-
#980 by meberbs on 25 Sep, 2016 19:25
-
You can be dealing with something for decades and still be wrong. In this case it only takes college freshman level physics to find the issues. How about you try actually stating which of my counterarguments you don't find convincing.This rebuttal of the CoE over unity arguments seems pertinent: http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf
That is what I responded to a few posts back. The short version is that the paper is completely wrong.
Sorry, but Woodward's arguments are convincin. I think he knows what he's talking about esp. since he's been dealing with this for decades. -
#981 by birchoff on 25 Sep, 2016 19:48
-
You can be dealing with something for decades and still be wrong. In this case it only takes college freshman level physics to find the issues. How about you try actually stating which of my counterarguments you don't find convincing.This rebuttal of the CoE over unity arguments seems pertinent: http://ssi.org/epi/Over-Unity_Argument_&_Mach_Effect_Thrusters.pdf
That is what I responded to a few posts back. The short version is that the paper is completely wrong.
Sorry, but Woodward's arguments are convincin. I think he knows what he's talking about esp. since he's been dealing with this for decades.
Please see my post made immediately before yours.
In short thought. the only really questionable thin in that paper is the supposed endorsement of being able to simply have the thruster reset or know when some arbitrary limit of kinetic energy occurs. In my post what I laid out is that while it does look a bit outlandish on paper. If you are aware of how Woodward says ME Devices are supposed to operate you can find a place for you to do the reset being proposed. The problem is in our discussions we assume the mass fluctuation is static. But there is nothing in the theory limiting delta of the increase and decrease of the fluctuating mass component. So to maintain constant acceleration you just need to constantly adjust the delta of the increase and decrease of the fluctuating mass component. That adjustment allows you to basically reset the calculation for over unit everytime you do carry it out.
On the flip side if you keep the delta of the increase and decrease of the fluctuating mass remains constant then eventually you will reach terminal velocity. I would imagine the velocity graph of the device would resemble that of a rocket in that case. Though the limiting factor here ends up being the max force the actuator acting on the fluctuating mass can generate. As long as the actuator can continue to push and pull that fluctuating mass in such a way that the equal and opposite inertial forces differ then there will continue to be acceleration. Its just that as Kinetic energy increases for the ship. It also increases for the Fluctuating mass which means the actuator either needs to be able to push harder or we need to be able to change the kinetic energy of the fluctuating mass to never be greater than the force that can be generated by the actuator. -
#982 by meberbs on 25 Sep, 2016 20:05
-
Yes, we are in agreement. The issue is only certain theoretical frameworks such as Shawyer's. Based on the papers Shawyer has written, and statements and responses he has made, it seems to me that he simply doesn't understand that their is anything wrong with his theory. (There is another conclusion I could come to, but that one is significantly less charitable)The figure of merit itself is not a mistake, it's how people use it to prove a constant force basically does not cause a constant acceleration which is implicit in the criticisms.
If it is not a mistake then CoE is broken. Denying this is pointless.
I don't believe CoE or CoM will be violated by a proven theory. That extra energy/momentum is likely coming from a source we previously didn't think possible to tap. However, I do accept your point that as currently defined by Shawyer his theory would violate CoE/CoM. However, I don't remember who said this. But I am inclined to agree that the Theory Shawyer has floated is likely incomplete. Not sure if that is on purpose (For reasons Shawyer deems important) or just because he is still developing it.
First, A general comment on the rocket analogies. The descriptions of them that come up in this context are to explain why rockets can get around the overunity problem of constant force/energy, since "but rockets" is a common response to a proof of the overunity. This does not mean that I, or others, are treating the emDrive as a rocket, just treating it as an object subject to the same laws of mechanics as everything else.As I understand Woodward's comments, he's saying one can think of that supposed break even limit as an interval. After that interval, reset or re-guage the problem. Think of a rocket doing a long series of small burns. One ends up with a series of frames, in each energy was not violated but it's a simple undeniable fact of nature that the devices velocity in the last frame is the linear sum of all the frames yet the kinetic energy is different in each frame and far exceeds the sum of input energies in the last frame. But it's not a paradox at all. It's just how nature works and has always been built into classical mechanics. Woodward's argument is reasonable.
