-
#800 by knowles2 on 21 Sep, 2016 21:18
-
I do wonder about Yang and whether she was pressure by her colleagues to produce a negative result to protect the reputation of her institution. Radical thinking isn't exactly encourage in China after all. There of cause another possibility that the chinese military has taken her work and classified it but that a bit conspiratorial for me....
For the same builds what is important is the same thrust from the same frustum and antenna design for the same RF input properties. For the rest of the setup, the more different the better as long as measurement sensitivity and accuracy is maintained. Otherwise it still could be a systematic error in the measurement. Also specific modifications showing predictable changes in thrust would be useful as well (e.g. a coating to deliberately reduce Q by a factor of 2 also reducing thrust by that factor) Of course that is the second step, after a reliable signal is found to begin with.
We will never know for certain from any of the null result tests. Only when experiments that have returned thrust have been independently repeated with the same EXACT builds, and all systemic and other variables have been ruled out or identified as the source of the thrust, will any of us know anything with any certainty. BTW while Prof. Yang has every right to modify her conclusions, there is nothing about her second experiment and paper that nullifies the first. The two were far different in to many ways to be thought of as anything but different experiments with different builds, and I never saw anything published with enough detail that anyone could reproduce either frustum or experiment. That is the real trouble none of what has been shared about the many builds has shown two builders performing identical experiments.
...
Also you must have missed the part in Yang's second paper where she provided an explanation of an error source in the original that either would be the full cause of the result, or at least swamp any real signal making the data from the first experiment useless. While more detail on how she determined this would be helpful, there is no good reason to doubt the conclusion.
I agree with your general intent above.
As I said Yang has the right to change her opinion/conclusions, but she did not say that retested the earlier build. There is no real way to know that her conclusions based on a different experiment were valid interpretations of the earlier results... And yes this is based only on the absence of any information explaining exactly how the second dissimilar experiment invalidated the first. -
#801 by flux_capacitor on 21 Sep, 2016 21:19
-
How does the exchange work between here so to speak and distant objects beyond the cosmological horizon? Why is it always with objects beyond the cosmological horizon in the universe? As isn't the cosmological horizon the maximum distance you can retrieve information from. Are we saying it works because it is beyond the informational limits.
This is tricky to explain, and I won't especially on the horizon limit. But let me summarise what I learnt from Jim Woodward and John Cramer, that can be linked to your questions about the exchange of work and information between very distant objects in the universe. Some content can be found in Wikipedia, but most of them are in their books.
The instantness of inertia is obviously not limited by the speed of light. But aren't gravitational waves propagating at c? So how could very distant matter in the whole universe interact instantaneously with some matter accelerating here and now, if the origin of inertia is indeed gravity, as a Mach effect within Einstein's theory of general relativity?
In the 1940s, John Wheeler and Richard Feynman worked out the problem electrodynamics faced regarding the classical electron theory with their "action-at-a-distance" or "absorber electrodynamics", explaining the obvious instantaneous radiation reaction forces in an interaction with a distant "absorber", the Wheeler–Feynman handshake or transaction. Wheeler and Feynman showed that the propagating solutions to classical wave equations can either be "retarded" (i.e. propagate forward in time) or "advanced" (propagate backward in time).
Later in the 1980s, John Cramer successfully adapted the absorber theory to explain quantum entanglement. He used the relativistic Schrödinger equation which admits advanced solutions. The source emits a usual (retarded) wave forward in time, but it also emits an advanced wave backward in time; furthermore, the receiver, who is later in time, also emits an advanced wave backward in time and a retarded wave forward in time. A quantum event occurs when a "handshake" exchange of advanced and retarded waves triggers the formation of a transaction in which energy, momentum, angular momentum, etc. are transferred.
Today, as we humans feel waves propagate forward in time, we just ignore the solutions that propagate backward in time. But mathematically and physically, there is no difference between the two classes of solutions, thanks to time-reversal symmetry.
Ok then, but how advanced waves, propagating backward in time, would work?
