-
#2200 by VAXHeadroom on 10 May, 2016 13:26
-
I too have been inspired by the EMDrive discussions to 'go back to school' and learn the physics I didn't get in undergrad (I was computer science and only required 2 semesters of science, in my case chemistry). Over the last 9 months I have 'audited' courses in electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. Here are some I recommend: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
I think you're on to something with this hypothesis, but there's little more to say on the topic that isn't wildly off the topic of EM Drive. Never the less, I am not even slightly surprised that so many in my generation are unwilling to have hope for things like EM drive.
I wish I had the courage to study physics in college like I wanted to. lack of faith in myself has prevented me from doing so many things up to this point in my life. It is disheartening how our society has turned more and more away from exploration, and more towards comfort. As my username suggests, I dream of the future. I dream of traveling the stars exploring this universe. and I hope that the years to come see the kind of advances in science that inspire a new generation of explorers and dreamers and innovators with the desire and drive to push the bounds of what is known and step into a new world of discovery.
As a member of the up-and-coming Generation I want to thank those of you who have been around the block and laid the foundation for your children and grandchildren to reach into the unknown. That said... we still need some help, so I expect you all to stick around for a while and continue to motivate my sorry generation to acts that can hopefully make you proud.
You have certainly inspired me to pursue my interest in physics beyond regret of the past.
Dreamer
National Programme on Technology and Advanced learning from Govt of India: Electro Magnetic Fields - note: very heavy on math
MIT Open Courseware (MIT OCW) 8.01 (classical) 8.02 (electricity & Magnetism) and 8.03 (vibrations & waves) taught by Walter Lewin. These are no longer available from MIT due to allegations against Dr Lewin, but are made available through CC:ATTRIB
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCliSRiiRVQuDfgxI_QN_Fmw/playlists
MIT OCW 8.04 Quantum Mechanics 1 taught by Dr Allan Adams - GENIUS lecturer!!
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUl4u3cNGP61-9PEhRognw5vryrSEVLPr
MIT OCW 8.05 QM 2 (just started this one)
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUl4u3cNGP60QlYNsy52fctVBOlk-4lYx
I can almost follow the physics discussions at this point
-
#2201 by SeeShells on 10 May, 2016 14:07
-
Great videos and references.
I too have been inspired by the EMDrive discussions to 'go back to school' and learn the physics I didn't get in undergrad (I was computer science and only required 2 semesters of science, in my case chemistry). Over the last 9 months I have 'audited' courses in electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. Here are some I recommend: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
I think you're on to something with this hypothesis, but there's little more to say on the topic that isn't wildly off the topic of EM Drive. Never the less, I am not even slightly surprised that so many in my generation are unwilling to have hope for things like EM drive.
I wish I had the courage to study physics in college like I wanted to. lack of faith in myself has prevented me from doing so many things up to this point in my life. It is disheartening how our society has turned more and more away from exploration, and more towards comfort. As my username suggests, I dream of the future. I dream of traveling the stars exploring this universe. and I hope that the years to come see the kind of advances in science that inspire a new generation of explorers and dreamers and innovators with the desire and drive to push the bounds of what is known and step into a new world of discovery.
As a member of the up-and-coming Generation I want to thank those of you who have been around the block and laid the foundation for your children and grandchildren to reach into the unknown. That said... we still need some help, so I expect you all to stick around for a while and continue to motivate my sorry generation to acts that can hopefully make you proud. You have certainly inspired me to pursue my interest in physics beyond regret of the past.
Dreamer
National Programme on Technology and Advanced learning from Govt of India: Electro Magnetic Fields - note: very heavy on math
MIT Open Courseware (MIT OCW) 8.01 (classical) 8.02 (electricity & Magnetism) and 8.03 (vibrations & waves) taught by Walter Lewin. These are no longer available from MIT due to allegations against Dr Lewin, but are made available through CC:ATTRIB
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCliSRiiRVQuDfgxI_QN_Fmw/playlists
MIT OCW 8.04 Quantum Mechanics 1 taught by Dr Allan Adams - GENIUS lecturer!!
