-
#460 by SeeShells on 15 Sep, 2018 17:05
-
I'm hoping to see some input from Stardrive and Seashells soon on the state of things with the latest null results by mono and the US Naval Research Lab. If this episode is heading for closure, it would seem appropriate for proper bookends, or maybe leaving things open for continuation.
I read about the current reports from Monomorphic and NRL, neither were a surprise with null reports. Monomorphic's work is on a bar that few DYIers have approached and the NRL teams whom I've worked with years ago IMHO set a gold standard with their research. The work by EagleWorks is also very high standard although the last spherical air bearing tests were marred by the issues with the air bearing quality. They reported as such.
In my own work and research on the plain Jane EMDrive reveled errors that could be directly attributed to motions induced by thermal and EM effects. Although a lucky chance in my testing I saw a effect and possible thrust that was above the error bars. Not to say that this anomaly is real but it provided hope to turn my research to another direction. A direction using a highly modified resonate chamber, not just a resonating asymmetrical can of microwaves.
My work continues and a tip of the hat to Jamie and NRL for great work and unbiased reporting.
My Very Best
Shell -
#461 by Mark7777777 on 15 Sep, 2018 20:27
-
...
Of particular interest to this forum is the story Martin Tajmar and his students told me of Roger Shawyer's visit to their lab. They asked Roger for an older device to test and Roger told them he would only loan them a device if they report some positive results BEFORE they get the device. They refused of course.
...
Did Mr. Shawyer mean that he would only loan his device to Dr. Tajmar if they reported some positive results WITH THEIR OWN DEVICES before hand? I now think this is what he meant. If so, "BEFORE" should not be emphasized. It led me to interpret the story in an uncomfortable way yesterday.
In email corro with Roger about this. Was told what Jamie reported was accurate.
However.......
It is my understanding that Tajmar's group needed to show they had followed Roger advise, built an EmDrive and thrust measurement system as per what he shared. Once they had achieved that goal and measured thrust, he would then loan them an EmDrive to test.
Hi TheTraveller
Do you think there was something fundamentally flawed with Jamie and the Navy's testing or do you agree that it was OK and there may not be a real (non-interference) Emdrive thrust effect available after all?
Regards
-
#462 by TheTraveller on 16 Sep, 2018 08:47
-
Hi TheTraveller
Do you think there was something fundamentally flawed with Jamie and the Navy's testing or do you agree that it was OK and there may not be a real (non-interference) Emdrive thrust effect available after all?
Regards
EmDrive works well. However there are requirements that may seem counterintuitive. i have discussed a few with Jamie. Main one being I have never used continuous RF. Only every used pulsed RF. Which is what a magnetron produces when driven by a 1/2 wave rectified voltage doubler power supply.
Should also note the rotary test rig Roger demonstrated back in 2006 had a rotary resistance load applied to the test rig. So free to rotate but the drive accelerated against a constant load. I believe Roger did suggest this to Jamie. Also note Oyzw mentioned a load should be used.
Can't understand why Tajmar apparently refused to follow Roger's advise in building the drive, RF system and test rig, then show him positive results before he sent then one of his drives to test?
My rotary test rig is still work in progress. Plan was to do a demo in the UK Nov/Dec 2018 but due to schedule issues, will probably happen early 2019.
BTW my design is changing to that of one in the public knowledge, ie the EW cavity built by Paul March. However resonance needs to be at a higher freq to avoid cutoff issues. Which means that once I publish the details, others who have built EW cavities will be able to do a few changes and verify my data.
So those who have built EW cavities, like EW, Tajmar, the US Navy, etc, hang in there. You will be shown how to make them generate thrust levels way out of the noise.
Maybe EW will loan Jamie their cavity, so he can apply my alterations and start to see significant thrust? -
#463 by Star One on 16 Sep, 2018 09:01
-
Maybe because as I said above did you actually answer anything or was it just a slight of hand.
Try actually reading my post.
I answered with a simple counterexample that shows that spupeng7's post was a fallacy.
I literally said that exact same thing in my previous response to you. You are trying to accuse me of "slight of hand" while you are ignoring what I said. Repeatedly. This is both rude and hypocritical.
