-
#1100 by Monomorphic on 05 Jun, 2019 18:29
-
Interesting article....
https://aetux.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Non-rocket-non-reactive-quantum-engine.pdf
This is a pretty strange measurement setup. Sounds to me like a large spinning anharmonic oscillator. This would show a false-positive force on a dynamometer attached in that location. The device vibrates a lot and we all know how that can affect these kinds of measurements.
Looks like another Dean drive variant. If you have a scale at home, next time you are on it wave your arms around and watch the weight amount change. Are you creating anti-gravity and a space engine? Of course not.
Google translated from the video comments:
Gennadii polubesovNovember 4, 2013, 05:29
"And when you brake sharply, the boat will return to its original state" - this is not true.
While you are running away, the boat WILL GO, and when you stop at the bow of the boat, it will stop, but in a different place, so that the common center of mass remains motionless. But Denis correctly reminds that there is also friction. Moreover, it depends on the speed. Therefore, combining the slow movement along the bottom with the “instantaneous” braking, there is a chance to play on the difference of the total effect of friction forces.
This chance is especially great on Leonov’s land devices. And it is really necessary to include both hemispheres in order not to claim that the boat will return to its original state, when its cargo has clearly shifted relative to the initial position.
These tricks with carts - from the arsenal of gadgets.
If you were interested in the truth, and not in the next patent, you would not hide the principle of work under the casing of the cart. This would bring worldwide fame and recognition of the superior benefits of patent patents, but only on the condition that it is not empty.
Put an unbalanced motor with a battery on the brush with an inclined bristle, cover with a casing - and it will go up the hill like a centipede."
-
#1101 by RotoSequence on 06 Jun, 2019 02:13
-
https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.00545
"To catch and reverse a quantum jump mid-flight"
Z.K. Minev, S.O. Mundhada, S. Shankar, P. Reinhold, R. Gutierrez-Jauregui, R.J. Schoelkopf, M. Mirrahimi, H.J. Carmichael, M.H. DevoretQuote
Quantum physics was invented to account for two fundamental features of measurement results -- their discreetness and randomness. Emblematic of these features is Bohr's idea of quantum jumps between two discrete energy levels of an atom. Experimentally, quantum jumps were first observed in an atomic ion driven by a weak deterministic force while under strong continuous energy measurement. The times at which the discontinuous jump transitions occur are reputed to be fundamentally unpredictable. Can there be, despite the indeterminism of quantum physics, a possibility to know if a quantum jump is about to occur or not? Here, we answer this question affirmatively by experimentally demonstrating that the jump from the ground to an excited state of a superconducting artificial three-level atom can be tracked as it follows a predictable "flight," by monitoring the population of an auxiliary energy level coupled to the ground state. The experimental results demonstrate that the jump evolution when completed is continuous, coherent, and deterministic. Furthermore, exploiting these features and using real-time monitoring and feedback, we catch and reverse a quantum jump mid-flight, thus deterministically preventing its completion. Our results, which agree with theoretical predictions essentially without adjustable parameters, support the modern quantum trajectory theory and provide new ground for the exploration of real-time intervention techniques in the control of quantum systems, such as early detection of error syndromes.
The Nature summary blurb of the paper was interesting as well:QuoteExperiment overturns Bohr’s view of quantum jumps, demonstrating that they possess a degree of predictability and when completed are continuous, coherent and even deterministic.
-
#1102 by zen-in on 06 Jun, 2019 04:11
-
They show a picture of Shawyer's Em-drive in the paper and talk about different cone or wedge-shaped devices. However it looks like they are claiming the gray devices on wheels moves horizontally, or at right angles to the cone shape on top. There are cables next to it but they don't look capable of supplying 25 kW. So we have another player in the arena who is not telling us everything but is making sensational claims. This isn't anything novel.
-
#1103 by TheTraveller on 06 Jun, 2019 15:06
-
OK this will upset some DIY / math rules reality guys.
Spr / Roger Shawyer NEVER built a cavity with both end plates as flat surfaces.
Those that doubt that have never analyser the experimental data Roger shared.
How to say this?
The EW cavity is not an EmDrive cavity nor or are any replicants.
Roger has told EW & all the EW repliants their cavity design is BS.
As far as I know EW & all the replicants have rejected Rogers advise.
Go figure.
Here is a cavity design Roger & I shared with EW.
We have no feedback EW replicated this design.
-
#1104 by TheTraveller on 06 Jun, 2019 15:32
-
In my most recent meeting with Roger, we agreed the experimental data showed trapped cavity photon wavelength increased as accelerated EmDrive + mass KE & momentum increased, Photon energy & momentum loss matches EmDrive increased KE & momentum.