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUl4u3cNGP61-9PEhRognw5vryrSEVLPr
MIT OCW 8.05 QM 2 (just started this one)
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUl4u3cNGP60QlYNsy52fctVBOlk-4lYx
I can almost follow the physics discussions at this point
Here is a great list that you can pick and choose.
http://futurism.com/ultimate-collection-free-physics-videos/
Or if you need a quick summary in the weird and wild world of Quantum or just a little bedtime reading.
http://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node1.html
.
-
#2202 by Monomorphic on 10 May, 2016 14:09
-
I'm trying to decide between these two USB spectrum analyzers. Was wondering if someone could weigh in. The Triarchy looks to have more features, but is $530 vs the RF Instruments' SA0314 $330. Is it worth it to go with the Triarchy?
http://www.triarchytech.com/product4G.html
Triarchy also has a $628 bundle that includes a 4-piece near field probe set: http://www.triarchytech.com/productprobe.html
http://rfinstruments.com/SA0314.html
-
#2203 by SeeShells on 10 May, 2016 15:17
-
Just because the results have not been made public, it does not mean that he did not follow up. If one thing became clear from the publicity surrounding the EM Drive is that NASA did not want any talk about NASA working on a warp drive.
I wonder why Dr. White never followed up with his Laser interferometer testing?
No, potential energy can be gained from the other gravitating bodies by reducing space in front of drive with the artificial mass. Of course this is speculative based on that em-radiation as standing transverse electric component gives longitudinal magnetic curved standing wave and maybe it could be similar to normal standing gravitational wave with the spherical gravity field...
Yep. That's the hypothesis.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.
Thanks very much for the explanations. So, with this hypothesis, the Emdevice/QGdevice would manipulate gravitation, to get acceleration ?
And what is happening to CoE and CoM with this hypothesis ? Does it means that some energy can be gained from the Aether ?
Shell
Precisely Dr. Rodal. The general public and press would go over the top if anything was said about warp drive by NASA.
I remember as a teen reading and that's what I did a lot. My dad would say "Quit taking up space in the house and get outside it's a beautiful day". That's still true to some extent although he got one thing right. We all take up space and in doing so we create our own warp bubble in spacetime. NASA's 800 pound gorilla in the living room takes up a lot of spacetime in it's warp bubble.
I've been re-looking at the thought experiments Einstein (my dad would have called them day dreaming) did in his street trolley ride looking at a clock that behind him as he traveled away. He thought if he was traveling at the speed of light the light could never reach me because of my speed and the clock I'm seeing would freeze in time and not move. To have that moment when you realize that the space you're traveling in, taking the time to do so are related in a fundamental way and are the same, It's spacetime.
Then he imagines a man falling from a building and during his decent to the ground that the man doesn't feel gravity. If he is in a elevator he can not tell he is not in space in free fall. The two are indistinguishable from each other. We're not being sucked to the center of the earth by gravity, were being pushed there by space to the center and that's because we all are taking up our own little space by by warping spacetime.
This thought experiment is to me a visual trip into how things work or as my dad would say daydreaming. The wonderful thing is anyone can see it without the maths (comes later).
This thought experiment got me thinking (daydreaming) of the actions of the conical frustum with a high Q resonating microwave radiation captured inside and it being a asymetrical warping of spacetime.
I've read where where photons in a wave guide exhibit mass effects like large particles and it's obvious that he captured resonance within this frustum isn't symetrical with these caculated levels of energy difference being almost 5x higher in the small end (meep and csv data).
How do I test this asymmetrical mass differential? Ok I build a test bed that keeps all the goodies inside. With a highly sensitive torsional wire and then rotate the entire test bed keeping everything the same.
If this is the case where the drive is warping space I'll not see the effect when it's in the first horizontal position, but it will show up to a greater degree in the vertical as a teeter totter balance beam.
There are a couple other tests I want to run with this configuration but this is the first series.
No more daydreaming this morning. Dr. Rodal, I have more to write on the coaxial cable adding thrust pressures to the frustum in onboard power versus off board supplies but I have some things I have to do first.
Shell
-
#2204 by Rodal on 10 May, 2016 15:35
-
...
When you have the time, please take a look at my post here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1526577#msg1526577
How do I test this asymmetrical mass differential? Ok I build a test bed that keeps all the goodies inside. With a highly sensitive torsional wire and then rotate the entire test bed keeping everything the same.
If this is the case where the drive is warping space I'll not see the effect when it's in the first horizontal position, but it will show up to a greater degree in the vertical as a teeter totter balance beam.