You might find it that but I’d say I found your OP in response to what seemed to me a genuine enquiry, if maybe mistaken, to be both rude and dismissive. Hence my response.
I don’t generally post in here these days as the matter seems a lot settled now and that’s partly through your sterling work, and I wouldn’t have posted now if not genuinely taken aback by OP. -
#464 by Monomorphic on 16 Sep, 2018 11:28
-
EmDrive works well. However there are requirements that may seem counterintuitive. i have discussed a few with Jamie. Main one being I have never used continuous RF. Only every used pulsed RF. Which is what a magnetron produces when driven by a 1/2 wave rectified voltage doubler power supply.
Should also note the rotary test rig Roger demonstrated back in 2006 had a rotary resistance load applied to the test rig. So free to rotate but the drive accelerated against a constant load. I believe Roger did suggest this to Jamie. Also note Oyzw mentioned a load should be used.
My rotary test rig is still work in progress. Plan was to do a demo in the UK Nov/Dec 2018 but due to schedule issues, will probably happen early 2019.
Maybe EW will loan Jamie their cavity, so he can apply my alterations and start to see significant thrust?
I'll be giving pulsed RF a try in a couple of weeks as my signal generator is capable of that. I will also be trying some of the other suggestions by Oyzw. I'm not exactly sure what is meant by a constant load. It would help if this can be described in more detail.
My understanding is that Dr. White is going to loan the Navy group a cavity for testing. -
#465 by oyzw on 16 Sep, 2018 12:14
-
Professor Yang and I have endorsed the theoretical explanations of Dr. Chen Yue and Cannae's patents that emdirve uses an asymmetric structure to induce the electromagnetic field distribution to form a gradient difference, which produces a radiation pressure difference. In order to achieve this goal, the cone cavity is not the best choice. It uses a more special induction structure to asymmetrically pull the electromagnetic field, such as a very asymmetrical shape, filling with a polymer, adding a metal diaphragm, and etching trenches. They are all common goals. My cavity is just a visual copy, and there is no strict theoretical calculation, so even in the TE013 mode, there is probably no obvious electromagnetic gradient distribution. I will next copy the cavity of Dr. Chen Yue and use the high K substance to further change the trapezoidal cavity.Hi TheTraveller
Do you think there was something fundamentally flawed with Jamie and the Navy's testing or do you agree that it was OK and there may not be a real (non-interference) Emdrive thrust effect available after all?
Regards
EmDrive works well. However there are requirements that may seem counterintuitive. i have discussed a few with Jamie. Main one being I have never used continuous RF. Only every used pulsed RF. Which is what a magnetron produces when driven by a 1/2 wave rectified voltage doubler power supply.
Should also note the rotary test rig Roger demonstrated back in 2006 had a rotary resistance load applied to the test rig. So free to rotate but the drive accelerated against a constant load. I believe Roger did suggest this to Jamie. Also note Oyzw mentioned a load should be used.
Can't understand why Tajmar apparently refused to follow Roger's advise in building the drive, RF system and test rig, then show him positive results before he sent then one of his drives to test?
My rotary test rig is still work in progress. Plan was to do a demo in the UK Nov/Dec 2018 but due to schedule issues, will probably happen early 2019.
BTW my design is changing to that of one in the public knowledge, ie the EW cavity built by Paul March. However resonance needs to be at a higher freq to avoid cutoff issues. Which means that once I publish the details, others who have built EW cavities will be able to do a few changes and verify my data.
So those who have built EW cavities, like EW, Tajmar, the US Navy, etc, hang in there. You will be shown how to make them generate thrust levels way out of the noise.
Maybe EW will loan Jamie their cavity, so he can apply my alterations and start to see significant thrust? -
#466 by otlski on 16 Sep, 2018 13:10
-
Should also note the rotary test rig Roger demonstrated back in 2006 had a rotary resistance load applied to the test rig. So free to rotate but the drive accelerated against a constant load. I believe Roger did suggest this to Jamie. Also note Oyzw mentioned a load should be used.