No it is not reasonable. There is no physical thing that changes about the device after it has been running x seconds. Changing the reference frames and comparing the energy across them is something you already recognized that you can't do; have you forgotten? You don't get to start doing it yourself now that you find it convenient. His argument just ignores the problem that would be obvious if you just did it right and stuck to a single frame.
I don't think the assertion you made (highlighted above) is correct. I have spent a bit of time arguing in support of the short over unity paper that Woodward released on the Mach Effects Thread. While I know I was never able to get past the need to reset in order to avoid over unity problems Woodward rebuked in the prior half of the paper. One thing did jump out at me. Every time this disagreement arises, proponents try to explain this via an example of a rocket. However, because devices governed by Mach Effects don't work like rockets we are implicitly asking critics to accept some handwaving. Which they don't and we continue talking past each other. How about we reset this part of the conversation by asserting that devices governed by Mach Effects do not work like rockets and examples using rockets to explain how they work are inherently flawed and should be used with EXTREME CARE.
...
[Trimmed for length.]
The problem with the paper is that it doesn't say any of the things that you just said. When I opened it, I expected an explanation of what loophole METs use to get around the overunity problem. Instead I found an attempt to deny that it is a problem to begin with. While it uses math, it is worded more like a persuasive essay the a scientific paper, and it just handwaves away the central problem. It comes across as "I want this to work, so I assume that the problem is not on my end"
Some amount of handwaving would be okay, for example if it skipped a bunch of general relativity and explained the net effect of using distant stars as reaction mass or something. I would have further questions in that case, but assuming the skipped steps were done right, it would be a valid argument.
A summary of the biggest problems with that paper:
1. It calls a standard and basic technique (proof by contradiction) "stupid and wrong"
2. It completely abuses reference frames, jumping frames without even a handwave explanation, and treats an accelerating reference frame as if it was inertial
I am not going to critique the explanation in your post here (both posts, I did see the other one as I was typing this), because it amounts to proposing a theory of operation that might be consistent (acceptable handwaving), unlike the paper. Also, it is more relevant to the Mach effect, so discussion of it would better go in the other thread. What you say though does not make the Woodward's paper any less wrong. You make the claim that there is a way around the overunity for a specific device, while Woodward tries and fails to prove that the overunity is not a real problem. -
#983 by Bob012345 on 25 Sep, 2016 20:07
-
The figure of merit itself is not a mistake, it's how people use it to prove a constant force basically does not cause a constant acceleration which is implicit in the criticisms.
If it is not a mistake then CoE is broken. Denying this is pointless.As I understand Woodward's comments, he's saying one can think of that supposed break even limit as an interval. After that interval, reset or re-guage the problem. Think of a rocket doing a long series of small burns. One ends up with a series of frames, in each energy was not violated but it's a simple undeniable fact of nature that the devices velocity in the last frame is the linear sum of all the frames yet the kinetic energy is different in each frame and far exceeds the sum of input energies in the last frame. But it's not a paradox at all. It's just how nature works and has always been built into classical mechanics. Woodward's argument is reasonable.
No it is not reasonable. There is no physical thing that changes about the device after it has been running x seconds. Changing the reference frames and comparing the energy across them is something you already recognized that you can't do; have you forgotten? You don't get to start doing it yourself now that you find it convenient. His argument just ignores the problem that would be obvious if you just did it right and stuck to a single frame.P.S. If someone still insists it can't work because 'momentum isn't conserved' assume it is, and assume however it is, the ship is just borrowing additional kinetic energy from the 'exhaust' of the universe just as it is in a rocket.
The argument isn't that it can't work because momentum is not conserved, the argument is that certain theories (Shawyer's) are wrong because they don't allow momentum or energy to be conserved.Everything you said about the rocket is true, however, if you let the rocket burn long enough (unfortunately, you can't because of practical mass limits), even accounting the exhaust energy balance, you would run into the same problem as with the EmDrive.