There are a couple other tests I want to run with this configuration but this is the first series.
No more daydreaming this morning. Dr. Rodal, I have more to write on the coaxial cable adding thrust pressures to the frustum in onboard power versus off board supplies but I have some things I have to do first.
Shell
where I formally prove that:
***********************
In general, under all situations, two of the principal stresses are compressive, while the other principal stress is tensile.
The cross-section experiencing a tensile principal stress and an equal compressive principal stress in the perpendicular direction experiences a state of pure shear: whereby a square will deform into a rectangle and a circle will deform into an ellipse:
If the energy density is greater than the Coulomb pressure, then the tensile stress is the second principal stress.
If the Coulomb pressure is greater than the energy density, then the tensile stress is the third principal stress.
When the Coulomb pressure is negligibly small when compared to the magnetic field times the square of the speed of light c , the principal stresses are very simply due to the internal energy: two of the principal stresses are compressive: equal to the negative of the energy density, and the third principal stress is tensile: equal to the energy density.
This explains, for example, when Dr. H. White discusses his theory of the Quantum Vacuum as an explanation for the EM Drive he discusses the importance of the energy density, and the fact that the stress is tensile in one principal direction and compressive in the other two orthogonal directions.
***********************
The compression and tension occur on one of the two planes perpendicular to the metallic circular ends, so to measure this one has to turn the device the correct way. I would suggest to run experiments with the device turned at least in all 3 different perpendicular planes, to have a complete experimental measurement of what is going on.
Even better, taking into account that the EM Drive is supposed to "thrust" in one preferential direction would be to test it in 6 different rotations= 2X3, pointing small end forward, and also big end forward in all 3 different planes with respect to the force of gravity
These stresses and these effects are supposed to be very, very small, but it can only help to perform the experiments
Michelson and Morley's experiment was to verify the aether (and NOT to disprove it). They measured the speed of light in perpendicular directions, in an attempt to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary luminiferous aether ("aether wind").
When they got results that showed that there was no aether (the opposite of what they were expecting), they justified their results as the aether behaving differently than originally expected. It took Einstein to be the one that definitely stated that there was no aether. But is that the end of the story ?
One of the greatest experiments ever performed, a result used by Einstein to revolutionize Physics, was originally perceived as a great failure:QuoteAfter all this thought and preparation, the experiment became what has been called the most famous failed experiment in history. Instead of providing insight into the properties of the aether, Michelson and Morley's article in the American Journal of Science reported the measurement to be as small as one-fortieth of the expected displacement (Fig. 7), but "since the displacement is proportional to the square of the velocity" they concluded that the measured velocity was "probably less than one-sixth" of the expected velocity of the Earth's motion in orbit and "certainly less than one-fourth." Although this small "velocity" was measured, it was considered far too small to be used as evidence of speed relative to the aether, and it was understood to be within the range of an experimental error that would allow the speed to actually be zero. For instance, Michelson wrote about the "decidedly negative result" in a letter to Lord Rayleigh in August 1887
This story has a happy ending as Michelson eventually (20 years later) received the first Nobel Prize awarded to a US citizen, "for his optical precision instruments and the spectroscopic and metrological investigations carried out with their aid", an award very much deserved.
Michelson died in 1931 (aged 78) in Pasadena, California.
A few years ago, New Beast Theater Works produced a semi-opera titled "Light Waves and their Uses" (http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/155291) about Michelson, his obsessive working style and its effect on his family life. -
#2205 by rfmwguy on 10 May, 2016 16:08
-
I'm trying to decide between these two USB spectrum analyzers. Was wondering if someone could weigh in. The Triarchy looks to have more features, but is $530 vs the RF Instruments' SA0314 $330. Is it worth it to go with the Triarchy?
Jamie, I have the rf instruments sa and am pleased. The other looks like it has probes which u would have to make anyway. Might be the one to try just to give us all another piece of gear to have used.
http://www.triarchytech.com/product4G.html
Triarchy also has a $628 bundle that includes a 4-piece near field probe set: http://www.triarchytech.com/productprobe.html
http://rfinstruments.com/SA0314.html -
#2206 by zen-in on 10 May, 2016 19:14
-
Michelson and Morley's experiment was to verify the aether (and NOT to disprove it). They measured the speed of light in perpendicular directions, in an attempt to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary luminiferous aether ("aether wind").
