust, even if they are identical, at the same speed, and very near each other.
We would be thankful if you indicate us what referential you are using for Kinetic Energy. Without this missing information, we can not understand correctly the Slide Conservation of Energy
Suggestion: to also include:
1) Frobnicat's reference to a road (for cars) or a rail (for a train) as the Kinetic Energy reference for a ground vehicle (due to friction with the road) , while in space there is no road or rail
2) Frobnicat's question as to whether an EM Drive on a speeding train behaves different than an EM Drive being fixed to the walls of a laboratory. How about an EM Drive free-falling in an elevator? -
#2150 by Gilbertdrive on 09 May, 2016 15:47
-
It would becomes :
Mr Shawyer
In the document named EmDrive Basis Science, at the slide Conservation of Energy, you mention the Kinetic Energy of the frustrum. In standard physics, the Kinetic Energy is only defined in a referential. You do not indicate this referential in your EmDrive Basis Science
We can not suppose that this referential would be the depart point of a ship powered by an Emdrive. It would means that if a ship has leaved the moon, and another has leaved the Earth, and they go to the same deep space aera, they would not have the same Q factor, nor the same thrust, even if they are identical, at the same speed, and very near each other.
We would be thankful if you indicate us what referential you are using for Kinetic Energy. Without this missing information, we can not understand correctly the Slide Conservation of Energy
Also, we are questionning about an Emdrive device that would be moving freely inside a moving train, or an Emdrive that would be moving freely in a free falling elevator. How would it behaves ? with what referential should we consider the Kinetic Energy ?
-
#2151 by rfmwguy on 09 May, 2016 15:53
-
It would becomes :
Well thought out and professional questions. Although I have no special insight or collaboration with Mr Shawyer, I have sent him this via email, as he does not post in forums to my knowledge.
Mr Shawyer
In the document named EmDrive Basis Science, at the slide Conservation of Energy, you mention the Kinetic Energy of the frustrum. In standard physics, the Kinetic Energy is only defined in a referential. You do not indicate this referential in your EmDrive Basis Science
We can not suppose that this referential would be the depart point of a ship powered by an Emdrive. It would means that if a ship has leaved the moon, and another has leaved the Earth, and they go to the same deep space aera, they would not have the same Q factor, nor the same thrust, even if they are identical, at the same speed, and very near each other.
We would be thankful if you indicate us what referential you are using for Kinetic Energy. Without this missing information, we can not understand correctly the Slide Conservation of Energy
Also, we are questionning about an Emdrive device that would be moving freely inside a moving train, or an Emdrive that would be moving freely in a free falling elevator. How would it behaves ? with what referential should we consider the Kinetic Energy ? -
#2152 by Gilbertdrive on 09 May, 2016 16:16
-
Thanks very much, Dave !
At least the question is precise.
I hope that he will not tell us that the answer is covered by secrety
-
#2153 by rfmwguy on 09 May, 2016 16:19
-
Thanks very much, Dave !
Me too. I have no idea about his business dealings. I suppose it could be possible that this is his Intellectual Property that he wishes not to disclose, but a good businessman would have that protected somehow and disclosure should not be an issue. All I can do is try. After all, he did sent out the slides unsolicited and questions will naturally arise.
At least the question is precise.
I hope that he will not tell us that the answer is covered by secrety -
#2154 by Rodal on 09 May, 2016 16:22
-
Shawyer can answer at his own website (emdrive.com) just like others do (McCulloch answered in his own blog http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/, what Baez had written in his own blog https://plus.google.com/117663015413546257905/posts).Thanks very much, Dave !
Me too. I have no idea about his business dealings. I suppose it could be possible that this is his Intellectual Property that he wishes not to disclose, but a good businessman would have that protected somehow and disclosure should not be an issue. All I can do is try. After all, he did sent out the slides unsolicited and questions will naturally arise.
At least the question is precise.
I hope that he will not tell us that the answer is covered by secrety
-------
(*) Concerning Intellectual Property, the questions posed are purely scientific and therefore cannot be protected by patents: no patent can cover anything to do with fundamentals laws of physics, all is being asked is what reference is he using for his Kinetic Energy argument. This is very different for example than if somebody would be asking him: what control algorithm are you using to keep the Q at its maximum possible value or what superconducting material are you using. -
#2155 by Eusa on 09 May, 2016 16:35
-
As far as the aether is concerned, I studied out its possible properties. And the main property is that the speed of the aether is the speed of light c for all observers! Hence, if you want to make the aether concept useful, you might consider it as an radiation field or like that. In my theory of gravity-inertia of vacuum quanta I see the possibility for kinda aether with quanta from the vacuum reaching mass particles at speed of light c.