The rocket doesn't have the problem exactly because it stops working when it runs out of fuel to borrow energy from. Any rocket you can imagine, even the most efficient possible (matter-antimatter reactor with a laser exhaust) will not result in any paradox, energy will always be perfectly balanced. Yet for the proposed explanations of the EMDrive, where it does not have exhaust of any form including a medium to push against, it is easy to find examples that break CoE.
What I am trying to say is that the folks that say there is an energy violation are comparing energy in different frames. You can use the Work-Energy Theorem in any observer frame and you'll see energy balances. I believe nature doesn't care how you generate your constant force.
Integrate Force x distance = kinetic energy
Let F= k x power.
For light k= 1/c. For beamed power k= 2/c. For photon recycling k= n/c. For EmDrive k= figure of merit.
force x acceleration x time squared/2 = kinetic energy
k x power x acceleration x time squared/2 = kinetic energy
(power x time) x (k/2 x acceleration x time) = kinetic energy
(energy in) x (k/2 x acceleration x time) = kinetic energy
It seems to me that this is the proper equation. The factor (k/2 x acceleration x time) or (k/2 x v) is the conversion between frames. I believe the mistake is to claim energy input in the ships frame must equal kinetic energy in earth frame without that factor.
It is my understanding that Woodward is saying that every example that "breaks" CoE is a misapplication and a misunderstanding of classical physics because it really doesn't violate CoE. Saying CoE is broken is saying classical mechanics doesn't work.
For beamed propulsion the best you get is that power x time = c/v x kinetic energy so as v approaches c, energy in approaches the kinetic energy. But for photon recycling one can do much better. Let the photons effectively recycle 30,000 times which is not much of a stretch to lab experiments that prove it works. Then the balance is power x time=1/30,000 x c/v x kinetic energy so you "break" the energy balance at only a mere v=10km/s which is not very much relative to light speed.
Does anyone here really think the device would just stop working at v= 10 km/s? If so please say how. I think it would keep going as would any such device. Conceptually, photon recycling should serve as an existence proof that such devices do not violate CoE. -
#984 by meberbs on 25 Sep, 2016 20:26
-
What I am trying to say is that the folks that say there is an energy violation are comparing energy in different frames. You can use the Work-Energy Theorem in any observer frame and you'll see energy balances. I believe nature doesn't care how you generate your constant force.
No, we are not comparing between different frames. Go see this post. Gilbertdrive did those calculations in a single frame the observer at rest in the frame that is the initial rest frame of the drive. The starting stored energy, and the final kinetic energy show a huge problem.
...
The only people who are jumping frames here are Woodward and TheTraveller. They seem to think they can treat a non-inertial frame as if it was inertial. You have the right criticism, directed at the wrong group.
As for the rest of your postQuoteFor light k= 1/c. For beamed power k= 2/c. For photon recycling k= n/c. For EmDrive k= figure of merit.
This would be for a recycling photon rocket, that uses a retroreflector on the moon (for example). Then, the energy of the photon beam (decreasing due to redshift), and the momentum/energy exchange with the moon make everything balance. Classical mechanics (with special relativity applied because of the photons) works perfectly fine here. Claims otherwise are wrong.
The emDrive is completely different because according to Shawyer it works as a closed system. -
#985 by birchoff on 25 Sep, 2016 20:56
-
...
First, A general comment on the rocket analogies. The descriptions of them that come up in this context are to explain why rockets can get around the overunity problem of constant force/energy, since "but rockets" is a common response to a proof of the overunity. This does not mean that I, or others, are treating the emDrive as a rocket, just treating it as an object subject to the same laws of mechanics as everything else.
The problem with the paper is that it doesn't say any of the things that you just said. When I opened it, I expected an explanation of what loophole METs use to get around the overunity problem. Instead I found an attempt to deny that it is a problem to begin with. While it uses math, it is worded more like a persuasive essay the a scientific paper, and it just handwaves away the central problem. It comes across as "I want this to work, so I assume that the problem is not on my end"
Some amount of handwaving would be okay, for example if it skipped a bunch of general relativity and explained the net effect of using distant stars as reaction mass or something. I would have further questions in that case, but assuming the skipped steps were done right, it would be a valid argument.