A first image to understand would be filming a sequence where a rock is thrown in the middle of a pond, making concentric ripples on the water propagating towards the shore.
Running the sequence backwards (thinking it as seeing events running backward in time) we then observe concentric waves propagating from the shore towards the center of the pond, where a rock emerges.
The thing to understand is that advanced waves coming back from the future never propagate farther into the past than the rock hitting the water that initiated all of the waves.
This leads to the Hoyle–Narlikar theory of gravity, the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics (TIQM) by John Cramer, and Mach effects as proposed by Jim Woodward.
Instantaneous action-at-a-distance, retarded & advanced waves applied to gravity within the framework of general relativity (no quantum mechanics involved) are well explained in Woodward's book Making Starships dans Stargates.
The point is: is this really "new physics"…? -
#802 by birchoff on 21 Sep, 2016 21:51
-
How does the exchange work between here so to speak and distant objects beyond the cosmological horizon? Why is it always with objects beyond the cosmological horizon in the universe? As isn't the cosmological horizon the maximum distance you can retrieve information from. Are we saying it works because it is beyond the informational limits.
...
This leads to the Hoyle–Narlikar theory of gravity, the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics (TIQM) by John Cramer, and Mach effects as proposed by Jim Woodward.
Instantaneous action-at-a-distance, retarded & advanced waves applied to gravity within the framework of general relativity (no quantum mechanics involved) are well explained in Woodward's book Making Starships dans Stargates.
The point is: is this really "new physics"…?
Very nice summation. My only nitpick is referencing the Wikipedia article instead of the latest Papers by Fearn http://ssi.org/exotic-propulsion-update/. They do a good job expounding on Hoyle Narlikar theory of Gravitation alongside talking about the previous criticisms of the theory and their solution to the criticism. In addition they also derive the equation Woodward et al are currently using to predict thrust scaling for their MET device. -
#803 by Star One on 21 Sep, 2016 21:53
-
Thank you. I really should pick up that book you mentioned at the end, been meaning to for ages now. Unfortunately I think it's only around in paper form, I tend to Kindle my books these days due to lack of space.How does the exchange work between here so to speak and distant objects beyond the cosmological horizon? Why is it always with objects beyond the cosmological horizon in the universe? As isn't the cosmological horizon the maximum distance you can retrieve information from. Are we saying it works because it is beyond the informational limits.
This is tricky to explain, and I won't especially on the horizon limit. But let me summarise what I learnt from Jim Woodward and John Cramer, that can be linked to your questions about the exchange of work and information between very distant objects in the universe. Some content can be found in Wikipedia, but most of them are in their books.
The instantness of inertia is obviously not limited by the speed of light. But aren't gravitational waves propagating at c? So how could very distant matter in the whole universe interact instantaneously with some matter accelerating here and now, if the origin of inertia is indeed gravity, as a Mach effect within Einstein's theory of general relativity?
In the 1940s, John Wheeler and Richard Feynman worked out the problem electrodynamics faced regarding the classical electron theory with their "action-at-a-distance" or "absorber electrodynamics", explaining the obvious instantaneous radiation reaction forces in an interaction with a distant "absorber", the Wheeler–Feynman handshake or transaction. Wheeler and Feynman showed that the propagating solutions to classical wave equations can either be "retarded" (i.e. propagate forward in time) or "advanced" (propagate backward in time).
Later in the 1980s, John Cramer successfully adapted the absorber theory to explain quantum entanglement. He used the relativistic Schrödinger equation which admits advanced solutions. The source emits a usual (retarded) wave forward in time, but it also emits an advanced wave backward in time; furthermore, the receiver, who is later in time, also emits an advanced wave backward in time and a retarded wave forward in time. A quantum event occurs when a "handshake" exchange of advanced and retarded waves triggers the formation of a transaction in which energy, momentum, angular momentum, etc. are transferred.