Are you referring to the air bearing video demo? Would you clarify this statement? It is rather obvious that there were two unintended forms of rotary resistance, neither is a constant. The first are the cables draped from the moving side of the rig to the floor. Their effective torsional spring rate is non-linear and temperature sensitive. They certainly kill any sense of advantage from using an air bearing. The second is air drag which is decidedly not linear. What other if any form of purposeful angular resistance did he implement? Please quantify. -
#467 by meberbs on 16 Sep, 2018 15:16
-
I pointed out that a logical fallacy was being employed and demonstrated why it was a fallacy.For any given statement "X", a question of the form"why not X" is best answered by explaining "X is a fallacy, and here is why." There is nothing inherently rude about doing that, and it is only dismissive in the sense that there is a solid and easy to state reason why what I was responding to should be dismissed.Maybe because as I said above did you actually answer anything or was it just a slight of hand.
Try actually reading my post.
I answered with a simple counterexample that shows that spupeng7's post was a fallacy.
I literally said that exact same thing in my previous response to you. You are trying to accuse me of "slight of hand" while you are ignoring what I said. Repeatedly. This is both rude and hypocritical.
You might find it that but I’d say I found your OP in response to what seemed to me a genuine enquiry, if maybe mistaken, to be both rude and dismissive. Hence my response.
I don’t generally post in here these days as the matter seems a lot settled now and that’s partly through your sterling work, and I wouldn’t have posted now if not genuinely taken aback by OP.
If you think the original statement was anything less than a complete fallacy, you are going to have to say something that actually acknowledges the content of the original post. -
#468 by meberbs on 16 Sep, 2018 15:48
-
EmDrive works well. However there are requirements that may seem counterintuitive. i have discussed a few with Jamie. Main one being I have never used continuous RF. Only every used pulsed RF. Which is what a magnetron produces when driven by a 1/2 wave rectified voltage doubler power supply.
Things wrong with these statements:
-I don't recall ever seeing something from Shawyer with these "pulsing" requirements.
-Your statement that you have "never used continuous RF" is meaningless, because you have provided no evidence you have actually completed a single emDrive.
-Anyone who knows what they are doing when building a rectifier includes a capacitor to smooth the output, and there would be at least some capacitance no matter what.
-Magnetrons take finite time to get going and to stop, as does the resonance in the cavity. The setup you describe would at best just be varying the output amplitude, with it never reaching "zero."Should also note the rotary test rig Roger demonstrated back in 2006 had a rotary resistance load applied to the test rig. So free to rotate but the drive accelerated against a constant load. I believe Roger did suggest this to Jamie. Also note Oyzw mentioned a load should be used.
A torsional pendulum also provides a load for the drive to accelerate against, that is how it works. As others stated the loads in Shawyer's rig aren't "constant" so I am just ignoring that word and assuming you didn't mean to use it, at least not according to a common definition.
This need for a load is directly contradictory to the "free to rotate" requirement, but to the extent that these can be taken together, a torsional pendulum provides both.Can't understand why Tajmar apparently refused to follow Roger's advise in building the drive, RF system and test rig, then show him positive results before he sent then one of his drives to test?
What advise did he not follow? The "show positive results" is a nonsensical requirement, at best it negates the main reason they would borrow it, at worst it is a sign of outright fraud. Tajmar's setup could be independently shown to meet any requirements from Shawyer on things like sensitivity without first putting an emDrive on the stand. No requirements that Tajmar's stand does not meet have been provided.
-
#469 by WhatAFeynDay on 16 Sep, 2018 15:57
-
Should also note the rotary test rig Roger demonstrated back in 2006 had a rotary resistance load applied to the test rig.
Of course it did...always some little wrinkle for you to claim Roger's secret recipe has not yet been correctly duplicated.
Your emdrives are vaporware. They've never been seen, they do not exist. -
#470 by OnlyMe on 16 Sep, 2018 17:16
-
...
Can't understand why Tajmar apparently refused to follow Roger's advise in building the drive, RF system and test rig, then show him positive results before he sent then one of his drives to test?
...
