-
#240 by JohnFornaro on 12 Mar, 2020 21:28
-
I've seen something react differently than it should have. ...Things have progressed in the last few years on many fronts and many force devices being tested. We are a impatient group as a people and want answers now or even sooner...
Six million dollar questions: have you found something? Is there something to be found?
“Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.” Richard P. Feynman
Shell
Hate to break the analogy, but... Feynman is wrong. Birth control changed the "why" that we do what we do in that regard.
As someone once said: "Things have progressed in the last few years..."
When I suggest floating the device over the conference room table, that doesn't mean that I can do that. Take your time. I can wait. -
#241 by SeeShells on 16 Mar, 2020 00:23
-
Everyone sees something different in a quote determined by their own mindset and experiences and may not agree. Nuff said.
I've seen something react differently than it should have. ...Things have progressed in the last few years on many fronts and many force devices being tested. We are a impatient group as a people and want answers now or even sooner...
Six million dollar questions: have you found something? Is there something to be found?
“Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.” Richard P. Feynman
Shell
Hate to break the analogy, but... Feynman is wrong. Birth control changed the "why" that we do what we do in that regard.
As someone once said: "Things have progressed in the last few years..."
When I suggest floating the device over the conference room table, that doesn't mean that I can do that. Take your time. I can wait.
Shell -
#242 by JohnFornaro on 16 Mar, 2020 10:48
-
Everyone sees something different in a quote determined by their own mindset and experiences and may not agree. Nuff said.
Shell
So.... no device just yet. -
#243 by SeeShells on 16 Mar, 2020 11:41
-
If you're looking for a device that floats around a conference room table, no there isn't. This statement shows your misunderstanding of what it takes by doing basic research from a lab workbench to a workable device or even a failed device. I've watched with great interest the development and research of drives from Antimatter to ion to Mach Effect and none of them follow the comic book movie mad scientist approach of building it once and off they go.Everyone sees something different in a quote determined by their own mindset and experiences and may not agree. Nuff said.
Shell
So.... no device just yet.
Shell -
#244 by JohnFornaro on 16 Mar, 2020 12:49
-
If you're looking for a device that floats around a conference room table, no there isn't. This statement shows your misunderstanding ....Everyone sees something different in a quote determined by their own mindset and experiences and may not agree. Nuff said.
Shell
So.... no device just yet.
Word thinking, I'm afraid. It is by no means my "misunderstanding" of Sciama's thoughts about the origin of inertia that is at hand here. There is no evidence of mass fluctuations in any material that has been tried, under any form of electromagnetic radiation that has been tried, nor is there math to back up the conjectures, as our two braniacs here have demonstrated on multiple occasions, both here and in peer reviewed papers.
I have spoken respectfully of the work you experimenters have been doing. There is no blame for not having built a useful device, nor having demonstrated a working theory either. That may change in the future, but that will not change the present paucity of evidence.
And yes. If the device cannot float across the conference room table, it is of limited utility to mankind, even should it work on the event horizon of a black hole. -
#245 by Bob Woods on 17 Mar, 2020 05:46
-
And yes. If the device cannot float across the conference room table, it is of limited utility to mankind, even should it work on the event horizon of a black hole.
Would you settle for "floating above"?
-
#246 by Monomorphic on 17 Mar, 2020 22:07
-
Would you settle for "floating above"?
Before floating anything over a conference room table, it would be nice if the reported experimental results could simply be reproduced.
-
#247 by Bob Woods on 18 Mar, 2020 05:37
-
REALLY happy to see you back Jamie!Would you settle for "floating above"?
Before floating anything over a conference room table, it would be nice if the reported experimental results could simply be reproduced.
Got anything cooking? -
#248 by Mark7777777 on 18 Mar, 2020 09:18
-
For anyone that wants to watch on April 2, it seems the following lecture from London, UK has been changed to remote-only:
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/technologies-of-hope-remote-lecture-tickets-93506655925 -
#249 by Monomorphic on 19 Mar, 2020 22:50
-
REALLY happy to see you back Jamie!
Got anything cooking?
Thanks Bob! I've been lurking the last 6 months or so while we have been renovating our new home. We finished the renovation and moved in a couple of weeks ago. I'm just now setting up the new lab in the new space. Here is an image of the new lab. I have enough room now to run two or three different experiments at once.