Today, as we humans feel waves propagate forward in time, we just ignore the solutions that propagate backward in time. But mathematically and physically, there is no difference between the two classes of solutions, thanks to time-reversal symmetry.
Ok then, but how advanced waves, propagating backward in time, would work?
A first image to understand would be filming a sequence where a rock is thrown in the middle of a pond, making concentric ripples on the water propagating towards the shore.
Running the sequence backwards (thinking it as seeing events running backward in time) we then observe concentric waves propagating from the shore towards the center of the pond, where a rock emerges.
The thing to understand is that advanced waves coming back from the future never propagate farther into the past than the rock hitting the water that initiated all of the waves.
This leads to the Hoyle–Narlikar theory of gravity, the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics (TIQM) by John Cramer, and Mach effects as proposed by Jim Woodward.
Instantaneous action-at-a-distance, retarded & advanced waves applied to gravity within the framework of general relativity (no quantum mechanics involved) are well explained in Woodward's book Making Starships dans Stargates.
The point is: is this really "new physics"…? -
#804 by birchoff on 21 Sep, 2016 22:03
-
...
Thank you. I really should pick up that book you mentioned at the end, been meaning to for ages now. Unfortunately I think it's only around in paper form, I tend to Kindle my books these days due to lack of space.
I am a paperless book guy like yourself. I bought the Kindle version of the book when it came out. So if that's what you are waiting on. that hurdle no longer exists. -
#805 by Bob Woods on 21 Sep, 2016 22:08
-
Edit: I just realized - I would not exactly call them all optimists. Dr. Rodal is quite pessimist on the issue and I dare to say he is in the camp of critics of the EmDrive. It was only just recently that he is more optimistic on the issue. I really wonder why :-).
For Doctor Rodal, there is only a single answer: Data. -
#806 by flux_capacitor on 21 Sep, 2016 22:34
-
Thank you. I really should pick up that book you mentioned at the end, been meaning to for ages now. Unfortunately I think it's only around in paper form, I tend to Kindle my books these days due to lack of space.
I am a paperless book guy like yourself. I bought the Kindle version of the book when it came out. So if that's what you are waiting on. that hurdle no longer exists.
No excuse indeed!
-
#807 by tchernik on 21 Sep, 2016 22:53
-
This leads to the Hoyle–Narlikar theory of gravity, the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics (TIQM) by John Cramer, and Mach effects as proposed by Jim Woodward.
Curious that you mention this, because the enigmatic presentation of Dr. Rodal in the ongoing workshop at Estel Park verses precisely on Hoyle-Narlikar theory and its use to explain some experimental results (which ones, I don't know).
I wonder if Dr. Rodal is trying to use that theory or a variant for explaining other people's experimental results? maybe his own experimental results?
If so, that would increase the number of theories contending to explain these probably related phenomena of anomalous thrust.
Why do I say they are related? because if these devices (ME thrusters and the Emdrive) prove to provide any thrust in the lab, I highly doubt this is a coincidence and that they really are unrelated phenomena or based in wholly different physical principles. -
#808 by HMXHMX on 21 Sep, 2016 23:09
-
Funny how the next generation of enabling efforts similar to the Breakthrough Propulsion Project are so pragmatic in their approaches, instead of gathering just theoretical possibilities.
Heidi Fearn, James Woodward, Paul March, Martin Tajmar, Dr. Rodal et al are bringing most of them experimental results. I imagine that's the very reason this conference exists. Results that need discussion.
I wouldn't have believed such a thing a few years back. Let's remember we are talking about experiments looking for measurable and usable forces and effects, the least of them revolutionary in its implications.
But there it is.
It is a pity that only optimists are invited. A meeting with only optimists is good at creating unrealistic positive atmosphere people see recently. I also think the theoretic works are premature before the effect is established.
If you were here you wouldn't say we invited only optimists.
-
#809 by birchoff on 21 Sep, 2016 23:14
-
Funny how the next generation of enabling efforts similar to the Breakthrough Propulsion Project are so pragmatic in their approaches, instead of gathering just theoretical possibilities.
