Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 11  (Read 185030 times)

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9731
  • UK
  • Liked: 1863
  • Likes Given: 183
Yet on Sept. 25 Dr Woodward is scheduled for the Phase II Project paper/grant NASA has awarded at the Boston NIAC Symposium. Stay tuned folks. When was the last time everyone at a science conference agreed? 

You should know by now that’s the way this thread goes every so often that someone declares matters resolved. Then someone else says oh no there not.
« Last Edit: 09/13/2018 05:12 PM by Star One »

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1838
  • Liked: 1695
  • Likes Given: 404
Yet on Sept. 25 Dr Woodward is scheduled for the Phase II Project paper/grant NASA has awarded at the Boston NIAC Symposium. Stay tuned folks. When was the last time everyone at a science conference agreed? 

You should know by now that’s the way this thread goes every so often that someone declares matters resolved. Then someone else says oh no there not.
I don't think anyone has declared matters resolved just yet for the Mach effect thruster, Monomorphic's statement was "it is also not doing well."

Monomorphic was a bit stronger in statements about emDrive, and based on these results multiple people seem to agree it is now time to call it, and there hasn't been much dissent on that.

For various reasons, my personal criteria on when to call it aren't relevant, and I won't share them right now, but I will say that these multiple new data sets seem a reasonable point to draw the line, but it might be wise to see all of the details, not just the top level summaries first.

Offline Ricvil

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • Liked: 89
  • Likes Given: 56
More fun!!!
PS: a,b and c are,
For circular waveguide - internal
For torus- external
For Emdrive-internal

« Last Edit: 09/13/2018 07:15 PM by Ricvil »

Offline OnlyMe

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 342
  • So. Calif.
  • Liked: 194
  • Likes Given: 189
Something that has bothered me for some time now, as it relates to attempts to confirm or refute any potential anomalous force associated with an EmDrive, is that while the test beds have been improving significantly, the drive builds being tested have varied enough in one way or another, that any expectation that they are equivalent is lost.

When I first began to follow the mostly DIY efforts shared here, there seemed at least some effort to try and replicate frustum/power systems, as close as possible, given a lack of any detailed information from either Shawyer or Yang, to those earlier designs which claimed some observed thrust. As time passed the design side has relied more on conventional/established design mechanisms, even while it has been clear from early on that if any useable thrust were observed, it would require either some “new physics” or in the least some new understanding/application of existing physical models.

The frustums and power systems now being pursued do not seem even close to the frustum and magnetron builds that initially fueled legitimate efforts to explore and confirm or refute the claims that accompanied those designs.

It has been obvious since the start that improvements in the test beds have been important. It seems equally important that drive systems as close to the early designs be tested on the improved test beds. Just one big difference aside from obvious variations in the physical dimensions and materials, is that in the case of both Shawyer and Lang they began with magnetrons and EM fields potentially an order of magnitude greater than the most recent build(s).., perhaps approaching two orders of magnitude...

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.

Online tchernik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 271
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 635

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.

I think this is becoming a problem of phenomenology and testing the limits of the method. Until we can't prove it somewhat works, we won't have better, more expensive replications . Those ought to be made in space.

Given the lack of clarity concerning the experiments and a working theory for suggesting ways of improvement, the better tests simply won't come.

Of course, that's the textbook scientific method, not a problem per se.

The problem comes if there actually are some basis for anomalous observations in the ideal environment (vacuum and free fall of space), that won't be visible or get lost in the noisy, imperfect one we can make on Earth.

Space is an environment we simply aren't used to deal routinely with, not even in science, due to the high cost and difficulty to get something there. In that context, only the most certain to work experiments with known potential results will get ever financed and done.

This is a contextual limitation, given we simply aren't in continuous contact with that ideal environment (ideal for these experiments) as we are with the one on Earth's surface.

My hunch is that once more people can go to space and try things out with more freedom and less expense, some possibly hidden new things will be found, lurking behind the noise level (albeit, not necessarily related to this presumed phenomenon).

