-
#1460 by WarpTech on 11 Sep, 2017 22:24
-
Sorry, I guess I started the bashing, but I "do" have an alternate model of QG published that is consistent with the Standard Model. I have no need for strings, except on my guitar.....
It is very fashionable nowadays for people to attack string theory in blogs. None of the people posting here are breaking new ground with such criticisms: you have the book and blog of Peter Woit http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/ and several others. What I notice of course if that all of this criticism falls into an even greater hole than what is being criticized. No viable superior alternative for quantum gravity is mentioned, and nobody here is arguing anything specific against the definite statements of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence.
I agree this seems like an argument from authority. Especially where the list of names you invoke all seem to be either involved with the origins or developement of string theory to varying extents. I haven't followed Hawlkings as it relates to this issue, but tagging his name on the end, is in many respects akin to invoking Einstein's name in other discussions.
As I believe someone else attempted to mention, in different words.., there are almost certainly many authorities working on gravitation both from the context of general relativity and quantum gravity (not associated with string theory) that are less enthusiastic with the viability of string theory, as representing the future, of any real understanding, of real world observations.
Just vague statements as "many working, many authorities, no authority, no Popes, no Cardinals, etc."
If you follow the "string" you will see that this whole thing started by me answering someone's honest question about the issue that gravitation travels at the speed of light. Somehow this devolved into a free-for-all about the fashionable bashing of M-theory and string theory. How does any of this bashing against M-theory, Witten, Susskind, Maldacena, etc. relate to the EM Drive, I have no idea.
I suppose that when Democritus proposed the atom there might as well be similar bashing against the atomists, since there was no experimental proof to come for the atom for several centuries nor any practical application.
Keep on bashing M-theory it it makes you feel good
Perhaps this should be done in a new thread to be titled "Let's bash string theory because I'm mad as hell against strings and branes and multiverses and I'm not going to take it anymore" 
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
#1461 by Mulletron on 11 Sep, 2017 22:31
-
Yeah String Theories are one of those instances where the mathematical crank got turned with no underlying understanding of the reality of what's really going on. It's mathematically beautiful and doesn't make useful predictions. It's not even wrong. Basically, it's mathematical psychosis.
I do believe that a naked electron is a closed loop standing wave though which iirc isn't what String Theory says. I think it's the graviton that's the closed string.
It's interesting to me that you can take a closed string and rotate it edge on and you'll see an open string. It's all about perspective I suppose. Which is the preferred perspective I wonder? There isn't one.
That reminds me of a separate thing that I've been thinking about. So a photon (just one this time) has a spin that is parallel or antiparallel to the direction of propagation, and you can't catch up with a photon in order to see the spin go another direction relative to what you're seeing. That's a given. But if I have two (two now) counterpropagating photons, and this is really bugging me and I don't understand it yet, what is the helicity in the COM frame? I can outrun that. If I'm boosting relative to that, and I take what I see in a mirror, does it superimpose or is it different? None of this makes sense to me and I don't understand if I'm even asking myself a valid question. What I'm trying to do is make sense of what I was thinking about two years ago when I was crazy about chirality and thinking quantum mechanically and what I'm thinking now classically. -
#1462 by TheTraveller on 12 Sep, 2017 01:24
-
Guys,
To keep busy and start doing stuff I can share, have started a project to look in detail at the Interstellar Probe as per Roger's 2014/2015 peer reviewed paper.
1st goal is to reverse engineer the EmDrive, which should be doable as he stated freq, Df, YBCO cavity lining and Qu. Then assuming modes of TE011, TE012 and TE013 should be able to determine the cavity dimensions.
Will also work on his fairly detailed probe mass budget and 1.2MWt to 200kWe conversion efficiency, which seems very conservative. Plus will look at if the probe needs the closed loop cryo cooler vs using radiant cooling. From what I can see the cryo cooler consumes 150kWe, with 50kWe being converted into 29.6kWrf.
Should be able to improve on 1.2MWt resulting in 29.6kWrf.
As the probe's EmDrives drives run at 500MHz, the cavities will be much larger than the S band cavities I'm working with at present.
As this work is outside my NDA restrictions, I plan to build a 500MHz thruster with Rf system and do rotary test rig testing, the results of which will be shared on NSF and a web site I'll create which will be dedicated to this probe.
Just maybe I may be able to gain some funding to enable others to take the work forward and get the probe built.
BTW, the probe will be designed to carry at least 2t of science experiments and arrive at the target star system at local velocity, such that orbits around local system planets can be done. Goona need a really good AI to make that happen. Well beyond my capacity to design or build.
Target transit time is 10 years from launch until entering the target star system as defined by it's outer most planet.
Roger's paper with his probe details attached.
Should add we can disagree on theory forever. Matters not for building EmDrives and generating thrust. How to do that is fairly well understood and seems to follow SPR theory, which at the end of the day may or may not be correct.
Should be fun,
Phil
-
#1463 by tchernik on 12 Sep, 2017 03:31
-
To keep busy and start doing stuff I can share, have started a project to look in detail at the Interstellar Probe as per Roger's 2014/2015 peer reviewed paper.
I'd be happy to see any evidence coming from you. So far we have been told wonders are happening somewhere, but none has resulted in documents we can consider as potential evidence.
Good luck, regardless. -
#1464 by Chrochne on 12 Sep, 2017 04:16
-
I am starting to see more articles on the recent news from China CAST.
https://goo.gl/3jTJ6k
There will very likely be more coming our way. I also see that especially russian webs went quite crazy for the news from China.
-
#1465 by TheTraveller on 12 Sep, 2017 04:22
-
Roger is a clever engineer, damn me for not doing a reverse engineering on the Interstellar Probe's EmDrives as he gave all the needed bread crumbs.
Bd: 2.193m
Sd: 0.938m
Len: 1.060m
Df: 0.7725
Mode: TE013
Freq: 500MHz
Cu room temp Qu: 560k <<<< amazing Qu!!!!!
YBCO 77K Qu: 1.25x10^8 (125,000,000)
Specific Force: 645N/kW
Note Roger used 304N/kW as an average force to be conservative and to compensate for lost N as KE and velocity increases.
But those are BIG drives, well big compared to 2.45GHz S band drives.
This is going to be very interesting.
Phil -
#1466 by TheTraveller on 12 Sep, 2017 04:26
-
I am starting to see more articles on the recent news from China CAST.
https://goo.gl/3jTJ6k
There will very likely be more coming our way. I also see that especially russian webs went quite crazy for the news from China.
Hi Chrochne,
Someone needs to tell them that NASA does have a working EmDrive or maybe a working White QV Thruster. -
#1467 by TheTraveller on 12 Sep, 2017 04:30
-
To keep busy and start doing stuff I can share, have started a project to look in detail at the Interstellar Probe as per Roger's 2014/2015 peer reviewed paper.
I'd be happy to see any evidence coming from you. So far we have been told wonders are happening somewhere, but none has resulted in documents we can consider as potential evidence.
Good luck, regardless.
Hi Tchernik,
This work is outside my NDAs and not something my client is interested in as per our contract.
So the 500MHz Interstallar Probe drive details will be publically released.
Initial cavity will be Cu at room temp, then cooled to 77K and finally 4K before moving on to a superconductor build.
Predicted Qu and specific force:
Cu @ room temp: Qu 5.56x10^5, SF 2.87N/kW
Cu @ 77K: Qu 1.57x10^6, SF 8.12N/kW
Cu @4K: Qu 2.80x10^6, SF 14.42N/kW -
#1468 by vladimirph on 12 Sep, 2017 05:15
-
#1469 by TheTraveller on 12 Sep, 2017 06:31
-
Patent GB 2493361 entitled High Q Microwave Radiation Thruster has now been granted to SPR by the UK Intellectual Property Office.
https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/GB2493361
The EmDrive design guidelines are also now online:
http://www.emdrive.com/GeneralPrinciples.pdf
Enjoy.
Lest we forget Roger Shawyer's next EmDrive patent application in the queue:
https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-find-publication-getPDF.pdf?PatentNo=GB2537119&DocType=A&JournalNumber=6647 -
#1470 by ThinkerX on 12 Sep, 2017 06:36
-
Quote
As this work is outside my NDA restrictions, I plan to build a 500MHz thruster with Rf system and do rotary test rig testing, the results of which will be shared on NSF and a web site I'll create which will be dedicated to this probe.
Do your NDA restrictions permit you to divulge the name of the company you are working for?
Also, if permissible, do the company math/engineer types agree with you and Roger as to how this device functions?
-
#1471 by spupeng7 on 12 Sep, 2017 06:46
-
Here is a rerun of the cylindrical cavity model with metal ring structure in higher quality. I think it's a TE022 where the lower lobes are deformed what leads to asymmetric conditions..
It is reminiscent of un-developed design ideas I sent to SPR Ltd. in 2014. The idea being that the path length of the absorbed RF energy is extended at the convoluted end, exaggerating the asymmetry and sustaining the inertia generated by the radiation pressure there.Quote from: Chen Yue[0016] The resonant cavity is rectangular, plate-shaped structural unit structure having a rectangular notch; interval each structural unit is less than the width of the structural units; bilaterally symmetrical structural unit and side walls of the contact cavity opened a gap.
[0017] The cylindrical cavity, a cyclic structure as a structural unit, each interval is less than the height of the ring structure of the cyclic structure.
[0018] The advantages of the present invention over the prior art in that:
[0019] I) of the present patent by introducing a periodic structure design, can effectively localized electromagnetic field in the vicinity of the periodic structure, in theory, can improve the degree greater degree of uneven distribution of the electromagnetic field, so the thrust generated by the power unit higher than the existing cavities the design of;
[0020] 2) the shape of the cavity is more flexible, the cavity may be rectangular or circular, ease of use and installation works, but only for the existing design or pyramidal frustum;
BRIEF DESCRIPTION
[0021] FIG. 1 is based on a rectangular plate-like cavity notched front view of the periodic structure;
[0022] FIG. 2 is based on a rectangular plate-like cavity notched periodic structure side view;
[0023] FIG. 3 is based on a rectangular cavity notched plate-like electric field distribution diagram of the periodic structure;
[0024] FIG. 4 is based on a cylindrical cavity ring periodic structures elevational view;
[0025] FIG. 5 is a cylindrical cavity based on cyclic periodic structures a top view;
[0026] FIG. 6 is a cylindrical cavity based on the electric field distribution diagram cyclic periodic structures.
[0028] I) the particular design of the periodic structure of the sheet-like (plate-like structure comprises a notch), a cyclic structure, each of the structural elements are arranged periodically in the local space of the cavity;
[0036] cyclic structure design cycle, a total of three rings, respectively an inner diameter of 69mm, 129mm, 189mm, ring thickness of 1mm, the height of the ring is 70mm, three-ring structure normal to Z, according to the theory of electromagnetic design, ring structure spacing is less than the height of the ring, take the 60_ in this case. The electric field distribution in Figure 6; ^
[0037] The present invention is not described in details known to those skilled in the art.
The Chinese design is well conceived in my opinion, the extended delay before emission from the convoluted end being compensated for by a reduction in the overall length. A very neat solution.
-
#1472 by TheTraveller on 12 Sep, 2017 06:56
-
Quote
As this work is outside my NDA restrictions, I plan to build a 500MHz thruster with Rf system and do rotary test rig testing, the results of which will be shared on NSF and a web site I'll create which will be dedicated to this probe.
Do your NDA restrictions permit you to divulge the name of the company you are working for?
Also, if permissible, do the company math/engineer types agree with you and Roger as to how this device functions?
It is my client's right to decide the time to commercially offer their Ion Drive replacement thruster. Would you really expect a commercial company to act any other way?
My spherical S band thruster, which I did reveal a early design, easily achieved their goal of 200mN at less than 4.2kWdc. That thruster is undergoing the process to achieve TRL 9.
As for if we engineers agree, well when we follow Roger's bread crumbs, the SPR theory and my experience and design tools, yes we can follow a proven recipe to achieve thrust.
We measure longer guide wavelength at the small end and shorter guide wavelength at the big end as per theory.
We measure Q dropping as acceleration progressively increases velocity and KE. Which is not surprising as the same thing happens with accelerator cavities, ie cavity Q drops as particles are accelerated vs no beam current or no particles accelerated. There is no OU in EmDrive cavities as there is no OU in accelerator cavities. Input energy divides as ohmic wall losses or that exported to support the acceleration of mass.
So input energy per cycle = ohmic wall losses per cycle plus KE velocity losses per cycle. In both type of cavities, the energy loss to support acceleration drops cavity Q and stored energy.
Different dog but same leg action.
As I have said before, I have no 100% proof the SPR theory is correct but it sure fits how to design an EmDrive and dynamic tests do suggest that CofE is conserved as force is not constant and reduces as KE increases.
As for CofM and Newton 3, well that seems to happen inside the cavity during the short time the photon's live before they are thermalised. Data suggests they lose energy much quicker to ohmic losses than to KE losses, which suggests there is a lot of efficiency improvements to be engineered in. Take note both Roger and I use pulsed Rf, note the attachment from his latest granted patent. The Rf pulse is 20% of 1 cavity TC and the normal cavity fill time is 5xTC. Curious minds might ask why only a Rf pulse for 4% of the normal cavity fill time?
-
#1473 by meberbs on 12 Sep, 2017 07:24
-
As for if we engineers agree,
You are not an engineer. Engineers can perform a basic force balance, and know the difference between an open and closed system. Referring to yourself as an engineer when you can't do this is an insult to engineers.We measure longer guide wavelength at the small end and shorter guide wavelength at the big end as per theory.
I am fairly certain you can't even describe the experimental setups for these measurements, let alone have actually done them. Especially the part about wavelength, which you have previously demonstrated an inability to even properly define.
We measure Q dropping as acceleration progressively increases velocity and KE.There is no OU in EmDrive cavities
Per Shawyer's description of the emDrive, there is simply no way for energy to be conserved because there is no exhaust of any sort. No one will take you seriously if you keep making such trivially wrong statements. Go back to the last time I discussed CoE with you, and you failed to either provide an equation for calculating the adjusted velocity, or what the velocity would be after 1 second for a given set of conditions.As I have said before, I have no 100% proof the SPR theory is correct but it sure fits how to design an EmDrive and dynamic tests do suggest that CofE is conserved as force is not constant and reduces as KE increases.
It is simply inconsistent with itself, therefore, it cannot be correct.As for CofM and Newton 3, well that serms to happen inside the cavity during the short time the photon's live before they are thermalised. Data suggests they lose energy much quicker to ohmic losses than to KE losses, which suggests there is a lot of efficiency improvements to be engineered in.
What in the world kind of data are you imagining?
Go back to the last CoM conversation and try answering even the most basic question that you were asked. -
#1474 by TheTraveller on 12 Sep, 2017 07:37
-
As for if we engineers agree,
You are not an engineer. Engineers can perform a basic force balance, and know the difference between an open and closed system. Referring to yourself as an engineer when you can't do this is an insult to engineers.We measure longer guide wavelength at the small end and shorter guide wavelength at the big end as per theory.
I am fairly certain you can't even describe the experimental setups for these measurements, let alone have actually done them. Especially the part about wavelength, which you have previously demonstrated an inability to even properly define.
We measure Q dropping as acceleration progressively increases velocity and KE.There is no OU in EmDrive cavities
Per Shawyer's description of the emDrive, there is simply no way for energy to be conserved because there is no exhaust of any sort. No one will take you seriously if you keep making such trivially wrong statements. Go back to the last time I discussed CoE with you, and you failed to either provide an equation for calculating the adjusted velocity, or what the velocity would be after 1 second for a given set of conditions.As I have said before, I have no 100% proof the SPR theory is correct but it sure fits how to design an EmDrive and dynamic tests do suggest that CofE is conserved as force is not constant and reduces as KE increases.
It is simply inconsistent with itself, therefore, it cannot be correct.As for CofM and Newton 3, well that serms to happen inside the cavity during the short time the photon's live before they are thermalised. Data suggests they lose energy much quicker to ohmic losses than to KE losses, which suggests there is a lot of efficiency improvements to be engineered in.
What in the world kind of data are you imagining?
Go back to the last CoM conversation and try answering even the most basic question that you were asked.
Interesting personal insults coming from a guy that totally rejects all the experimental data and suggests Roger is a scammer.
Enjoy your life as we will no longer communicate. No point. I did try to explain. -
#1475 by meberbs on 12 Sep, 2017 08:02
-
Interesting personal insults coming from a guy that totally rejects all the experimental data and suggests Roger is a scammer.
You have repeatedly demonstrated you lack of understanding of basic physics, that is a fact, not an insult.
Your accusation of me rejecting experimental evidence is simply false. There are multiple null results that you are ignoring, and every non-null result has signals within the range that can be explained by systematic errors. Shawyer has not provided details to even assess his experiments.Enjoy your life as we will no longer communicate. No point. I did try to explain.
You did not try. I have repeatedly asked specific simple questions which you have not answered. -
#1476 by Mark7777777 on 12 Sep, 2017 08:07
-
www.cannae.com is back up. No changes/additional content as far as I saw.
-
#1477 by TheTraveller on 12 Sep, 2017 08:36
-
Guys,
This is Roger's take on theory, which I agree with:QuoteThere may not yet be universal agreement how EmDrive works, but there is agreement that if you build a thruster according to SPR design rules, it does work.
-
#1478 by Mark7777777 on 12 Sep, 2017 08:43
-
Regarding Roger Shawyer's recently granted patent, https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/GB2493361 , is it true that the UK patent office will only patent something that works?
https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/13307/can-i-patent-a-time-machine -
#1479 by TheTraveller on 12 Sep, 2017 09:06
-
Regarding Roger Shawyer's recently granted patent, https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/GB2493361 , is it true that the UK patent office will only patent something that works?
https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/13307/can-i-patent-a-time-machine
Hi Mark,
This is my understanding:
The UK Patent Office notes that you cannot get a patent on "articles or processes alleged to operate in a manner clearly contrary to well-established physical laws" as they are "regarded as not having industrial application".
Clearly Roger has explained and given examples to the UK patent examiners to support his patent application as they granted it.
It did take 6 years from the filing date to the grant date.
Perhaps this should be done in a new thread to be titled "Let's bash string theory because I'm mad as hell against strings and branes and multiverses and I'm not going to take it anymore" 