This whole line of discussion seems suspect to me. If Shawyer had provided anyone who has/had the resources to replicate any of his early “successful” designs, there would be no need to retest a build provided by him! They would have just built a copy and tested it.
If he had a/any build that successfully produced(s) thrust/acceleration, the only reasonable qualification on providing the drive for testing, by another lab, would be whether their test bed is/was capable of handling the drive (dimensions, weight and mechanisms...) and whether it (the test bed) had/has been demonstrated to be capable of measuring forces/thrust in the range Shawyer claims for his build. -
#471 by spupeng7 on 17 Sep, 2018 05:53
-
Ya, and then there is the whole frustrating issue of 'commercial in confidence agreements' which may yet mean that public verification of emdrive will not happen until the first product 'launch'. If you will forgive the pun....
Can't understand why Tajmar apparently refused to follow Roger's advise in building the drive, RF system and test rig, then show him positive results before he sent then one of his drives to test?
...
This whole line of discussion seems suspect to me. If Shawyer had provided anyone who has/had the resources to replicate any of his early “successful” designs, there would be no need to retest a build provided by him! They would have just built a copy and tested it.
If he had a/any build that successfully produced(s) thrust/acceleration, the only reasonable qualification on providing the drive for testing, by another lab, would be whether their test bed is/was capable of handling the drive (dimensions, weight and mechanisms...) and whether it (the test bed) had/has been demonstrated to be capable of measuring forces/thrust in the range Shawyer claims for his build.
Meantime we are all in the dark about the experimental methodology except for amateur attempts such as Monomorphs', which will likely not be detailed to the point of reliable repeatability until they produce positive results. -
#472 by spupeng7 on 17 Sep, 2018 05:58
-
meberbs,
This sounds simply like a statement of a "perfect solution fallacy"(...)
Thanks OnlyMe,
Without a credible theory of operation, which does not at present exist, building and testing an EmDrive remains an engineering problem, which once agin leads back to the original design/build and power levels those early attempts operated at. Without that credible theory of operation, playing with the design, physical dimensions and power systems, is not science. Unless all you are trying to do is prove that existing interpretation of physics cannot produce the results claimed., while acknowledging that.., again.., that positive results would require at the very least a reinterpretation or application of what we know, or think(thought) we know.
a voice of reason in the darkness. Without a complete and seamless unification of all aspects of physics, how can we possibly say what is or is not possible
Typo corrected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
There are many things that we know to be true, that are simply not affected by the holes in physics. Just because we do not know exactly how gravity operates on sub atomic scales, it does not change the fact that we know that if you walk off a diving board, you are going to end up falling into the pool.
not much interested in perfection, just what meets the essential criteria of conservation of momentum, charge and energy. As already stated. -
#473 by meberbs on 17 Sep, 2018 08:21
-
Conservation of momentum, charge and energy are all handled perfectly fine by both classical and quantum electrodynamics.
meberbs,
This sounds simply like a statement of a "perfect solution fallacy"(...)
Thanks OnlyMe,
Without a credible theory of operation, which does not at present exist, building and testing an EmDrive remains an engineering problem, which once agin leads back to the original design/build and power levels those early attempts operated at. Without that credible theory of operation, playing with the design, physical dimensions and power systems, is not science. Unless all you are trying to do is prove that existing interpretation of physics cannot produce the results claimed., while acknowledging that.., again.., that positive results would require at the very least a reinterpretation or application of what we know, or think(thought) we know.
a voice of reason in the darkness. Without a complete and seamless unification of all aspects of physics, how can we possibly say what is or is not possible
Typo corrected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
There are many things that we know to be true, that are simply not affected by the holes in physics. Just because we do not know exactly how gravity operates on sub atomic scales, it does not change the fact that we know that if you walk off a diving board, you are going to end up falling into the pool.
not much interested in perfection, just what meets the essential criteria of conservation of momentum, charge and energy. As already stated.
