-
#1780 by RERT on 21 Sep, 2017 12:58
-
Monomorphic -
First of all congrats on the calibration work, the last posts I saw with the double calibration pulse looked great! Scarily, I think your results could be pretty clear!
Second, I did take a look at one of the earlier calibration runs. The good news is that the pivot point doesn't appear to be moving much - the overall amplitude of motion at the pivot in the test run looks like about 1-2% of the amplitude of the difference between the two LDS measurements. So it's a source of error, but maybe not large enough to worry about. (I scaled one of the measurements to avoid assuming that the pivot was exactly central. The excel is attached if you want to see what I did.)
Third, just eye-balling the raw measurements, it is clear that during the course of the run, the 'balance point' of the torsion wire shifted a little: the calibration pulse twisted the wire, which seemed to stay somewhat twisted afterwards, in the absence of input. You can see that the blue/orange lines are no longer equal and opposite, the blue line has been deflected up and the orange down - i.e. the beam has permanently twisted a little.
Possibly this speaks to whatever grips the wire having capacity to slip/stick.
Anyway, back to the start: the test rig looks great, and looking forward to more data!
-
#1781 by vladimirph on 21 Sep, 2017 14:01
-
I'm sure that EMDrive will not work if the cylinder is cut in a circle and place a dielectric between two halves.
-
#1782 by OnlyMe on 21 Sep, 2017 14:23
-
.. I thought you'd authored a mathematical paper that supported (?) the Woodward/Mach Drive/Effect, and possibly (?) linked it with the EM Drive. Apologies, memory is a bit hazy.
* it is well-known that Einstein recognized Mach as one of his main sources of inspiration
I also seem to remember you being involved with some sort of NASA side (?) program involving Woodward/Mach Drive or effect.
* what constitutes Mach's principle is subjective because Mach was very vague and did not formulate it mathematically. Bondi (and expert in general relativity) co-authored a well known paper that defines 10 possible interpretations of Mach's principle. Einstein recognized his theory of General Relativity does not incorporate all possible interpretations of Mach's principle, only some of them.
* Sciama wrote his paper (1953) at the time that Sciama himself describes as before the revolution in astronomy: a time in which there was no cosmic background radiation, neutron stars, black holes, dark mass, dark energy etc.
* In the late 1950's to early 1960's there were many theories (Brans-Dicke prominent among them) that claimed extra-Machian effects not present in General Relativity.
* Starting with Shapiro at MIT there have been up to now a large number of investigations of all such extra-Machian effects
* all measurements, including the recent Gravity Probe B reveals the complete absence of any such extra-Machian effects. All measurements are in complete agreement with Einstein's general relativity
* what we are discussing is whether there are any super-Machian effects not present in General Relativity. All measurements so far reveal there is no such thing
* A couple of years after Sciama, Davidson showed in a paper that the theory that was described by Sciama already existed: it is called Einstein's general relativity.
* as far as me linking any of this to the EM Drive I have posted links to Montillet's work. Montillet is not using any extra-Machian effects
* the gravitational term dependent on the second time derivative of variable mass density can be shown to exist in Einstein's general relativity
As you say, there are several interpretations of Mach's principle. The "lightest" one is to say that the inertia of a body is dependent of the other masses around, involving nothing more than gravitation. The "strong" Mach's principle on the other hand, as advocated by Jim Woodward (see my previous post where I cite him and where his specific view on that subject is made evident) – as well as Fred Hoyle and Jayant Narlikar with their own theory of gravity, and now Heidi Fearn with the Gravitational Absorber Theory derived from it – implies that inertia of bodies comes from all the masses in the entire universe instantaneously interacting with each others, through retarded/advanced waves. This "strong Mach's principle" is a view that must be ADDED to general relativity (i.e. the addition of some kind of Wheeler-Feynman radiative field applied to gravity) in order to make the instantaneity of gravitational interaction possible, i.e. a gravitational interaction source of inertia that is not limited to the speed limit c of "plain vanilla" general relativity.
What is your own view on Mach's principle, among all the possibilities it suggests?
To the following portion, "implies that inertia of bodies comes from all the masses in the entire universe instantaneously interacting with each others, through retarded/advanced waves. This "strong Mach's principle" is a view that must be ADDED to general relativity...", I say hogwash!