-
#2156 by Gilbertdrive on 09 May, 2016 17:07
-
As far as the aether is concerned, I studied out its possible properties. And the main property is that the speed of the aether is the speed of light c for all observers! Hence, if you want to make the aether concept useful, you might consider it as an radiation field or like that. In my theory of gravity-inertia of vacuum quanta I see the possibility for kinda aether with quanta from the vacuum reaching mass particles at speed of light c.
So it means that with the Aether that goes to C for all observers, I can not take it as a convenient referential for Kinetic Energy
But, if the speed of the Aether is C for all observers, does it means that there is a priviligiate direction ?
Would I see an Aether coming to me with the speed of C from a side, and leaving at the speed of C on the other side, or is it something else ? -
#2157 by Bob Woods on 09 May, 2016 17:21
-
I got the sense that they heard about it but really didn't have a feel for the concept. They certainly understood what it could mean, thus their interest in hoping it becomes spaceflight ready someday. They are advocates of getting us into space they same way our ancestors wanted to explore the oceans. A noble concept that many of us share. Good folks for sure...also like their informal style where they don't take themselves too seriously. Much more entertaining and informative IMHO.Here's the hd webcast I was on:
Good job Dave. It's good to see those folks that have a keen interest in science, helping others understand.
You know Dave, people like Elon Musk, Bezos, Zellerium and the others like them have that drive that that comes from desire and a "we'll figure it out later if it doesn't work" attitude.
It's called audacity.
I think our generation lost a lot of that audacity when we hit middle age and became too set in our ways. My instinct says the new generation is great. That they will carry the ball to the places we dream of.
I hope to see some of it. I feel confident in the abilities of the human race.
-
#2158 by Rodal on 09 May, 2016 17:45
-
Mmmmm, a lot of EM Drive people are not young
I got the sense that they heard about it but really didn't have a feel for the concept. They certainly understood what it could mean, thus their interest in hoping it becomes spaceflight ready someday. They are advocates of getting us into space they same way our ancestors wanted to explore the oceans. A noble concept that many of us share. Good folks for sure...also like their informal style where they don't take themselves too seriously. Much more entertaining and informative IMHO.Here's the hd webcast I was on:
Good job Dave. It's good to see those folks that have a keen interest in science, helping others understand.
You know Dave, people like Elon Musk, Bezos, Zellerium and the others like them have that drive that that comes from desire and a "we'll figure it out later if it doesn't work" attitude.
It's called audacity.
I think our generation lost a lot of that audacity when we hit middle age and became too set in our ways. My instinct says the new generation is great. That they will carry the ball to the places we dream of.
I hope to see some of it. I feel confident in the abilities of the human race. Shawyer, (I won't comment on DIY's ages )
Maybe it is the other way around, maybe it is that the old folks are the ones that have more drive (pun intended), from the Atomic age, the Space age, the Robot and AI age when nothing could stop their dreams, cars looked like rockets and rockets were going to the Moon instead of over and over to LEO as they have been doing for decades 
-
#2159 by Eusa on 09 May, 2016 17:46
-
It's coming to you, or being exact to your elementary particles, from all directions. If you could warp the Aether so that it is directing somewhere having no massive particle, it means you created synthetical mass. That is one mechanism which must be taken account if emdrive effect seem to be real. Then the drive would not be em-drive but qg-drive as making use of quantum gravity by artificial gravitating mass.As far as the aether is concerned, I studied out its possible properties. And the main property is that the speed of the aether is the speed of light c for all observers! Hence, if you want to make the aether concept useful, you might consider it as an radiation field or like that. In my theory of gravity-inertia of vacuum quanta I see the possibility for kinda aether with quanta from the vacuum reaching mass particles at speed of light c.
So it means that with the Aether that goes to C for all observers, I can not take it as a convenient referential for Kinetic Energy
But, if the speed of the Aether is C for all observers, does it means that there is a priviligiate direction ?
Would I see an Aether coming to me with the speed of C from a side, and leaving at the speed of C on the other side, or is it something else ?
If there is a strong Aether against what we can push, we can define an intrinsic Kinetic energy, relatively to this Aether. If the Aether is needed, it is still true to write that no new physics are needed. Old and obsolete physics are needed 
and find a thust. Hope than Dr Rodal and Pr Frobnicat will not see the mistake. Oups, they saw it. No problem, I have done it on my little sister (by pulling his hair) and it was working. There is no reason it does not also work on me. So my theory is correct, because is correspond to my experiment.