A summary of the biggest problems with that paper:
1. It calls a standard and basic technique (proof by contradiction) "stupid and wrong"
2. It completely abuses reference frames, jumping frames without even a handwave explanation, and treats an accelerating reference frame as if it was inertial
I am not going to critique the explanation in your post here (both posts, I did see the other one as I was typing this), because it amounts to proposing a theory of operation that might be consistent (acceptable handwaving), unlike the paper. Also, it is more relevant to the Mach effect, so discussion of it would better go in the other thread. What you say though does not make the Woodward's paper any less wrong. You make the claim that there is a way around the overunity for a specific device, while Woodward tries and fails to prove that the overunity is not a real problem.
I will agree with your point about the professionalism of the paper. but it actually wasn't a paper. I forgot the term that was used when it was released. But anyway I don't think it is fair to interpret the content of that paper in a vacuum which is what I have seen happen every time it is brought up. So I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that if your interested in the topic enough to read the paper you would at least read up on the theory/device that the accusations are being made against.
I have already had a similar discussion about this with WallOfWolfStreet on the MET Thread. So I would like to avoid a rehash if possible. As forQuoteIt calls a standard and basic technique (proof by contradiction) "stupid and wrong"
While I agree that the tone of the paper is anything but scientific in tone. the argument being made isn't criticizing the technique. He is saying in a proof by definition sorta way that Yes CoM/CoE is the law of the land and always will be the law of the land, and the only way you can get to breaking CoM/CoE is by doing the math wrong. So basically Woodward is agreeing that you cannot break CoM/CoE, and by extension (which is not proven up to that point of the paper) MET's cannot break CoM/CoE.QuoteIt completely abuses reference frames, jumping frames without even a handwave explanation, and treats an accelerating reference frame as if it was inertial
I believe this takes place in the last part of the paper, and I would have easily agreed with anyone that it looks like Woodward walks off the deep end; as he seems to attempt to show why thrusters governed by ME will never exceed over unity. Earlier this year I had a similar conversation with WallOfWolfStreet on the ME Thread, even though I privately would give Woodward the benefit of the doubt. I just couldn't make heads of tails of why he would possibly think that explanation would make sense. It wasn't until I revisited that Flux capacitors paper where he explains the mechanical operation of a device governed by ME that I suspected it had something to do with how these type of devices are supposed to operate from a mechanical perspective. I thought about it more and it eventually dawned on me that the problem is with the assumption that the mass change is fixed. When you think about it that way there is no way to avoid over unity and the explanation at the end of that paper makes no sense. But if the Mass change can be dynamically controlled then you basically have the ability to control the kinetic energy contained within the Fluctuating Mass being used to generate thrust. It is only from that context where that last part of the paper makes sense. Now since the KE of an object is dependent on its Mass being able to change that mass should give you the ability to maintain a situation where you can for a period of time maintain constant acceleration. Since all you need to do is alter the kinetic energy enough to maintain maximal thrust. This is what provides Woodward with the ability to make the claim made at the end of the paper as dynamically varying the Fluctuating mass component of a thruster governed by ME, In addition to allowing him to "jumping frames and treat accelerating frames as if it was inertial"
That said, everything I raised in my previous post is a logical consequence of the description Woodward has given of thrusters governed by Mach Effects. In addition, with the comments that Rodal and others have made about ME being used as a potential theory to explain EmDrive propulsion, I think my lay-person interpretation is valid within this thread. Though I am more than willing to relocate it if necessary. -
#986 by Tellmeagain on 25 Sep, 2016 21:41
-
I have finished reading Professor Woodward's paper. I would say, meberbs is right and professor Woodward is wrong. I am quite busy and my short report will need a few days to be ready. This paper needs only first grade college level physics and I encourage readers who have such education take a close look of it. The math from eqn 1-9 are all right. eqn 16 is wrong in his interpretation.
-
#987 by birchoff on 26 Sep, 2016 00:40
-
I have finished reading Professor Woodward's paper. I would say, meberbs is right and professor Woodward is wrong. I am quite busy and my short report will need a few days to be ready. This paper needs only first grade college level physics and I encourage readers who have such education take a close look of it. The math from eqn 1-9 are all right. eqn 16 is wrong in his interpretation.
I eagerly await the report. However if the interpretation of eqn 16 you are referring to is the followingQuoteGiven the form of Newton’s second law as stated in Equations (1) and (16), even
competent physicists have come to believe that v dM/dt is a force, just as Ma is a force.
But v dM/dt isn’t like an Ma force. This is usually illustrated in elementary physics texts
with problems/examples like: a railway car moves along a smooth, level, straight,
frictionless track with constant velocity. A pile of sand on the bed of the car is allowed to
fall through a hole in the floor of the car. Does the speed of the car relative to the Earth
(which can be taken to have effectively infinite mass) change as the sand falls? A
colleague who monitors the pedagogical literature tells me that people routinely mess this
up – and that at intervals of five to ten years, articles or blog comments addressing this
issue routinely appear. And, alas, that even those attuned to the subtleties of the issue
make mistakes in handling it.
Then I would ask that you review the discussion that was had in the ME thread that begins about 1/4 to 1/2 in to the page.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1531664#msg1531664
IIRC that's where FluxCapacitor brought up this same paper and WallOfWolfStreet raised similar critiques. One issue that stuck for him I believe is perfectly crystalized as followsI see your point. but after my discussion with wallofwolfstreet. I am beginning to understand that the core problem here isnt so much what that term in the equation of motion means. Its whether or not the effect being displayed is allowed to zero out that term in the equation of motion.
Exactly. In the case where we use the correct F = dp/dt = mdv/dt + udm/dt, you just substitute u=w-v, where w is the velocity of the mass flow in the frame of reference in which v is measured. You still end up with the exact same probelm, namely "How can the velocity term in the full equation of motion F=dp/dt be zero despite the fact the MET is accelerating?", only now the question has shifted to why should w=0?
If this is the case I still hold my personal opinion that the only place this can really be resolved is in experiment. Especially if the results of those experiments fall in line with the predictions made from the thrust generation predictions derived from HN Theory of Gravitation and GR. If We have a situation where experiment and proposed theory strongly agree and can be replicated. I think the concern being raisedQuotewhether or not the effect being displayed is allowed to zero out that term in the equation of motion.
should be changed toQuoteHow is the effect on display, able to zero out that term in the equation of motion?
P.S. If I am way off base that's fine. Left this here because I am not sure I will be able to access the thread for a bit and wanted to possibly point out a separate conversation that could have already been had over the same thing.
P.S.S.
the Wasner paper we talk about during that discussion can be found here http://www.tsijournals.com/abstract/center-of-mass-acceleration-of-an-isolated-system-of-two-particles-with-time-variable-masses-interacting-with-each-other-2502.html -
#988 by SeeShells on 26 Sep, 2016 01:08
-
In a recent meeting.
Right in the middle of a heated debate.
(paraphrasing)
I heard a voice from behind me say: "They're 1000's of problems with physics........ Go to wikipedia and you'll see page after page of unsolved problems..........You physicists should be ashamed!"
No one said a thing, for they knew he was right, so much we don't know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics
These anomalous thrust effects fit right in.
Shell -
#989 by dustinthewind on 26 Sep, 2016 02:10
-
In a recent meeting.
Interesting link. Thanks for sharing. Some thoughts follow. Right in the middle of a heated debate.
(paraphrasing)
I heard a voice from behind me say: "They're 1000's of problems with physics........ Go to wikipedia and you'll see page after page of unsolved problems..........You physicists should be ashamed!"
No one said a thing, for they knew he was right, so much we don't know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics
These anomalous thrust effects fit right in.
ShellQuoteWiki: Ecliptic alignment of CMB anisotropy
Me: Evidence of pancaking of the CMB by our motion relative to the universe? It's the impression I get.