I fail to see how "complete and seamless unification of all aspects of physics" is asking for anything less than a perfect grand unified theory. Physicists are working on it, but the fact that they haven't gotten there yet doesn't mean they can't make a lot of valid statements about what can or can not be done (based on consistency with previous experiments.) -
#474 by Ricvil on 17 Sep, 2018 10:32
-
Let's start with a huge simplification.( forget spin, forget periodic cell structure of copper)
Conservation of momentum, charge and energy are all handled perfectly fine by both classical and quantum electrodynamics.
meberbs,
This sounds simply like a statement of a "perfect solution fallacy"(...)
Thanks OnlyMe,
Without a credible theory of operation, which does not at present exist, building and testing an EmDrive remains an engineering problem, which once agin leads back to the original design/build and power levels those early attempts operated at. Without that credible theory of operation, playing with the design, physical dimensions and power systems, is not science. Unless all you are trying to do is prove that existing interpretation of physics cannot produce the results claimed., while acknowledging that.., again.., that positive results would require at the very least a reinterpretation or application of what we know, or think(thought) we know.
a voice of reason in the darkness. Without a complete and seamless unification of all aspects of physics, how can we possibly say what is or is not possible
Typo corrected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
There are many things that we know to be true, that are simply not affected by the holes in physics. Just because we do not know exactly how gravity operates on sub atomic scales, it does not change the fact that we know that if you walk off a diving board, you are going to end up falling into the pool.
not much interested in perfection, just what meets the essential criteria of conservation of momentum, charge and energy. As already stated.
I fail to see how "complete and seamless unification of all aspects of physics" is asking for anything less than a perfect grand unified theory. Physicists are working on it, but the fact that they haven't gotten there yet doesn't mean they can't make a lot of valid statements about what can or can not be done (based on consistency with previous experiments.)
Just begins writing full covariant Klein-Gordon equation for the electrons living in cavity's skin-depth under influence of electromagnetic potential, then try to find the correpondent path integral representation, and you will begin to undertand what is the problem.( remember: full covariant) -
#475 by cvbn on 17 Sep, 2018 13:22
-
Scientists receive $1.3 million to study new propulsion idea for spacecraft:
https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/news/scientists-receive-13-million-to-study-new-propulsion-idea-for-spacecraft -
#476 by sghill on 17 Sep, 2018 13:38
-
Maybe EW will loan Jamie their cavity, so he can apply my alterations and start to see significant thrust?
QuoteProfessor Yang and I have endorsed the theoretical explanations of Dr. Chen Yue and Cannae's patents that emdirve uses an asymmetric structure to induce the electromagnetic field distribution to form a gradient difference, which produces a radiation pressure difference. In order to achieve this goal, the cone cavity is not the best choice. It uses a more special induction structure to asymmetrically pull the electromagnetic field, such as a very asymmetrical shape, filling with a polymer, adding a metal diaphragm, and etching trenches. They are all common goals. My cavity is just a visual copy, and there is no strict theoretical calculation, so even in the TE013 mode, there is probably no obvious electromagnetic gradient distribution. I will next copy the cavity of Dr. Chen Yue and use the high K substance to further change the trapezoidal cavity.
Since we are on the subject of efficient cavity shapes (and I don't want to read yet another fight between TheTraveller and others). May I take us back to this dicussion:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1735418#msg1735418
and
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1736210#msg1736210
A trapezoidal cavity is a terrible resonant device. IMHO, Webster's Horn Equation is the direction to look for improved resonant cavity design, even if the analogies between EM and acoustic propagation don't completely overlap.
-
#477 by meberbs on 17 Sep, 2018 14:18
-
Let's start with a huge simplification.( forget spin, forget periodic cell structure of copper)
Like just about every quantum mechanics problem that describes a halfway realistic scenario, (especially multi-particle situations) there is most likely no closed form solution. That doesn't mean that the equations are wrong, or change the fact that QED is a consistent theory that obeys conservation laws. The difficulty of writing down the solution to the equation is irrelevant, especially given that there would be something like 10^23 parameters for all of the individual electrons, which is why the non-quantum limit is both accurate and easier to use.
