-
#1100 by spupeng7 on 30 Aug, 2017 09:29
-
OK Bob012345,I have to add that I have no problem with discussions about scientifically controversial topics, like the respect of COE/COM or lack thereof of any new physics applied to the subject of space propulsion.
I'm not sure I understood this correctly, but how is the respect of COE/COM considered controversial? Isn't this one of the least controversial topics in the scientific community?
The emdrive has asymmetric Lorentzian forces within its asymmetric frustum due to the resonance of electron motion on its inside surface. We are then at an impasse when we try to use this to explain its acceleration because the frustum is also a Faraday cage. We must take care not to grasp at wild ideas in attempting a resolution but we can consider alternatives which fit the rest of the evidence we have.
I mentioned a few days ago that net Lorentzian forces could be generated and showed support from the literature. No wild physics necessary. I suspect that is inadvertently the cause of the small thrust reported in classic EMDrive cavities. If devices were designed with Lorentz forces in mind, much greater forces may be achievable. Consider the forces involved in an electric motor. They are huge. Think of the thrust if these forces added instead of canceling. I hope more people look in that direction. Also, a Faraday cage doesn't block magnetic fields. Mu metal will block magnetic fields.
must confess I was just assuming that a Faraday cage blocked em radiation by containing both electric and magnetic fields. Can someone confirm this? -
#1101 by vladimirph on 30 Aug, 2017 12:57
-
I saw turn of installation on a corner, smaller 180 degrees of https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=OmY9JnXtnw0, but I didn't see turn of installation on a corner, bigger 360 degrees. Somebody can tell whether such results are received?
-
#1102 by SeeShells on 30 Aug, 2017 13:06
-
A strong magnetostatic field is different, and will barely be affected by the Faraday cage. (The cage may have some magnetic properties, but that's not what makes it a Faraday cage, and it's unlikely to have a significant impact.) If you want to block a magnetic field, a faraday cage made of mesh is a bad choice.Sep 30, 2012
OK Bob012345,I have to add that I have no problem with discussions about scientifically controversial topics, like the respect of COE/COM or lack thereof of any new physics applied to the subject of space propulsion.
I'm not sure I understood this correctly, but how is the respect of COE/COM considered controversial? Isn't this one of the least controversial topics in the scientific community?
The emdrive has asymmetric Lorentzian forces within its asymmetric frustum due to the resonance of electron motion on its inside surface. We are then at an impasse when we try to use this to explain its acceleration because the frustum is also a Faraday cage. We must take care not to grasp at wild ideas in attempting a resolution but we can consider alternatives which fit the rest of the evidence we have.
I mentioned a few days ago that net Lorentzian forces could be generated and showed support from the literature. No wild physics necessary. I suspect that is inadvertently the cause of the small thrust reported in classic EMDrive cavities. If devices were designed with Lorentz forces in mind, much greater forces may be achievable. Consider the forces involved in an electric motor. They are huge. Think of the thrust if these forces added instead of canceling. I hope more people look in that direction. Also, a Faraday cage doesn't block magnetic fields. Mu metal will block magnetic fields.
must confess I was just assuming that a Faraday cage blocked em radiation by containing both electric and magnetic fields. Can someone confirm this?
electromagnetism - Does Faraday cage block magnetic field ...
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/.../does-faraday-cage-block-magnetic-field -
#1103 by dustinthewind on 30 Aug, 2017 13:43
-
A strong magnetostatic field is different, and will barely be affected by the Faraday cage. (The cage may have some magnetic properties, but that's not what makes it a Faraday cage, and it's unlikely to have a significant impact.) If you want to block a magnetic field, a faraday cage made of mesh is a bad choice.Sep 30, 2012
OK Bob012345,I have to add that I have no problem with discussions about scientifically controversial topics, like the respect of COE/COM or lack thereof of any new physics applied to the subject of space propulsion.
I'm not sure I understood this correctly, but how is the respect of COE/COM considered controversial? Isn't this one of the least controversial topics in the scientific community?
The emdrive has asymmetric Lorentzian forces within its asymmetric frustum due to the resonance of electron motion on its inside surface. We are then at an impasse when we try to use this to explain its acceleration because the frustum is also a Faraday cage. We must take care not to grasp at wild ideas in attempting a resolution but we can consider alternatives which fit the rest of the evidence we have.
