-
#60 by Chrochne on 11 Apr, 2016 07:22
-
The author explains experimental results by claiming that the vacuum is an unconventional fluid medium, with a mathematical behavior that runs contrary to mainstream physics as taught at major universities .
Yet, the experiments involve dynamics of a pendulum immersed in conventional fluid media (liquid nitrogen or air, covered by frozen liquid) and ablation of frozen layers and convection which is subject to conventional computational fluid mechanics and heat transfer, but such conventional analysis has not been attempted to explain the experimental results.
Mainstream-physics explanations are dismissed outright while non-mainstream explanations are embraced.
Dear Dr. Rodal and Mr. Zen-in and Mr. Falcon,
I once again see that this will be new heated debate
. I understand both of your scepticism in this case. However in this case it seems to have been shown to other professors and scientists. If I recall correctly this was / is one of main flaws in the EmDrive case.
Can be revealed by Mr. Falcon, who are the professors and scientists that checked on this drive?
It would be interesting to invite those people here. As you can see Dr. Rodal and Mr. Zen-in are well known for their critical obervation on this forum. I am afraid that if Dr. Rodal and Mr. Zen-in do not see any more respectable scientists and professors that saw this device operate they already dissmised - from their comments - this issue as not possible (they do not used the word hoax yet, but it is close to it). Of course I would be glad, if the final jugment can be passed after the tests of the crowdfunding campaing, but such is the current situation.
If I may Mr. Falcon I would also do not try to write off the "official" mainstream look on physics yet.
In EmDrive case both Dr. Rodal and Zen-In are able to provide very good insight and offer interesting criticism, even if it is many times quite harsh. If you and your colleague can try to answer on the questions of those critics it might be interesting debate. Of course Dr. Rodal and Mr. Zen-In will still oppose it, but it still maybe very intesting debate, that can give new ideas to us all.
Thank you all for your comments on this case and I hope to see more data from Mr. Falcon here.
PS: Quote from article "Pendulum tests of the first version have been witnessed on various occasions by two Cambridge University physicists, one of whom is a Nobel Laureate, as well as by five Athens university physicists" to specify which people we would you like to reveal, if it is possible.
-
#61 by rfmwguy on 11 Apr, 2016 13:59
-
Very nicely written, Chrochne. This forum will be a tough...and esteemed (for the most part)...critical audience, perhaps one of the more difficult ones Dr Paul and Dr Nassikas will face. This should be beneficial to both sides if a general understanding is reached that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Tip from Carl Sagan.
If not, it has been enlightening to review commentary to a new physics device and the claims themselves. -
#62 by VAXHeadroom on 11 Apr, 2016 15:59
-
IF I understand this correctly, the claim is purely a magnetic effect based on geometry. If that is true, superconductivity is not necessary. Diamagnetism is essentially the same effect but much weaker. But because it does not require cryogenic fluids a much simpler test system may be possible.
Superconductivity results in a diamagnetic effect that is "1" - that is, a 100% reflection of the magnetic field. Pyrolitic graphite (PG) has a diamagnetic constant of 4e-4, and copper 1e-5. But since PG exhibits this effect at room temperature, a very small vacuum test object could be built quite cheaply that would require no super cooling and no electronics. The testing apparatus would have to be quite delicately built, but seems to me it is quite within the realm of a device that is doable.
If I DON'T understand the claim correctly, this comment is null and void.
-
#63 by rfmwguy on 11 Apr, 2016 19:21
-
IF I understand this correctly, the claim is purely a magnetic effect based on geometry. If that is true, superconductivity is not necessary. Diamagnetism is essentially the same effect but much weaker. But because it does not require cryogenic fluids a much simpler test system may be possible.
Neither do I Emory, I was hoping the inventors would stick around and answer these things specifically.
Superconductivity results in a diamagnetic effect that is "1" - that is, a 100% reflection of the magnetic field. Pyrolitic graphite (PG) has a diamagnetic constant of 4e-4, and copper 1e-5. But since PG exhibits this effect at room temperature, a very small vacuum test object could be built quite cheaply that would require no super cooling and no electronics. The testing apparatus would have to be quite delicately built, but seems to me it is quite within the realm of a device that is doable.
If I DON'T understand the claim correctly, this comment is null and void. -
#64 by rfmwguy on 11 Apr, 2016 23:28
-
Its been an interesting topic for a few days and looks like we've reached the end of the replies from the inventors. Will keep on-line for reference but will lock it down.
. I understand both of your scepticism in this case. However in this case it seems to have been shown to other professors and scientists. If I recall correctly this was / is one of main flaws in the EmDrive case.