-
#980
by
dustinthewind
on 23 Aug, 2017 18:04
-
No offense, but since TT keeps defending Shawyer no matter what, I won't pay any attention of any kind beyond this post to whatevs TT says, till either Shawyers' flying cars are proved, or TT comes to better senses. Enough of nonsense.
How would a flying car prove bouncing photons inside a can is the source of any net asymetric force? The sun moving across the sky, doesn't seem to have proven that the Greek chariot myth was accurate!
Credible repeated recreation of even any significant milinewton results, would on the other hand be a huge step toward fleshing out a credible theory/mechanism of operation.
TT has bouncing photons stuck in his head, even when it should seem clear that explaining the interaction of microwave frequencies is better deescribed and understood as waves than bouncing balls. People come to believe what they tell their self, if they tell their self the same thing long enough.., whether it is an accurate description of reality or not.
Believing is not proof and here even a flying car alone is not proof of why it flys.
Bouncing photons isn't a problem. From that concept with energy and momentum conservation I can derive the Doppler effect and even 2nd order terms responsible for accelerating a laser thruster which are well over standard laser force. The problem is a laser thruster is an open system where the cavity is a closed system unless we find the mechanism that opens it. Changing the mass of photons allows the system to accelerate but the changing of mass suggests them coupling to something that is invisible. Experiments have shown a change in the impulse of photons which suggest a change in effective mass. Light as far as is known is the electric field which is connected to the charges them selves. Woodward's theory considers the charges I believe but I'm not sure you can separate the charges from their respective electric fields. If the charge changes in mass it's likely connected to the electric field. The whole thing smacks of coupling/uncoupling to the vacuum and we are learning the vacuum may be a lot more real than previously understood.
-
#981
by
TheTraveller
on 23 Aug, 2017 18:04
-
W = (N^2 * sec^2) / (2 * kg) is an interesting equation.
What it says is all I need in my EmDrive propelled tin can is a watch. Plus knowing the mass of my tin can and the Force of the EmDrive. From those 3 pieces of information I can calc Work done during the acceleration.
With N and kg known and fixed, sec is the only variable needed to solve for W.
Seems Work can be invarient across different inertial constant velocity frames as Force, time and mass are also frame invarient.
-
#982
by
meberbs
on 23 Aug, 2017 18:49
-
W = (N^2 * sec^2) / (2 * kg) is an interesting equation.
What it says is all I need in my EmDrive propelled tin can is a watch. Plus knowing the mass of my tin can and the Force of the EmDrive. From those 3 pieces of information I can calc Work done during the acceleration.
With N and kg known and fixed, sec is the only variable to solve for W.
Seems Work can be invarient across different inertial constant velocity frames as Force, time and mass are also frame invarient.
First, your equation is just relating units, which makes it wrong because of the divide by 2, and the W (Watts) is the wrong unit, it would be J (Joules). Presumably what you meant to write is:
W = F^2*t^2 /(2*m), where the W stands for work (energy).
This equation is derived from
W = F*d
d = 0.5*a*t^2
a = F/m
The conclusions you come to about frame invariance are wrong, because the equation for d is only valid in one frame.
The full general equation is:
d = 0.5*a*t^2 + v_i * t (where v_i is the initial velocity)
The extra v_i term clearly shows that the work will be frame dependent.
This seems like a deliberate distraction on your part to try and avoid addressing the corner the previous discussion backed you into.
-
#983
by
TheTraveller
on 23 Aug, 2017 19:06
-
W = (N^2 * sec^2) / (2 * kg) is an interesting equation.
What it says is all I need in my EmDrive propelled tin can is a watch. Plus knowing the mass of my tin can and the Force of the EmDrive. From those 3 pieces of information I can calc Work done during the acceleration.
With N and kg known and fixed, sec is the only variable to solve for W.
Seems Work can be invarient across different inertial constant velocity frames as Force, time and mass are also frame invarient.