Offline Donosauro

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 138
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Something that has bothered me for some time now, as it relates to attempts to confirm or refute any potential anomalous force associated with an EmDrive, is that while the test beds have been improving significantly, the drive builds being tested have varied enough in one way or another, that any expectation that they are equivalent is lost.

Which, it seems reasonable to assume, is why Martin Tajmar asked to borrow one of Roger Shawyer's old, presumably nominally working, devices.

Offline spupeng7

(...)
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.
Thanks OnlyMe,
       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.
« Last Edit: 09/14/2018 04:35 AM by spupeng7 »
Optimism equals opportunity.

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1838
  • Liked: 1695
  • Likes Given: 404
(...)
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.
Thanks OnlyMe,
       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.
This sounds simply like a statement of a "perfect solution fallacy"

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.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9731
  • UK
  • Liked: 1863
  • Likes Given: 183
(...)
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.
Thanks OnlyMe,
       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.
This sounds simply like a statement of a "perfect solution fallacy"

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.

And that sounds a lot like you trying to brush off the question without actually answering the point made by the poster.

Offline Ricvil

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • Liked: 89
  • Likes Given: 56
(...)
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.
Thanks OnlyMe,
       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.
This sounds simply like a statement of a "perfect solution fallacy"

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.

And that sounds a lot like you trying to brush off the question without actually answering the point made by the poster.
There is a necessity to look the interesting results produced until now.
What is causing the 'Dark Zone' of current viewed by thermal images, and confirmed by many simulations?
What is causing the "thermal  insulation" , producing a hotside domain and a 'coldside' domain during power tests?
No one has noted, but the EmDrive experimenters and EM simulators may  acidentally discovered the dual of a superconducting state, a "supermagneticresistive state", induced by a Fano resonance of electromagnetic waves in a copper cavity with boundary conditions wich cannot  be matched by frontwaves with a "harmonic coordinate system" representation because it is equivalent, for electromagnetic frontwaves, to a Torus of Genus 1 by a conformal symmetry.
« Last Edit: 09/14/2018 11:45 PM by Ricvil »

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1838
  • Liked: 1695
  • Likes Given: 404
Thanks OnlyMe,
       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.
This sounds simply like a statement of a "perfect solution fallacy"

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.

And that sounds a lot like you trying to brush off the question without actually answering the point made by the poster.
Stating that the post is a pure fallacy is all the answer that can be made. I even gave a counterexample, demonstrating why that post is simply a complete denial of science.

On the other hand you are trying to dismiss my post without addressing the content of it.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9731
  • UK
  • Liked: 1863
  • Likes Given: 183
Thanks OnlyMe,
       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.
This sounds simply like a statement of a "perfect solution fallacy"

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.

And that sounds a lot like you trying to brush off the question without actually answering the point made by the poster.
Stating that the post is a pure fallacy is all the answer that can be made. I even gave a counterexample, demonstrating why that post is simply a complete denial of science.

On the other hand you are trying to dismiss my post without addressing the content of it.

Maybe because as I said above did you actually answer anything or was it just a slight of hand.

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1838
  • Liked: 1695
  • Likes Given: 404
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.

Offline SteveD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • United States
  • Liked: 82
  • Likes Given: 10
Before calling it a day, I think somebody needs to trst Sawyers claim that the drive has to undergo an initial acceleration in the direction of motion.  It's a long shot, but these very accurate rigs also seem to be holding the device very still.

Online Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1404
  • United States
    • /r/QThruster
  • Liked: 3892
  • Likes Given: 1256
I am working on a narrated version of the presentation to go on my youtube channel as the video recorded version from the workshop will not be available for several months. In the mean time, I have placed a copy on google drive for everyone to see now. Make sure you download and play from your computer so you can see the movies on slides 6, 38, 40, 42, 45, 48, & 64:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1YsxHFo-G5iARPtx_FeGQ641-3ygy6umj

Offline Ricvil

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • Liked: 89
  • Likes Given: 56
I'm trying to explain a possible broken of Lorentz transformations.
It is a taboo to many people.
The cavity shape may be introducing a Berry phase on the velocity group of TE TM states ( related to frontwave of these modes).
Why this is so important?
Because frontwaves are intrinsically related to some very important things:
1-The foliation of spacetime(related to Lorentz transformations and diffeomorphism symmetry)
2-Quantum commutation relations between space/momentum time/energy(related to position/momentum representations of quantum function waves)
3-Spatio-temporal represention of electromagnetic field fotons (plane waves or spherical waves for example).