Even when they got results that show that there was no aether as they were expecting, they justified their results as the aether behaving differently than originally expected. It took Einstein to be the one that definitely stated that there was no aether. But is that the end of the story ?
One of the greatest experiments ever performed, that Einstein interpreted to revolutionize Physics, was originaly interpreted as a great failure:
As Dylan said "There's no success like failure".
-
#2207 by Monomorphic on 10 May, 2016 20:22
-
Might be the one to try just to give us all another piece of gear to have used.
Not sure I want to drop an extra $300 unless it has some benefit. I like the fact that it can be used as an AM FM radio and to pick up TV - which will benefit my rather pathetic ham radio hobby. My hope is that I can use it to get the traces I need measure the SWR, return loss, and reflection coefficient. I'm far from an RF test engineer, so i'm a little uncertain. I've sent an email to Triarchy support inquiring. -
#2208 by rfmwguy on 10 May, 2016 23:16
-
NSF-1701A Update -
Torsion wire test stand designed, fabricated, tested and ready to go. -
#2209 by Monomorphic on 10 May, 2016 23:32
-
NSF-1701A Update -
Torsion wire test stand designed, fabricated, tested and ready to go.
I'm curious how you integrated your laser distance meter. I almost purchased the greatly reduced in price ebay unit you posted a few pages back... but decided to limp along with a laser so I can get the usb spectrum analyzer first. -
#2210 by chucknorris101 on 10 May, 2016 23:57
-
Been away for a while, has the Nasa paper been released on any way? Is the delay in any way 'good news'? In that they couldn't dismiss results simply at least? How long does typical peer review last?
-
#2211 by rfmwguy on 11 May, 2016 01:03
-
Last time, I placed it under beam opposite to drive. This time, same location only pointing at side of beam. Pretty easy to reconfigure. Now it will measure horizontal vector rather than vertical vector.NSF-1701A Update -
Torsion wire test stand designed, fabricated, tested and ready to go.
I'm curious how you integrated your laser distance meter. I almost purchased the greatly reduced in price ebay unit you posted a few pages back... but decided to limp along with a laser so I can get the usb spectrum analyzer first. -
#2212 by rfmwguy on 11 May, 2016 01:06
-
Been away for a while, has the Nasa paper been released on any way? Is the delay in any way 'good news'? In that they couldn't dismiss results simply at least? How long does typical peer review last?
No paper yet and no communication frow ew. Rejection outright didn't happen, this delay could mean rewrite or retest, no idea unfortunately. -
#2213 by Rodal on 11 May, 2016 01:55
-
Been away for a while, has the Nasa paper been released on any way? Is the delay in any way 'good news'? In that they couldn't dismiss results simply at least? How long does typical peer review last?
1) we should not speak about "delay", as the peer-review process does not have fixed time limits, and the amount of time that has lapsed in this case is still well within normal bounds.
2) process time could go over a year depending on journal. Also authors may decide to withdraw submission to a given journal if the peer-review process becomes unacceptable and re-submit the paper to another journal.
3) there is no retesting I have heard of while I worked at MIT ASRL, that is practically out of the question. Our Lab had several papers being published, never heard of asking for retesting in the peer-review process. Professors in a PhD thesis committee may ask for retests, Members of an R&D Supervisory Committee may ask for re-tests, Venture Capitalists may ask for retests, but not peer-reviewers for a technical paper, to my knowledge.
The peer-review process usually entails addressing technical issues in the paper write-up, reviewers do not usually ask re-tests as they know that the amount of time for scientific tests would be unacceptable (asking for retesting would be, practically, tantamount to rejection: the paper would have to be re-submtted.).
4) The peer-review process is strictly confidential: both the authors and the peer-reviewers are sworn to secrecy.
5) keep cool
. Submitting papers for peer-review is something mundane, many researchers have several papers undergoing peer-rewiew simultaneously, since it is commonplace to manage multiple R&D projects.
6) Scientifically, what matters most is how many times a paper has been cited by other authors. For papers to get cited many times takes..years.
7) Technically what matters is whether a new kind of rocket propulsion works, and not whether a paper passes peer-review. Consider that neither Werner Von Braun, nor the Wright Brothers become famous by having papers being peer-reviewed.