First, your equation is just relating units, which makes it wrong because of the divide by 2, and the W (Watts) is the wrong unit, it would be J (Joules). Presumably what you meant to write is:
W = F^2*t^2 /(2*m), where the W stands for work (energy).
This equation is derived from
W = F*d
d = 0.5*a*t^2
a = F/m
The conclusions you come to about frame invariance are wrong, because the equation for d is only valid in one frame.
The full general equation is:
d = 0.5*a*t^2 + v_i * t (where v_i is the initial velocity)
The extra v_i term clearly shows that the work will be frame dependent.
This seems like a deliberate distraction on your part to try and avoid addressing the corner the previous discussion backed you into.
W in the equation is work, which is clearly the case.
The equation calculates the Work that is done on mass over a fixed time. It is valid.
As N, kg & sec are frame invarient, the work done by a fixed force on a fixed mass over a fixed time is also frame invarient.
-
#984
by
meberbs
on 23 Aug, 2017 19:14
-
W in the equation is work, which is clearly the case.
Every other variable in the first equation was a unit. While you can see I was able to interpret what you meant this time, unless you are deliberately trying to misinform and confuse, you should use variables the same way everyone else does.
The equation calculates the Work that is done on mass over a fixed time. It is valid.
As N, kg & sec are frame invarient, the work done by a fixed force on a fixed mass over a fixed time is also frame invarient.
It is not valid unless the initial velocity in the frame you are using is zero. I clearly just demonstrated this.
-
#985
by
Monomorphic
on 23 Aug, 2017 23:04
-
New 3D printed spherical end-plate frustum is now bolted together. I was able to achieve -54dB return loss.
It's ready to mount to the torsional pendulum!
After that, next step is to get the 30W amplifier working.
-
#986
by
ThinkerX
on 24 Aug, 2017 01:38
-
"Either their government put a halt on discussing the subject or people have lost interest."
None of them. It is the third case: Test failed.
Is that a reasonable guess, or something that's been confirmed?
leaked info, not official. Ask "oyzw" on this forum. It was leaked to him from his contacts.
update: added "to him"
I have a hazy recollection of a few short posts in one of the prior threads mentioning severe thermal issues and lack of 'thrust' with the Chinese EM Drive unit in space.
At the time, a number of posters here and elsewhere on the site believed the Chinese EM Drive to be a more conventional electric thruster.
-
#987
by
spupeng7
on 24 Aug, 2017 02:06
-
New 3D printed spherical end-plate frustum is now bolted together. I was able to achieve -54dB return loss. It's ready to mount to the torsional pendulum!
After that, next step is to get the 30W amplifier working.
Will you do a test series with this new frustum at low power before you ramp it up and risk carbonizing the inside of it?
NB: it looks beautiful
-
#988
by
spupeng7
on 24 Aug, 2017 02:18
-
gargoyle99,
if these arguments were clear there would be more agreement. IMO, if the emdrive works as Shawyer claims then it will disprove the notion that kinetic energy is gained in proportion to the square of the velocity from the launch point and discussion on the subject of the conservation of energy can proceed with the understanding that energy of motion must be relative. Shawyer may well be right, and his experiment is the only one that can prove it one way or the other. IMO.
There currently is no disagreement except from Shawyer and TT, and both have demonstrated repeated failures at high school level physics. (Everyone makes mistakes and flips a sign on occasion, but with them it has been consistent.)
Some of the posts between me and Bob012345 might sound like disagreement, but we are really agreeing on the basics, and the disagreement has really been on how to deal with it in (what I consider the low) chance the the conservation laws don't work. (various miscommunications have made that conversation more confusing) The basics of the conservation laws as presented by gargoyle99 are clear and not under dispute. The conclusion that Shawyer is not right stems from the fact that Shawyer claims the conservation laws hold and his device as described by him breaks the conservation laws.
