-
#4140
by
Bob Woods
on 05 Aug, 2016 15:44
-
Now this is a high voltage probe. Arcing vaporized the tip of my previous smaller probe. I think the cat is a little concerned. 
Uh, oh... Looks like something Darth Morphic might use.
-
#4141
by
Tellmeagain
on 05 Aug, 2016 17:33
-
Over the last year I've read over 600 papers, countless online educational videos and writings on anything relating to this project. In almost every case I've found where the writer(s) have fudged facts, test results or downright guessed at something , even presenting it as a truism.
*SNIP*
It is hard to believe that there are those problems in the majority of the 600 papers. I am wondering what field you are reading into. I read over 100 papers (a sub-field of biology) over the last year, and I am yet to encounter one that has those problems. I saw problematic speculations, problematic explanations of the author's own test results, and even misinterpretations of other's papers, but yet to see fudged facts, test results, etc.
-
#4142
by
tchernik
on 05 Aug, 2016 17:44
-
I was surprised that I couldn't find any significant response to the theory presented on http://www.onlyspacetime.com/
I have not read through much of it (and don't have time to do more), but I can fill in the gap and provide a response to some of it.
First of all, on the front page of the website, the author states:
The standard model has so many component parts that it is difficult to state a specific number.
The standard model has 12 fundamental particles which have anti-particles, 4 gauge bosons (sub-variations include 2 W's and 8 gluons) and the Higgs boson. They are defined by just 19 independent parameters, with 7 more needed in the extension of the standard model to allow for neutrino oscillations. Those are specific numbers. Scientists try to and wish they could simplify and reduce the number of parameters, but they haven't found a way given the complexity of the universe.
He says early on (Chapter 4): If the assumption is wrong, the error should be quickly evident.
This is a true statement, I jumped to chapter 12, because I knew that was likely to be where issues with this proposal are most evident. It turns out I made a good guess.
This chapter lumps together several difficult subjects not previously covered. These include bonds, the ψ function, quarks, gluons, the weak force and neutrinos. Most of these are not clearly understood in mainstream physics. This vagueness prevents plausibility calculations to test the spacetime model involving these subjects. For example, quarks do not exist in isolation, so their properties are always partly hidden.
The first statement that these are not understood is simply false. While many of these are non-intuitive, and there are some things we don't know yet because we haven't built sufficiently sensitive instruments, there is a lot that we do know, and has been rigorously verified by experiment.
For example, he goes on:
Perhaps the most shocking conclusion is that the spacetime based model in its current state of development does not need gluons.
Gluons have been experimentally shown to exist, and were predicted by theory before their initial detection. Predictive power is one of the most useful parts of a physical theory. If his theory says there are no gluons, then it is wrong.
In general this chapter contains a lot of him describing standard physics and either saying "this model agrees" with no work to show that it does, or saying "this doesn't make sense, but this model doesn't predict that" (even though experiments show it to be true). He spends a bunch of time describing how binding energy works with most forces, and is consistent with his model. He then gets to the strong force which behaves differently and says "it doesn't make sense for this to behave differently, so here is why my model predicts it to be different" This is simply a logical fallacy, there is no reason to believe it wouldn't be unique, and experiments show that the strong force behaves in a non-intuitive manner.
One example of where he simply demonstrates ignorance of what he is talking about:
Why does the force start at zero and increase with distance? This is “explained” by physicists postulating that as the quarks are separated, the gluons form “flux tubes” and this concentration actually increases the force of attraction even though the distance is increasing. What is the physics behind this concept? What supplies the force to constrain the size of the flux tubes?
Gluons have charge themselves. In developing this theory, he seems to have given up on the concept of there being an attractive force, so he doesn't see that the color charges on the gluons that make up the flux tubes means the gluons making up the tubes would themselves be attracted to each other, constraining them.
He also accuses the standard model of treating quarks as point particles, and states how nonsensical the infinite mass density is. The problem with his statement is that quantum mechanics does not allow point particles, because particles are waves as well and subject to the uncertainty principle. While many calculations use point particles for simplicity, when relative scales allow it, his statement about the standard model is simply incorrect.
______
I could go on more, but it really doesn't seem worth it. I believe that some of our modern problems in physics will only be solved by taking a radical orthogonal view of things, so researching ideas like this is useful. For example, general relativity and quantum electrodynamics are simply formulated in different ways. At least one will probably have to be reformulated into some equivalent theory before they can be unified. At the same time though, you have to know what standard physics says about things, so that you can make sure your theory matches with what is already known. This is hard, because if you don't know enough physics, and start guessing at theories, you will almost certainly have significant flaws in your theory. On the other hand, by the time you learn enough physics to have a chance at a reasonable theory, you will have seen so much of the current formulations, it will be difficult to come up with a novel way of approaching the problem.
For an experienced physicist (moreso than me), reading some of this theory with the right mindset might help them think of a novel way of approaching things. For someone who isn't already an expert, they should probably not read this, because it mixes in too many falsehoods. I caught many, but I am sure there are some I didn't notice, since I am not an expert in all of the relevant fields discussed.
Thanks for your response. It agrees with my uninformed perception (except in the details). I don't have the expertise to evaluate the online book you discussed here. It looks to me similar to other theory-of-everything efforts by other people, that try to look at things differently but that may be unable to look at all the angles.
I can say so, because the author seems to be making a conscious effort to explain certain things in terms a wider public can understand and not just experts.
I want to clarify that in my comment I was mostly referring to the more concrete predictions and results from "Confinement of Light: Standing Wave Transformations in a Phase-Locked Resonator" by Reed, and those on the papers by R.C. Jennison. Those seem to be more narrow in their focus and much more intriguing on their implications.
Are the points they make worthy of discussion and consideration? or have they been refuted?
-
#4143
by
SeeShells
on 05 Aug, 2016 17:51
-
Over the last year I've read over 600 papers, countless online educational videos and writings on anything relating to this project. In almost every case I've found where the writer(s) have fudged facts, test results or downright guessed at something , even presenting it as a truism.
*SNIP*
It is hard to believe that there are those problems in the majority of the 600 papers. I am wondering what field you are reading into. I read over 100 papers (a sub-field of biology) over the last year, and I am yet to encounter one that has those problems. I saw problematic speculations, problematic explanations of the author's own test results, and even misinterpretations of other's papers, but yet to see fudged facts, test results, etc.
Fudged facts? I see your point.
I can think of several papers on anti-gravity claims.
I could dig if I had more time, but I'll summarize. I've seen where the results of those test were used and cited as a basis for calculations in other papers.
It's not entirely wrong but it's not right either.
Shell
-
#4144
by
chongma
on 05 Aug, 2016 21:03
-
-
#4145
by
Mezzenile
on 05 Aug, 2016 21:32
-
-
#4146
by
meberbs
on 05 Aug, 2016 23:57
-
...
Proverbial treasures may be buried in the works done even several decades ago, and they don't receive attention because there simply isn't enough people (and attention) to give to them.
It's that or they have been refuted, but I have yet to see any contrarian response about these papers.
I was surprised that I couldn't find any significant response to the theory presented on http://www.onlyspacetime.com/
<sorry sniped a little>
For an experienced physicist (moreso than me), reading some of this theory with the right mindset might help them think of a novel way of approaching things. For someone who isn't already an expert, they should probably not read this, because it mixes in too many falsehoods. I caught many, but I am sure there are some I didn't notice, since I am not an expert in all of the relevant fields discussed.
Over the last year I've read over 600 papers, countless online educational videos and writings on anything relating to this project. In almost every case I've found where the writer(s) have fudged facts, test results or downright guessed at something , even presenting it as a truism.
The thing I've had to do (and by no means am I even close to you or, many here in depth of understanding) is try to not take all of it to heart and question everything I read, watch or hear.
Reviewing John Macken's "The Universe is Only Spacetime", you're right he did take a different look and approach this blending problem of the 2 great houses of thought. In trying to describe the box of reality everything must work in and that's spacetime, this was somewhat unique and even thought provoking.
I'm not a physicist but just an old girl engineer and my no means am I in the same class like so many here, but I'm trying to improve and learn. Thank you meberbs for helping.
Shell
You are very welcome.
My recommendation about not reading this was based on an assumption that most lay readers would not do what you said in your second paragraph, since in my experience people accept too much of what they read without thinking.
I want to clarify that in my comment I was mostly referring to the more concrete predictions and results from "Confinement of Light: Standing Wave Transformations in a Phase-Locked Resonator" by Reed, and those on the papers by R.C. Jennison. Those seem to be more narrow in their focus and much more intriguing on their implications.
Are the points they make worthy of discussion and consideration? or have they been refuted?
If I have time, I might look into those papers since they sound interesting.
-
#4147
by
JonathanD
on 06 Aug, 2016 01:45
-
Cannes website is back up and touting their space tug idea http://cannae.com/cannae-technology-will-fix-this/
Hmm. Even if it works as advertised, the energy required to change orbits and "tug" satellites to different orbits is substantial. It's a pretty lofty claim without at least an operational proof-of-concept.
-
#4148
by
OnlyMe
on 06 Aug, 2016 06:50
-
Cannes website is back up and touting their space tug idea http://cannae.com/cannae-technology-will-fix-this/
Hmm. Even if it works as advertised, the energy required to change orbits and "tug" satellites to different orbits is substantial. It's a pretty lofty claim without at least an operational proof-of-concept.
When I was young I worked for a short time for a rail road. During the first few weeks new recruits were taught a number of things about moving box cars around. One was done on a short level section of rail at the top of a switching yard. A sealed box car with roller bearings was set on the rail. That is 25 to 100 tons, the limits being the empty and maximum loaded weights, at rest on the track. It took I would guess less than 16 ounces, 1 pound of pressure to start it rolling away. I'd bet the roller bearings no matter how good offered more inherent friction/resistance to a change in motion than would a satellite in an essentially inertial orbit...
Given a Newton or few of constant anomoulus force and unless the satellite were already in a significantly degrading orbit, you could send it to Mars.., given time.
Energy required depends largely on how fast you want to accomplish the task. Time plays as important and at times more important role than the absolute instantaneous force...
-
#4149
by
Monomorphic
on 06 Aug, 2016 16:46
-
I had to add a second adjustable counterweight to the torsional pendulum beam. This corrects for any twisting on the beam from rotating the emdrive into different orientations and the resulting change in center of gravity. It is also important that the beam be as close to parallel with the Laser Displacement Sensor (LDS) as possible as this can lead to problems in the data and is the source of "thermal lifting".
-
#4150
by
Monomorphic
on 06 Aug, 2016 19:26
-
Without the new adjustable counterweight, I would not be able to rotate the emdrive into the "null" position as shown here. The magnetron is massive enough to cause a significant change in center of gravity. I had to use almost all the adjustment on the new counterweight to bring the beam level on both axis.
-
#4151
by
Tellmeagain
on 07 Aug, 2016 13:59
-
To Monomorphic, Rfmwguy, Shell,
I appreciate your efforts of planned (or probably would be planned) shifting to solid state and on-board battery tests I will share my research on how to obtain a solid microwave amplifier or even a complete system. Besides the very small solid state microwave oven that have been discussed on this forum, there is another great source: the microwave plasma lighting. Of course this is a low-cost compromised solution. For better control of the experiment, you may need to go to mini-circuits or other laboratory device vendors.
Here are some currently available on ebay,
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=luxim&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.A0.H0.Xluxim+%28dr40%2C+dr41%2C+4000%29.TRS1&_nkw=luxim+%28dr40%2C+dr41%2C+4000%29&_sacat=0http://www.ebay.com/itm/Grow-Light-Plasma-engine-Kit-400w-equivalent-Build-Your-Own-fixture-/201336366751The best choice may be the lifi 4000 (the $62 item) because it is a complete working unit (less power supply). This one uses the cavity to oscillate. This may overcome the difficulty of tracking the thermal expansion of the cavity. It can self-track the new frequency. it works on 915MHz. The components are readily identifiable and their data sheets are available from the internet.
The DR40 or DR41 may need a proper load (the cavity and bulb) to make it work. They use on board osc. The Topanga is complete (less power supply) with on board osc, but is more expensive.
There are papers and patents on the luxim microwave plasma ligting, but there is no schematic of its microwave source. But Its signal path schematic is simple enough to be re-constructed.
-
#4152
by
FattyLumpkin
on 07 Aug, 2016 16:06
-
Re Cannae, I have verbal confirmation that they will NOT be using super-cooled/conducting tech in the 6 month orbital test, however no information re how much "thrust" is to be produced to keep it in such a low orbit. Cannae claims less than ten Watts for the thruster itself (for station keeping). Was a consensus ever reached re a calculation for +/- Newtons required for keeping their Cudesat in orbit for six months? At minimum Cannae's claim strikes me as dubious.
BTW, this enlarged imaged (per the reflections noted) appears as though Cannae may have moved back to some "bowing" in the side walls of their resonant cavity!
-
#4153
by
SeeShells
on 07 Aug, 2016 20:27
-
Re Cannae, I have verbal confirmation that they will not be using super-cooled/conducting tech in the 6 month orbital test, however no information re how much "thrust" is to be produced to keep it in such a low orbit. Cannae claims less than ten Watts for the thruster itself (for station keeping). Was a consensus ever reached re a calculation for +/- Newtons required for keeping their Cudesat in orbit for six months? At minimum Cannae's claim strikes me as dubious.
BTW, this enlarged imaged (per the reflections noted) appears as though Cannae may have moved back to some "bowing" in the side walls of their cavity!
Better pic.
Shell
-
#4154
by
RERT
on 07 Aug, 2016 22:18
-
Re Cannae, I have verbal confirmation that they will not be using super-cooled/conducting tech in the 6 month orbital test, however no information re how much "thrust" is to be produced to keep it in such a low orbit. Cannae claims less than ten Watts for the thruster itself (for station keeping). Was a consensus ever reached re a calculation for +/- Newtons required for keeping their Cudesat in orbit for six months? At minimum Cannae's claim strikes me as dubious......
I repeat the results of my earlier calculation: an atmospheric drag estimate of 30-230 microNewtons at that orbital height. With 12 watts of power the implied efficiency to overcome drag is 2.4 to 18.4 milliNewtons per Kilowatt. The latter number is not out of line with other claims, indeed is modest compared to some. In that sense there is no reason to regard Cannae's specific claim as dubious. What makes you say so?
In any case, they are lining themselves up for a fall making these claims if there is no reason to expect they will succeed. They have an impressive measurement rig. If they are rational and telling the truth, they are likely confident in the available thrust.
The time period of six months is probably irrelevant, in the sense that they can easily include a solar cell producing 12 Watts average, and keep the thing in orbit forever. 12 Watts at 20% efficiency is 60 Watts of solar flux, or a square 21 cm on a side properly oriented. Double the area if you think it will be in shade for half the orbit.
If it produces no thrust, the satellite will fall to earth in a few days. The edge case that they can keep it up for six months but not longer is improbable.
Please, if you see an error in arithmetic or logic here, let us know.
-
#4155
by
FattyLumpkin
on 08 Aug, 2016 03:59
-
Hi RERT, once again Cannae sort of pulls the rug out from underneath us: They state <10 Watts for the thruster not 12, and an altitude of under 150 miles. What happens if you calculate using 10 or less? Did you use 150 miles for your calculation, I looked back and couldn't find it. I believe Cannae is so secretive that they leave themselves open to speculation: e.g.: who knows if there are cold gas thrusters aboard the Cubesat to help maintain orit...etc.
Just like there experiments, they are all behind closed doors with results reported, but nothing about materials and methods et al. No independent validation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a "Naysayer", shoot, I'd give parts off my body for EM drive to be "truly" true. But Cannae leaves us with no way of "knowing" anything.
The only info. we have for Cannae is the NASA testing: 10 Watts would generate 17.32 micro Newtons, which is below the amount you calculated to sustain orbit (if I didn't screw up my math). Please tell me where I'm right or wrong thanks, FL
-
#4156
by
RERT
on 08 Aug, 2016 09:36
-
Hi RERT, once again Cannae sort of pulls the rug out from underneath us: They state <10 Watts for the thruster not 12, and an altitude of under 150 miles. What happens if you calculate using 10 or less? Did you use 150 miles for your calculation, I looked back and couldn't find it.