-
#250 by Bob Woods on 20 Mar, 2020 05:42
-
Looks great! One suggestion: Get some popcorn for a quick snack. I know you already have a microwave source.
Thanks Bob! I've been lurking the last 6 months or so while we have been renovating our new home. We finished the renovation and moved in a couple of weeks ago. I'm just now setting up the new lab in the new space. Here is an image of the new lab. I have enough room now to run two or three different experiments at once.
Edit: Do you think 2 fire extinguishers are enough?
-
#251 by volker2020 on 20 Mar, 2020 06:21
-
Why do we still talk about the EM Drive?
Has no body read:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325177082_The_SpaceDrive_Project_-_First_Results_on_EMDrive_and_Mach-Effect_Thrusters
Simple conclusion, the EM Drive is like cold fusion. -
#252 by Bob Woods on 21 Mar, 2020 04:34
-
Why do we still talk about the EM Drive?
Yes, we understand and agree with the best science.
Has no body read:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325177082_The_SpaceDrive_Project_-_First_Results_on_EMDrive_and_Mach-Effect_Thrusters
Simple conclusion, the EM Drive is like cold fusion.
However, that is not to diminish the hope that electromagnetic radiation might prove useful in developing a mode of propulsion that does not necessitate tons of fuel. The use of a frustum was an intriguing hope. It has failed.
But what else could be out there? I have the wild thought that if there was a way to hyper-effectively use directed EM radiation to create Z bosons at the boundary layer of a surface you could create transfer momentum. Somehow way beyond what we know now.
But I'm just a 68 year old nobody hiding out from the coronavirus, through the dreams of a 15 year old boy longing to explore the universe. -
#253 by JohnFornaro on 21 Mar, 2020 11:59
-
... it would be nice if the reported experimental results could simply be reproduced.
Wouldn't it, tho? -
#254 by Asteroza on 24 Mar, 2020 07:00
-
Hat tip Matterbeam/ToughSF
Axion detection results from ADMX might be relevant here, especially as they are slowly moving closer to scanning in the 2+ GHz range...
circa October 2019
https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.08638
https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-dark-matter-might-be-axions-20191127/
the implication is converting axions into photons in a particular direction would effectively be making a photon sail of sorts in the cavity endplate...
but that 8 Tesla magnet surrounding the cavity is a bit of a hurdle...
brainfart: are the resonance modes creating local high magnetic regions in the cavity? -
#255 by Alex_O on 24 Mar, 2020 19:41
-
Hello.
In my first post on this forum, I discussed the opportunity to see what happens in the Emdrive resonator in dynamics with nanosecond intervals. I studied this for many days, and I accidentally got a magic case, I want to show it. Take a look
For brevity, I omit many details, I built a curved waveguide, like a resonator, and launched a short pulse into it. (based on the idea of Robert Coslover described in the Komsomol blog), see the ideas for animation). I also note that I came up with a tricky way to establish momentum, this is not a harmonic signal. I can explain this later.
So, I got a simulation, the photons move along the resonator, we see the “flight of photons” and see how they are reflected. I saw a photon flight shot with an ultrafast camera. Now I see it in the simulation.
The magic is that the photons somehow "stuck" in the upper part of the corner of the resonator waveguide for 2 whole nanoseconds. The force of radiation pressure acts on the right walls for 2 long nanoseconds. And this thing, if it is in zero gravity, it seems that this thing will make a non-reactive flight to the right.
For analysis, I asked the simulator to perform an integrated calculation of the pressure forces on the cavity walls and transferred their projections to the graph. An interesting picture in itself - the side walls of the resonator / waveguide make a zero contribution. They somehow do not interfere.
I had a question that if we want to get a useful result from Emdrive - magic traction, then we need the correct (magic) geometry. What a simple copper cone - that it just won’t work. What is in well-known verification experiments - just no luck with geometry. That this geometry is not a trivial matter.
Maybe the term "variable group speed"? Maybe in my simulation the speed of energy flow is very different in different places? Maybe this is an idea? We build a resonator with a quality factor, energy accumulates in it, energy moves (circulates?) In the resonator by flows, but aren't these uniform flows?
And at the points of deceleration of the flow, swirling flow, are conditions created for converting the energy of the flow into the energy of the mechanical motion of the resonator? Maybe this is the magic that Emdriv needs?
Oh, I forgot to say that I believe Emdrive works and creates traction
Upd 27/063/2020.
Below I want to show the simulation of the initial version as ideal. There is no magic here. The impulse leaves the left wall, passes a path of 1.4 m, is reflected from the right and is absorbed on the left. The calculation of the area under the curves in terms of momentum of force (F * dt) demonstrates the strict conservation of momentum. The area of the upper curve is equal to the sum of the two lower curves with an accuracy of up to 0.1% (depends on the error of the solver).
In the first, “magical” version, the law of conservation of momentum is also strictly fulfilled, the areas under the lower and upper curves are also equal (here the accuracy of the solver is lower, I can explain this).
The question is what is magic in this simulation? As it has been said many times, Emdrive cannot create non-reactive traction in terms of the laws of electrodynamics. But if Emdrive works (in a magical way) - then where, in which place does he create this magic?
It is obvious that magic (for example, as a result of some kind of new physics) can be created where it is - I do not yet know how to say it correctly - where there is a high energy density. There - where there are flows of energy, there - where flows of energy create "turbulences", anomalies ...
I would like to ask, I would like to know, consult - it seems to me that such a simulation can find a point, a region in the Emdrive resonator, which very much depends on the geometry, on the antenna design, on the choice of the point of supply of microwave power to the resonator, on the motion of the EM waves in the resonator, from the waveform and other factors.
It seems to me that such an analysis can show a magical place in Emdrive, where the conditions for new physics are created, where the non-reactive thrust of Emdrive is born. I have already done many other simulations of calculating the motion of EM waves in resonators in the nanosecond interval. I will go further.
-
#256 by meberbs on 14 Apr, 2020 05:02
-
Hello.
Magic is by definition something contradictory to the laws of physics. Physics simulation tools when properly used provide results that are simply directly from the laws of physics. Either their results are correct, and therefore do not show anything magical, or they a mistake was made and the results are meaningless (commonly known as garbage in, garbage out.)
In my first post on this forum, I discussed the opportunity to see what happens in the Emdrive resonator in dynamics with nanosecond intervals. I studied this for many days, and I accidentally got a magic case, I want to show it. Take a look
"Magic" is simply not a possible result. I don't see anything particularly wrong with your results and certainly nothing magical, though there are a few things that may be questionable depending on how your boundary conditions were set up. Some interesting interference and reflections happen, but that is expected. Towards the end of the gif there is some strange things, possibly numeric errors which may be exaggerated because the color codes do not use a fixed scale.Oh, I forgot to say that I believe Emdrive works and creates traction
Beliefs are irrelevant, all good quality experimental evidence points to the emDrive not working at all. Simulations based on physics that has been rigorously proven to disallow the emDrive from working will never, ever suggest a method for the emDrive to work and attempting to show otherwise with simulations is simply a waste of time. -
#257 by Star One on 14 Apr, 2020 10:06
-
Why do we still talk about the EM Drive?
Well that’s an unfortunate analogy being as people including the Navy amongst others are still putting money into cold fusion research.
Has no body read:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325177082_The_SpaceDrive_Project_-_First_Results_on_EMDrive_and_Mach-Effect_Thrusters
Simple conclusion, the EM Drive is like cold fusion. -
#258 by Alex_O on 18 Apr, 2020 23:31
-
Hello.
Magic is by definition something contradictory to the laws of physics.
In my first post on this forum, I discussed the opportunity to see what happens in the Emdrive resonator in dynamics with nanosecond intervals. I studied this for many days, and I accidentally got a magic case, I want to show it. Take a look
Thanks. Let me clarify your definition of magic a little.
Magic, by definition, contradicts the known laws of physics.
For example:
A vehicle for movement in the thickness of the planet at a speed of 100 km/h.
It sounds like magic, but it is a practical engineering task and to solve it requires finding the appropriate physical effect. Perhaps a new physics will be needed here, for example, in the field of breaking of inter molecular bonds in crystals, but in this new physics terms such as energy, field, geometry, frequency, etc. will be used.
The term magic is a good term, as it allows us to think up and localize a place (in Emdrive) where we can try to find new physics.Physics simulation tools when properly used provide results that are simply directly from the laws of physics. Either their results are correct, and therefore do not show anything magical, or they a mistake was made and the results are meaningless (commonly known as garbage in, garbage out.)
...
"Magic" is simply not a possible result. I don't see anything particularly wrong with your results and certainly nothing magical, though there are a few things that may be questionable depending on how your boundary conditions were set up.
Well-known physical modeling tools should be used, boundary conditions are set correctly. There is a drawback in the simulation shown - end surfaces can ideally radiate RF power, but they cannot reflect this. This is good for starting the study, since it allowed us to see what happens in the waveguide when a short EM pulse moves along it. And what can be if you use different forms of pulse RF power.
I also came up with a little trick. Here is the waveform for the upper waveguide and for the lower. The top looks red and the bottom looks blue. Since at the top the amplitude of the pulse varies from 0 to + 5 V, at the bottom from 0 to -5 V, and this is not a harmonic signal.
(This is somehow associated with new physics (zero-point energy) as an algorithm to extract something practically useful due to the excitation of non-trivial, non-obvious, non-harmonic signals in Emdrive, just a thought)
There was also a small crazy idea here - to come up with a setting when “plus and minus” is found on the right side and this immediately (magically) reduces radiation pressure in the local area, but without loss of RF power here.
It was also noted that after reflection of the RF impulse from the end wall, its polarity changes. If plus (red) falls, then minus (blue) is reflected, which is very beautiful and you get a visual trace of the movement of signals from different sources (antennas).Some interesting interference and reflections happen, but that is expected. Towards the end of the gif there is some strange things, possibly numeric
errors which may be exaggerated because the color codes do not use a fixed scale.
The simulation was built without real radiating antennas, and the ending of the gif actually looks strange. It seems to be numerical errors. But we see that multiple reflections from the curved walls occur in the bent knee, it seems that there is an echo effect and it seems there is an idea to simulate that it was as if Emdrive was charged (as in the first experiments in Dresden). Do you understand my idea? Even if this is a numerical error - but it suddenly gives a chance to see a non-trivial, fantastic idea.
I have prepared a new study and would like to show it here below.
If it was a mistake (sensitivity of balance) of an experiment with low RF power? In this simulation, the signal amplitude is set at 5V. An analysis of the radiation pressure forces in the range of 0-10 nanoseconds in the given waveguide geometry (0.25 m * 0.25 m * 1.4 m) demonstrates peak values of the pressure force Fх at the level of 10-12 N. In the diagram of integral forces we see three peaks.Oh, I forgot to say that I believe Emdrive works and creates traction
Beliefs are irrelevant, all good quality experimental evidence points to the emDrive not working at all. Simulations based on physics that has been rigorously proven to disallow the emDrive from working will never, ever suggest a method for the emDrive to work and attempting to show otherwise with simulations is simply a waste of time.
1 peak - photon emission, 2 peak - photon reflection in the knee, 3rd peak - photon drop on the left end. And if there is a new physics - then the difference in forces (Emdrive thrust) can be like the difference of the 2nd peak from the sum of the 1st and 3rd peak. This clearly depends on the geometry of the resonator and the waveform. And if the "magic" will work poorly, then the difference in pressure forces may be at the level of 10-13 or even 10-15 N.
Here are my simplest arguments. If in the known experiments there was still magic (new physics), and if the geometry of the resonator (and antennas) for creating magic was very poor, then the result - the thrust will lie below the sensitivity of balance.
But did anyone try to catch Emdrive's magic by some optimization or by chance during the planning of famous experiments?
Yes, yes, well-known physics prohibits Emdrive. But let's look at a new simulation, on the analysis of energy flows. Perhaps thinking about the fact that the speed of light is finite, that Newton’s laws in electrodynamics may not be fulfilled, and let's try to find some magic place in the RF resonator? -
#259 by meberbs on 19 Apr, 2020 06:27
-
My point that followed after this was that physics simulation tools obey the known laws of physics, so your clarification doesn't change the problems with your previous post.Hello.
Magic is by definition something contradictory to the laws of physics.
In my first post on this forum, I discussed the opportunity to see what happens in the Emdrive resonator in dynamics with nanosecond intervals. I studied this for many days, and I accidentally got a magic case, I want to show it. Take a look
Thanks. Let me clarify your definition of magic a little.
Magic, by definition, contradicts the known laws of physics.For example:
Doesn't inherently violate any laws of physics. Not an example of your definition. (assuming that by "thickness" you mean "atmosphere")
A vehicle for movement in the thickness of the planet at a speed of 100 km/h.The term magic is a good term, as it allows us to think up and localize a place (in Emdrive) where we can try to find new physics.