Surely
any continuous thrust from a sealed and physically independent device must break conservation of momentum,
unless the universe is Machian
and there is a mechanism for conection between what is inside the seal and the remote universe.
-
#989
by
meberbs
on 24 Aug, 2017 02:52
-
gargoyle99,
if these arguments were clear there would be more agreement. IMO, if the emdrive works as Shawyer claims then it will disprove the notion that kinetic energy is gained in proportion to the square of the velocity from the launch point and discussion on the subject of the conservation of energy can proceed with the understanding that energy of motion must be relative. Shawyer may well be right, and his experiment is the only one that can prove it one way or the other. IMO.
There currently is no disagreement except from Shawyer and TT, and both have demonstrated repeated failures at high school level physics. (Everyone makes mistakes and flips a sign on occasion, but with them it has been consistent.)
Some of the posts between me and Bob012345 might sound like disagreement, but we are really agreeing on the basics, and the disagreement has really been on how to deal with it in (what I consider the low) chance the the conservation laws don't work. (various miscommunications have made that conversation more confusing) The basics of the conservation laws as presented by gargoyle99 are clear and not under dispute. The conclusion that Shawyer is not right stems from the fact that Shawyer claims the conservation laws hold and his device as described by him breaks the conservation laws.
Surely any continuous thrust from a sealed and physically independent device must break conservation of momentum, unless the universe is Machian and there is a mechanism for conection between what is inside the seal and the remote universe.
Your statement is correct, but there are other ways besides Mach effect to break the "sealed and physically independent" such as some up until now undetected particle that can pass through metal being somehow accelerated. These explanations have their own problems, but those have to be dealt with on an individual basis. Shawyer claims that such explanations aren't necessary, so the general statements hold when discussing his explanation.
-
#990
by
RERT
on 24 Aug, 2017 10:15
-
SPR posted its accounts for the year to end March 2017.
The level of disclosure continues to decline. The only real movement visible was another £11380 reduction in debts. Current assets, which last year was cash and this year is undefined, fell by a very similar amount. Last year there was a related party disclosure which told us that Shawyer had received £5000 as part of the debt reduction, this year there is no disclosure. It's a fair guess he did the same again, without the disclosure. The company has an Audit exemption.
Last year we had visibility of the profit and loss account to see that a profit had been made. This year there is no such disclosure. But shareholders funds have barely moved, so it is reasonable to conclude that there was no material profit, though that doesn't preclude some income paid out 100% in wages or other costs. The company hasn't published a p&l in a while, based on a small company exemption.
Overall, no proof the company did anything material in this accounting period.
Shawyer could do the same again in the current year from cash reserves.
-
#991
by
Monomorphic
on 24 Aug, 2017 12:01
-
Will you do a test series with this new frustum at low power before you ramp it up and risk carbonizing the inside of it?
Yes, plan is to start out around 5W and then try 10W and finally 20W. I can go up to ~25W, but that is the limit of my attenuator.
-
#992
by
Chrochne
on 24 Aug, 2017 12:23
-
SPR posted its accounts for the year to end March 2017.
The level of disclosure continues to decline. The only real movement visible was another £11380 reduction in debts. Current assets, which last year was cash and this year is undefined, fell by a very similar amount. Last year there was a related party disclosure which told us that Shawyer had received £5000 as part of the debt reduction, this year there is no disclosure. It's a fair guess he did the same again, without the disclosure. The company has an Audit exemption.
Last year we had visibility of the profit and loss account to see that a profit had been made. This year there is no such disclosure. But shareholders funds have barely moved, so it is reasonable to conclude that there was no material profit, though that doesn't preclude some income paid out 100% in wages or other costs. The company hasn't published a p&l in a while, based on a small company exemption.
Overall, no proof the company did anything material in this accounting period.
Shawyer could do the same again in the current year from cash reserves.
Dear Mr. Rert,
If you are referring only to the SPR you will never recieve an objective picture of the current financial status of Mr. Shawyer and people working on the EmDrive.
You need to check the Universial Propulsion company as well as additional Gilo Industries smaller companies. We know about Mr. Shawyer cooperation with them and you need to look on them as that.
You need to especially check the Universal Propulsion company which is direct link between Mr. Shawyer and Gilo Industries for the research of the EmDrive.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10257752There is also statment that "Gilo Industries is a person with a significant control of this company". With quite recent funds they recieved from many of their investors I do not have any doubt that he has any financial trouble with his research.
-
#993
by
TheTraveller
on 24 Aug, 2017 13:19
-
Major Tom retires from doing Mars cargo runs and buys himself a 4t space yacht. Upgrades it with the latest TT Industries 500N/kW EmDrive and a 100kW Rf amp.
Takes it out into deep space for a shake down test, which comes up all Green.
Deciding a cold beer would be nice, Major Tom clicks on Google Space and locates a spin station 30,000km away.
Then firing up the radar, which confirms the spin station is 30,000km away, plus shows the dV between his ship and the spin station is 2,500 m/s.
Now knowing the ship's mass is 4,000 kg, propulsion system produces max 50,000 N, distance = 30,000 km and dV change needed is 2,5000 m/s, what is the burn time and Rf power needed to achieve 0 dV at 3,000 km?
Please do the maths and show the answer.
-
#994
by
TheTraveller
on 24 Aug, 2017 13:31
-
SPR posted its accounts for the year to end March 2017.
The level of disclosure continues to decline. The only real movement visible was another £11380 reduction in debts. Current assets, which last year was cash and this year is undefined, fell by a very similar amount. Last year there was a related party disclosure which told us that Shawyer had received £5000 as part of the debt reduction, this year there is no disclosure. It's a fair guess he did the same again, without the disclosure. The company has an Audit exemption.
Last year we had visibility of the profit and loss account to see that a profit had been made. This year there is no such disclosure. But shareholders funds have barely moved, so it is reasonable to conclude that there was no material profit, though that doesn't preclude some income paid out 100% in wages or other costs. The company hasn't published a p&l in a while, based on a small company exemption.
Overall, no proof the company did anything material in this accounting period.
Shawyer could do the same again in the current year from cash reserves.
Dear Mr. Rert,
If you are referring only to the SPR you will never recieve an objective picture of the current financial status of Mr. Shawyer and people working on the EmDrive.
You need to check the Universial Propulsion company as well as additional Gilo Industries smaller companies. We know about Mr. Shawyer cooperation with them and you need to look on them as that.
You need to especially check the Universal Propulsion company which is direct link between Mr. Shawyer and Gilo Industries for the research of the EmDrive.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10257752
There is also statment that "Gilo Industries is a person with a significant control of this company". With quite recent funds they recieved from many of their investors I do not have any doubt that he has any financial trouble with his research.
Gilo Cardozo originally held 60 % of the shares:
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10257752/filing-history/MzE1MTkxNTUwN2FkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0Now Gilo Industries Group, who received the big Chinese investment, are the 60% shareholder.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10257752/filing-history/MzE4MzI1MzQxNGFkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0I consider that a major change.
-
#995
by
RERT
on 24 Aug, 2017 14:39
-
We will see when Universal Propulsion files its first accounts. They have filed nothing yet. UP is currently circa 14 months old. My first guess is that that means they have to publish accounts within around 7 months from now, maybe someone knows better.
SPR was a 40% shareholder in UP initially. There is no evidence of any significant financial investment by SPR based on their recent filing covering the period of UPs founding.
-
#996
by
meberbs
on 24 Aug, 2017 14:53
-
Please do the maths and show the answer.
I assume this is directed at me.
Why don't you do the math? Also, why aren't you addressing my previous reply to you, or the thread of conversation before that that you dropped? Are you allergic to admitting you were wrong?
The answer is very, very, clearly that conservation of energy does not hold.
Also, it doesn't need 3000 km to accelerate, Major Tom can handle roughly 1.3 g for a few minutes.