While I would agree that the inertia of an object is an instantaneous reaction to the local dynamics of however one interprets spacetime.., as causative or descriptive, the idea that there is any instantaneous connect between distant objects is just.., an artifact of imagination. To assert that it represents reality and must be added/incorporated in GR, is just plain hogwash, and inconsistent with experience. -
#1783 by bunjatec on 21 Sep, 2017 15:16
-
Just read this:
https://phys.org/news/2017-09-gravitational-oscillate-neutrinos.html
Could bigravity help to explain the EM drive observations so far?
-
#1784 by Rodal on 21 Sep, 2017 15:36
-
Just read this:
Thank you for bringing us back to the present (year 2017) to discuss current experimental observations in agreement with current theories rather than old theories some of whose predictions have been invalidated by astronomical measurements. We are in the year 2017, not 1953, and not in 1964. Please notice that bimetric gravity theory (https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.07785) contains two gravitational fields (that in a quantizable version would correspond to two particles not just one) : Einstein's gravitational field travelling at the speed of light (with a corresponding massless graviton) and an additional field with a speed travelling at less than the speed of light with a corresponding gravitational particle having mass. There are two dynamical metrics instead of just one. Only one of them couples to matter while the other doesn't; and a linear combination of them becomes massive (slower than the speed of light) while the other (the one in Einstein's theory) is massless (speed of light).
https://phys.org/news/2017-09-gravitational-oscillate-neutrinos.html
Could bigravity help to explain the EM drive observations so far?
There are many other theories. This one is also interesting:Quoteextra dimensions should have two different effects on gravitational waves: they would modify the "standard" gravitational waves and would cause additional waves at high frequencies above 1000 Hz. However, the observation of the latter is unlikely since the existing ground-based gravitational wave detectors are not sensitive enough at high frequencies.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-06-hints-extra-dimensions-gravitational.html#jCp
Physics is not just posing a theory, but obtaining an (analytical or numerical) solution to any such theory and comparing such prediction to experiments.
Otherwise the discussion becomes one of metaphysics and philosophy, the province of subjective opinions that cannot be checked vs. reality
-
#1785 by Bob Woods on 21 Sep, 2017 16:52
-
-
#1786 by X_RaY on 21 Sep, 2017 19:36
-
"Why are you here?"
is a excellent question related to the anthropic principle!
Maybe because the universe exists as it is and we are interested in its underlying principles and the EM-Drive.
That's obvious 
-
#1787 by SeeShells on 21 Sep, 2017 22:18
-
Been a little under the weather and just now getting a little caught up with some reading.
Reading these last few pages of speculation and ideas I was reminded of Dr. Richard Feynman's answer when a reporter asked him about magnets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeFubSy2Ccs&feature=youtu.be
Maybe we should be asking the correct questions first or we will get the wrong answers.
Back to Bed,
Shell
Corrected a booboo. -
#1788 by WarpTech on 21 Sep, 2017 22:26
-
Monomorphic -
First of all congrats on the calibration work, the last posts I saw with the double calibration pulse looked great! Scarily, I think your results could be pretty clear!
Second, I did take a look at one of the earlier calibration runs. The good news is that the pivot point doesn't appear to be moving much - the overall amplitude of motion at the pivot in the test run looks like about 1-2% of the amplitude of the difference between the two LDS measurements. So it's a source of error, but maybe not large enough to worry about. (I scaled one of the measurements to avoid assuming that the pivot was exactly central. The excel is attached if you want to see what I did.)
Third, just eye-balling the raw measurements, it is clear that during the course of the run, the 'balance point' of the torsion wire shifted a little: the calibration pulse twisted the wire, which seemed to stay somewhat twisted afterwards, in the absence of input. You can see that the blue/orange lines are no longer equal and opposite, the blue line has been deflected up and the orange down - i.e. the beam has permanently twisted a little.
Possibly this speaks to whatever grips the wire having capacity to slip/stick.
Anyway, back to the start: the test rig looks great, and looking forward to more data!
When guitar strings "slip/stick", it causes the guitar to go out-of-tune. I find a little silicone spray works great to let the string slide cleanly through the Nut. Just saying... -
#1789 by TheTraveller on 22 Sep, 2017 00:05
-
Here are Roger's comments on Jamie's excellent data and following my comments on Roger's comments
==========
Hi Phil
Things to think about when interpreting data from a torsional balance.
The thruster will start to accelerate when there is no spring resistance.
The thruster will accelerate in the direction large end to small end. This is the only way momentum can be conserved, and conforms with Newton’s third law. See attached slide.
When the thrust is equal to the opposite spring force, and the acceleration stops, thrust will fall to zero, and deceleration starts.