Just begins writing full covariant Klein-Gordon equation for the electrons living in cavity's skin-depth under influence of electromagnetic potential, then try to find the correpondent path integral representation, and you will begin to undertand what is the problem.( remember: full covariant)
This all just provides more evidence for why requiring a grand unified theory before allowing statements describing how things work doesn't make sense. The inherent properties like conservation laws are shown to work at a general level. To get answers that apply in the real world and don't take forever to calculate, you have to pick a set of sensible approximations. In this case the sensible approximation is the limit of large numbers, in which case you just end up with classical electrodynamics. This will be accurate to within the validity of the approximation, and 10^23 is a very, very large number, so it is unlikely for any experiment to be able to detect any difference. And even then, general results like momentum conservation still hold. -
#478 by Ricvil on 17 Sep, 2018 14:20
-
flux_capacitor wrote (Thread 9)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1680488#msg1680488
"Is that magnetic charge physical or not… Is an electron really made of "two magnetic charges" or is the magnetic field just a description of the electrodynamic interaction of two charged particles in motion relatively to each other, due to their spin?
Physically speaking, it depends of how you answer the question what is the magnetic field.
Simplistic view: when you cut a magnet in half, you don't get two separate North pole and South pole, you get two dipole magnets. You can cut the magnet again and again and again down to the atomic level: finally you'll reach the electron which is still a magnetic dipole. It's like saying you want to slice a window glass so thin because you want a window with only one side.
So according to this view, the magnetic field is something that comes out from an electric flow (current) and not the other way around, and it is always a dipole. And the magnetic monopole cannot exist.
But is an electron made of two magnetic charges? When explaining the origin of mass and inertia, some people including the media tell it is due to a particle, the Higgs boson. Although they omit to say it is just a hypothesis, and others hypotheses for the origin of inertia do exist, like the Mach-Einstein-Sciama-Woodward hypothesis, or quantized inertia (MiHsC). But at this point choosing between them is rather a matter of belief.
Dirac's equations plead in favor of the existence of discrete magnetic charges and magnetic monopoles. Observation does not. What is reality?
My understanding of the magnetic field is incomplete, since there is no electric charge in movement in the propagation of an electromagnetic wave in a vacuum, although there is a magnetic and electric fields associated with the wave. I admit I don't understand the physical meaning of an EM wave, I have always seen this as a mathematical trick and not a true description of reality, especially as there is no æther as a medium for the propagation of the wave and its EM field. Except EM waves are really propagating in vacuum, so… I'll stop there, because I can't add more to the debate. But you get the idea."
Dear flux_capacitor,
Where I can find a reference about this "composite electron of two magnetic charges"? -
#479 by Ricvil on 17 Sep, 2018 14:50
-
Dear Meberbs.Let's start with a huge simplification.( forget spin, forget periodic cell structure of copper)
Like just about every quantum mechanics problem that describes a halfway realistic scenario, (especially multi-particle situations) there is most likely no closed form solution. That doesn't mean that the equations are wrong, or change the fact that QED is a consistent theory that obeys conservation laws. The difficulty of writing down the solution to the equation is irrelevant, especially given that there would be something like 10^23 parameters for all of the individual electrons, which is why the non-quantum limit is both accurate and easier to use.
Just begins writing full covariant Klein-Gordon equation for the electrons living in cavity's skin-depth under influence of electromagnetic potential, then try to find the correpondent path integral representation, and you will begin to undertand what is the problem.( remember: full covariant)
This all just provides more evidence for why requiring a grand unified theory before allowing statements describing how things work doesn't make sense. The inherent properties like conservation laws are shown to work at a general level. To get answers that apply in the real world and don't take forever to calculate, you have to pick a set of sensible approximations. In this case the sensible approximation is the limit of large numbers, in which case you just end up with classical electrodynamics. This will be accurate to within the validity of the approximation, and 10^23 is a very, very large number, so it is unlikely for any experiment to be able to detect any difference. And even then, general results like momentum conservation still hold.
The difficult to find the solution is not the point.
One can find a path integral representation of the problem.
The problem are the ad-hoc choices made in the process to mantain the unitarity of final form of the path integral representation of the simplified problem.
A lot of prescriptions to disapear with "unwanted" terms.
The "problem" emerge when these ad-hoc prescriptions cannot be applied successfully because of topological restrictions.