I used 150 miles = 240km. If it's 10 not 12 then the numbers are 3-23 milliNewtons/Kw, i.e. not wildly different. I guess "<10" could mean anything.
I believe Cannae is so secretive that they leave themselves open to speculation: e.g.: who knows if there are cold gas thrusters aboard the Cubesat to help maintain orit...etc.
Unless it is propellant-less, a thruster will eventually stop working. The ~1U cubesat thruster I found on the web was 1800 Ns total impulse. My drag numbers make a six-month mission 470-3600 Ns total impulse. As I said before, it is not impossible with current tech. They would just have to be intent on cheating.
Just like there experiments, they are all behind closed doors with results reported, but nothing about materials and methods. No independent validation. Don't get me wrong , I'd give parts off my body for EM drive to be "truly" true. But Cannae leaves us with no way of "knowing" anything.
I don't think I would reveal how it worked if I was sitting on the commercial opportunity which they appear to think they have. I know that's a very unsatisfying catch-all, but there is some truth in it.
The only info. we have for Cannae is the NASA testing: 10 Watts would generate 17.32 micro Newtons, which is below the amount you calculated to sustain orbit (if I didn't screw up my math). Please tell me where I'm right or wrong thanks, FL
I don't see how they could be making these proposals for flying the Cubesat unless their tech had moved on (at least a little) from that efficiency. In my view they would have to be crazy to announce that plan unless they had measured thrust which gave them high confidence that the mission would succeed. They have even chosen a low orbit to increase the thrust requirements! To do this on having seen no significant thrust they are either barking mad, or hoping to scam some investors before the whole show collapses - or some other scheme which currently escapes me.
-
#4157
by
sghill
on 08 Aug, 2016 13:52
-
Hi RERT, once again Cannae sort of pulls the rug out from underneath us: They state <10 Watts for the thruster not 12, and an altitude of under 150 miles. What happens if you calculate using 10 or less? Did you use 150 miles for your calculation, I looked back and couldn't find it. I believe Cannae is so secretive that they leave themselves open to speculation: e.g.: who knows if there are cold gas thrusters aboard the Cubesat to help maintain orit...etc.
Just like there experiments, they are all behind closed doors with results reported, but nothing about materials and methods. No independent validation. Don't get me wrong , I'd give parts off my body for EM drive to be "truly" true. But Cannae leaves us with no way of "knowing" anything.
The only info. we have for Cannae is the NASA testing: 10 Watts would generate 17.32 micro Newtons, which is below the amount you calculated to sustain orbit (if I didn't screw up my math). Please tell me where I'm right or wrong thanks, FL
You are overthinking this IMHO. The cubesat will stay in orbit, or it won't. The rest of the details aren't anyone's business but theirs. If it does stay in orbit, mainstream press exposure and scrutiny from all quarters will increase exponentially regarding the details of that cubesat.
Also, regarding hidden gas thrusters. The FAA will conduct a Part 414 safety review of the launch. The review doesn't cover the satellite per se, but the launch vehicle operator will disclose any propellants on board because it'd affect the safety of the launch vehicle, so the launch operator would be taking a major risk with their business by not disclosing this. If we know the launcher and specific flight, we can look up the safety review specific details in the Federal Register.
-
#4158
by
JonathanD
on 08 Aug, 2016 14:51
-
Does anyone know what the time spent in sunlight versus shadow with an orbit that low? If you're only able to use the thruster for half the time due to lack of sunlight, wouldn't that change the requirements for staying in orbit?
Also it would be interesting to know if they did have a small nitrogen thruster on there, how long it would likely be able to hold that orbit. If ~6 months it would certainly make one wonder. I hope like hell they have what they say they have.
-
#4159
by
bad_astra
on 08 Aug, 2016 16:44
-
Not sure if its of interest but there's a surplus Harris-Farinon Model SD-108175 / 076-108687-001 ssa on ebay for under $200. These units pop up from time to time. I don't know if they are too weak for this work, but I was reading here of people running a self-contained DC setup.
It's hard to stay up to date with this discussion so if I'm behind, sorry.