CofE and CofM are conserved as trapped photon energy & momentum decreases, while wavelength increases, as accelerated mass KE & momentum increases.
EmDrive is just an electrical machine, converting input Rf joules into KE Joules.
No Ou.
Orbital data is to follow.
Your opinion, math based or not, as to if EmDrive work or not is not relevant.
It works, experimental data rules, no matter any math based denial, no matter what your opinion or belief.
Accept that and move on.
July 20, 2019 approaches. -
#1105 by Star One on 06 Jun, 2019 17:17
-
Has anyone told these people that is not an EM drive in the picture accompanying this article.
https://futurism.com/test-emdrive-breaks-laws-physics
This is the source article which at least uses a correct picture.
https://www.wired.com/story/a-mythical-form-of-space-propulsion-finally-gets-a-real-test/
Tajmar appears to be determined to do what it takes to end this debate. -
#1106 by birdman on 06 Jun, 2019 17:25
-
Has anyone told these people that is not an EM drive in the picture accompanying this article.
https://futurism.com/test-emdrive-breaks-laws-physics
This is the source article which at least uses a correct picture.
https://www.wired.com/story/a-mythical-form-of-space-propulsion-finally-gets-a-real-test/
Tajmar appears to be determined to do what it takes to end this debate.
I would think that most people reading the article there wouldn't know an EM drive from a fancy toaster with blue light coming out of it.
-
#1107 by RonM on 06 Jun, 2019 17:42
-
In my most recent meeting with Roger, we agreed the experimental data showed trapped cavity photon wavelength increased as accelerated EmDrive + mass KE & momentum increased, Photon energy & momentum loss matches EmDrive increased KE & momentum.
CofE and CofM are conserved as trapped photon energy & momentum decreases, while wavelength increases, as accelerated mass KE & momentum increases.
EmDrive is just an electrical machine, converting input Rf joules into KE Joules.
No Ou.
Orbital data is to follow.
Your opinion, math based or not, as to if EmDrive work or not is not relevant.
It works, experimental data rules, no matter any math based denial, no matter what your opinion or belief.
Accept that and move on.
July 20, 2019 approaches.
More talk and empty promises. Four years of this foolishness. -
#1108 by Star One on 06 Jun, 2019 17:59
-
Hopefully by the end of the year with the help of Tajmar’s experiments it should see the end of the EM drive nonsense.
-
#1109 by TheTraveller on 06 Jun, 2019 18:47
-
Hopefully by the end of the year with the help of Tajmar’s experiments it should see the end of the EM drive nonsense.
You do understand Roger visited Tajmar & team. Explained to them why they have null results & showed them how to get good results?
They ignored Roger's advise.
You should note Tajmar's team doesn't have an microwave engineer. Probably why they reported cavity Q geq 50k, which is impossible with flat end plates but is possible from RF system self resonances. In fact Tajmar reported Q of 300k, which is clearly self resonances.
When they obtain proper staff and report Q of around 5k, with flat end plates, I might take their results seriously. -
#1110 by Star One on 06 Jun, 2019 19:38
-
Hopefully by the end of the year with the help of Tajmar’s experiments it should see the end of the EM drive nonsense.
You do understand Roger visited Tajmar & team. Explained to them why they have null results & showed them how to get good results?
They ignored Roger's advise.
You should note Tajmar's team doesn't have an microwave engineer. Probably why they reported cavity Q geq 50k, which is impossible with flat end plates but is possible from RF system self resonances. In fact Tajmar reported Q of 300k, which is clearly self resonances.
When they obtain proper staff and report Q of around 5k, with flat end plates, I might take their results seriously.
I imagine there will be more than a few more knowledgable than me posting on here who will disagree with you. -
#1111 by X_RaY on 06 Jun, 2019 21:29
-
He's right about the expected Q factor of a non superconducting low order mode (TE01p for excample) resonant cavity with flat end plates around 2.4 GHz.Hopefully by the end of the year with the help of Tajmar’s experiments it should see the end of the EM drive nonsense.
You do understand Roger visited Tajmar & team. Explained to them why they have null results & showed them how to get good results?
They ignored Roger's advise.
You should note Tajmar's team doesn't have an microwave engineer. Probably why they reported cavity Q geq 50k, which is impossible with flat end plates but is possible from RF system self resonances. In fact Tajmar reported Q of 300k, which is clearly self resonances.
When they obtain proper staff and report Q of around 5k, with flat end plates, I might take their results seriously.
I imagine there will be more than a few more knowledgable than me posting on here who will disagree with you.