-
#997
by
TheTraveller
on 24 Aug, 2017 14:56
-
We will see when Universal Propulsion files its first accounts. They have filed nothing yet. UP is currently circa 14 months old. My first guess is that that means they have to publish accounts within around 7 months from now, maybe someone knows better.
SPR was a 40% shareholder in UP initially. There is no evidence of any significant financial investment by SPR based on their recent filing covering the period of UPs founding.
The published documents show that UP is now majority owned and controlled by Gilo Industries Group, with Roger and his accountant as directors, that do what Gilo Industries Group directs them to do.
-
#998
by
Bob012345
on 24 Aug, 2017 15:02
-
gargoyle99,
if these arguments were clear there would be more agreement. IMO, if the emdrive works as Shawyer claims then it will disprove the notion that kinetic energy is gained in proportion to the square of the velocity from the launch point and discussion on the subject of the conservation of energy can proceed with the understanding that energy of motion must be relative. Shawyer may well be right, and his experiment is the only one that can prove it one way or the other. IMO.
There currently is no disagreement except from Shawyer and TT, and both have demonstrated repeated failures at high school level physics. (Everyone makes mistakes and flips a sign on occasion, but with them it has been consistent.)
Some of the posts between me and Bob012345 might sound like disagreement, but we are really agreeing on the basics, and the disagreement has really been on how to deal with it in (what I consider the low) chance the the conservation laws don't work. (various miscommunications have made that conversation more confusing) The basics of the conservation laws as presented by gargoyle99 are clear and not under dispute. The conclusion that Shawyer is not right stems from the fact that Shawyer claims the conservation laws hold and his device as described by him breaks the conservation laws.
Surely any continuous thrust from a sealed and physically independent device must break conservation of momentum, unless the universe is Machian and there is a mechanism for conection between what is inside the seal and the remote universe.
I would expect gravity to be open and Mach effect mass fluctuations should reach into a sealed cavity. I would consider any force generated to be locally an external force and momentum conserved globally instead of locally.
In other words, the force acts on the system generating energy and creating momentum but at the expense of whatever created such a force and wherever and whenever it acted in the universe.
Also, I would expect the same for asymmetric Lorentzian forces if the total momentum is not conserved directly by the local field momentum. I have a growing suspicion that the EMDrive is far less esoteric and more conventional and involves such forces not that there couldn't be Mach effects acting as well. The surprise would be exactly how such asymmetric forces can come about. I bring this up because as I understand it, Fetta assumes Lorentzian forces.
-
#999
by
TheTraveller
on 24 Aug, 2017 15:26
-
W in the equation is work, which is clearly the case.
Every other variable in the first equation was a unit. While you can see I was able to interpret what you meant this time, unless you are deliberately trying to misinform and confuse, you should use variables the same way everyone else does.
The equation calculates the Work that is done on mass over a fixed time. It is valid.
As N, kg & sec are frame invarient, the work done by a fixed force on a fixed mass over a fixed time is also frame invarient.
It is not valid unless the initial velocity in the frame you are using is zero. I clearly just demonstrated this.
There is no velocity in the inertial frame of the EmDrive. Needs another frame to provide a velocity reference. But which to use: Velocity of orbit around galactic hub? Velocity of orbit around the sun? There are almost an infinite number to choose from.
Or maybe zero velocity from the last inertial frame of the EmDrive before acceleration started? To me that rest frame as zero velocity at the start of acceleration makes sense.
When moving from place to place in space dV is the only value of interest, as in my Major Tom example. All he needs is the dV between his ship and the cold beer on the spin station. There are no absolute velocities in space, only dV between 2 objects in which we can safely assume our ships velocity is zero and we need to add or subtract the dV via application of Force, to do Work on Mass, to achieve the desired dV change,
Glad to see you accept my Work during acceleration equation is not rubbish.
It's ready to mount to the torsional pendulum!