________
(*) It would be fully understandable that having paper being peer-reviewed for the first time is very meaningful to a first time author. But as an effect on Aerospace, the paper published by Shawyer in Acta Astronautica does not appear to have had a significant effect on the EM Drive perception... What would have a great effect would be:
1) Foremost: to have a spacecraft accelerated by an EM Drive
2) A test that would be universally recognized as definitive proof by the scientific community. This means at this point in time, at the minimum:
a) torsional pendulum
b) powered by batteries, self-integrated in the moving device
c) tested under partial vacuum
since (c) would eliminate thermal convection artifacts and (b) would eliminate electromagnetic Lorentz and momentum forces from power cables (including coaxial cables), thermal and stiffness forces from cables. A Cavendish pendulum would eliminate many artifacts present in other instruments.
Prof. Yang has met all three of the above (a,b, and c) in her recent paper that nulliifies her previous claimed results.
Ultimate acceptance of a technology requires independent replication at different institutional centers, so be prepared for a long haul. Rome wasn't built in a day. -
#2214 by rfmwguy on 11 May, 2016 02:20
-
You could be incorrect about retest. Just saying...and thats all I can say.
-
#2215 by rfmwguy on 11 May, 2016 02:42
-
You could be incorrect about your understanding of what you heard...and that's all that I can say.
Perhaps, but I would avoid making definitive pronouncements when you are not part of ew or the review team(s). -
#2216 by Tetrakis on 11 May, 2016 04:31
-
2) process time could go over a year depending on journal. Also authors may decide to withdraw submission to a given journal if the peer-review process becomes unacceptable and re-submit the paper to another journal.
3) there is no retesting I have heard of while I worked at MIT ASRL, that is practically out of the question. Our Lab had several papers being published, never heard of asking for retesting in the peer-review process. Professors in a PhD thesis committee may ask for retests, Members of an R&D Supervisory Committee may ask for re-tests, Venture Capitalists may ask for retests, but not peer-reviewers for a technical paper, to my knowledge.
The peer-review process usually entails addressing technical issues in the paper write-up, reviewers do not usually ask re-tests as they know that the amount of time for scientific tests would be unacceptable (asking for retesting would be, practically, tantamount to rejection: the paper would have to be re-submtted.).
In my field (chemistry) and others with which I have direct experience (biology) it is very common for reviewers to ask for additional experiments when reviewing for high-impact journals. An important job of peer reviewers is to establish whether the conclusions and analysis in the text of a paper can actually be drawn from the data. Often I have been asked to perform additional/more rigorous experiments in order to improve the backing of my conclusions. These experiments are usually controls, meant to eliminate possible alternative hypotheses to the ones originally proposed by the author.
For a paper on the subject of the EMDrive, the reviewers would be doing the journal a disservice if they did not request some additional experiments. There are many alternative hypotheses (experimental error related) to those bound to be proposed by the EW group. -
#2217 by as58 on 11 May, 2016 10:41
-
4) The peer-review process is strictly confidential: both the authors and the peer-reviewers are sworn to secrecy.
Huh? A lot of people post papers on arxiv already when they submit to a journal. It's true that the reviewer(s) aren't allowed to discuss the work while it's under review, but that doesn't (at least in most cases) apply to the authors.
I also agree with Tetrakis that additional tests are not at all unusual. -
#2218 by frobnicat on 11 May, 2016 10:56
-
.../...
(*) It would be fully understandable that having paper being peer-reviewed for the first time is very meaningful to a first time author. But as an effect on Aerospace, the paper published by Shawyer in Acta Astronautica does not appear to have had a significant effect on the EM Drive perception... What would have a great effect would be:
1) Foremost: to have a spacecraft accelerated by an EM Drive
2) A test that would be universally recognized as definitive proof by the scientific community. This means at this point in time, at the minimum:
a) torsional pendulum
b) powered by batteries, self-integrated in the moving device
c) tested under partial vacuum
since (c) would eliminate thermal convection artifacts and (b) would eliminate electromagnetic Lorentz and momentum forces from power cables (including coaxial cables), thermal and stiffness forces from cables. A Cavendish pendulum would eliminate many artifacts present in other instruments.
Prof. Yang has met all three of the above (a,b, and c) in her recent paper that nulliifies her previous claimed results.