However, hardly anybody will want to answer TT's confused postings as long as there is no data supporting his claims. -
#1112 by dustinthewind on 07 Jun, 2019 20:48
-
Late 3rd week in July 2019 could be an interesting date in EmDrive history.
Phil, you've had plenty of opportunity to provide data; to provide proof. You haven't done so.
No matter what anyone's personal "beliefs" are, science relies on data to define a proof. Belief without data is more akin to religion than science.
This is a place for science.
It comes to something when recently we’ve seen more info and data on UFO sightings than the EM drive from this poster.
That's not to say there's anything wrong with research into UFOs as long as it's done in a scientific manner. one interesting book I read that was like that was written by Harley Rutledge about Piedmont Missouri. UFO phenomena is actually partly responsible for the interest in propellantless propulsion.
Other factors that affect interest are science fiction. Star trek not only predicted cell phones but it hit pretty close to home as far as manipulation of space-time with warp drives.
Another factor as its recent actual observation of space-time predicted by general relativity. In fact going beyond observation once you have an object that is capable of observing space-time you might have the option of manipulating that object to affect space time. There was a paper about that where they were proposing that Ligo might even be able to generate very small gravitational waves just because it's able to observe them via coupling of the laser mirror system to space time. There are lots of systems like this one example being electric motors which are also generators.
if the Mach effect works I think it probably has something to do with that also. If you look at how a gravitational field can slow down time and Lorentz contract objects by inducing acceleration or effective relative velocity then maybe inducing asymmetric relative accelerations on an object could induce curvature of space time. we know that from black holes the larger their velocity when merging and their accelerations seems to increase the rate at which they lose energy to space time.
My thoughts were that if we could make a cavity which induces these asymmetric accelerations at large enough energy, velocity, and accelerations maybe you wouldn't have to modulate extremely large amounts of mass to induce the curvature of space-time.
I think meberbs was getting at with black holes merging is that there's a lot of stored energy between two black holes as potential energy. That potential energy probably has effective Mass via the curvature of space-time between them. And merging they go to a lower energy state can accumulate velocity and effective Mass but that effective mass is thrown off as space-time waves so that they can merge.
Edit (another paper was proposing that asymmetric acceleration of black holes could induce asymmetric emission of gravitational waves and propel the black hole system out of its host Galaxy up to some percentage of the speed of light which I don't remember the exact %. they were even proposing looking for Galaxy systems missing their black holes. )
my personal thoughts are that if there is anything to the Mach effect in these emdrive cavities it's probably a transverse magnetic mode where are the charges are accelerated forward and back.
superconductors inside might be optimal because then the electrons achieve much larger velocities and accelerations.
Learning to manipulate space-time is the beginning of implementing ideas such as the alcubierre warp bubble or other more manageable warp techniques. -
#1113 by Mark7777777 on 08 Jun, 2019 03:15
-
Hopefully by the end of the year with the help of Tajmar’s experiments it should see the end of the EM drive nonsense.
You do understand Roger visited Tajmar & team. Explained to them why they have null results & showed them how to get good results?
They ignored Roger's advise.
You should note Tajmar's team doesn't have an microwave engineer. Probably why they reported cavity Q geq 50k, which is impossible with flat end plates but is possible from RF system self resonances. In fact Tajmar reported Q of 300k, which is clearly self resonances.
When they obtain proper staff and report Q of around 5k, with flat end plates, I might take their results seriously.
"They ignored Roger's advice."
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/advise-advice/
-
#1114 by The_Optimist on 08 Jun, 2019 06:59
-
July 20, 2019 approaches.
What’s happening on the 20th of July? -
#1115 by RotoSequence on 08 Jun, 2019 07:54
-
July 20, 2019 approaches.
What’s happening on the 20th of July?
Other than the 50th anniversary of the first moonwalk by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin? Probably nothing to do with propellant-less propulsion. -
#1116 by Monomorphic on 08 Jun, 2019 13:44
-
"They ignored Roger's advice."
They did not ignore his advice. The advice came with a very large and unethical string attached to it. Shawyer demanded that Tajmar announce to the world that the Emdrive worked before he would help them with any technical details. -
#1117 by The_Optimist on 08 Jun, 2019 15:13
-
Who told you that Mono? What a strange thing to do....
-
#1118 by Star One on 08 Jun, 2019 15:33
-
Who told you that Mono? What a strange thing to do....
Yeah I’d like to see what their proof is of that claim. -
#1119 by Monomorphic on 08 Jun, 2019 16:11
-
Who told you that Mono? What a strange thing to do....
Yeah I’d like to see what their proof is of that claim.
This is what I was told at the Estes Park Workshop. TheTraveler confirmed it here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1855127#msg1855127