Heidi Fearn, James Woodward, Paul March, Martin Tajmar, Dr. Rodal et al are bringing most of them experimental results. I imagine that's the very reason this conference exists. Results that need discussion.
I wouldn't have believed such a thing a few years back. Let's remember we are talking about experiments looking for measurable and usable forces and effects, the least of them revolutionary in its implications.
But there it is.
It is a pity that only optimists are invited. A meeting with only optimists is good at creating unrealistic positive atmosphere people see recently. I also think the theoretic works are premature before the effect is established.
If you were here you wouldn't say we invited only optimists.
so not fair. -
#810 by birchoff on 21 Sep, 2016 23:23
-
This leads to the Hoyle–Narlikar theory of gravity, the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics (TIQM) by John Cramer, and Mach effects as proposed by Jim Woodward.
Curious that you mention this, because the enigmatic presentation of Dr. Rodal in the ongoing workshop at Estel Park verses precisely on Hoyle-Narlikar theory and its use to explain some experimental results (which ones, I don't know).
I wonder if Dr. Rodal is trying to use that theory or a variant for explaining other people's experimental results? maybe his own experimental results?
If so, that would increase the number of theories contending to explain these probably related phenomena of anomalous thrust.
Why do I say they are related? because if these devices (ME thrusters and the Emdrive) prove to provide any thrust in the lab, I highly doubt this is a coincidence and that they really are unrelated phenomena or based in wholly different physical principles.
IIRC Woodward initially derived his theoretical justification for Mach Effects from GR. Granted in its current form it is missing something he knew and admitted it needed; Advanced/Retarded waves for communicating with the distant mass of the universe. Not sure who started MET research down the path of HN Theory but all the papers on it have Fearn as the primary author.
As for Dr. Rodal presenting on HN Theory. I almost dropped out of my seat when I saw that post. Between Paul March's declaration that for him he sees White's QV Theory and Woodwards Theory as being two sides of the same coin. And providing Dr. Rodal the SSI link referencing Fearns latest papers on HN Theory and how it can be used to explain their experimental results. I Personally couldnt help but see some smoke on the horizon. I am eagerly awaiting the videos from the conference.
P.S. I saw HMXHMX say the videographers have to do some editing. Honestly, given the nirvana I imagine going on at this conference I would rather watch those videos unedited. -
#811 by Tellmeagain on 21 Sep, 2016 23:30
-
Funny how the next generation of enabling efforts similar to the Breakthrough Propulsion Project are so pragmatic in their approaches, instead of gathering just theoretical possibilities.
Heidi Fearn, James Woodward, Paul March, Martin Tajmar, Dr. Rodal et al are bringing most of them experimental results. I imagine that's the very reason this conference exists. Results that need discussion.
I wouldn't have believed such a thing a few years back. Let's remember we are talking about experiments looking for measurable and usable forces and effects, the least of them revolutionary in its implications.
But there it is.
It is a pity that only optimists are invited. A meeting with only optimists is good at creating unrealistic positive atmosphere people see recently. I also think the theoretic works are premature before the effect is established.
If you were here you wouldn't say we invited only optimists.
This is absolutely true, because I am a skeptic. But I am not sure why this obvious fact maters. -
#812 by rfmwguy on 22 Sep, 2016 01:54
-
Mr Lim and all, I can provide a little more clarity on this conference, it had been organized around dr Woodward's work prior. It is my understanding he does not necessarily embrace EWs theory and/or concepts. My feeling, being somewhat in the network, is that emdrive is a secondary topic and may not be embraced by all there. Rodals work on the Woodward device theory or test (don't know) serves as a reminder there are competing interests for advanced propulsion.
Funny how the next generation of enabling efforts similar to the Breakthrough Propulsion Project are so pragmatic in their approaches, instead of gathering just theoretical possibilities.
Heidi Fearn, James Woodward, Paul March, Martin Tajmar, Dr. Rodal et al are bringing most of them experimental results. I imagine that's the very reason this conference exists. Results that need discussion.