I mentioned a few days ago that net Lorentzian forces could be generated and showed support from the literature. No wild physics necessary. I suspect that is inadvertently the cause of the small thrust reported in classic EMDrive cavities. If devices were designed with Lorentz forces in mind, much greater forces may be achievable. Consider the forces involved in an electric motor. They are huge. Think of the thrust if these forces added instead of canceling. I hope more people look in that direction. Also, a Faraday cage doesn't block magnetic fields. Mu metal will block magnetic fields.
must confess I was just assuming that a Faraday cage blocked em radiation by containing both electric and magnetic fields. Can someone confirm this?
electromagnetism - Does Faraday cage block magnetic field ...
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/.../does-faraday-cage-block-magnetic-field
Sorry just noticed this question. The rapid change in a magnetic field, "light" can induce counter currents but there is resistance to current so there is a depth in how far light penetrates before it is fully reflected. Poorly constructed metalic surfaces may improperly or not completely reflect light via resistance to current induced.
The lower the frequency the more important the resistance is. A static magnetic field should completely penetrate copper or aluminum because the current can not exist indefinitely. A super conductor on the other hand can block a (static) permanent change in a magnetic field.
Mu metal can also be used to shield a static magnetic field. (not changing in time).
If light was escaping the cavity you should be able to detect it with the proper instruments. Maybe one side of the cavity being bombarded by light that keeps going out of phase with its currents till complete penetration? Not sure why that would happen. -
#1104 by Flyby on 30 Aug, 2017 15:46
-
I saw turn of installation on a corner, smaller 180 degrees of https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=OmY9JnXtnw0, but I didn't see turn of installation on a corner, bigger 360 degrees. Somebody can tell whether such results are received?
That is the test run done by ir R.Shawyer. On his website there is a larger version, with voice comments on frequency ranges.
http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.html
The problem with that demonstration is that it can have many reasons to why it turns : fans blowing, gyroscopic effect of the water circulation pump, vibrations in the air-bearing causing motion, Lorentz forces, thermal forces and ofc the elusive EMdrive force... Impossible to really identify the cause of the rotation and sadly, all those remarks ere never publicly addressed, so the doubt remains...
A second rotating rig originates from the NASA Eagleworks laboratory, which shows a rig that supposedly turned at a speed of 8.3 turns/hr. Although great care has been taken to eliminate some forms of possible causes (fe Lorentz forces), it still had several possible explanations beyond the EMdrive hypothesis.
Then there is TT, who claims "fantastic results", but doesn't show anything. In essence , impossible to tell if he's just a fantasist or if he really has something going. Without visual proof/confirmation his words/claims carry little meaning at this moment...
further down the list, there are at least 3-4 other DIY builders (with good engineering credentials) preparing for further testing. -
#1105 by Bob012345 on 30 Aug, 2017 16:59
-
I have to add that I have no problem with discussions about scientifically controversial topics, like the respect of COE/COM or lack thereof of any new physics applied to the subject of space propulsion.
I'm not sure I understood this correctly, but how is the respect of COE/COM considered controversial? Isn't this one of the least controversial topics in the scientific community?
The emdrive has asymmetric Lorentzian forces within its asymmetric frustum due to the resonance of electron motion on its inside surface. We are then at an impasse when we try to use this to explain its acceleration because the frustum is also a Faraday cage. We must take care not to grasp at wild ideas in attempting a resolution but we can consider alternatives which fit the rest of the evidence we have.
I mentioned a few days ago that net Lorentzian forces could be generated and showed support from the literature. No wild physics necessary. I suspect that is inadvertently the cause of the small thrust reported in classic EMDrive cavities. If devices were designed with Lorentz forces in mind, much greater forces may be achievable. Consider the forces involved in an electric motor. They are huge. Think of the thrust if these forces added instead of canceling. I hope more people look in that direction. Also, a Faraday cage doesn't block magnetic fields. Mu metal will block magnetic fields.
What you're asking about will simply result in EM waves moving off in one direction, and the 1/4-wave broadcasting antenna being pushed in the opposite direction. Theoretically, this should not have any more thrust in vacuum than a photon rocket.
If you read the paper I referenced, you will see it's not as simple as assuming the usual assumptions. -
#1106 by Bob012345 on 30 Aug, 2017 17:13
-
I mentioned a few days ago that net Lorentzian forces could be generated and showed support from the literature. No wild physics necessary. I suspect that is inadvertently the cause of the small thrust reported in classic EMDrive cavities. If devices were designed with Lorentz forces in mind, much greater forces may be achievable. Consider the forces involved in an electric motor. They are huge. Think of the thrust if these forces added instead of canceling. I hope more people look in that direction. Also, a Faraday cage doesn't block magnetic fields. Mu metal will block magnetic fields.
Any force (including Lorentz forces) acts in two opposing directions between the source(s) of the field(s) and the object (action and reaction), so the resulting momentum will be equally distributed between the source and the target and will cancel out due to opposing directions. If the source of the field and the object you're looking at are co-moving, the center of mass will get zero momentum change.
Under the usual assumptions, yes, but the Third Law can break down in specific circumstances precisely because the speed of light is finite as the paper I referenced showed. Then you can have a net force on the system. -
#1107 by meberbs on 30 Aug, 2017 17:27
-
If you read conclusions of the paper you referenced:What you're asking about will simply result in EM waves moving off in one direction, and the 1/4-wave broadcasting antenna being pushed in the opposite direction. Theoretically, this should not have any more thrust in vacuum than a photon rocket.
If you read the paper I referenced, you will see it's not as simple as assuming the usual assumptions.QuoteStill momentum is conserved if one takes the field momentum into account.
The field momentum is the EM waves. This can result in nothing better than a photon rocket.
There is no violation of momentum conservation in special relativity. -
#1108 by Bob012345 on 30 Aug, 2017 17:40
-
If you read conclusions of the paper you referenced:What you're asking about will simply result in EM waves moving off in one direction, and the 1/4-wave broadcasting antenna being pushed in the opposite direction. Theoretically, this should not have any more thrust in vacuum than a photon rocket.
If you read the paper I referenced, you will see it's not as simple as assuming the usual assumptions.QuoteStill momentum is conserved if one takes the field momentum into account.
The field momentum is the EM waves. This can result in nothing better than a photon rocket.
There is no violation of momentum conservation in special relativity.
I never stated it was a violation. But if you read all their works you will see that the momentum of the field matches the momentum gained by the object under the Lorentz force, I.e. the forces are large and there is no mechanism which necessarily reduces the action of the force to the low level of the photon rocket. So, the assumption it can be no better than a photon rocket may be challenged as the fields are not simple plane waves. But the issue really isn't their model of momentum conservation but their model of Lorentz force generation. They might be right about that and wrong about how the momentum is conserved. I believe they indirectly argue the field momentum is much larger than a photon rocket equivalent but all I really care about is if a net Lorentz force can be generated and thus accelerate the system and if that effect has any bearing on the EMdrive because it seems to me that generating such forces directly may be more practical than indirectly using microwave cavities.
p.s. One of the authors, Yahalom, is affiliated with the Isaac Newton Institute at Cambridge so he might be considered somewhat of an expert on the Third Law and momentum conservation. -
#1109 by vladimirph on 30 Aug, 2017 17:50
-
The problem with that demonstration is that it can have many reasons to why it turns : ...
Thank you very much. -
#1110 by meberbs on 30 Aug, 2017 18:09
-
I never stated it was a violation. But if you read all their works you will see that the momentum of the field matches the momentum gained by the object under the Lorentz force, I.e. the forces are large and there is no mechanism which necessarily reduces the action of the force to the low level of the photon rocket.
Actually, I saw no calculation of the energy required, so this statement is baseless.So, the assumption it can be no better than a photon rocket may be challenged as the fields are not simple plane waves.
No, the energy/momentum relation is general, not strictly for plain waves. In addition to being something directly in electrodynamics, energy/momentum relations for massless particles are enforced by special relativity as well.But the issue really isn't their model of momentum conservation but their model of Lorentz force generation. They might be right about that and wrong about how the momentum is conserved.
Do you like countering your own points?
...
p.s. One of the authors, Yahalom, is affiliated with the Isaac Newton Institute at Cambridge so he might be considered somewhat of an expert on the Third Law and momentum conservationI believe they indirectly argue the field momentum is much larger than a photon rocket equivalent
I do not see them claiming this. -
#1111 by Bob012345 on 30 Aug, 2017 18:20
-
I never stated it was a violation. But if you read all their works you will see that the momentum of the field matches the momentum gained by the object under the Lorentz force, I.e. the forces are large and there is no mechanism which necessarily reduces the action of the force to the low level of the photon rocket.
Actually, I saw no calculation of the energy required, so this statement is baseless.So, the assumption it can be no better than a photon rocket may be challenged as the fields are not simple plane waves.
No, the energy/momentum relation is general, not strictly for plain waves. In addition to being something directly in electrodynamics, energy/momentum relations for massless particles are enforced by special relativity as well.But the issue really isn't their model of momentum conservation but their model of Lorentz force generation. They might be right about that and wrong about how the momentum is conserved.
Do you like countering your own points?
...
p.s. One of the authors, Yahalom, is affiliated with the Isaac Newton Institute at Cambridge so he might be considered somewhat of an expert on the Third Law and momentum conservationI believe they indirectly argue the field momentum is much larger than a photon rocket equivalent
I do not see them claiming this.
In the paper they calculate the force as around 2 Newtons, not 2 micro Newtons which isn't consistent with being supported by the field momentum at the energy levels they give which are implied by the currents they use. That implies they believe the fields can carry that large amount of momentum away. Perhaps a better argument would be to just claim that if Newton's Third Law is violated, the net force by definition is an external force and thus they don't need to discuss momentum conservation at all.
Yes, I did seem to counter my own point but I'm not trying to win an argument or debate but just to discuss this interesting topic.
-
#1112 by PotomacNeuron on 30 Aug, 2017 18:36
-
Any force (including Lorentz forces) acts in two opposing directions between the source(s) of the field(s) and the object (action and reaction), so the resulting momentum will be equally distributed between the source and the target and will cancel out due to opposing directions. If the source of the field and the object you're looking at are co-moving, the center of mass will get zero momentum change.
Under the usual assumptions, yes, but the Third Law can break down in specific circumstances precisely because the speed of light is finite as the paper I referenced showed. Then you can have a net force on the system.
No you don't have a net force on the (closed) system. Even though force can not propagate faster than light, people are smart enough to figure out that the force carrying messenger (light in the case of electric or magnetic forces) itself carries momentum. So momentum is still conserved. If your system is closed, that light later on is interacted with other parts of your system to create the counter force. So you merely moved the mass center of your system. If your system is open, you have a light rocket. -
#1113 by Bob012345 on 30 Aug, 2017 18:47
-
Any force (including Lorentz forces) acts in two opposing directions between the source(s) of the field(s) and the object (action and reaction), so the resulting momentum will be equally distributed between the source and the target and will cancel out due to opposing directions. If the source of the field and the object you're looking at are co-moving, the center of mass will get zero momentum change.
Under the usual assumptions, yes, but the Third Law can break down in specific circumstances precisely because the speed of light is finite as the paper I referenced showed. Then you can have a net force on the system.
No you don't have a net force on the (closed) system. Even though force can not propagate faster than light, people are smart enough to figure out that the force carrying messenger (light in the case of electric or magnetic forces) itself carries momentum. So momentum is still conserved. If your system is closed, that light later on is interacted with other parts of your system to create the counter force. So you merely moved the mass center of your system. If your system is open, you have a light rocket.
It is not usually thought that the Third Law applies instantaneously at the point of interaction between field and object rather than at the two parts of the system interacting. But if you do, you have to admit that the photon momentum change must be capable of providing the large internal forces since you are saying its conserved instantaneously. That makes the authors point that large forces are possible and it's not limited to a photon rocket.
In the case of two current carrying wires interacting in space, you are conserving momentum both at each wire immediately and at the delayed response with the other wire. Both sets cancel. But both are equal so that would show the field carries much more momentum that E/c if it's true. So if two wires are spacelike events, and if momentum is conserved immediately while the forces are significant, the field must be carrying more momentum than we think, of the forces must be smaller than the texts say. -
#1114 by meberbs on 30 Aug, 2017 19:10
-
In the paper they calculate the force as around 2 Newtons, not 2 micro Newtons which isn't consistent with being supported by the field momentum at the energy levels they give which are implied by the currents they use.
Power depends on voltage, not just current, so your claim still has no basis. They do not give energy levels.That implies they believe the fields can carry that large amount of momentum away. Perhaps a better argument would be to just claim that if Newton's Third Law is violated, the net force by definition is an external force and thus they don't need to discuss momentum conservation at all.
Newton's third law is not being violated. The balancing part of the force is felt by the fields (photons)QuoteIn this paper we make a detailed calculation and show that any momentum gained by the material part of the system is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the momentum gained by the electromagnetic field. Hence the total momentum of the system is conserved.
Will you please stop trying to twist these scientists' work to say the exact opposite of what they say? -
#1115 by PotomacNeuron on 30 Aug, 2017 19:26
-
No you don't have a net force on the (closed) system. Even though force can not propagate faster than light, people are smart enough to figure out that the force carrying messenger (light in the case of electric or magnetic forces) itself carries momentum. So momentum is still conserved. If your system is closed, that light later on is interacted with other parts of your system to create the counter force. So you merely moved the mass center of your system. If your system is open, you have a light rocket.
It is not usually thought that the Third Law applies instantaneously at the point of interaction between field and object rather than at the two parts of the system interacting. But if you do, you have to admit that the photon momentum change must be capable of providing the large internal forces since you are saying its conserved instantaneously. That makes the authors point that large forces are possible and it's not limited to a photon rocket.
In the case of two current carrying wires interacting in space, you are conserving momentum both at each wire immediately and at the delayed response with the other wire. Both sets cancel. But both are equal so that would show the field carries much more momentum that E/c if it's true. So if two wires are spacelike events, and if momentum is conserved immediately while the forces are significant, the field must be carrying more momentum than we think, of the forces must be smaller than the texts say.
My QED knowledge is not enough to comment on your thoughts. It is interesting. I am generally interested in how an electrons know how much photons it needs to "transmit" to generate the correct amount of force, but I decide not to dig deeper (meaning: to read more) with my limited time. -
#1116 by WarpTech on 30 Aug, 2017 19:54
-
I never stated it was a violation. But if you read all their works you will see that the momentum of the field matches the momentum gained by the object under the Lorentz force, I.e. the forces are large and there is no mechanism which necessarily reduces the action of the force to the low level of the photon rocket.
Actually, I saw no calculation of the energy required, so this statement is baseless.So, the assumption it can be no better than a photon rocket may be challenged as the fields are not simple plane waves.
No, the energy/momentum relation is general, not strictly for plain waves. In addition to being something directly in electrodynamics, energy/momentum relations for massless particles are enforced by special relativity as well.But the issue really isn't their model of momentum conservation but their model of Lorentz force generation. They might be right about that and wrong about how the momentum is conserved.
Do you like countering your own points?
...
p.s. One of the authors, Yahalom, is affiliated with the Isaac Newton Institute at Cambridge so he might be considered somewhat of an expert on the Third Law and momentum conservationI believe they indirectly argue the field momentum is much larger than a photon rocket equivalent
I do not see them claiming this.
In the paper they calculate the force as around 2 Newtons, not 2 micro Newtons which isn't consistent with being supported by the field momentum at the energy levels they give which are implied by the currents they use. That implies they believe the fields can carry that large amount of momentum away. Perhaps a better argument would be to just claim that if Newton's Third Law is violated, the net force by definition is an external force and thus they don't need to discuss momentum conservation at all.
Yes, I did seem to counter my own point but I'm not trying to win an argument or debate but just to discuss this interesting topic.
I worked all this out for myself using MathCAD about 20 years ago. Based on this sheet, they are only considering the current in the pair of wires "I1I2". What is not shown is the voltage, capacitance, charge and electric field at the ends of those wires when the current goes to zero. The force due to charges and electric fields will oppose the force due to currents and magnetic fields. When both are included, the 2N of force is suddenly < 2uN and we are back to the thrust of a photon rocket. If the system is large, it could oscillate back and force at a relatively low frequency with much greater force, but the CM will not move except for the asymmetry in the EM radiation, (aka photon rocket).
-
#1117 by dustinthewind on 31 Aug, 2017 02:07
-
I never stated it was a violation. But if you read all their works you will see that the momentum of the field matches the momentum gained by the object under the Lorentz force, I.e. the forces are large and there is no mechanism which necessarily reduces the action of the force to the low level of the photon rocket.
Actually, I saw no calculation of the energy required, so this statement is baseless.So, the assumption it can be no better than a photon rocket may be challenged as the fields are not simple plane waves.
No, the energy/momentum relation is general, not strictly for plain waves. In addition to being something directly in electrodynamics, energy/momentum relations for massless particles are enforced by special relativity as well.But the issue really isn't their model of momentum conservation but their model of Lorentz force generation. They might be right about that and wrong about how the momentum is conserved.
Do you like countering your own points?
...
p.s. One of the authors, Yahalom, is affiliated with the Isaac Newton Institute at Cambridge so he might be considered somewhat of an expert on the Third Law and momentum conservationI believe they indirectly argue the field momentum is much larger than a photon rocket equivalent
I do not see them claiming this.
In the paper they calculate the force as around 2 Newtons, not 2 micro Newtons which isn't consistent with being supported by the field momentum at the energy levels they give which are implied by the currents they use. That implies they believe the fields can carry that large amount of momentum away. Perhaps a better argument would be to just claim that if Newton's Third Law is violated, the net force by definition is an external force and thus they don't need to discuss momentum conservation at all.
Yes, I did seem to counter my own point but I'm not trying to win an argument or debate but just to discuss this interesting topic.
I worked all this out for myself using MathCAD about 20 years ago. Based on this sheet, they are only considering the current in the pair of wires "I1I2". What is not shown is the voltage, capacitance, charge and electric field at the ends of those wires when the current goes to zero. The force due to charges and electric fields will oppose the force due to currents and magnetic fields. When both are included, the 2N of force is suddenly < 2uN and we are back to the thrust of a photon rocket. If the system is large, it could oscillate back and force at a relatively low frequency with much greater force, but the CM will not move except for the asymmetry in the EM radiation, (aka photon rocket).
Yes, this is the reason for my suggesting this post here https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1717650#msg1717650 which isn't necessarily a unique concept on my part. If you follow to the tread I started on this link i cite a patent that even seems to possibly suggest a reverse magnetic phased array of sorts and WarpTech shared with me he had a friend who's drawings in a youtube video, I realized later indirectly suggested a similar arrangement (magnetic works with the electric) WaiteDavidMSPhysics. I just want to see what happens when one of those forces that oppose the other is eliminated or they both work together. Would we see forces greater than photon propulsion?
I actually prefer something more along this nature here that totally avoids charge separation and part of my interest in the transverse electroc modes in the EM drive. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1460370#msg1460370 -
#1118 by ThinkerX on 31 Aug, 2017 02:54
-
I saw turn of installation on a corner, smaller 180 degrees of https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=OmY9JnXtnw0, but I didn't see turn of installation on a corner, bigger 360 degrees. Somebody can tell whether such results are received?
That is the test run done by ir R.Shawyer. On his website there is a larger version, with voice comments on frequency ranges.
http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.html
The problem with that demonstration is that it can have many reasons to why it turns : fans blowing, gyroscopic effect of the water circulation pump, vibrations in the air-bearing causing motion, Lorentz forces, thermal forces and ofc the elusive EMdrive force... Impossible to really identify the cause of the rotation and sadly, all those remarks ere never publicly addressed, so the doubt remains...
A second rotating rig originates from the NASA Eagleworks laboratory, which shows a rig that supposedly turned at a speed of 8.3 turns/hr. Although great care has been taken to eliminate some forms of possible causes (fe Lorentz forces), it still had several possible explanations beyond the EMdrive hypothesis.
Then there is TT, who claims "fantastic results", but doesn't show anything. In essence , impossible to tell if he's just a fantasist or if he really has something going. Without visual proof/confirmation his words/claims carry little meaning at this moment...
further down the list, there are at least 3-4 other DIY builders (with good engineering credentials) preparing for further testing.
With respect, and no small amount of reluctance:
At least two members here (whose ID's escape me at the moment) did analysis of the full Shawyer rotary test video. The first few minutes of the video showed no movement until after 'magnetron on,' then ever so slowly the device began to rotate. However, the speed of rotation increased after 'magnetron off.'
Their conclusion was that the various pumps, fans, and whatnot were not responsible for the devices movement - all that was active before 'magnetron on.' They also conclude the air bearing was...not in good shape, which accounted for the increase in speed after 'magnetron off.' They were reluctant to specify, what, exactly, caused the movement after 'magnetron on.'
A flawed but interesting experiment.
I also understand there were severe issues with the Eagleworks rotary test. -
#1119 by vladimirph on 31 Aug, 2017 04:22
-
Thanks.
With respect, and no small amount of reluctance:
At least two members here (whose ID's escape me at the moment) did analysis of the full Shawyer rotary test video. The first few minutes of the video showed no movement until after 'magnetron on,' then ever so slowly the device began to rotate. However, the speed of rotation increased after 'magnetron off.'
Their conclusion was that the various pumps, fans, and whatnot were not responsible for the devices movement - all that was active before 'magnetron on.' They also conclude the air bearing was...not in good shape, which accounted for the increase in speed after 'magnetron off.' They were reluctant to specify, what, exactly, caused the movement after 'magnetron on.'
A flawed but interesting experiment.
I also understand there were severe issues with the Eagleworks rotary test.
Only the fact of the strict proof of isotropy of effect will allow to speak about jet draft. It turns out, there is no such proof yet?
