-
#180 by meberbs on 09 Dec, 2019 17:21
-
McCulloch cone is as erroneous as the truncated EM Drive cone
While there are major problems with McCulloch's claims, nothing you address is any of them.There is a huge mistake in proving the photon momentum. This mistake is so great that they do not see it, because it is so obvious. I have all the necessary evidence, but I can not demonstrate it. Because my English is weak.
Your English seems more than good enough for communicating, and google translate has gotten very good. Also, numbers are easy to translate as are SI units: https://www.metricmethods.com/SI_russian.html
The only issue in your post that seems to possibly be a translation issue is where you say you have evidence, but can't demonstrate it. If you had real evidence, demonstrating it would be trivial.And first of all, I will prove that the photon does not carry momentum. No experiments are needed here. I just destroy the evidence used by those who believe that it is.
You can't do that without experiment, because there are many experiments that prove and measure photon momentum.*
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-34381-zQuoteRadiation pressure was first quantitatively described by Maxwell based on his wave-theory of electromagnetism published in 18731. Nearly thirty years later, radiation pressure was experimentally demonstrated independently by Nichols and Hull2 and by Lebedev3.
The amount of force generated due to photon momentum is well enough understood that it is now considered as a possible standard method to measure the power of an RF signal by measuring the force applied on reflection of the signal. (Force is rate of change of momentum by definition, so this is equivalent to measuring the momentum.)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323217450_Measurement_of_Radio-Frequency_Radiation_PressureAnd now just think about the fact that there is not a single physical device or machine that uses the effect of a photon pulse. And at the same time, torsion scales for measuring the gravitational constant are available at many universities. But they measure approximately the same impulses.
Simply untrue, there are multiple applications for photon momentum that have been demonstrated. A solar sail was recently tested in orbit, and worked as expected.
https://www.space.com/lightsail-2-solar-sail-mission-success.html
You can find some other examples of mechanisms that make used of photon momentum to work on wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure#Laser_applications_of_radiation_pressureNow look at my GRAVITSUP and you will see that this is the same photon compressor as in laser tweezers. Unfortunately, I am not capable of anything else to help you. Yes, I have no words to explain my knowledge. But if you look carefully at my examples, you will understand that I know something very important.
Others have already looked at your setup and found multiple flaws which you refused to address.I now have several projects of unsupported movement engines, both based on classical physics and on new physics. But no magazine will accept articles from me with their description. I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream. I'm so sorry.
The issue does not seem to be a problem with your mouth, but with your eyes and ears. Your sentences are perfectly coherent, but they are also completely wrong, and you have refused to listen when people have explained why.
* For anyone wondering about the apparent conflict between my previous post and this one, I feel I should note that there is a difference in difficulty of accurate measurements between shining a laser (or light beam, the first measurements of radiation pressure preceded lasers) on a mirror on the end of a torsion pendulum, where effectively 0 heat is left on the mirror, and trying to obtain the same accuracy with a setup with batteries or power wires on the pendulum, and the energy dissipated within the device on the pendulum. In either case a vacuum chamber is pretty much necessary, but at least for the measuring photon momentum case, you can turn up the power without proportionally increasing primary error sources, and McCulloch for example is only claiming about 15 times the standard force from a reflection of the laser he is suggesting to use. -
#181 by Vlad Kri on 09 Dec, 2019 19:31
-
for meberbs
I am grateful to you for the attention that you publish on my posts. Without your answers, I would be bored living.
As soon as I have the opportunity, I am going to continue the experiments and I hope that you will help me remotely.
YouTube and Google Translate will help us.
Well, now let's talk about what you accuse me of. I can’t publish a refutation of Maxwell’s evidence, because I can’t find Maxwell’s proof itself.
And I’m sure that such evidence doesn’t exist so the photon nature of light was proved a month before Maxwell’s death
I searched for evidence for a very long time, but everyone who claims that light has an impulse refers to Maxwell's work as a proven fact.
In this case, no one gives a link to the evidence itself only a link to the treatise.
So in this treatise there is no evidence of light pressure.
Nobody repeated the experiments of Lebedev.
And the ability to measure energy does not indicate the presence of a pulse.
I hope you will not argue that momentum is the only form of energy?
I'm ready to fight the dragon, but I'm not going to attack the windmills.
Well, now about the solar sail.
Only an amateur believes that sunlight and solar wind are one and the same.
Therefore, the experiment with a solar sail does not prove the presence of a photon pulse.
Your joke about laser tweezers really amused me.
Laser tweezers pull, not push -
#182 by X_RaY on 09 Dec, 2019 20:11
-
If you really think that photons do not carry momentum, where did the momentum of your device come from, as you claimed?McCulloch encourages everyone to do this experiment:
McCulloch cone is as erroneous as the truncated EM Drive cone
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1202900018581127176
There is a huge mistake in proving the photon momentum. This mistake is so great that they do not see it, because it is so obvious. I have all the necessary evidence, but I can not demonstrate it. Because my English is weak. And my academic English is none. And when I improve my English to High intermediate I will first correct this error in physics in the concept of a photon.
Today I do not have money to continue experiments and study. But I'm not going to give up, because I have no right to retreat. And first of all, I will prove that the photon does not carry momentum. No experiments are needed here. I just destroy the evidence used by those who believe that it is.
And now just think about the fact that there is not a single physical device or machine that uses the effect of a photon pulse. And at the same time, torsion scales for measuring the gravitational constant are available at many universities. But they measure approximately the same impulses.
Now look at my GRAVITSUP and you will see that this is the same photon compressor as in laser tweezers. Unfortunately, I am not capable of anything else to help you. Yes, I have no words to explain my knowledge. But if you look carefully at my examples, you will understand that I know something very important.
I now have several projects of unsupported movement engines, both based on classical physics and on new physics. But no magazine will accept articles from me with their description. I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream. I'm so sorry.
There is no evidence to support your claim, but many experimental evidence and theoretical deductions prove that photon momentum is a fact.
So, how do you come to this conclusion?
-
#183 by meberbs on 09 Dec, 2019 20:17
-
Well, now let's talk about what you accuse me of. I can’t publish a refutation of Maxwell’s evidence, because I can’t find Maxwell’s proof itself.
If you want the mathematical derivation, simply pick up any decent electrodynamics textbook. The one I have is "Introduction to Electrodynamics" by David Griffiths.And I’m sure that such evidence doesn’t exist so the photon nature of light was proved a month before Maxwell’s death
Maxwell being dead does not prevent others performing experiments to confirm details of his theory.
I searched for evidence for a very long time, but everyone who claims that light has an impulse refers to Maxwell's work as a proven fact.
In this case, no one gives a link to the evidence itself only a link to the treatise.
So in this treatise there is no evidence of light pressure.Nobody repeated the experiments of Lebedev.
I already included in my previous post that around the same time another independent experiment also confirmed radiation pressure. I also included links to work being done today that related experiments continue to demonstrate the existence of radiation pressure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichols_radiometerAnd the ability to measure energy does not indicate the presence of a pulse.
The NIST work I linked to was measureing a force as a proxy for measuring energy. Measurement of force does directly show the existence of force.I hope you will not argue that momentum is the only form of energy?
Of course not, since momentum is not a form of energy, kinetic energy is a form of energy.I'm ready to fight the dragon, but I'm not going to attack the windmills.
What you say here is different than what you are doing (because you are most certainly attacking windmills.)Well, now about the solar sail.
The solar wind literally does not even travel in the same direction as solar photons[/quote], and has been measured separately. The solar sail I mentioned was operated in LEO, where the Earth's magnetic field blocks much of the charged particles in the solar wind. Proposal exist to use large magnets to deflect solar wind particles as an alternate type of solar sail, but solar wind actually carries less momentum per area. Your argument also fails to address the fact that solar sail performance matches the predicted performance based on the intensity of solar photons at Earth.
Only an amateur believes that sunlight and solar wind are one and the same.
Therefore, the experiment with a solar sail does not prove the presence of a photon pulse.Your joke about laser tweezers really amused me.
There was no joke. I provided a reference that disproves your claims. And depending on how you want to look at it, they can be considered a push or a pull, but works because light has momentum, and are described using the same electrodynamic equations that were originally developed by Maxwell, though it took some time for someone to discover this particular use.
Laser tweezers pull, not push
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_tweezers -
#184 by Vlad Kri on 09 Dec, 2019 22:26
-
Is “Maxwell, J. C. A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, 1st ed. (Oxford University, 1873)” decent electrodynamics textbook?Well, now let's talk about what you accuse me of. I can’t publish a refutation of Maxwell’s evidence, because I can’t find Maxwell’s proof itself.
If you want the mathematical derivation, simply pick up any decent electrodynamics textbook. The one I have is "Introduction to Electrodynamics" by David Griffiths.
So in this treatise, Maxwell makes a logical unreasonable statement about the presence of light pressure in a non-conductive medium, while referring to logically unrelated paragraphs which refer to currents in conductive media and on surfaces.
-
#185 by Vlad Kri on 09 Dec, 2019 22:38
-
Give an example of at least one experiment that gives an unambiguous result.And I’m sure that such evidence doesn’t exist so the photon nature of light was proved a month before Maxwell’s death
Maxwell being dead does not prevent others performing experiments to confirm details of his theory.
I searched for evidence for a very long time, but everyone who claims that light has an impulse refers to Maxwell's work as a proven fact.
In this case, no one gives a link to the evidence itself only a link to the treatise.
So in this treatise there is no evidence of light pressure. -
#186 by Vlad Kri on 09 Dec, 2019 22:48
-
they can be considered a push or a pull, but works because light has momentum,
If it’s the same thing for you to push or pull, then write the word “Because” with a capital letter. Because your statement is the ultimate truth -
#187 by meberbs on 09 Dec, 2019 23:20
-
I haven't read it, but a treatise and a textbook tend to have different purposes, with a textbook generally more useful for someone new to learn about a subject. It is not impossible that he had some mistakes in there, he was revising it when he died, and other scientists made more revisions. (possibly for clarity, new results, etc.) If you think there is an error you should point out the specific math. Just calling it illogical doesn't cut it. None of the things you talk about are relevant anyway, since the derivation of momentum in light (Poynting vector) does not rely on details of propagation through materials. And as I started this paragraph indicating, a modern textbook is a more useful place to look, since over time collective knowledge has improved terminology and explanations.
Is “Maxwell, J. C. A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, 1st ed. (Oxford University, 1873)” decent electrodynamics textbook?Well, now let's talk about what you accuse me of. I can’t publish a refutation of Maxwell’s evidence, because I can’t find Maxwell’s proof itself.
If you want the mathematical derivation, simply pick up any decent electrodynamics textbook. The one I have is "Introduction to Electrodynamics" by David Griffiths.
So in this treatise, Maxwell makes a logical unreasonable statement about the presence of light pressure in a non-conductive medium, while referring to logically unrelated paragraphs which refer to currents in conductive media and on surfaces.
I gave you multiple examples in my first reply, both from the early 1900s and modern examples. The paper I linked that references the early measurements also involves their own measurements, like most modern experiments, there is no need to confirm the base theory, but they are demonstrating advanced uses. There is also the NIST force measurements, and the solar sail. All of these are unambiguous.
Give an example of at least one experiment that gives an unambiguous result.And I’m sure that such evidence doesn’t exist so the photon nature of light was proved a month before Maxwell’s death
Maxwell being dead does not prevent others performing experiments to confirm details of his theory.
I searched for evidence for a very long time, but everyone who claims that light has an impulse refers to Maxwell's work as a proven fact.
In this case, no one gives a link to the evidence itself only a link to the treatise.
So in this treatise there is no evidence of light pressure.
-
#188 by Vlad Kri on 09 Dec, 2019 23:49
-
Thank you. I will try to find the time to study this tutorial. (Introduction to Electrodynamics" by David Griffiths)
the experiments of 1900 were not confirmed by anyone because of the difficulty of the technical base. I categorically refuses to take them for truth since even their images of a normal kind do not exist. Once again I repeat the basic theory is incorrect.
"NIST force measurements" - What is it?
and experiment that shows a difference in the bending of a film under the influence of different colors is not evidence of the presence of a photon momentum
and with a solar sail, not everything is clear
Yes and more. None of the things you talk about are relevant anyway. Because the Poynting vector does not carry any impulse. -
#189 by meberbs on 10 Dec, 2019 00:11
-
the experiments of 1900 were not confirmed by anyone because of the difficulty of the technical base. I categorically refuses to take them for truth since even their images of a normal kind do not exist.
They were replicated within just 1 year, Lebedev's experiments were followed on by Nicholas and Hull's.Once again I repeat the basic theory is incorrect.
And once again, your assertion is worthless due to you lack of pointing out any actual errors."NIST force measurements" - What is it?
The link I already provided you talking about measurements of radiation pressure.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323217450_Measurement_of_Radio-Frequency_Radiation_Pressureand experiment that shows a difference in the bending of a film under the influence of different colors is not evidence of the presence of a photon momentum
When the bending is caused by a force which is due to the radiation pressure, then it is in fact directly a measure of photon momentum.and with a solar sail, not everything is clear
Everything is clear, I already explained away your objections, and you are just refusing to accept the evidence provided.
Here is yet another link to a paper measuring radiation pressure, like many other such experiments it focuses on more complex situations with varying media, angles and polarization because the baseline case is so well understood.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/79586?seq=1
Do some actual searches yourself if you want more, they are not that hard to find.
Edit: Looks like you added something to your post just as I submitted mine:Yes and more. None of the things you talk about are relevant anyway. Because the Poynting vector does not carry any impulse.
The Poynting vector isn't a physical thing. It is a quantity calculated from physical things: the electric and magnetic fields. It is the electric and magnetic fields which carry momentum, the Poynting vector simply describes the momentum carried by the fields. As a result, the Poynting vector is in fact extremely relevant. You have claimed you couldn't find the derivation, so I pointed you to the term that should let you find the derivation. -
#190 by Alex_O on 13 Dec, 2019 20:45
-
Thank you. I will try to find the time to study this tutorial. (Introduction to Electrodynamics" by David Griffiths)
Hello, Vlad.
I read your messages with great interest and looked at your GRAVITSUP. I really like what you do, I want to thank you for your work. This is a very important work, thank you for taking the time and spending part of your life force to study, as it seems to me - the most beautiful dream of people - how to fly to the stars. Have you read the novel Astrovityanka Nikolai Gorkavoy? I entered the world of Emdrive after reading this great fantastic work, when I met Nick and his beautiful hypothesis about relic gravitational waves. The main character of the novel, Nicky - Cosmic Mowgli built a flying chair (anti-gravity) and there was a microwave resonator where the eddy current electrons resonated with HFRGWs and there was a sapphire crystal (like Roger Shawyer in his patent on the superconducting version of Emdrive, which I find amazing a prediction, since the novel was written more than 10 years ago, when the world did not yet know about Shawyer’s experience, and people have not yet built a LIGO detector)). Have you read his blog on LJ? I will provide an important link to Nick’s Russian-language blog, I think that this link will be interesting to the audience of this great forum. Nick said that an English version of his novel will be published soon and I look forward to this event.
I want to support you in your important work and offer you modest help. To begin with, I would like to tell you about the problem of measuring small forces. Please see some scientific papers, for example.
1. Braginsky, V.B. , Manukin, A.B. Measurement of small forces in physical experiments (RU)
2. Braginsky, V.B. Physical experiments with test bodies (RU)
3. Possible sources of mechanical balance errors (RU)
4. Report by George Hathaway "EXPERIMENTING WITH NOVEL PROPULSION IDEAS" on EPWP 2016. I am attaching a link on the file (43MB) with the materials of my translation into Russian, please see page 19 and page 33. I used the official version of the PROMT 2012 translator (light version, lower level, Google translator in those days it was still not as great as it is now), and I apologize for the quality of the translation, this was my first experience.
5. Pointing wave vector (RU)
I saw interesting simulations of the distribution in the Poiting vector in RF devices, for example, in the training example of a parabolic antenna on the COMSOL website. In Fig. 2, the red arrows very clearly show how the Poiting vector itself and its physical meaning are a demonstration of the movement of the energy flow in the system. If (figuratively) this system is closed in the Faraday cage, then these “arrows” simply disappear there. There is no outgoing flow of energy, there is no emission of momentum. Look my link on the thead 11
6. In my archive of about 350 various works, including more than 100 translations of all key scientific works on a wide range of problems of breakthrough movement without the release of a propellant, I created a public access link.
I take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the audience of the NSF forum for the fact that you guys have done such an important and exceptional useful work in discussing the problems of new physics for space flights. Many thanks to all of you for your excellent work.
In the next post I will try to describe how the bad news seems to me. The thrust Emdrive in air can be created due to the directed radiation of ultrasound in the megahertz range. I read an article on experiments with LERN.
-
#191 by Alex_O on 13 Dec, 2019 22:40
-
In the next post I will try to describe how the bad news seems to me. The thrust Emdrive in air can be created due to the directed radiation of ultrasound in the megahertz range. I read an article on experiments with LERN.
Sorry.
I read the articleQuoteA.A. KORNILOVA .. et al. THE PROBLEM AND REALIZATION OF SUSTAINABLE GENERATION
And pulled out a fact table from the article, here it is (in quotes):
OF ALPHA-PARTICLES BY DITERATED TITANIUM IN THE FIELD OF THERMAL WAVE
DOI: 10.25791 / infizik.05.05.2018.009
http://www.trinitas.ru/rus/doc/0016/001f/3824-kr.pdf
The paper presents the results of experiments on the action of undamped high-frequency heat waves generated and propagating in the air during the cavitation of a water jet in a closed chamber to the structure and nuclear processes in the volume of a remote deuterated polycrystalline titanium sample with grain sizes of not more than 50 microns. It was found for the fi rst time that under this infl uence, stable controlled quasicontinuous (accumulation) generation of alpha particles occurs in the course of nuclear fusion reactions involving deuterium nuclei at room temperature.Quote1. The physical nature of the existence of undamped temperature waves and the peculiarities of their excitation and propagation. In experimental works [1 ... 11], previously unknown thermal processes were discovered, the formation of which occurs on the surface generating x-ray radiation. The most interesting results were related to the registration by an acoustic detector of high-frequency vibrations at a large distance from this surface. The frequency of hypersonic vibrations corresponded to tens of megahertz, and their registration at a large distance from the source directly contradicted the laws of classical acoustics (it is known that hypersonic waves of this frequency do not propagate in air). The recorded signals corresponding not to acoustic but to thermal (temperature) waves were analyzed and partially investigated.
Quote2. The process of excitation of an undamped wave is associated with its possible sources. It can be as an initial source of variable local heating with a frequency of temperature change close to one of the optimal frequencies.
Quote3. Such a modulated heating can be realized, for example, by a modulated laser beam), or a source of short heating pulses, the duration of which does not exceed the time of thermodynamic relaxation.
Quote4. When this packet hits the boundary with another medium (for example, the air – metal boundary), a very sharp short-term heating of this boundary occurs, which leads to the excitation of a shock acoustic wave (actually, a very short packet) inside the second medium (in the metal lattice) that spreads in it without noticeable attenuation.
Quote5. In particular, with a sufficiently high degree of saturation of the metal hydride with hydrogen or deuterium, internal stresses appear in the latter, which can lead to cracking of the lattice and the formation of microcracks.
Quote6. The effect of “opening” such a microcrack can produce powerful momenta of particles and radiation accompanying nuclear reactions.
Quote7. At the same time, a very short shock wave generated by a heat wave leads to synchronization (as well as stimulation) of the process of opening such microcracks
Quote8. Similarly, the action of such waves can stimulate various phase transitions with a change in the local lattice topology, which can lead to the concomitant formation of coherent correlated states, accompanied by the generation of giant fluctuations in particle energies.
I thought that when copper is produced at a metallurgical plant, microcracks remain there and there are gas and hydrogen contents. Further, there is microwave heating in thin layers, which somehow creates thermal waves in the high frequency range. Then I mentally replaced the term deuterium in the article with hydrogen atoms and thought that even plasma formations (in gases) could be created in the pores of copper. Then I saw a key phrase - a giant fluctuation of energy and ultrasound as a result of heat waves. What will create in the air simply the radiation of ultrasound, and the video - how a toy boat with speakers on board rolls through the water - I saw earlier.
Please tell me that I'm grossly mistaken, I read it all wrong and advise me a good textbook for elementary school? -
#192 by SteveD on 20 Jan, 2020 02:44
-
So the rumor is Tajmar has a result, McCulloch is working on a paper and Tajmar is doing another sweep for error sources as these things never show a positive result. Also Tajmar and McCulloch may have software to optimize the design, but this may not mean that McCulloch is right so much as that he has described the phenomenon. Also several posters are making a bunch of noise.
Is that about the right description of the situation? -
#193 by SeeShells on 22 Jan, 2020 01:00
-
So the rumor is Tajmar has a result, McCulloch is working on a paper and Tajmar is doing another sweep for error sources as these things never show a positive result. Also Tajmar and McCulloch may have software to optimize the design, but this may not mean that McCulloch is right so much as that he has described the phenomenon. Also several posters are making a bunch of noise.
Is this one of the papers?
Is that about the right description of the situation?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288442595_Propellantless_propulsion_with_negative_matter_generated_by_electric_charges -
#194 by JohnFornaro on 22 Jan, 2020 14:45
-
Tajmar proposes, I guess, negative mass?Quote from: Tajmar's Abstract
Forward first pointed out that a gravitational dipole, consisting of ordinary and negative matter, would be self-accelerating thus creating the ultimate propellant-less propulsion system. It would closely resemble the features of a hypothetical space drive which has yet to be designed. Up to now, the key ingredient, negative matter, has not been found to exist in natural form. However, since E=m.c2, negative matter may be created in a laboratory using negative energies. Previous studies showed that effective negative inertia exists for neutrons and also for electrons in short transient time intervals. We present two possibilities to create stationary, charged negative effective masses that could be used to test Forward's self-propulsion effect. One is based on the assumption that Weber's electrodynamics is correct predicting a negative mass regime for electrons inside a highly charged dielectric sphere. The other possibility is using asymmetric charge distributions that could be realized using electrets. With proper geometry and charge densities, negative mass regimes are derived which could lead to negative energies many orders of magnitude larger than those obtained from the Casimir effect. Based on these concepts, a negative matter space-drive could be realized in a laboratory environment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass
"In theoretical physics, negative mass is matter whose mass is of opposite sign to the mass of normal matter, e.g. −1 kg.[1][2] Such matter would violate one or more energy conditions and show some strange properties, stemming from the ambiguity as to whether attraction should refer to force or the oppositely oriented acceleration for negative mass. It is used in certain speculative hypotheses, such as on the construction of traversable wormholes and the Alcubierre drive. Initially, the closest known real representative of such exotic matter is a region of negative pressure density produced by the Casimir effect.
"General relativity describes gravity and the laws of motion for both positive and negative energy particles, hence negative mass, but does not include the other fundamental forces. On the other hand, the Standard Model describes elementary particles and the other fundamental forces, but it does not include gravity. A unified theory that explicitly includes gravity along with the other fundamental forces may be needed for a better understanding of the concept of negative mass.
"In December 2018, the astrophysicist Jamie Farnes from the University of Oxford proposed a "dark fluid" theory, related, in part, to notions of gravitationally repulsive negative masses, presented earlier by Albert Einstein, that may help better understand, in a testable manner, the considerable amounts of unknown dark matter and dark energy in the cosmos."
Tajmar goes on:Quote from: TajmarSo where can we find negative mass? There is no consensus in the physics community if negative mass is even allowed to exist. ... However, most arguments center on gravitational masses, which is not our concern here as we will concentrate on negative inertia.
His argumentation seems circular to me, since he appears to be relying on Mach's unproven, albeit popular, principle. This statement doesn't support his subsequent argument:Quote from: TajmarAccording to Mach’s principle, a popular proposal to explain inertia, the inertial mass is nothing else tha[n] the gravitational interaction of a mass with the rest of the universe.
The language in the paper tends to the wishy washy, by my read:Quote from: TajmarThe highest similarity to negative inertia is a concept in physics which is called effective mass. ... Note that here only the apparent inertial mass is varied without effecting the electron’s gravitational mass. But is the effective mass as real as the usual inertial mass? ... So if inertia is indeed related to Mach’s ideas, the effective mass is a real as the normal inertial mass and we may use it to investigate Newton’s laws.
The hypothetical concept of "negative intertia" is similar to a concept called "effective mass". That is, a "concept" that is similar to another "concept" has something to do with "apparent mass" and may or may not be as real as "normal" mass. So, if those "concepts" are "indeed related" to Mach's "ideas", then the "concept" of "effective mass" is real.
Is anybody else's baloney detector pinging? After all, "neutrons with negative inertia or electrons with only short term transient negative inertia are not really useful for propulsion applications".Quote from: TajmarAssuming that Weber electrodynamics hold, we could realize negative matter propulsion by...
... adding a spring? They're trying to find incredibly small forces, and adding a huge, relatively, spring to the apparatus will help to confirm these forces?Quote from: TajmarSuppose that indeed electrostatic potential energy can cause a mass change at the individual charges, we could use this energy to reduce the electron’s mass below zero and create negative matter propulsion as in the example above.
IOW, "suppose" we could use some energy that hasn't yet been found and create a spring driven "negative matter propulsion" drive.
The conclusion?Quote from: TajmarThe space drive concept is based on the idea of building a self-accelerating, propellantless propulsion system which requires negative (inertial) mass.
In this universe, you can't get something [a functioning propulsion system] for nothing [without the application of an electromotive force].Quote from: TajmarIf at least one of our assumptions is correct, it should be possible to build a propulsion system in the laboratory that closely resembles the characteristics of a real space drive.
Hate to be all Debbie downer, but... -
#195 by Bob Woods on 22 Jan, 2020 15:35
-
Tajmar's paper is from 2013. I suspect he has moved on since then.
-
#196 by JohnFornaro on 22 Jan, 2020 19:36
-
Tajmar's paper is from 2013. I suspect he has moved on since then.
Ahhhh. So my analysis is spot on? There is still no such drive. -
#197 by Star One on 23 Jan, 2020 10:53
-
Tajmar's paper is from 2013. I suspect he has moved on since then.
Ahhhh. So my analysis is spot on? There is still no such drive.
Isn’t that rather an assumption to make when we haven’t seen anything related to the more recent info posted above. -
#198 by JohnFornaro on 23 Jan, 2020 13:59
-
Tajmar's paper is from 2013. I suspect he has moved on since then.
Ahhhh. So my analysis is spot on? There is still no such drive.
Isn’t that rather an assumption to make when we haven’t seen anything related to the more recent info posted above.
SeaShells posted this paper by Tajmar. Not sure what "more recent info" you're talking about.Is this one of the papers?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288442595_Propellantless_propulsion_with_negative_matter_generated_by_electric_charges -
#199 by JohnFornaro on 23 Jan, 2020 14:02
-
Is that about the right description of the situation?
Pretty much.