Ultimate acceptance of a technology requires independent replication at different institutional centers, so be prepared for a long haul. Rome wasn't built in a day.
For an earth based experiment I am advocating adding
d) independence from environmental magnetic field
Because a self integrated self powered device can still exchange rotational momentum (that affect a measure with torsional pendulum) with an homogeneous ambient magnetic field* (ie. unperturbed geomagnetic field) and linear momentum (that could affect a measure with torsional pendulum or linear track alike) with a spatially varying ambient magnetic field (ie. perturbed geomagnetic field or nearby permanent magnets), and because it is easy for a system that carries current to exhibit such couplings at magnitudes comparable with the small forces measured, it is important that this factor is investigated.
Given all the constraint a) b) c) it's not that much of a higher financial requirement to have 3 pairs of Helmholtz coils for X Y Z and then plotting force (if there is force, or rather torque for a torsion experiment) as function of forward/backward current in coil(s) such as spanning a range of magnitude exceeding the local magnetic field. Pair of coils (for near homogeneous field) for X Y Z, then single coil (diverging field) for X+ X- Y+ Y- Z+ Z-. That would make for 9 plots. If none shows significant deviation from horizontal (ideal) or none deviates from horizontal enough to approach crossing of 0, ie. inversion of thrust (less than ideal but still good) then that would be a strong point.
*
As an exemple of how easy it is to generate a significant torque from geomagnetic field with a self enclosed device, albeit it is not self powered but could be (the small input power being in the form of photon flux on a solar cell, the minuscule momentum of photon flux plays no role in the result and the solar cell could be replaced by a limited lifetime battery to same result) : there is a nice gadget in the form of moving globes inside a sphere : MOVA rotating globes. This is not advertisement and I'm not here to promote it (also I find it rather cool) this is just a convenient illustration for my point.
Sorry this is not the most academic link but the description by user star_gazer on funtrivia is clear enough that I quote in extenso here (bold added by me) even if it sounds promotional.Quote from: star_gazer @ funtriviaHow MOVA Globes Work
The MOVA globes rotate peacefully and silently using only the energy of room light and the force of the earth’s magnetic field.
This is possible because the MOVA globe is actually an inner globe that rotates and is contained within an outer shell made of very clear acrylic that does not rotate. The thin space between the inner globe and outer shell is filled with a safe, perfectly clear fluid that buoyantly supports the inner globe completely out of contact with the outer shell. This inner globe, floating and turning in a virtually friction-free environment and energized by light, is analogous to the earth itself.
The optical properties of the outer shell and fluid are carefully chosen so that the graphic features on the surface of the inner globe are magnified and appear to be on the outer surface of the outer shell. This means that the outer shell actually appears to move. The MOVA globe can rest on an attractive three fingered stand that is provided, or on just about any other kind of stand that can be chosen to complement it’s graphic design. The MOVA globe appears to rotate in spite of resting on the stand, in quiet defiance of commonly held ideas about the laws of friction.
A carefully designed, and highly efficient drive mechanism within the inner globe drives the rotation even in room light. Energy for the drive is provided by very advanced solar cells within the inner globe, illuminated by light passing through the graphic on the globe. The drive includes a magnetic element that reacts with the earth’ s magnetic field, much as a common compass does, to provide torque to drive the globe.
All of these elements of the MOVA globe cooperate to create a beautiful, magical object that provides a meditative point of focus to any room.
Think this is all solid state, just needs commutation of current in coils that act as a rotor and Earth magnetic field as a permanent magnet stator.
-
#2219 by as58 on 11 May, 2016 11:26
-
1) The peer-review process is strictly confidential: both the authors and the peer-reviewers are sworn to secrecy simply means that if you have a paper undergoing peer-review you are sworn to secrecy as far as anything that a peer-reviewer communicates with you in the process. The secrecy pertains the peer-review process between a particular journal and the authors.
Still, huh? I've never heard about the authors not being allowed to communicate freely whatever the reviewer has written and indeed a lot of people talk (or more like complain) about how the reviewer has misunderstood the point of their paper or something similar.
, 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 
You have certainly inspired me to pursue my interest in physics beyond regret of the past.
. Submitting papers for peer-review is something mundane, many researchers have several papers undergoing peer-rewiew simultaneously, since it is commonplace to manage multiple R&D projects.