-
#3160 by Gilbertdrive on 15 Jun, 2016 10:42
-
For the Pioneer anomaly, one needs Unruh wavelengths of the order of the Hubble scale, comparable to the diameter of the observable Universe. But to justify the controversial topic of "inertial mass" of photons, the Unruh wavelengths for the EM Drive now have to be comparable to the (extremely small by comparison to the Universe) size of the EM Drive.
The difference in wavelengths needed to explain the EM Drive and the Pioneer anomaly is humongous...
And what "numerous number of free parameters" were used in JPL's study
?
In my understanding of the MiHsC theory, the cavity in the Emdrive is considered as the Hubble Horizon when considering the photons inside. So, of course, with a Hubble Horizon in centimeters, the scale is totally different.Quote from: Dr Mike Mc CullochWhat if the resonant cavity walls acted like a Hubble horizon, especially for Unruh waves of a similar length (as they are in this case)? Then the inertial mass of the photons would increase towards the cavity's wide end, since more Unruh waves would fit there, since mi=m(1-L/2w), where w is the cavity width.
If really the MiHsC theory, with the same principle, can predict the moves of galaxies, and the way the Emdrive is working in a totally different scale, it is a big strength.
For example, the Gravity explains perfectly the movement in our solar system, but it does not explain the shape of galaxies without dark matter, and it does not explain the acceleration of expansion of the universe without dark energy. That is a limitation. If the gravity was perfectly fitting the largest scales measurements, we would consider it as a strength for the Gravitation Model.
Personally, I did not speak about numerous free parameters in JPL study. My citation of Dr McCulloch was only for the exposition of his theory.
I noticed only one free parameter, it is the Degradation of the RTG surface of 25%.Quote from: JPLOf these, the most significant is the effect of
possible surface degradation of the sun-facing RTG sur-
faces.
The RTGs were coated with “three mils of zirconia
(ZrO2)
2) in a sodium silicate binder” [12]. No information
is available in the literature about the performance of this
particular type of paint when exposed to solar radiation,
especially at the relatively high temperatures present on
the RTG outer surfaces. Similar paints [13] have experi-
enced both an increase and a decrease of up to 5% in in-
frared emissivity. Approximately 25% of the RTG coated
surfaces were exposed to solar irradiation. A calculation
that takes into account the relative contribution of RTG
heat to the total anisotropy yields a corresponding error
figure of 25% in the overall error budget
There should not be misunderstanding about the JPL work. It is a very good work, but (despite the abstract) the aim is not to make the calculus and find the exact Pioneer Anomaly by using only known parameters. It's aim is to show that the Pioneer anomaly can be explained by known parameters, and the RTG surface degradation by the SUN. If the Pioneer Anomaly was different, it would also work, because, as it is explicitely written, the paint can have an increase or a decrease of up to 5% in infrared emissivity. It is not a predictive model of the Anomaly, it is the proof that the anomaly is in the bounds of classical explanation.
So, I find clear than
1 : The JPL calculus shows that the Pioneer Anomaly is compatible with standard physics
2 : The JPL calculus does not prove the exact amount of anomalous speed.
3 : The Pioneer Anomaly is not an argument for MiHsC, a new theory needs to explain phenomenon that are not compatible by standards physics.
4 : In a way to expose MiHsC, Pioneer Anomaly can still be mentioned, because it is predicted by the theory.
My aim is to try to understand how MiHsC works. If I had a formula that gives me the amount of anomalous speed in function of other parameters, I would be happy
Also, even if Dr McCulloch is proud of heaving no arbitrary parameters, unlike dark matter or dark energy, the way he decides how MiHsC applies is still arbitrary in my limited understanding. Why should a photon in a closed cavity, behave as if it was in a small universe ?
Also, if the Unruh effect is an internal phenomenon, and that the Emdrive accelerates, how does it deals with CoE and CoM ? If the Unruh effect was in interaction with the universe Hubble Horizon, we could infere that CoE and CoM are respected. But since the Unruh effect in the drive is an internal and local phenomenon, logically, CoE and CoM should be violated.
Any help to understand is welcome
-
#3161 by Rodal on 15 Jun, 2016 15:14
-
...If standing acoustic waves are able to transfer some of their momentum into the cavity to produce thrust, could this be an analogue of what might be happening in an EM Drive?...