No magic is a bad term because it implies giving up on finding explanations. This section is for New physics not magic.Well-known physical modeling tools should be used, boundary conditions are set correctly. There is a drawback in the simulation shown - end surfaces can ideally radiate RF power, but they cannot reflect this. This is good for starting the study, since it allowed us to see what happens in the waveguide when a short EM pulse moves along it. And what can be if you use different forms of pulse RF power.
Asserting that correct boundary conditions were used does not demonstrate that they were correctly used, and that is just one of many ways that even experienced people can mess up when using good tools.I also came up with a little trick. Here is the waveform for the upper waveguide and for the lower. The top looks red and the bottom looks blue. Since at the top the amplitude of the pulse varies from 0 to + 5 V, at the bottom from 0 to -5 V, and this is not a harmonic signal.
It seems like you failed to attach something, but from your description don't bother. It does not seem to have anything to do with the topic of this thread, and you are just asserting nonsense about how a model that replicates known physics produces results contrary to known physics, which is fundamentally illogical.
(This is somehow associated with new physics (zero-point energy) as an algorithm to extract something practically useful due to the excitation of non-trivial, non-obvious, non-harmonic signals in Emdrive, just a thought)It was also noted that after reflection of the RF impulse from the end wall, its polarity changes. If plus (red) falls, then minus (blue) is reflected, which is very beautiful and you get a visual trace of the movement of signals from different sources (antennas).
Rather than playing with tools that you increasingly are demonstrating that you don't understand, you could take an introductory course in electromagnetic waves and discover that this is a well known and easily explained property of reflection of electromagnetic waves from a metallic surface. Trying to find things like this from playing around with a simulation is simply one of the most inefficient ways I can think of to learn these things.The simulation was built without real radiating antennas, and the ending of the gif actually looks strange. It seems to be numerical errors. But we see that multiple reflections from the curved walls occur in the bent knee, it seems that there is an echo effect and it seems there is an idea to simulate that it was as if Emdrive was charged (as in the first experiments in Dresden). Do you understand my idea? Even if this is a numerical error - but it suddenly gives a chance to see a non-trivial, fantastic idea.
My interpretation of what you just said is that you don't care if your results are garbage as long as you get a pretty picture that lets you imagine things that would never work in real life.If it was a mistake (sensitivity of balance) of an experiment with low RF power? In this simulation, the signal amplitude is set at 5V. An analysis of the radiation pressure forces in the range of 0-10 nanoseconds in the given waveguide geometry (0.25 m * 0.25 m * 1.4 m) demonstrates peak values of the pressure force Fх at the level of 10-12 N. In the diagram of integral forces we see three peaks.
No it can't because again, a correctly performed simulation of the known laws of physics by definition will not contradict them.
1 peak - photon emission, 2 peak - photon reflection in the knee, 3rd peak - photon drop on the left end. And if there is a new physics - then the difference in forces (Emdrive thrust) can be like the difference of the 2nd peak from the sum of the 1st and 3rd peak. This clearly depends on the geometry of the resonator and the waveform. And if the "magic" will work poorly, then the difference in pressure forces may be at the level of 10-13 or even 10-15 N.Here are my simplest arguments. If in the known experiments there was still magic (new physics), and if the geometry of the resonator (and antennas) for creating magic was very poor, then the result - the thrust will lie below the sensitivity of balance.
This is called an unfalsifiable hypothesis, because you can always say that no matter how many high quality null results are produced. It is simply an unscientific waste of time to even discuss that.But did anyone try to catch Emdrive's magic by some optimization or by chance during the planning of famous experiments?
Yes, a number of experimenters tried a number of different things, yet none actually demonstrated a useful result. (The key is that they did this by experiment, a simulation will do whatever you tell it to, so can never discover new physics.)Yes, yes, well-known physics prohibits Emdrive. But let's look at a new simulation, on the analysis of energy flows. Perhaps thinking about the fact that the speed of light is finite, that Newton’s laws in electrodynamics may not be fulfilled, and let's try to find some magic place in the RF resonator?
Again, when a simulation is based on the known laws of physics it can never give a result excluded by the known laws of physics. It either gives a result consistent with the laws of physics or it is wrong.
One last time with emphasis: It should be obvious that it is a complete waste of time to look for violations of known physical laws by running a simulation that is designed to obey the known physical laws.