Some large features of the microwave sky at distances of over 13 billion light years appear to be aligned with both the motion and orientation of the solar system. Is this due to systematic errors in processing, contamination of results by local effects, or an unexplained violation of the Copernican principle?QuoteWiki: Dimensionless physical constant
At the present time, the values of the dimensionless physical constants cannot be calculated; they are determined only by physical measurement.[3][4] What is the minimum number of dimensionless physical constants from which all other dimensionless physical constants can be derived? Are dimensionful physical constants necessary at all? Is Dirac large numbers hypothesis true?
Paper:The Fundamental Physics of Electromagnetic Waves
Juliana H. J. Mortenson General Resonance, LLC USAQuotePaper: When the missing time variable is restored to the quantum formula, the identity of Planck’s real universal constant becomes apparent. The hidden constant is, in fact, a universal energy constant, namely the energy of a single oscillation or EM wave. This universal energy constant for light is that same ”isolated quantity of energy” de Broglie searched for, i.e., the fundamental small quantum of light’s energy:
...
The fine structure constant is not dimensionless. It represents a scaling constant between time and a single oscillation of EM energy, i.e., “osc t”. As such, a theoretical element corresponding to an element of reality is now provided for the fine structure constant. This is a critical requirement for a complete quantum mechanics. -
#990 by wicoe on 26 Sep, 2016 05:05
-
What I am trying to say is that the folks that say there is an energy violation are comparing energy in different frames.
I still fail to see what is wrong with comparing energy in different inertial frames, as long as you're being careful. Of course kinetic energy is different in different frames, but the total energy must be conserved no matter what intertial frame you choose. It's easy to show that while the kinetic energy of a "constantly accelerating device" grows faster and faster in a "rest" frame as the device speeds up, this gets offset by other factors (kinetic energy of the propellant in the case of a conventional rocket, etc), so that the total energy spent over a unit of time is exactly the same, regardless of the reference frame. -
#991 by TheTraveller on 26 Sep, 2016 07:12
-
There are as far as I know 2 rotary EmDrive test rigs that have measured continual acceleration.
Roger's rotary test rig was built in 2006 and used an EmDrive that could deliver +200mN of thrust. Roger has recently released his very detailed enginerring report on both the Experimental & Demonstrator EmDrives, including detailed static thrust data.
He has told me that extensive experimental data was recorded from the rotary test rig using the Demonstrator EmDrive. Further that data showed both CofM and CofE were conserved. As with the static test data report, I expect the rotary test report will also be released.
Both test reports are available on www.emdrive.com -
#992 by Gilbertdrive on 26 Sep, 2016 07:32
-
In a recent meeting.
Right in the middle of a heated debate.
(paraphrasing)
I heard a voice from behind me say: "They're 1000's of problems with physics........ Go to wikipedia and you'll see page after page of unsolved problems..........You physicists should be ashamed!"
No one said a thing, for they knew he was right, so much we don't know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics
These anomalous thrust effects fit right in.
Shell
Totally true. I do not know the exact context so I do not know exactly why the phrase "You physicists should be ashamed!" It is not a shame to do not solve everything. But if I guess it was about new theories.
The standard model is full of holes. Full of observations that does not fit at all with the model. That is not a conspiracy theory, that is a fact. New theories to explain observations are a necessity.
When somebody comes with a new theory, the right approach is to do consistency check, many calculus, and the comparison with the experiments and observations. Most of new theories don't resist to this approach because they have also flaws... but some people are trying to explain that we should not even do that. That we should no try to find theories that differs from RG or QM. As if they were perfect theories, with nothing more to search. They ignore the 1000's of problems. Fortunately they are not on this forum.
-
#993 by Tellmeagain on 26 Sep, 2016 10:18
-
There are as far as I know 2 rotary EmDrive test rigs that have measured continual acceleration.
Roger's rotary test rig was built in 2006 and used an EmDrive that could deliver +200mN of thrust. Roger has recently released his very detailed enginerring report on both the Experimental & Demonstrator EmDrives, including detailed static thrust data.
He has told me that extensive experimental data was recorded from the rotary test rig using the Demonstrator EmDrive. Further that data showed both CofM and CofE were conserved. As with the static test data report, I expect the rotary test report will also be released.
Both test reports are available on www.emdrive.com
Mr. Shawyer's rotary test rig is commented by me in this post: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1574391#msg1574391
You have not commented on my prediction. Why don't you do that now? The focus is that the it rotated just half a circle, and no momentum to do more, not different from a magnetic compass. -
#994 by Flyby on 26 Sep, 2016 10:25
-
There are more problems then that with that rotating rig :There are as far as I know 2 rotary EmDrive test rigs that have measured continual acceleration.
Roger's rotary test rig was built in 2006 and used an EmDrive that could deliver +200mN of thrust. Roger has recently released his very detailed enginerring report on both the Experimental & Demonstrator EmDrives, including detailed static thrust data.
He has told me that extensive experimental data was recorded from the rotary test rig using the Demonstrator EmDrive. Further that data showed both CofM and CofE were conserved. As with the static test data report, I expect the rotary test report will also be released.
Both test reports are available on www.emdrive.com
Mr. Shawyer's rotary test rig is commented by me in this post: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1574391#msg1574391
You have not commented on my prediction. Why don't you do that now? The focus is that the it rotated just half a circle, and no momentum to do more, not different from a magnetic compass.
- IIRC, Shell, thanks to her engineering experience, explained that air bearings can induce rotations due to vibrations.
-And then there is the gyroscopic effect of the water pump, because it's rotation plane does not traverse the rig's rotation axis.
I still think it can be a very compelling evidence, on condition these remarks are worked on... -
#995 by TheTraveller on 26 Sep, 2016 11:33
-
There are as far as I know 2 rotary EmDrive test rigs that have measured continual acceleration.
Roger's rotary test rig was built in 2006 and used an EmDrive that could deliver +200mN of thrust. Roger has recently released his very detailed enginerring report on both the Experimental & Demonstrator EmDrives, including detailed static thrust data.
He has told me that extensive experimental data was recorded from the rotary test rig using the Demonstrator EmDrive. Further that data showed both CofM and CofE were conserved. As with the static test data report, I expect the rotary test report will also be released.
Both test reports are available on www.emdrive.com
Mr. Shawyer's rotary test rig is commented by me in this post: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1574391#msg1574391
You have not commented on my prediction. Why don't you do that now? The focus is that the it rotated just half a circle, and no momentum to do more, not different from a magnetic compass.
I know nothing more about the test data from the rotary test rig than what I have shared and Roger has made available on his web site. Did ask for more data to be made available.
As I know the EmDrive does produce thrust, as do 4 other builders I communicate with, there was no compass action. It rotated from thrust generation. Should add have seen another video of a rotating EmDrive, which should one day become public. -
#996 by TheTraveller on 26 Sep, 2016 11:42
-
There are more problems then that with that rotating rig :There are as far as I know 2 rotary EmDrive test rigs that have measured continual acceleration.
Roger's rotary test rig was built in 2006 and used an EmDrive that could deliver +200mN of thrust. Roger has recently released his very detailed enginerring report on both the Experimental & Demonstrator EmDrives, including detailed static thrust data.
He has told me that extensive experimental data was recorded from the rotary test rig using the Demonstrator EmDrive. Further that data showed both CofM and CofE were conserved. As with the static test data report, I expect the rotary test report will also be released.
Both test reports are available on www.emdrive.com
Mr. Shawyer's rotary test rig is commented by me in this post: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1574391#msg1574391
You have not commented on my prediction. Why don't you do that now? The focus is that the it rotated just half a circle, and no momentum to do more, not different from a magnetic compass.
- IIRC, Shell, thanks to her engineering experience, explained that air bearings can induce rotations due to vibrations.
-And then there is the gyroscopic effect of the water pump, because it's rotation plane does not traverse the rig's rotation axis.
I still think it can be a very compelling evidence, on condition these remarks are worked on...