No, it is not an analogue for the EM Drive.
The acoustic waves in your example give an external force to the particles.
Acoustic waves inside the particles would not be able to self-accelerate the particles. An external force is required, or the inertial mass needs to change.
The problem with the EM Drive is that the electromagnetic waves are inside the EM Drive. Furthermore, what is claimed by experimenters is that the EM Drive self-accelerates with a force that is orders of magnitude larger than the force that would be produced if the EM Drive would be open and you would let the electromagnetic waves escape asymmetrically.
That's why some people have looked at ways to open the system: Harold White and a mutable, degradable Quantum Vacuum, James Woodward and a Mach Effect on the polymer insert, McCulloch and Unruh waves, other people have tried General Relativity, etc. -
#3162 by keithpickering on 15 Jun, 2016 15:15
-
For the Pioneer anomaly, one needs Unruh wavelengths of the order of the Hubble scale, comparable to the diameter of the observable Universe. But to justify the controversial topic of "inertial mass" of photons, the Unruh wavelengths for the EM Drive now have to be comparable to the (extremely small by comparison to the Universe) size of the EM Drive.
The difference in wavelengths needed to explain the EM Drive and the Pioneer anomaly is humongous...
The argument from personal incredulity ...
1. My dad was a ham radio operator. He had a box on his desk about 30 cm x 30 cm x 15 cm, and inside that box he generated photons with an 80-meter wavelength. Impossible, say you?
2. I have an emergency generator in my garage which produces 60 Hz AC. The generator is less than 1 meter long, but the photons from the 60 Hz AC are 5,000 km long. Impossible, say you?
3. If you agree that #1 and #2 are both completely possible, that raises the following question: what is the longest wavelength it is physically possible to generate? What physics supply the boundary condition for that? And it seems to me that the boundary condition is set by the frequency (or maybe half the frequency, or a quarter -- we might argue about that, but we're within an order of magnitude) of Hubble Time. Anything slower than that wouldn't have had time in the Universe to complete a cycle. And therefore the longest wavelength (or half wavelength, or quarter wavelength) must be on the Hubble Scale. So the Hubble Scale sets an absolute limit on the longest possible wavelength. Is there anything here you disagree with?
-
#3163 by Rodal on 15 Jun, 2016 15:39
-
This argument, starts by positing an effect: the Unruh radiation whose existence is not universally accepted and has not been experimentally confirmed.
For the Pioneer anomaly, one needs Unruh wavelengths of the order of the Hubble scale, comparable to the diameter of the observable Universe. But to justify the controversial topic of "inertial mass" of photons, the Unruh wavelengths for the EM Drive now have to be comparable to the (extremely small by comparison to the Universe) size of the EM Drive.
The difference in wavelengths needed to explain the EM Drive and the Pioneer anomaly is humongous...
The argument from personal incredulity ...
1. My dad was a ham radio operator. He had a box on his desk about 30 cm x 30 cm x 15 cm, and inside that box he generated photons with an 80-meter wavelength. Impossible, say you?
2. I have an emergency generator in my garage which produces 60 Hz AC. The generator is less than 1 meter long, but the photons from the 60 Hz AC are 50,000 km long. Impossible, say you?
3. If you agree that #1 and #2 are both completely possible, that raises the following question: what is the longest wavelength it is physically possible to generate? What physics supply the boundary condition for that? And it seems to me that the boundary condition is set by the frequency (or maybe half the frequency, or a quarter -- we might argue about that, but we're within an order of magnitude) of Hubble Time. Anything slower than that wouldn't have had time in the Universe to complete a cycle. And therefore the longest wavelength (or half wavelength, or quarter wavelength) must be on the Hubble Scale. So the Hubble Scale sets an absolute limit on the longest possible wavelength. Is there anything here you disagree with?
So, in essence you are proposing to justify an effect (force on the EM Drive) that has not been experimentally confirmed and whose existence is very much under debate, by proposing another effect that has not been experimentally confirmed and whose existence is very much under debate. When mainstream scientists think of the Unruh effect, they think of huge accelerations like the ones near a black hole. To accommodate these huge accelerations the theory being proposed argues that photons are being accelerated and that they have an inertial mass. It proposes that dark matter does not exist, but that it can be explained also by the Unruh radiation. It proposes that the Pioneer anomaly is not due to asymmetric thermal radiation (a well-known effect) but by Unruh radiation produced by very small acceleration, with wavelengths approaching the diameter of the observable Universe. Finally, the theory being proposed for the EM Drive is mathematically undeveloped: it does not even take into account the electromagnetic mode shapes.
The following needs to happen advance this:
1) The Unruh effect would need to be experimentally confirmed and verified by independent scientists and to be accepted as a fact (for example, it can be argued that the Unruh effect does not exist because the emission and absorption rates of the accelerating particle are balanced)
2) Inertial mass for photons and acceleration of photons as proposed by McCulloch would need to be experimentally confirmed and verified by independent scientists and to be accepted as a fact.
3) McCulloch's theory for the EM Drive would need to be mathematically developed (it is undeveloped at the moment): solving the boundary value problem and accounting for the electromagnetic mode shapes (McCulloch's force has no explicit dependence on the electromagnetic mode shapes). By contrast, take a look at Dr. Notsosureofit's hypothesis: http://emdrive.wiki/@notsosureofit_Hypothesis which is more mathematically developed than McCulloch's since it takes into account the electromagnetic mode shapes.
Theories such as this need to answer critical challenges. Other competing theories for the EM Drive (Harold White's degradable QV, Woodward's Mach Effect, etc.) also have challenges but Woodward's Mach Effect theory for example has been under longer scrutiny, so discussion of its application can be sharper, more definite.
Concerning the EM Drive, the first order of business is to confirm whether the anomalous force is a real effect or an experimental artifact. -
#3164 by Gilbertdrive on 15 Jun, 2016 17:34
-
This argument, starts by positing an effect: the Unruh radiation whose existence is not universally accepted and has not been experimentally confirmed.
For the Pioneer anomaly, one needs Unruh wavelengths of the order of the Hubble scale, comparable to the diameter of the observable Universe. But to justify the controversial topic of "inertial mass" of photons, the Unruh wavelengths for the EM Drive now have to be comparable to the (extremely small by comparison to the Universe) size of the EM Drive.
The difference in wavelengths needed to explain the EM Drive and the Pioneer anomaly is humongous...
The argument from personal incredulity ...
1. My dad was a ham radio operator. He had a box on his desk about 30 cm x 30 cm x 15 cm, and inside that box he generated photons with an 80-meter wavelength. Impossible, say you?
2. I have an emergency generator in my garage which produces 60 Hz AC. The generator is less than 1 meter long, but the photons from the 60 Hz AC are 50,000 km long. Impossible, say you?
3. If you agree that #1 and #2 are both completely possible, that raises the following question: what is the longest wavelength it is physically possible to generate? What physics supply the boundary condition for that? And it seems to me that the boundary condition is set by the frequency (or maybe half the frequency, or a quarter -- we might argue about that, but we're within an order of magnitude) of Hubble Time. Anything slower than that wouldn't have had time in the Universe to complete a cycle. And therefore the longest wavelength (or half wavelength, or quarter wavelength) must be on the Hubble Scale. So the Hubble Scale sets an absolute limit on the longest possible wavelength. Is there anything here you disagree with?
So, in essence you are proposing to justify an effect (force on the EM Drive) that has not been experimentally confirmed and whose existence is very much under debate, by proposing another effect that has not been experimentally confirmed and whose existence is very much under debate. When mainstream scientists think of the Unruh effect, they think of huge accelerations like the ones near a black hole. To accommodate these huge accelerations the theory being proposed argues that photons are being accelerated and that they have an inertial mass. It proposes that dark matter does not exist, but that it can be explained also by the Unruh radiation. It proposes that the Pioneer anomaly is not due to asymmetric thermal radiation (a well-known effect) but by Unruh radiation produced by very small acceleration, with wavelengths approaching the diameter of the observable Universe. Finally, the theory being proposed for the EM Drive is mathematically undeveloped: it does not even take into account the electromagnetic mode shapes.
The following needs to happen advance this:
1) The Unruh effect would need to be experimentally confirmed and verified by independent scientists and to be accepted as a fact (for example, it can be argued that the Unruh effect does not exist because the emission and absorption rates of the accelerating particle are balanced)
2) Inertial mass for photons and acceleration of photons as proposed by McCulloch would need to be experimentally confirmed and verified by independent scientists and to be accepted as a fact.
3) McCulloch's theory for the EM Drive would need to be mathematically developed (it is undeveloped at the moment): solving the boundary value problem and accounting for the electromagnetic mode shapes (McCulloch's force has no explicit dependence on the electromagnetic mode shapes). By contrast, take a look at Dr. Notsosureofit's hypothesis: http://emdrive.wiki/@notsosureofit_Hypothesis which is more mathematically developed than McCulloch's since it takes into account the electromagnetic mode shapes.
Theories such as this need to answer critical challenges. Other competing theories for the EM Drive (Harold White's degradable QV, Woodward's Mach Effect, etc.) also have challenges but Woodward's Mach Effect theory for example has been under longer scrutiny, so discussion of its application can be sharper, more definite.
Concerning the EM Drive, the first order of business is to confirm whether the anomalous force is a real effect or an experimental artifact.
I totally agree on the fact that we can not consider MiHsC as established
But, even if we are not sure that the anomalous force is a real effect, we can try to understand what means exactly MiHsC for Emdrive, as it has been done for other theories.
A theory can give the way of modifiyng the drive to increase the effect, so we do not have to first confirm the reality of the effect, the best thing to do is working in parallel on théories (there are many), and on physical experiments.
Also, with the information that I have now about MiHsC, I can not do much. That is why I am trying to undestand what would happen to a single photon bouncing from a side to another side in a frustrum (see image attached) I suppose in this example that the wavelengh of the photon is much smaller than the cavity, and that the photon is bouncing on the ends without touching the walls.
What happen to this lonesone photon ? is it redshifted ? where ? Is it blueshifted in the other way, and how much ? Without calculus, MiHsC is helpless. If somebody knows enough MiHsC to tell what would happen to this photon as it travels in the cavity, it would help me much
-
#3165 by FattyLumpkin on 15 Jun, 2016 19:01
-
Dr. Rodal, in the case of the "perfectly collimated" photon rocket I take it that there are no issues re COM or COE. or (?) Assuming the QV is immutable, how is it possible for the collimated photons to transfer it's/their momentum to (?) to produce thrust? Not sure if this is correctly phrased? FL
-
#3166 by Rodal on 15 Jun, 2016 19:20
-
Dr. Rodal, in the case of the "perfectly collimated" photon rocket I take it that there are no issues re COM or COE. or (?) Assuming the QV is immutable, how is it possible for the collimated photons to transfer it's/their momentum to (?) to produce thrust? Not sure if this is correctly phrased? FL
No issues with a perfectly collimated photon rocket, or an imperfectly collimated photon rocket regarding Conservation of Momentum or Conservation of Energy (*) because in a photon rocket the photons escape the drive asymmetrically. Due to conservation of momentum, the drive has to accelerate with a deltaV proportional to the momentum of the photons escaping the drive.
The ratio of v to c is given by:
where mi is the initial mass and mf is the final mass.
Obviously for the photon rocket to move, one needs v>0, and for this to happen you need the initial mass mi to be greater than the final mass mf.
No need for any Quantum Vacuum, for this to happen. A photon rocket acts similar to an ion rocket or a chemical rocket or a nuclear rocket regarding conservation of momentum.
A photon rocket is not propellant-less.
Image: photon rockets are not propellant-less. Here is an image of a 1960s Russian's impression of a photon
rocket (from (G.G. Zel'kin's article). A huge vessel, many kilometers long because of all the propellant (matter to be converted into photons (matter/antimatter reaction ?)) necessary for a photon rocket to carry in order to get close to the speed of light:
(see this post http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1483927#msg1483927 for more details)
Here is a comparison of the photon rocket compared to the buildings of Moscow University, so that you get an idea of all the propellant that the photon rocket needs to carry:
_____________
(*) People please spell these things out as there is no uniform terminology, at least once at the beginning of your messages. The purpose is to communicate and CoM can stand just as well for Conservation of Mass for example.
QV could stand for Quo Vadis... -
#3167 by FattyLumpkin on 15 Jun, 2016 19:49
-
Quo Vadis! great film! many apologies. So if a high Q resonant cavity (cylindrical) has a small opening in one mirror, the number? of photons escaping is increased and thus generating thrust > 0.0003 Newton?
-
#3168 by SeeShells on 15 Jun, 2016 19:56
-
From a notice by rfmwguy... Interesting.
Shell
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/6/6/10.1063/1.4953807
On the exhaust of electromagnetic drive
Patrick Grahn1,a), Arto Annila2,3,b) and Erkki Kolehmainen4,c)
Recent reports about propulsion without reaction mass have been met on one hand with enthusiasm and on the other hand with some doubts. Namely, closed metal cavities, when fueled with microwaves, have delivered thrust that could eventually maintain satellites on orbits using solar power. However, the measured thrust appears to be without any apparent exhaust. Thus the Law of Action-Reaction seems to have been violated. We consider the possibility that the exhaust is in a form that has so far escaped both experimental detection and theoretical attention. In the thruster’s cavity microwaves interfere with each other and invariably some photons will also end up co-propagating with opposite phases. At the destructive interference electromagnetic fields cancel. However, the photons themselves do not vanish for nothing but continue in propagation. These photon pairs without net electromagnetic field do not reflect back from the metal walls but escape from the resonator. By this action momentum is lost from the cavity which, according to the conservation of momentum, gives rise to an equal and opposite reaction. We examine theoretical corollaries and practical concerns that follow from the paired-photon conclusion. -
#3169 by Rodal on 15 Jun, 2016 20:04
-
From a notice by rfmwguy... Interesting.
Shell
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/6/6/10.1063/1.4953807
On the exhaust of electromagnetic drive
Patrick Grahn1,a), Arto Annila2,3,b) and Erkki Kolehmainen4,c)
Recent reports about propulsion without reaction mass have been met on one hand with enthusiasm and on the other hand with some doubts. Namely, closed metal cavities, when fueled with microwaves, have delivered thrust that could eventually maintain satellites on orbits using solar power. However, the measured thrust appears to be without any apparent exhaust. Thus the Law of Action-Reaction seems to have been violated. We consider the possibility that the exhaust is in a form that has so far escaped both experimental detection and theoretical attention. In the thruster’s cavity microwaves interfere with each other and invariably some photons will also end up co-propagating with opposite phases. At the destructive interference electromagnetic fields cancel. However, the photons themselves do not vanish for nothing but continue in propagation. These photon pairs without net electromagnetic field do not reflect back from the metal walls but escape from the resonator. By this action momentum is lost from the cavity which, according to the conservation of momentum, gives rise to an equal and opposite reaction. We examine theoretical corollaries and practical concerns that follow from the paired-photon conclusion.
These authors fail to address the conservation of energy issue: they would have been well served to read the numerous posts of frobnicat at NSF in this regards ( http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=19278 ).
If what the authors propose (a Quantum Vacuum composed of paired photons) is correct, it appears that one could extract energy from the Quantum Vacuum, in a similar way as suggested by frobnicat in his thought experiment
The authors use images (apparently run with COMSOL FEA, since Patrick Grahn from COMSOL is one of the authors) that appear similar to those posted by Star-Drive at NSF for COMSOL Finite Element Analysis done at NASA and fail to directly and explicitly credit NSF in the references, while instead they credit: "Update on EMDrive work at NASA Eagleworks. NextBigFuture (6 February 2015)", (an update that used information originally posted at NSF and that links to NSF)
image posted by the authors (probably independent COMSOL FEA runs):
QuoteThe schematic view of a cavity where simulated transverse magnetic modes, (red high, blue low) at the wide and narrow ends of a metallic tapered cavity differ from each other. This uneven interference of microwaves implies uneven efflux of photon pairs, and hence uneven loss of momentum results in an equal and opposite reaction, i.e. thrust Arto Annila
image posted by Star-Drive at NSF:
--------------
(*) Article published in AIP Advances, a peer-reviewed, fully open access, online-only journal,
Journal Impact Factor2015 Journal Citation Reports® (Thomson Reuters, 2016)*:
Five-Year Impact Factor 1.496
Impact Factor 1.444
Immediacy Index 0.307
Cited Half-Life 2.5
EigenFactor Score 0.01158
Article Influence Score 0.480
-
#3170 by Rodal on 15 Jun, 2016 20:18
-
This past June 2, 2016, Rfmwguy removed his previously claimed results for the EM Drive wiki:
http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results
12:46, 2 June 2016 Rfmwguy (Talk | contribs) . . (18,803 bytes) (-426) . . (removal of my test results) (undo)
which he had previously inserted himself in the EM Drive wiki in October 2015
12:50, 7 October 2015 Rfmwguy (Talk | contribs) . . (17,818 bytes) (+416) . . (Addition of Test Report by rfmwguy) (undo)
All other experimental results tabulated in the EM Drive wiki are still there. -
#3171 by FattyLumpkin on 15 Jun, 2016 20:21
-
Dr. Rodal, is your response to Shell's post also an answer to my query? thnx K
-
#3172 by Rodal on 15 Jun, 2016 20:26
-
Dr. Rodal, is your response to Shells post also an answer to my query? thnx K
It is easy to show by conservation of momentum and conservation of energy that the Photon Rocket Force / PowerInput cannot exceed 1/c = 0.003336 mN/kW, the force/inputPower of a perfectly collimated photon rocket.
For this to happen you need an external force, or a change in mass (eg Woodward Mach effect), (or a General Relativity effect). -
#3173 by FattyLumpkin on 15 Jun, 2016 20:35
-
Therefore a high Q cylindrical resonant cavity with a small collimated opening in it would generate no more "force" than the emitter supplying the cavity, were all the energy from the emitter collimated. yes?
-
#3174 by Josave on 15 Jun, 2016 21:24
-
Please, have someone the link of the scheduled interview with Dr. McCulloch? It was supposed to be this 17th June in an online web video...
Thanks -
#3175 by Rodal on 15 Jun, 2016 21:34
-
Please, have someone the link of the scheduled interview with Dr. McCulloch? It was supposed to be this 17th June in an online web video...
Thanks
http://www.thespaceshow.com/show/17-jun-2016/broadcast-2722-em-drive -
#3176 by SeeShells on 15 Jun, 2016 21:37
-
From a notice by rfmwguy... Interesting.
Shell
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/6/6/10.1063/1.4953807
On the exhaust of electromagnetic drive
Patrick Grahn1,a), Arto Annila2,3,b) and Erkki Kolehmainen4,c)
Recent reports about propulsion without reaction mass have been met on one hand with enthusiasm and on the other hand with some doubts. Namely, closed metal cavities, when fueled with microwaves, have delivered thrust that could eventually maintain satellites on orbits using solar power. However, the measured thrust appears to be without any apparent exhaust. Thus the Law of Action-Reaction seems to have been violated. We consider the possibility that the exhaust is in a form that has so far escaped both experimental detection and theoretical attention. In the thruster’s cavity microwaves interfere with each other and invariably some photons will also end up co-propagating with opposite phases. At the destructive interference electromagnetic fields cancel. However, the photons themselves do not vanish for nothing but continue in propagation. These photon pairs without net electromagnetic field do not reflect back from the metal walls but escape from the resonator. By this action momentum is lost from the cavity which, according to the conservation of momentum, gives rise to an equal and opposite reaction. We examine theoretical corollaries and practical concerns that follow from the paired-photon conclusion.
These authors fail to address the conservation of energy issue: they also would have been well served to read the numerous posts of frobnicat at NSF in this regards ( http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=19278 ).
They use images that appear similar to those posted by Star-Drive at NSF for COMSOL Finite Element Analysis done at NASA and fails to directly and explicitly credit NSF, while instead crediting: "Update on EMDrive work at NASA Eagleworks. NextBigFuture (6 February 2015)", (an update that used information originally posted at NSF and that links to NSF)
image posted by the authors:QuoteThe schematic view of a cavity where simulated transverse magnetic modes, (red high, blue low) at the wide and narrow ends of a metallic tapered cavity differ from each other. This uneven interference of microwaves implies uneven efflux of photon pairs, and hence uneven loss of momentum results in an equal and opposite reaction, i.e. thrust Arto Annila
image posted by Star-Drive at NSF:
--------------
(*) Article published in AIP Advances, a peer-reviewed, fully open access, online-only journal,
Journal Impact Factor2015 Journal Citation Reports® (Thomson Reuters, 2016)*:
Five-Year Impact Factor 1.496
Impact Factor 1.444
Immediacy Index 0.307
Cited Half-Life 2.5
EigenFactor Score 0.01158
Article Influence Score 0.480
While I also realized the limitations of this article I also realized that the authors seemed to have had access to COMSOL data which you say they didn't properly credit NASA. This seems to be a incorrect statement.QuoteThey use images that appear similar to those posted by Star-Drive at NSF for COMSOL Finite Element Analysis done at NASA and fails to directly and explicitly credit NSF, while instead crediting: "Update on EMDrive work at NASA Eagleworks. NextBigFuture (6 February 2015)", (an update that used information originally posted at NSF and that links to NSF)
Expanded AFFILIATIONS:
On the exhaust of electromagnetic drive
Patrick Grahn1,a), Arto Annila2,3,b) and Erkki Kolehmainen4,c)
- HIDE AFFILIATIONS
1 COMSOL, FI-00560 Helsinki, Finland
2 Department of Physics, FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
3 Department of Biosciences, FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
4 Department of Chemistry, FI-40014 University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland
a) E-mail: [email protected]
b) Corresponding author, E-mail: [email protected]
c) E-mail [email protected]
AIP Advances 6, 065205 (2016); http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4953807 -
#3177 by Rodal on 15 Jun, 2016 21:40
-
...While I also realized the limitations of this article I also realized that the authors seemed to have had access to COMSOL data which you say they didn't properly credit NASA. This seems to be a incorrect statement.
QuoteThey use images that appear similar to those posted by Star-Drive at NSF for COMSOL Finite Element Analysis done at NASA and fails to directly and explicitly credit NSF, while instead crediting: "Update on EMDrive work at NASA Eagleworks. NextBigFuture (6 February 2015)", (an update that used information originally posted at NSF and that links to NSF)
What is incorrect about my statement?
I said (it is in the quotation that you quoted) that they failed to credit NSF. You are incorrect in writing that I said "they didn't properly credit NASA."
Again, I stated that the authors directly credit an accumulation site that posted information taken from NSF (and links to NSF), but the authors failed to reference NSF explicitly and directly (or the original material from Paul March/NASA posted at NSF) in their article.
They should have credited the original source: NSF instead of crediting the accumulation site that borrowed information from NSF ! -
#3178 by SeeShells on 15 Jun, 2016 21:53
-
...
While I also realized the limitations of this article I also realized that the authors seemed to have had access to COMSOL data which you say they didn't properly credit NASA. This seems to be a incorrect statement.
...
What is incorrect about what I stated?
Again, I stated that the authors directly credit an accumulation site that posted information taken from NSF (and links to NSF), but the authors failed to reference NSF directly (or the original material from Paul March/NASA posted at NSF) in their article.
They should have credited NSF instead of crediting the accumulation site !
They should have but it's not a huge mistake and it is obvious they used COMSOL to generate their images.
And what does rfmwguy's actions have on the impact of the article. It was reported as I got the information. Sorry, it seems to have upset you somehow, it shouldn't.
Shell -
#3179 by Rodal on 15 Jun, 2016 21:57
-
...
While I also realized the limitations of this article I also realized that the authors seemed to have had access to COMSOL data which you say they didn't properly credit NASA. This seems to be a incorrect statement.
...
What is incorrect about what I stated?
Again, I stated that the authors directly credit an accumulation site that posted information taken from NSF (and links to NSF), but the authors failed to reference NSF directly (or the original material from Paul March/NASA posted at NSF) in their article.
They should have credited NSF instead of crediting the accumulation site !
They should have but it's not a huge mistake and it is obvious they used COMSOL to generate their images.
And what does rfmwguy's actions have on the impact of the article. It was reported as I got the information. Sorry, it seems to have upset you somehow, it shouldn't.
Shell
1) Your own post shows that I said that they failed to credit NSF. Instead you incorrectly wrote that I said that they failed to credit NASA.
2) They generated their own COMSOL comparison, for that they needed the EM Drive dimensions and they needed material and geometrical data about the dielectric and the copper cavity. That NASA data (geometry of the EM Drive and material information) was originally posted at NSF. That NASA data (geometrical dimensions and material information, etc.) were not contained in the 2014 Brady et.al. report they list as a reference. My opinion is that they should have credited NSF. (It is not just a question of giving credit where it is due, but it is the scholastic function of helping readers that may be interested in finding out what the dimensions and materials were. For that they need NSF to find this information).
3) I never even mentioned rfmwguy in the post you are discussing, or in this discussion, so I have no idea as to what you are referring to.
?