=========
Sequence of events:
1) EmDrive starts acceleration and it's mass plus arm mass gains KE as it's velocity increases.
2) EmDrive forward force = torsion wire reverse force = EmDrive stops accelerating, ie velocity gain stops, and it's force production stops.
3) However the EmDrive and other arm mass has gained velocity and KE and will continue moving forward, at a rapidly decreasing velocity, until the gained KE is stored in the torsion wire and velocity is zero.
4) Then once all forward motion is stopped, the mass of the EmDrive and arm will be driven in reverse by the stored torque in the torsion wire, back to the starting position and beyond due to the gained reverse velocity and KE from the torsion wire.
5) Due to frictional losses generated by the paddle in the oil, the EmDrive and arm mass KE will eventually be thermalised and returns to the starting position.
If you look at Jamie's displacement plot, it is very clear when each of these seperate events occurred.
-
#1790 by Mulletron on 22 Sep, 2017 00:06
-
"Why are you here?"
is a excellent question related to the anthropic principle!
Maybe because the universe exists as it is and we are interested in its underlying principles and the EM-Drive. That's obvious
I really feel like this silly copper can is our Monolith. -
#1791 by TheTraveller on 22 Sep, 2017 00:12
-
"Why are you here?"
is a excellent question related to the anthropic principle!
Maybe because the universe exists as it is and we are interested in its underlying principles and the EM-Drive. That's obvious
I really feel like this silly copper can is our Monolith.
Hi Jeremiah,
Unlike the Monolith, we can build EmDrives.
But yes a lot of stuff will change.
BTW, nice list of links:
http://share.xmarks.com/folder/bookmarks/bSVKVUD6LU -
#1792 by Rodal on 22 Sep, 2017 01:32
-
SSI President Gary C Hudson just sent out this news
"The NASA sponsored NIAC Symposium starts Monday morning at 8:30 am Denver time and I am very pleased to tell you that SSI SA Dr. Heidi Fearn will be presenting "Mach Effects for In Space Propulsion: Interstellar Mission" at 11:10am on Wednesday.
It will be live streamed at www.livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017
Slides of Heidi’s talk, a Q&A handout and a PDF of the poster will all be public documents as of 11am Wednesday and at that time I will send them for posting on the SSI.ORG website and SSI Announcements page on Facebook ."
That is 10:10AM Pacific DT =11:10AM Mountain DT =12:10PM Central DT= 1:10PM Eastern DT, Wednesday September 27 !
to be held at the Hyatt Regency Denver Tech Center, 7800 E Tufts Avenue Denver, Colorado 80237
https://www.nasa.gov/content/niac-symposium
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2017_Phase_I_Phase_II/Mach_Effects_for_In_Space_Propulsion_Interstellar_Mission
The poster will contain a "Questions and Answers" section addressing some of the questions that have been commonly asked.
-
#1793 by spupeng7 on 22 Sep, 2017 02:04
-
Been a little under the weather and just now getting a little caught up with some reading.
Reading these last few pages of speculation and ideas I was reminded of Dr. Richard Feynman's answer when a reporter asked him about magnets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeFubSy2Ccs&feature=youtu.be
Maybe we should be asking the correct questions first or we will get the wrong answers.
Back to Bed,
Shell
Corrected a booboo.
Shell,
for a while now I have been asking one question repeatedly. Time may be linear from the perspective of a single point but it cannot be so when the perspective of separate points are considered. To me it seems logical to use the complex conjugate to better describe a location in time and the consequence of doing so is that there are coincident solutions which, to me at least, make a better explanation for the translation of a quantum of energy from its emission to its absorption.
Complex conjugates of linear measurements are not unusual in engineering. They provide simpler answers to some models, than any other mathematical treatment. Does this add up to an indication that complex time should be investigated for relevance to problems such as the mystery of the mechanism of action for emdrive thrust?
What if photons are interactions between individual pairs of charges which occur when they become resonant, no miraculous collapse of widely disbursed electromagnetic energy would then be required at absorption. What if all charges interact everywhere all of the time, that would account for gravity and inertia far more simply than current models. It would also provide a mechanism for emdrive thrust without anything particulate passing magically through the walls of the frustum. Maybe what we need to do is look outside of Euclid's box.
Not wishing to distract you from your more important works but maybe I should be asking you
-
#1794 by SeeShells on 22 Sep, 2017 02:51
-
Space or time or Spacetime? Better to look at setting some basic parameters. I like the answers given here.Been a little under the weather and just now getting a little caught up with some reading.
Reading these last few pages of speculation and ideas I was reminded of Dr. Richard Feynman's answer when a reporter asked him about magnets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeFubSy2Ccs&feature=youtu.be
Maybe we should be asking the correct questions first or we will get the wrong answers.
Back to Bed,
Shell
Corrected a booboo.
Shell,
for a while now I have been asking one question repeatedly. Time may be linear from the perspective of a single point but it cannot be so when the perspective of separate points are considered. To me it seems logical to use the complex conjugate to better describe a location in time and the consequence of doing so is that there are coincident solutions which, to me at least, make a better explanation for the translation of a quantum of energy from its emission to its absorption.
Complex conjugates of linear measurements are not unusual in engineering. They provide simpler answers to some models, than any other mathematical treatment. Does this add up to an indication that complex time should be investigated for relevance to problems such as the mystery of the mechanism of action for emdrive thrust?
What if photons are interactions between individual pairs of charges which occur when they become resonant, no miraculous collapse of widely disbursed electromagnetic energy would then be required at absorption. What if all charges interact everywhere all of the time, that would account for gravity and inertia far more simply than current models. It would also provide a mechanism for emdrive thrust without anything particulate passing magically through the walls of the frustum. Maybe what we need to do is look outside of Euclid's box.
Not wishing to distract you from your more important works but maybe I should be asking you
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/46112/whats-the-difference-between-space-and-time
For me the current candidates for EMDrive thrusts are as follows.
Hidden Errors (Thermal or Lorentz)
Foofie Dust
Shawyer's
Notsosureofit's
Todd D's
The rest... Sorry if I missed one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster#Hypotheses
Speculating ... I believe it could be possible to see a stacking of theories working together to apparently exceed a photon rockets thrust although that is a personal "gut feeling" and feelings shouldn't be aired, just data. There are good and bad feelings, but no bad data, if you get my drift. I would assume this, Paul March, Jamie and I are seriously seeking data to plug into theories and maybe, like me, are not wanting to add to the word lettuce of speculation... yet.
Sorry to not make much sense but running a fever.
My Very Best,
Shell
PS: Jamie (monomorphic), you are doing a top notch setup, well engineered! -
#1795 by Tcarey on 22 Sep, 2017 03:21
-
What is the scale for the volts? Its not clear why the voltage is climbing over such a long period of time. Doesn't that have the effect of increasing the magnetic force over the length of the pulse? I feel like I am missing something.
Edit. The reply was supposed to include your data graph.I was able to pick up the ISO 10 spindle oil today locally and it works just as anticipated. The viscosity seems right between antifreeze and soybean oil.
Here is a dual calibration pulse to see how repeatable they are. Eyeballing it, I would say the pendulum is now just below critically damped. -
#1796 by Mark7777777 on 22 Sep, 2017 04:41
-
Here's a totally unscientific Emdrive poll people can fill out (and see the results) FWIW:
https://strawpoll.com/yp8y56rc
Based on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster#Hypotheses, it reads:
"If I had to guess, an Emdrive produces thrust because of:
Choose one answer:
1. Noise or experimental error
2. Radiation pressure
3. Vacuum energy
4. Quantised inertia
5. Photon leakage
6. Mach effect
7. Warp field
8. A combination of one or more of the above
9. Other
10. It doesn't produce thrust"
-
#1797 by flux_capacitor on 22 Sep, 2017 07:40
-
.. I thought you'd authored a mathematical paper that supported (?) the Woodward/Mach Drive/Effect, and possibly (?) linked it with the EM Drive. Apologies, memory is a bit hazy.
* it is well-known that Einstein recognized Mach as one of his main sources of inspiration
I also seem to remember you being involved with some sort of NASA side (?) program involving Woodward/Mach Drive or effect.
* what constitutes Mach's principle is subjective because Mach was very vague and did not formulate it mathematically. Bondi (and expert in general relativity) co-authored a well known paper that defines 10 possible interpretations of Mach's principle. Einstein recognized his theory of General Relativity does not incorporate all possible interpretations of Mach's principle, only some of them.
* Sciama wrote his paper (1953) at the time that Sciama himself describes as before the revolution in astronomy: a time in which there was no cosmic background radiation, neutron stars, black holes, dark mass, dark energy etc.
* In the late 1950's to early 1960's there were many theories (Brans-Dicke prominent among them) that claimed extra-Machian effects not present in General Relativity.
* Starting with Shapiro at MIT there have been up to now a large number of investigations of all such extra-Machian effects
* all measurements, including the recent Gravity Probe B reveals the complete absence of any such extra-Machian effects. All measurements are in complete agreement with Einstein's general relativity
* what we are discussing is whether there are any super-Machian effects not present in General Relativity. All measurements so far reveal there is no such thing
* A couple of years after Sciama, Davidson showed in a paper that the theory that was described by Sciama already existed: it is called Einstein's general relativity.
* as far as me linking any of this to the EM Drive I have posted links to Montillet's work. Montillet is not using any extra-Machian effects
* the gravitational term dependent on the second time derivative of variable mass density can be shown to exist in Einstein's general relativity
As you say, there are several interpretations of Mach's principle. The "lightest" one is to say that the inertia of a body is dependent of the other masses around, involving nothing more than gravitation. The "strong" Mach's principle on the other hand, as advocated by Jim Woodward (see my previous post where I cite him and where his specific view on that subject is made evident) – as well as Fred Hoyle and Jayant Narlikar with their own theory of gravity, and now Heidi Fearn with the Gravitational Absorber Theory derived from it – implies that inertia of bodies comes from all the masses in the entire universe instantaneously interacting with each others, through retarded/advanced waves. This "strong Mach's principle" is a view that must be ADDED to general relativity (i.e. the addition of some kind of Wheeler-Feynman radiative field applied to gravity) in order to make the instantaneity of gravitational interaction possible, i.e. a gravitational interaction source of inertia that is not limited to the speed limit c of "plain vanilla" general relativity.
What is your own view on Mach's principle, among all the possibilities it suggests?
To the following portion, "implies that inertia of bodies comes from all the masses in the entire universe instantaneously interacting with each others, through retarded/advanced waves. This "strong Mach's principle" is a view that must be ADDED to general relativity...", I say hogwash!
While I would agree that the inertia of an object is an instantaneous reaction to the local dynamics of however one interprets spacetime.., as causative or descriptive, the idea that there is any instantaneous connect between distant objects is just.., an artifact of imagination. To assert that it represents reality and must be added/incorporated in GR, is just plain hogwash, and inconsistent with experience.
Three questions then:
1) Have your read Woodward's book Making Starships and Stargates?
2) Have you read one or more papers of Heidi Fearn about the Gravitational Absorber Theory?* (a very recent development nowadays (year 2017) discussing current experiments about Mach effects in agreement with general relativity)
3) Do you think both are hogwash?
* Basically, GAT is a modern, non steady-state version of the Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravity in agreement with predictions of general relativity and observations related to the accelerating cosmic expansion, including the strong interpretation of Mach's principle. -
#1798 by francesco nicoli on 22 Sep, 2017 08:27
-
"Why are you here?"
is a excellent question related to the anthropic principle!
Maybe because the universe exists as it is and we are interested in its underlying principles and the EM-Drive. That's obvious
I really feel like this silly copper can is our Monolith.
Hi Jeremiah,
Unlike the Monolith, we can build EmDrives.
But yes a lot of stuff will change.
BTW, nice list of links:
http://share.xmarks.com/folder/bookmarks/bSVKVUD6LU
I can also build unicorns, if i'm skilled enough with woodcraft. It doesn't make them alive nor "the thing". it has the shape of an unicorn, but not the functions and features of a real unicorn. Simiarly, plenty of people are building things that they call "emdrives", but we are yet to see a single working emdrive.
This not to say that is impossible. But simply to say that "we can build emdrives" is a lie. We build something that looks like an emdrive (maybe). Before claiming the unproven, better prove it. -
#1799 by TheTraveller on 22 Sep, 2017 11:10
-
I can also build unicorns,
Really?
Care to share the unicorn physics equations that govern the design process and the manufacturing quality and tolerance requirements to make unicorns come to life?
As for EmDrives, there are known microwave design equations and manufacturing guidelines available. Follow them and EmDrives generate force.
BTW in doing all that, you are following the SPR theory.
You really want to engage I build EmDrives that work and you build living unicorns?
Amazing folks here talk about MEGA drives, borrowing monentum and energy from sources outside existing physics and they get a free pass. Yet guys like you dump on EmDrives, rejecting ALL experimantal data, including EW's 2 published papers.
Here is a heads up for you. EmDrives work with-in existing physics and need no new physics.
To understand, you need to adjust your perspective a bit. A jump to the left and a step to the right plus a pelvic thrust works wonders;
That's obvious 