I wouldn't have believed such a thing a few years back. Let's remember we are talking about experiments looking for measurable and usable forces and effects, the least of them revolutionary in its implications.
But there it is.
It is a pity that only optimists are invited. A meeting with only optimists is good at creating unrealistic positive atmosphere people see recently. I also think the theoretic works are premature before the effect is established.
If you were here you wouldn't say we invited only optimists.
This is absolutely true, because I am a skeptic. But I am not sure why this obvious fact maters.
To date, there has been no conference focused on emdrive only and my instinct tells me that will change. This Colorado conference is a good start but I see it as a first step only. Followers need to recognize competitive efforts to emdrive and the likelihood that it effects certain statements being made about emdrive here and elsewhere.
I will honor the December release date in the aiaa journal. I will say that it will be well worth your time to read and digest. For aiaa, I applaud their decision to publish. Advanced propulsion is needed as we all know....this paper should firm up aiaa as an organization that recognizes we need to move beyond the rocket paradigm. My hat's off to them.
Keep polite skepticism alive but acknowledge we need something different to explore the cosmos...in the end, that's all that many of us are thinking as we design, build and test - Dave
-
#813 by birchoff on 22 Sep, 2016 01:57
-
A While back someone I believe Dr. Rodal had re posted(https://www.reddit.com/r/QThruster/comments/4ny575/52nd_aiaasaeasee_joint_propulsion_conference_july/) a schedule of the AIAA Power and Propulsion conference that was to take place in the summer. Anyone remember this?
-
#814 by birchoff on 22 Sep, 2016 02:07
-
Mr Lim and all, I can provide a little more clarity on this conference, it had been organized around dr Woodward's work prior. It is my understanding he does not necessarily embrace EWs theory and/or concepts. My feeling, being somewhat in the network, is that emdrive is a secondary topic and may not be embraced by all there. Rodals work on the Woodward device theory or test (don't know) serves as a reminder there are competing interests for advanced propulsion.
Funny how the next generation of enabling efforts similar to the Breakthrough Propulsion Project are so pragmatic in their approaches, instead of gathering just theoretical possibilities.
Heidi Fearn, James Woodward, Paul March, Martin Tajmar, Dr. Rodal et al are bringing most of them experimental results. I imagine that's the very reason this conference exists. Results that need discussion.
I wouldn't have believed such a thing a few years back. Let's remember we are talking about experiments looking for measurable and usable forces and effects, the least of them revolutionary in its implications.
But there it is.
It is a pity that only optimists are invited. A meeting with only optimists is good at creating unrealistic positive atmosphere people see recently. I also think the theoretic works are premature before the effect is established.
If you were here you wouldn't say we invited only optimists.
This is absolutely true, because I am a skeptic. But I am not sure why this obvious fact maters.
To date, there has been no conference focused on emdrive only and my instinct tells me that will change. This Colorado conference is a good start but I see it as a first step only. Followers need to recognize competitive efforts to emdrive and the likelihood that it effects certain statements being made about emdrive here and elsewhere.
I will honor the December release date in the aiaa journal. I will say that it will be well worth your time to read and digest. For aiaa, I applaud their decision to publish. Advanced propulsion is needed as we all know....this paper should firm up aiaa as an organization that recognizes we need to move beyond the rocket paradigm. My hat's off to them.
Keep polite skepticism alive but acknowledge we need something different to explore the cosmos...in the end, that's all that many of us are thinking as we design, build and test - Dave
Your explanation makes sense to me. After reading the list of people that were said to be in attendance. I initially thought it was an even split of EmDrive and MET researchers. However, I checked the conference proceedings for the AIAA Power and Propulsion conference from this summer and noticed this paper by Tajmar (http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2012-3862). While it isn't immediately clear from the abstract this seems to be new test results for the device that inspired the MLT design that Woodward abandoned. So this particular conference may be more Mach Effect focused. With the possibility of using Mach Effect Theory as a way to explain EmDrive.