All three points becomes "ill defined" if harmonic coordinate system cannot be used, and problems emerge, "solved" (or not) by ad-hoc prescriptions
For example:
-Path Integral representations of Feynman propagators in non harmonic coordinate systems in presence (or not) of gravity.
- Energy/moment definition of a gravitational fields and waves.
- Foliation or Fiber description of gravitational metric evolution.
- Moment definition of electromagnetic waves in spherical coordinate system (there is no quantum moment or angular moment associated to "theta" coordinate).
If confirmed the hipotesis of a dual supermagneticresistive state in the resonance, then the topological Berry phase of group velocity frontwave ( related to electric current surface) may violate Lorentz transformations.
Much more intriguing would to force a Fano resonance between a superconducting phase  and a supermagneticresistive dual phase of a Emdrive cavity.

PS: The cavity may be acting as a giant supermagneticresistive dual "Josephson junction" and interacting with ambient fields including Earth magnetic field.
« Last Edit: 09/15/2018 07:53 PM by Ricvil »

Offline sghill

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1386
  • United States
  • Liked: 1538
  • Likes Given: 2264
Is there anyone at the Estes Park conference who is willing to give us a short summery of the results up to now?
Thanks :)
We people, following this topic, but not able to visit the conference are quite interested in it.  :P ::)

General consensus is that the Emdrive does not work. I reported negative results for my tests today. Martin Tajmar and his group will report similar findings tomorrow. 

Monomorphic,

Would you be willing to write up an article at the end of the conference, perhaps with Dr. Jose's input, for publication on NSF.com? (I'm also happy to help edit)

Past articles generated by NSF users with Chris B's blessings have garnered worldwide attention, to say the least. There is extremely little published in reputable press outlets by actual researchers and practitioners on the EMDrive, so your contributions are platinum!

« Last Edit: 09/14/2018 09:04 PM by sghill »
Bring the thunder!

Online Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1404
  • United States
    • /r/QThruster
  • Liked: 3892
  • Likes Given: 1256
Would you be willing to write up an article at the end of the conference, perhaps with Dr. Jose's input, for publication on NSF.com? (I'm also happy to help edit)

Past articles generated by NSF users with Chris B's blessings have garnered worldwide attention, to say the least. There is extremely little published in reputable press outlets by actual researchers and practitioners on the EMDrive, so your contributions are platinum!

Sure, I would be happy to write something up with Dr. Rodal. I only attended the first two days, but I know Rodal was there at least three. He's dealing with getting home to North Carolina during a hurricane, so I'll get with him and see what we can do and when.
« Last Edit: 09/14/2018 10:25 PM by Monomorphic »

Offline sghill

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1386
  • United States
  • Liked: 1538
  • Likes Given: 2264
Would you be willing to write up an article at the end of the conference, perhaps with Dr. Jose's input, for publication on NSF.com? (I'm also happy to help edit)

Past articles generated by NSF users with Chris B's blessings have garnered worldwide attention, to say the least. There is extremely little published in reputable press outlets by actual researchers and practitioners on the EMDrive, so your contributions are platinum!

Sure, I would be happy to write something up with Dr. Rodal. I only attended the first two days, but I know Rodal was there at least three. He's dealing with getting home to North Carolina during a hurricane, so I'll get with him and see what we can do and when.

Yay!

Please feel free to call upon me. I'm certain others on this forum who were there will be pleased to contribute to your write up.

Jose' lives in NC?!? :)
« Last Edit: 09/15/2018 01:16 AM by sghill »
Bring the thunder!

Online RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1061
  • Liked: 745
  • Likes Given: 863
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.

Tags: