In Emdrive there is point b) a storage device (concentrator, energy amplifier) known as a microwave resonator but there is no point c) of the working body. Therefore, Shawyer's explanations contain a problem, but his explanations are absolutely correct, since the Emdrive thrust directly depends on the quality factor of the microwave resonator. Shawyer ingeniously guessed and confirmed in his experiments that the ideal space engine needs a high-quality microwave resonator.
[a lot of text snipped]
Let me answer your comments.You then follow this by wasting time by not addressing my comments, quoting Rodal, and not addressing his comments either. (And the flattery before this comes off as insincere at best since you did not actually listen to anything I said, particularly the part about not wasting my or your time.)
In Emdrive there is point b) a storage device (concentrator, energy amplifier) known as a microwave resonator but there is no point c) of the working body. Therefore, Shawyer's explanations contain a problem, but his explanations are absolutely correct, since the Emdrive thrust directly depends on the quality factor of the microwave resonator. Shawyer ingeniously guessed and confirmed in his experiments that the ideal space engine needs a high-quality microwave resonator.
[a lot of text snipped]
You say that Shawyer "ingeniously guessed and confirmed" the ideal shape. The problem is that there is absolutely no proof of anything being confirmed. We have seen from Shawyer a lot of more and more fanciful promises about flying cars and spaceships, but no credible proof of the purported effect existing. Without experimental proof (or even any sort of hint, really) and the theory making no sense at all, there is no reason whatsoever to think that any new physics exist anywhere in conical EM resonators.
The most baffling thing to me about the EM drive (and Woodward effect and others...) phenomenon is why so many people seem to believe that there is something there so that they are willing to spend their time and money to investigate even when they have been told many times not to bother.
Let me answer your comments.You then follow this by wasting time by not addressing my comments, quoting Rodal, and not addressing his comments either. (And the flattery before this comes off as insincere at best since you did not actually listen to anything I said, particularly the part about not wasting my or your time.)My thanks to you come from the very heart. I really appreciate your attention and the way you analyze the messages of other forum participants is a big and important work. Once again, I thank you for your work, thank you for that.
But I do not agree with your constant statements that I (and other people) are wasting time. Why do people visit this forum? In search of a source of inspiration, in search of new ideas.
I showed you a new idea for design and for planning an experiment and would like to discuss different details, so I am here.
If (I use the IF-ELSE-THEN operator), if Emdrive actually works and can create trust, then this only happens because the effects of new (as yet unknown) physics appear in Emdrive.
If Emdrive did not work in well-known replicas, then the design of the experiment contain significant errors.
So in this design there is no important part - the adapter, the interface to the new physics. Or, as was noted in a related topic, there is no "grease nipples"[/size].
Just a thought. Shawyer actually hid the most important part of his design all the time, and keeps his current developments a secret. Shawyer’s partners are also hidden. Moreover, in his reports, it seemed to me that he also omits important details, for example, the results of tests of a superconducting design.
I once had the opportunity to make an expert assessment of his aircraft, and I was surprised.
In other words - if Shawyer invented everything, he would have definitely made a gross mistake in the description of the technical characteristics of his devices. I did not find such an error.
Regarding the well-known tests in Dresden and others. I will say a very simple thought - Emdrive thrust is (If, If, and If again) flows of ether. If you place the drive in a vacuum chamber with thick walls, then the ether flows cannot pass through the walls and carry the impulse out. Also for the design of the laboratory in a small room with thick concrete walls, and when there are nearby foreign objects (furniture, people). In short, the closed volume will not work.
The third problem is the conservatism of the scientific community, which has been repeatedly tested in the history of mankind. They said that there was no ether, that this could not be. Moreover, the scientific community can be extremely aggressive towards trying to learn something new. And these are historical facts, this is how humanity works.
Just a thought. Shawyer actually hid the most important part of his design all the time, and keeps his current developments a secret. Shawyer’s partners are also hidden. Moreover, in his reports, it seemed to me that he also omits important details, for example, the results of tests of a superconducting design.
Let me answer your comments.You then follow this by wasting time by not addressing my comments, quoting Rodal, and not addressing his comments either. (And the flattery before this comes off as insincere at best since you did not actually listen to anything I said, particularly the part about not wasting my or your time.)My thanks to you come from the very heart. I really appreciate your attention and the way you analyze the messages of other forum participants is a big and important work. Once again, I thank you for your work, thank you for that.Thanks is momre than words it is actions, and you demonstrate absolutely no indications of gratitude in the rest of your posts, as you instead fill your posts with long failures to actually address any of my main points. That does not look like gratitude.
No, no and one more time no. I sincerely thank you for your principled approach, for the fact that you most critically discuss any undertakings. Criticism is an important part in the creative process, as well as algorithms for brainstorming, generating ideas, where criticism is known to be strictly prohibited.
Our conversations in the previous thread turned out to be very fruitful, in fact, a new type of space engines was invented. And your criticism is better than the most effective catalyst.
But there's a problem. I'll start with the goal. You asked what purpose. I tested 10 different definitions of the goal, and everything was unsuccessful. You criticize right away, which is normal.
The goal is to study old knowledge, find new knowledge. I answered you that in early childhood I actually invented, invented particles of Nicholas Fatio, the theory of gravity of Lesage and in Newton’s Bucket I saw an idea for the operation of a stellar engine. Dr. White's simulation of vacuum plasma is very similar to that of Newton’s baby bucket. But there was more than concrete physics, there were particles of vacuum, they had real physical properties and in the model of the universe in a bucket of water - one could see the idea, the principle for the operation of a stellar engine. It was a children's model of the universe, it was a long time ago and people for 40 years came up with many other ideas, I studied this and saw a lot of useful posts on the NSF forum.
That's why this new sim came about, where the question was asked - Where, How, In what place, At what time, By what physical principles in the resonator Emdrive can occur non-reactive thrust. But you immediately said that it was all nonsense, and there was nothing to lose time.
The answer was immediately proposed - thrust can be where high energy density is observed, where “sharp” non-stationary processes occur, where there are high gradients, where there are significant fluctuations in energy-mass, where there are third derivatives for example ..
And I showed this place in close-up, on a good scale and with high detail.
I said that my immediate plan is to build a resonator with a curved bottom, you immediately declare that this is complete nonsense and that we are wasting our time.
I said that I chose a good plan for a sim with a waveguide, you immediately said that I do not understand the waveguides and I need to read the primer.
But your criticism immediately provoked powerful associations with Dr. Rodal's post and allowed me to show online the concept of an ideal space engine in short terms online and clearly show the most important drawback of the famous Emdrive releases. They do not have an adapter for new physics - and this is already eureka !!!
I mean, before our conversation, I somehow did not understand it well, but now I understand much better. This is very good, and I thank you!
We will continue? Let me ask you good questions and will you give good answers? It seems to be cool!
But I do not agree with your constant statements that I (and other people) are wasting time. Why do people visit this forum? In search of a source of inspiration, in search of new ideas.
I showed you a new idea for design and for planning an experiment and would like to discuss different details, so I am here.This is simply false you have not shown any new ideas, you showed a sim of existing phsics working generally as expected. That is not a new idea, and it certainly is not a design or plan for an experiment.
If (I use the IF-ELSE-THEN operator), if Emdrive actually works and can create trust, then this only happens because the effects of new (as yet unknown) physics appear in Emdrive.Experiments say it doesn't.
If Emdrive did not work in well-known replicas, then the design of the experiment contain significant errors.False, this assumes that the emDrive ever works. There are known significant flaws with every experiment that claims a non-null result, and there is no consistent theory that actually supports it working.
So in this design there is no important part - the adapter, the interface to the new physics. Or, as was noted in a related topic, there is no "grease nipples"[/size].You are not doing anything even related to this though, you are just running sims of existing physics, that you have already admitted cannot possibly show any new physics results. They are therefore irrelevant and a waste of time.
I explained this to you a while back in PM when you asked for help, the very first thing that needs to be answered when making a model is what your goal is. You never answered that question, and from your posts here, I see an implication that your goal is to find some indication of "new physics" Since this is literally impossible in the sims you are running, they cannot accomplish this goal and are a waste of time. I have explained this to you repeatedly, and despite this reasoned explanation of exactly why you are wasting time, you assert that you aren't without addressing my actual points at all. This is not a display of gratitude.
Just a thought. Shawyer actually hid the most important part of his design all the time, and keeps his current developments a secret. Shawyer’s partners are also hidden. Moreover, in his reports, it seemed to me that he also omits important details, for example, the results of tests of a superconducting design.He omits the fact that he doesn't actually have a working design. He has shared more than enough to see that his explanation is not even remotely correct in such a way that no possible "hidden information" could rescue it, it is fundamentally flawed.
I once had the opportunity to make an expert assessment of his aircraft, and I was surprised.You frankly have demonstrated that you are not an expert, so by definition you can't have made an expert assessment. What follows is you discussing irrelevant things (although a flow rate is notable, one of Shawyer's claims of a working device was debunked by the fact that he included fluid pumps on the rotary table that could easily give the observed result without a working drive.)
In other words - if Shawyer invented everything, he would have definitely made a gross mistake in the description of the technical characteristics of his devices. I did not find such an error.Then you did not look carefully. He asserts that pushing something to the left makes it move to the right. This is simply wrong. (He does not use those words, he hides it with an incorrect sign flip and handwaving in the math.) There is no room for hidden anything. There are many other flaws in his claims, but this is the most basic one.
Regarding the well-known tests in Dresden and others. I will say a very simple thought - Emdrive thrust is (If, If, and If again) flows of ether. If you place the drive in a vacuum chamber with thick walls, then the ether flows cannot pass through the walls and carry the impulse out. Also for the design of the laboratory in a small room with thick concrete walls, and when there are nearby foreign objects (furniture, people). In short, the closed volume will not work.For the first time, you actually mention a new physics theory, however, it is simply nonsensical. It has long since been proven that there is no ether, and even if it existed, it would not be blocked by physical objects anyway. (The assertion is absurd that it could flow through the metal wall of the device, but not the metal wall of a vacuum chamber, only because you wish it had that property.)
The third problem is the conservatism of the scientific community, which has been repeatedly tested in the history of mankind. They said that there was no ether, that this could not be. Moreover, the scientific community can be extremely aggressive towards trying to learn something new. And these are historical facts, this is how humanity works.The old theory was the existence of the ether this was disproven by experiment, not by conservatism, accepting the non-existence of the ether is the exact opposite of conservatism. Ad hominem is not a valid argument.
..We will continue? Let me ask you good questions and will you give good answers? It seems to be cool!Hopefully you will stop, because you clearly are not listening.
Just a thought. Shawyer actually hid the most important part of his design all the time, and keeps his current developments a secret. Shawyer’s partners are also hidden. Moreover, in his reports, it seemed to me that he also omits important details, for example, the results of tests of a superconducting design.
Shawyer certainly doesn't keep his (claimed) work or (imagined?) partners secret. Did you watch his recent talk at UCL (or wherever it actually was because of covid)? He claimed, for example, that he made a proposal to Shell for using EM drive for supertanker propulsion, but Shell "got a fright" and withdrew funding when they realised that a working EM drive would collapse marine fuel market. Yet he has never shown even a device that would show that the effect exists in the first place.
Shawyer's story has far too many plot holes to work even as a work of fiction.
With nothing else to do, I watched the lecture. It's the same non-sense as we've seen from Shawyer before. The mystery is why a respectable university like UCL gives a platform for this kind of drivel.
No, unlike the example you cited where someone simply did not think things through, existing physical laws have been proven completely inconsistent with propellantless propulsion.
With nothing else to do, I watched the lecture. It's the same non-sense as we've seen from Shawyer before. The mystery is why a respectable university like UCL gives a platform for this kind of drivel.
I disagree. I thought it was informative and interesting. I especially enjoyed the part at the end where he hinted that the public only knows the tip of the iceberg of knowledge of the EmDrive.
Quote from: meberbs link=topic=49270.msg2085319#msg2085319No, unlike the example you cited where someone simply did not think things through, existing physical laws have been proven completely inconsistent with propellantless propulsion.
You wrote
"existing physical laws have been proven completely inconsistent with propellantless propulsion."
Question to you is:
Does CofM occur if momentum gained by accelerating cavity mass is matched by momentum loss of cavity photons, causing their wavelength to increase?
Quote from: meberbs link=topic=49270.msg2085319#msg2085319No, unlike the example you cited where someone simply did not think things through, existing physical laws have been proven completely inconsistent with propellantless propulsion.
You wrote
"existing physical laws have been proven completely inconsistent with propellantless propulsion."
Question to you is:
Does CofM occur if momentum gained by accelerating cavity mass is matched by momentum loss of cavity photons, causing their wavelength to increase?It can't because there is no momentum for the photons to lose. With photons moving in opposite directions in the cavity, their momentum generally cancels out.
Any net momentum the photons do have (from transient effects like initial radiation) comes from the cavity itself when they are radiated by the antenna. This doesn't let the cavity actually get anywhere since the direction of the photon momentum flips as soon as they reflect off the far end, exchanging momentum with the cavity. At all times the momentum of the photons and the momentum of the cavity is equal and opposite. When they are all absorbed therefore, the cavity cannot have momentum as a result.
I believe I already explained to you that momentum is a vector quantity, but you still seem to be ignoring that you need to account for the direction, not just the magnitude.
The simpler way to see that the answer to your question is no is to simply look at the momentum before the device is turned on and after it is turned off. Before it is turned on the momentum is 0. If the device runs for a while and turns off, then there are no photons and the photons therefore have no momentum. The only way momentum can remain balanced is if the device is not moving so that it still has 0 momentum, since there is nothing left that could have momentum in the opposite direction for balance.
With nothing else to do, I watched the lecture. It's the same non-sense as we've seen from Shawyer before. The mystery is why a respectable university like UCL gives a platform for this kind of drivel.
I disagree. I thought it was informative and interesting. I especially enjoyed the part at the end where he hinted that the public only knows the tip of the iceberg of knowledge of the EmDrive.You think it is "informative and interesting," yet you then say you like a part that is the exact opposite of informative.
Just the preview image for the video is enough to see that he is still making the same claims that are trivial to disprove. It is literally high school level physics to show that energy simply cannot be conserved by a propellantless thruster, and relativity and Newtonian physics aren't separate worlds like he claims. Saying something obeys "Einstein's physics" does not magically make it an open system. Only pointing to an interaction exchanging energy and momentum outside the system does that by definition. (Presumably he goes on to claim that somehow Einstein's physics makes something move to the left when you push it to the right due to him ignoring the definition of the phrase "reaction force.")
P.S. Tony Whitehead, it has been less than 20 posts since the last person who posted that video, there is no reason to post it again. It is literally being discussed in the reply directly above yours.
The question was
Would CofM occur if the gained momentum of an accelerated EmDrive cavity was matched by momentum loss from cavity photons, shown by increased photon wavelength?
IE there are 2 measurements.
1) amount of accelerated cavity mass momentum gain, measured by increased velocity.
2) amount of photon momentum loss, measured by increased photon wavelength.
If measurement 1 + measurement 2 = 0 has CofM occurred?
BTW the input impedance of the cavity coupler changes during acceleration but that is an effect for another discussion.
No, that part is very informative. It tells me there is much more. It must frustrate you to no end that maybe Shawyer knows of results you just aren't privy to yet.
Results from the defense industry. And if that's true, you can quibble till you're blue in the face about his use of terminology but it won't change the reality.
He and others may be considered great discoverers in the future, especially that they have endured in the face of such blistering opposition.
But being opposed or misunderstood doesn't make one wrong. I think Shawyer is a great man.
No, that part is very informative. It tells me there is much more. It must frustrate you to no end that maybe Shawyer knows of results you just aren't privy to yet.Shawyer claims that he knows of something he isn't sharing, but that is a common distraction method used by people who have no actual support for their claims. There is literally nothing that he can know that changes the fundamental wrongness of the physics he discusses. Anything that makes his claims not wrong would change things so fundamentally that means he knows everything else he is saying is wrong, and therefore the rest of the presentation is full of lies. (again the opposite of informative and interesting.)Results from the defense industry. And if that's true, you can quibble till you're blue in the face about his use of terminology but it won't change the reality.I am not quibbling about terminology. Your assertion that I am is insulting. Try reading and responding to the rather simple physics I described in my previous post.He and others may be considered great discoverers in the future, especially that they have endured in the face of such blistering opposition.Great discoverers stand on the shoulders of giants. Shawyer is doing the opposite. The harsh criticism is because he has been making self-contradictory claims, some of which should be simple for even high school physics students to recognize.But being opposed or misunderstood doesn't make one wrong. I think Shawyer is a great man.So you blindly praise him, yet refuse to address even the simplest of contradictions in his claims.