In the video, rotation does not start until approx 1 minute after power was applied. So 1 minute of circulating coolant and air bearing vibrations, yet no movement until the maggie freq locks to the frustum and starts to generate thrust. -
#997 by Flyby on 26 Sep, 2016 12:11
-
In the video, rotation does not start until approx 1 minute after power was applied. So 1 minute of circulating coolant and air bearing vibrations, yet no movement until the maggie freq locks to the frustum and starts to generate thrust.
Agreed , it could be an indication but there is no way to verify whether or the pump was already running or not... so the test is not free of doubt...
You take a leap of faith believing Shawyer on his word.
On the contrary, EM-haters use any tiny bit of doubt to discredit the whole setup.
Me personally , I find it a very compelling video but I'd like to see certain points addressed before feeling comfortable accepting it as proof the EM effect is real.
I'm not yet prepared to jump, like you did...
but as I keep an open mind to it, give me a safety harness (unambiguous tests), then yeah, I'll jump, like many of us here in this topic...
The issue is to eliminate all other interference's and possible causes for the measured/observed forces, until there is only 1 possible explanation possible : that of an EM drive effect.
At this moment, you're jumping the gun. This doesn't mean you're wrong, but that the other possible effects need to be eliminated before reaching that final conclusion.
-
#998 by Rodal on 26 Sep, 2016 13:22
-
In the video, rotation does not start until approx 1 minute after power was applied. So 1 minute of circulating coolant and air bearing vibrations, yet no movement until the maggie freq locks to the frustum and starts to generate thrust.
Agreed , it could be an indication but there is no way to verify whether or the pump was already running or not... so the test is not free of doubt...
At the Sept 2016 Estes Park Breakthrough Propulsion Conference, George Hathaway (see for example: http://bit.ly/2dlXkJ3 ) who had a great presentation on possible experimental artifacts in experiments such as EM Drive and electromagnetic propulsion experiments (see SeeShells post below) made a skeptical remark about this video of Shawyer's rotating rig....While at the workshop one presentation hit home by a exceptional engineer who has been working in the fields of unusual phenomena, debunking extraordinary claims for 30 years. He made me proud to be called an engineer. He presented (I would guess) over a hundred processes who's actions could produce not only false positives, but also increase the error windows in the testing phase. Try as I may I could only add a couple odd ball actions to the list. The real gold in his presentation relates to the fact, that if you take into account and quantify or negate these list of actions you will be left with solid data and have your test data be taken much more seriously. We all deserve that, not only believers but skeptics.
I'll try to relist these in the days to come.
Shell
George Hathaway has tested the piezoelectric/electrostictive unequal mass stack of Prof. Woodward, as well as numerous other forms of proposed electromagnetic levitation.
It would be very interesting if George Hathaway would test this rotary EM Drive rig, as it remains one of the most perplexing experimental evidence to date. -
#999 by WarpTech on 26 Sep, 2016 13:50
-
In a recent meeting.
Right in the middle of a heated debate.
(paraphrasing)
I heard a voice from behind me say: "They're 1000's of problems with physics........ Go to wikipedia and you'll see page after page of unsolved problems..........You physicists should be ashamed!"
No one said a thing, for they knew he was right, so much we don't know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics
These anomalous thrust effects fit right in.
Shell
Did you notice that most of the questions start with the word "Why"? When I first started doing physics, I asked "Why is the speed of light constant?". I was told "Physics doesn't answer "Why" questions, it only makes measurements and describes what is measured. If the theory fits the observations, that is all that is required. Why it's that way is metaphysics."
Luckily, I found it is isn't constant, and it depends on how you define your reference frame, local or distant. So the answer was, if you're ruler and clock are immersed in the same vacuum where you are making the measurement, it will appear constant because your ruler and clock have been "normalized" to that environment. But when you take the distant perspective and keep your ruler and clock constant, we see that in gravitational fields, light speed slows down and creates a variable refractive index. This explains what we really observe more accurately, but it still doesn't answer "Why?".
Many of these questions can and have been answered. They are just not known, or not accepted by the general population, and the methodology of physics is just unacceptable to some people. So they keep asking the same question; "Why?".
Right in the middle of a heated debate.