-
#1000
by
JohnFornaro
on 02 May, 2019 12:03
-
Does anyone know if there has been a high-quality thrust measurement of a vertical EMDrive?
Do you have a scientific basis for supporting your apparent contention that there is a preferential direction for measuring force or thrust?
-
#1001
by
RERT
on 03 May, 2019 10:40
-
Does anyone know if there has been a high-quality thrust measurement of a vertical EMDrive?
Do you have a scientific basis for supporting your apparent contention that there is a preferential direction for measuring force or thrust?
My contention is that space is not isotropic at the earth's surface. Gravity determines a preferred direction. Only measuring perpendicular to that direction is an experimental weakness. We know that the EMDrive must break physical laws to operate as described. If the EMDrive has *any* unexpected interaction with gravity, the direction of the local field may be relevant. That is a very general and plausible enough hypothesis to seek data to falsify it, and to ask if there have been any high-quality measurements of vertically oriented EMDrives.
-
#1002
by
kenny008
on 03 May, 2019 11:44
-
Except the whole reason we have 11 threads discussing this phenomenon is because someone has claimed to have measured force perpendicular to the earth's gravity field. I don't see any reason, without a specific theory to back it up, to now be looking for a completely different force parallel to earth's gravity. Instead of looking for new things that no one has ever seen before, experimenters should be proving / disproving the initial claim from 11 threads ago.
If we continue to find no evidence for the initial claim, but we instead continue to shift our focus to other never-observed-before effects, we'll eventually end up on Thread 42 and still be saying, "Yeah, but what about...?".
-
#1003
by
JohnFornaro
on 03 May, 2019 14:49
-
My contention is that space is not isotropic at the earth's surface.
Neither is space "isotropic" in this sense near the "surface" of a black hole, near the sun, nor out in the middle of nowhere, say Iowa. In fact, if one is looking for a small force, then one would be well advised to set one's measuring device such that any nearby planets under one's feet, would
NOT dilute the force measurement completely.
Perhaps re-read the oracle on Isotropy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotropy"The Big Bang theory of the evolution of the observable universe assumes that space is isotropic."
Your "contention is that space is not isotropic at the earth's surface." This is one of those extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence.
... we'll eventually end up on Thread 42 and still be saying, "Yeah, but what about...?
Precisely.
-
#1004
by
PotomacNeuron
on 03 May, 2019 15:16
-
oyzw said in a Chinese forum that NSF rejected visits from China. He said: "In the last few days I could not visit NASA's forum. Big headache, time to find a ladder (explanation: to climb over the Great Fire Wall ) again." He posted a screen shot saying "Error 1020 Access denied. What happened? This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks."
Others replied him that NSF was not related to NASA; also the denial was not caused by the Great Fire Wall.
-
#1005
by
RERT
on 05 May, 2019 13:12
-
I guess it's clear that no-one can reference a high-quality force measurement on a vertically oriented EMdrive. That's cool. A teensy bit of anti-gravity isn't be nearly as interesting as a teensy bit of propellant-less thrust, though I confess interesting enough for me.
Somewhat dumbfounded that people would be more convinced by an attempt to re-write the laws of physics in a blog post, than by simply accepting that a gravitational interaction might involve the local field.
-
#1006
by
oyzw
on 05 May, 2019 13:46
-
It only takes a few microns of displacement to consume considerable energy stored in the cavity, so it is difficult to obtain sufficient acceleration when moving horizontally. However, the cavity is perpendicular to the ground and the direction of work is opposite to the center of the earth, so the displacement of the cavity is difficult to produce. The energy storage of the cavity can maximize the formation of static thrust, which is similar to a kind of potential energy.
-
#1007
by
oyzw
on 05 May, 2019 13:48
-
Thank you very much for your concern. I can only visit BBS with tools now
-
#1008
by
oyzw
on 05 May, 2019 13:56
-
The result of vertical measurements will be different from horizontal testing, which I have discussed many times with professor Yang, and she seems to agree with me. I'm going to redesign the cavity and no longer stick to a cone.
-
#1009
by
OnlyMe
on 05 May, 2019 14:57
-
The result of vertical measurements will be different from horizontal testing, which I have discussed many times with professor Yang, and she seems to agree with me. I'm going to redesign the cavity and no longer stick to a cone.
It seem understandable that there could/would be difference between vertical and horizontal measurements... for a variety of reasons. The different test beds have their own strengths and weaknesses.
What is not clear is why that leads to changing the basic conical design, without an explanation for how that might improve the expected results. So far it seems there has been no publicly shared conclusive experimental results confirming a generated useable force, using the basic conical design. Do you have access to additional data?
-
#1010
by
Notsosureofit
on 06 May, 2019 11:29
-
-
#1011
by
JohnFornaro
on 06 May, 2019 12:34
-
I guess it's clear that no-one can reference a high-quality force measurement on a vertically oriented EMdrive. That's cool.
Whaddaya mean by "reference"? There doesn't appear to be anything to "refer" to.
A teensy bit of anti-gravity isn't be nearly as interesting as a teensy bit of propellant-less thrust, though I confess interesting enough for me.
That's nice to hear of your interests, but we've all read a good bit of the sci-fi section at the public library, and are broadly familiar with the concept of "anti-gravity".
Somewhat dumbfounded that people would be more convinced by an attempt to re-write the laws of physics in a blog post, than by simply accepting that a gravitational interaction might involve the local field.
Not sure how many "people" you refer to, but the more credible people here are simply not "convinced by an attempt to rewrite the laws of physics in a blog post". Perhaps you could elaborate?
Also, what do you mean by "simply accept"? Every experimenter here is careful to account for gravity and a host of other forces which dampen what they think is their signal. They all already "simply accept" that we have a large planet under foot. Perhaps you could demonstrate a rational line of argumentation of why these experimental devices wrongly account for the gravitational interaction from the local field.
So far, all you appear to be saying is 'point that thing up' or 'point that thing down'.
-
#1012
by
JohnFornaro
on 06 May, 2019 12:37
-
The result of vertical measurements will be different from horizontal testing, which I have discussed many times with professor Yang, and she seems to agree with me. I'm going to redesign the cavity and no longer stick to a cone.
You seem to be conflating the angle of testing with the design of the device.
-
#1013
by
bad_astra
on 06 May, 2019 15:32
-
Does anyone know if there has been a high-quality thrust measurement of a vertical EMDrive?
I'm not going to qualify if it was high quality, but Berca Iulian had some of the most interesting results early on, when he went from pendulum test to vertical. I'm not suer if Iluian continued his tests or stopped for some reason.
I recall seeing one other vertical mass test which also showed results but did not show results in the horizontal. I do not remember who it was, though.
-
#1014
by
RERT
on 06 May, 2019 16:47
-
RE: Bad_Astra, Iulian - a 'high quality' vertical measurement would have to be in a vacuum chamber to meaningfully address thermal effects. I don't recall that early measurements like his were.
RE: JohnFornano - my hypothesis is that the EMdrive interacts in an unknown way with gravity. I can't spell that out more clearly, because I would be foolishly re-writing the laws of physics in a blog post, and in any case I don't have a specific theory. I don't need one. The hypothesis as stands has a very likely consequence that any force generated by the EM drive will depend on its orientation relative to the local field. Hence it asks the question as to whether we have seen null results with the truncated cone pointing up and down, as well has horizontally. I don't believe we have.
If the hypothesis turns out to be correct, we would have something not as useful as a thruster which can point in any direction, but something which might counteract (or with our luck reinforce) gravity. Which is interesting. Hence my somewhat frivolously worded remarks about anti-gravity.
I'm not stating anything about, or casting any aspersions on, any work anyone has done to test the EMdrive. In fact I'm implicitly accepting the now conventional wisdom that we have credible null results for horizontally oriented EM drives. If you wanted you could boil my thought down to the observation that we don't have credible null results for vertically oriented EMdrives, and I'm pointing out that that just conceivably could matter.
-
#1015
by
kenny008
on 06 May, 2019 17:51
-
RE: JohnFornano - my hypothesis is that the EMdrive interacts in an unknown way with gravity. I can't spell that out more clearly, because I would be foolishly re-writing the laws of physics in a blog post, and in any case I don't have a specific theory. I don't need one. The hypothesis as stands has a very likely consequence that any force generated by the EM drive will depend on its orientation relative to the local field. Hence it asks the question as to whether we have seen null results with the truncated cone pointing up and down, as well has horizontally. I don't believe we have.
If the hypothesis turns out to be correct, we would have something not as useful as a thruster which can point in any direction, but something which might counteract (or with our luck reinforce) gravity. Which is interesting. Hence my somewhat frivolously worded remarks about anti-gravity.
But
why would you think there is a vertical component? What would lead you to offer this hypothesis? The entire set of EM Drive threads are being discussed because there were some possible force measurements in the horizontal plane. As we continue to refine measurements and eliminate sources of error, those initial measurements have been most likely due to measurement errors. If it turns out the initial measurements were noise, why would we then start looking for a vertical component, when there's no scientific basis for either the horizontal or vertical thrust?
Once we are reasonably convinced that there are no horizontal forces, I don't see any reason to continue to look for additional random forces that have no theory requiring them. If we are finally (reasonably) convinced that there ARE horizontal forces, only then would it make sense to check for additional off-axis forces.
-
#1016
by
Bob Woods
on 07 May, 2019 05:35
-
Way back in the EM Drive stone age, around 2015, RFMWGUY ran his test on a teeter-totter setup with his frustum small end up and small end down in tests. The video was posted here. There appeared to be thrust, but there were questions on those tests. One item was thermal effects - a balloon effect.
Consensus was: 1) Excitement, 2) A recognition that a more sophisticated apparatus was necessary.
I don't remember if Monomorphic changed his orientation of the frustum in any of his tests on a far more sophisticated measurement device, but he showed that false positives were clearly possible, and even likely.
If you think a vertical device will work, build a test bed at least as sophisticated as Mono did and post your results.
-
#1017
by
RERT
on 07 May, 2019 12:05
-
I'm not going to build a test rig. It's just taken me three days to put 1.3 m^2 of tiles on my bathroom, I'm not the practical type.
I've pointed out that all the null results so far have been horizontal measurements. The lack of good vertical measurements is a tiny gap in the data which maybe someone might be in a position to fill in one day.
-
#1018
by
JohnFornaro
on 07 May, 2019 13:49
-
RE: JohnFornano - my hypothesis is that the EMdrive interacts in an unknown way with gravity. I can't spell that out more clearly, because I would be foolishly re-writing the laws of physics in a blog post, and in any case I don't have a specific theory. I don't need one. The hypothesis as stands has a very likely consequence that any force generated by the EM drive will depend on its orientation relative to the local field. Hence it asks the question as to whether we have seen null results with the truncated cone pointing up and down, as well has horizontally. I don't believe we have.
First, the Quote function here works pretty well. Try it, you'll like it.
Second: Hate to be harsh, but may I have French dressing with that word salad? Again, it sounds like the gist of your "hypothesis" is to point the cone up or down, expecting a different result, because... well, because you think that space is not isotropic on the Earth's surface.
If the hypothesis turns out to be correct, we would have something not as useful as a thruster which can point in any direction, but something which might counteract (or with our luck reinforce) gravity. Which is interesting. Hence my somewhat frivolously worded remarks about anti-gravity.
Just no. Sorry.
I'm not stating anything about, or casting any aspersions on, any work anyone has done to test the EMdrive.
No worries on that point.
In fact I'm implicitly accepting the now conventional wisdom that we have credible null results for horizontally oriented EM drives. If you wanted you could boil my thought down to the observation that we don't have credible null results for vertically oriented EMdrives, and I'm pointing out that that just conceivably could matter.
Space is isotropic.
-
#1019
by
JohnFornaro
on 07 May, 2019 13:52
-
Way back in the EM Drive stone age, around 2015, RFMWGUY ran his test on a teeter-totter setup with his frustum small end up and small end down in tests.
That's right! I had forgotten that. Weren't there thermal issues also involved?