Does anyone know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the test campaign being reported in the december paper used a frustum design that included a dielectric?
-
#815 by johnatan warp drive on 22 Sep, 2016 03:10
-
Olá, não me interpretem mal, eu sou apenas um " vestibulando ", e eu sei que é errado dizer coisas sem qualquer fundamentação matemática e que esse lugar nao é destinado a isso, mas agora veio à cabeça uma teoria , imaginar que todas as coisas colidem com o campo de Higgs, e assim obter e / ou manter a massa , excepto os fótons, neste caso , os fótons dentro da cavidade emdrive ressoam e se conectar de alguma forma com os fótons para fora da cavidade fazendo do emdrive um "grande photon " tornando-se imune ao campo de Higgs campo e gerar impulso.
isso possui algum sentido, ou alguma viabilidade ?
--Google translate--
Hello, do not get me wrong, I 'm just a " vestibulando ", and I know it's wrong to say things without any mathematical foundation, but now came to head a theory, imagine that all things collide with the Higgs field, and thus gain and / or keep mass, except photons, in this case photons within the cavity emdrive resonate and connect in some way with the photons out of the cavity making emdrive a "big photon " thus becoming immune to field boson and generating thrust .
Does that make any sense ? Has some Viability ?
-
#816 by meberbs on 22 Sep, 2016 03:33
-
The errors are everywhere in his papers. They are not usually math errors such as 1+1=3, but there are multiple ways to prove 1+1=3 using Shawyer's claims. Logic is a branch of mathematics so when he fails at logic, he fails at math. Also Math and Physics errors are hard to separate. Which is it when he swaps a sign on a Force to make it seem like the prediction is that the drive moves to the small end? When his theory would result in it moving big end first if you accepted his premise and ignored the other physics errors and contradictions.The problem with Shawyer is that, rather than giving no explanation, he gives a mathematically false explanation. As he is not a theoretical scientist, but an Engineer, since he found a formula that provides him the amount of thrust that he had mesured, he seems happy. I think many skeptics would feel more confortable if Shawyer was giving his results as an experimental result, with no false solution.
If no one really knows how the EmDrive really works then how can it be asserted that any solution is 'false'?
If the math is incorrect.
Shawyer would have been better off just publishing the data.
Please point me to a post or page where the math is shown to be incorrect. I've seen that charge used often but it's not always as black and white as it sounds. Sometimes it's the logical or scientific argument that's in dispute rather than actual math. Thanks.
I could point you to some specific of my old posts with lists of mistakes in his theory. (Just my posts because I know where to find them)...
Another poster here (I have unfortunately lost track of who) posted a quite thorough proof and explanation of why devices that operate like the EMDrive as self contained units emitting no mass, and having in their own frame a constant force / input power greater than 1/c must therefore be a free energy machine. Their analysis included explanations of how to account for the energy properly in this case for a chemical rocket.
Regarding the kinetic energy conundrum mentioned, I find the use of the Work Energy Theorem helps. In any observer frame, a constant force provides a constant acceleration (non relativistically for now but the theorem works relativistically too). The force integrated over the distance is always equal to the kinetic energy change and that works for any observer. There are two powers to consider. One, the power creating the force onboard the ship or probe, and then the mechanical power required by the work energy theorem. It is the second, the mechanical power integrated over time that equates to the kinetic energy change, not the input power to create the constant force. That's how Shawyer and Fetta compute things I believe. The two powers are independent. There is only an energy conundrum when one tries to equate the onboard input electrical power integrated over time to the kinetic energy change. The only case where this works is for pure photon rockets or beamed propulsion in which the total input energy is always greater than the change in kinetic energy. As a pure photonic rocket starting from rest in some frame approaches c, the input energy approaches the kinetic energy. A stretch of photon recycling over part of the trip would also lead to a false energy conundrum.
Both Shawyer and the Cannae Deep Space Probe designs exhibit this apparent kinetic energy conundrum and both are false problems in my view. I know many will disagree and that's fine. I've personally been on both sides of this issue. I wrote several emails to Shawyer myself pointing out his 'error'. Thankfully, he graciously ignored my emails. Now, I think Shawyer and Fetta are correct.
Hopefully someone else thought to save the link and can point you to that post.
The short version is that this is a real problem, and saying otherwise is simply wrong. (Note that some of the better proposed theories for the EMDrive include ways around this, by making the EMDrive not a closed system, but Shawyer doesn't do this) -
#817 by giulioprisco on 22 Sep, 2016 04:06
-
...
Thank you. I really should pick up that book you mentioned at the end, been meaning to for ages now. Unfortunately I think it's only around in paper form, I tend to Kindle my books these days due to lack of space.
I am a paperless book guy like yourself. I bought the Kindle version of the book when it came out. So if that's what you are waiting on. that hurdle no longer exists.
Unfortunately in many KIndle books mathematical formulas are rendered rather poorly. I prefer good old PDFs, and iPads (especially iPad minis) are ideal reading devices for PDF books. These days, good PDF scans of most science books (including this book) are easy to find online. -
#818 by HMXHMX on 22 Sep, 2016 04:59
-
Mr Lim and all, I can provide a little more clarity on this conference, it had been organized around dr Woodward's work prior. It is my understanding he does not necessarily embrace EWs theory and/or concepts. My feeling, being somewhat in the network, is that emdrive is a secondary topic and may not be embraced by all there. Rodals work on the Woodward device theory or test (don't know) serves as a reminder there are competing interests for advanced propulsion.
Funny how the next generation of enabling efforts similar to the Breakthrough Propulsion Project are so pragmatic in their approaches, instead of gathering just theoretical possibilities.
Heidi Fearn, James Woodward, Paul March, Martin Tajmar, Dr. Rodal et al are bringing most of them experimental results. I imagine that's the very reason this conference exists. Results that need discussion.
I wouldn't have believed such a thing a few years back. Let's remember we are talking about experiments looking for measurable and usable forces and effects, the least of them revolutionary in its implications.
But there it is.
It is a pity that only optimists are invited. A meeting with only optimists is good at creating unrealistic positive atmosphere people see recently. I also think the theoretic works are premature before the effect is established.
If you were here you wouldn't say we invited only optimists.
This is absolutely true, because I am a skeptic. But I am not sure why this obvious fact maters.
To date, there has been no conference focused on emdrive only and my instinct tells me that will change. This Colorado conference is a good start but I see it as a first step only. Followers need to recognize competitive efforts to emdrive and the likelihood that it effects certain statements being made about emdrive here and elsewhere.
I will honor the December release date in the aiaa journal. I will say that it will be well worth your time to read and digest. For aiaa, I applaud their decision to publish. Advanced propulsion is needed as we all know....this paper should firm up aiaa as an organization that recognizes we need to move beyond the rocket paradigm. My hat's off to them.
Keep polite skepticism alive but acknowledge we need something different to explore the cosmos...in the end, that's all that many of us are thinking as we design, build and test - Dave
I'd say the presentations are split about 50-50 between Mach Effect and EMdrive topic and results, and there is a concerted effort to integrate the theories for each approach. -
#819 by Star One on 22 Sep, 2016 05:59
-
...
Thank you. I really should pick up that book you mentioned at the end, been meaning to for ages now. Unfortunately I think it's only around in paper form, I tend to Kindle my books these days due to lack of space.
I am a paperless book guy like yourself. I bought the Kindle version of the book when it came out. So if that's what you are waiting on. that hurdle no longer exists.
Unfortunately in many KIndle books mathematical formulas are rendered rather poorly. I prefer good old PDFs, and iPads (especially iPad minis) are ideal reading devices for PDF books. These days, good PDF scans of most science books (including this book) are easy to find online.
I read Kindle on my mobile using the app. Also Kindle have done a lot to improve their rendering of items.
