Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: TrimNo lift is generated in a strong gravity well like Earths.


    This is becoming clearer now. It won't do any work, it will only oppose an existing gravitational force, and its effect decreases as the gravitational force increases. Even if it could meet those specs it doesn't sound very useful.
  1.  
    Posted By: TrimNo lift is generated in a strong gravity well like Earths.


    I see. Lift is only generated far out in space.

    How about in a microgravity environment like free-fall orbit, or inside a drop tower? If it's weightless will it be able to generate lift then?


    And I'm afraid I don't read Chinese. Nor do they read me. I do however like a good bulgogi stirfry with glass noodles.
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013
     
    In weaker wells (gravity) it could be useful keeping satellites on station and for interplanetary travel.
  2.  
    I have also heard it said that if wishes were invisible flying pink unicorns, executive travel options would expand immensely.
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013
     
    I doubt it, the suits would still prefer first class.
    • CommentAuthorLakes
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013
     
    Posted By: Trim
    Posted By: tinkerSo he claims...at a wopping 3 tons/kilowatt. Anti-gravity here we come.


    He doesn't claim anti gravity any more than a wall is antigravity.

    If he tries to get lift in a gravity well by increasing energy to his device it collapses and he falls down instead.

    I don't know what would happen if his car 'drove' over an earth equivalent of amasconit would probably fall again.
    "He falls down instead"
    It's a falling down device!
    I know a cheaper way to achieve that effect. :)
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013
     
    •  
      CommentAuthoralsetalokin
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013 edited
     
    I remember that one, sure. I think some people whose math is better than mine have told me his math is worse than mine. I'm not going to question their judgement.

    Do you have any reports of actual experiments? Theory is above my pay grade, I just turn the wrenches and the knobs, push the buttons and the brooms.
  3.  
    The vector angle debunk was subsequently challenged by the Chinese 2012 paper who did an end-run around it using QM. Tactically I'm on the fence because they seem to be measuring respectable thrust levels that are well above experimental measurement noise. It is unclear to me whether they are truly self-contained with those high power levels. That's usually the first hurdle at which most of these types of devices fall on their keesters. Strategically, it cannot work because the Lorentz force is conservative. "No closed system of currents can generate a net force" (and I am not talking about restoring torques, which we call "a compass", either).

    They need to miniaturise it to fit into a CubeSat. Until then, I'll just watch and wait.
  4.  
    You might want to check the comments here, as I've been gabbing with Hector Serrano about his strange thruster. I confess to feeling intrigued and dismayed, simultaneously. Rather like bumping into a lady with three breasts.
    http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=4534122&type=member&item=260139325&commentID=153169692
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: TrimOne for the A's to read.

    http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf


    Upon quick inspection I think Eq 1 is incorrect. He is assuming adiabatic maintenance of a single transverse mode no matter how wide the cavity gets. The power per unit area is reduced at the wider end. The difference in forces is compensated by the difference in area.

    Prove me wrong.
  5.  
    Your thesis being constant power per unit volume? But that isn't the case for a standing wave, is it?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013
     
    Posted By: Andrew PalfreymanYour thesis being constant power per unit volume? But that isn't the case for a standing wave, is it?


    I'm just doing what he does - resolving the standing wave into the sum of two counterpropagating waves. The power going in each direction at any point has to be the same. If the mode conversion is adiabatic, the power transiting the cross section at each point along the axis is also the same. Ergo...

    Now if there is some kind of complex resonance going on including conversion to higher order radial modes, then his analysis will have to be more complex. I don't see how that rescues the idea, though.
  6.  
    I would write it up if I were you.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013
     
    Posted By: Andrew PalfreymanI would write it up if I were you.


    If you actually were me, you wouldn't bother.
  7.  
    I can't know that. Tautologically, of course.
    Shine your light, man!
  8.  
    I actually am me, and I think it has been done before, but I can't put my finger on it at the moment.
  9.  
    "That Vo of 83 m/s can be achieved, for example, as the tangential velocity on a wheel of radius 1 metre rotating at about 5,000 rpm."

    No, 5000 RPM is 83 revolutions per second, and there are 2pi meters in one revolution, so the TV is 83x2xpi meters per second, or 524 m/sec. For a TV of 83 m/sec you need only 793 RPM.

    Oh, darn, you fixed it further on.
    •  
      CommentAuthoralsetalokin
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013 edited
     
    He's putting a 2200 mA-H LiPo battery into a vacuum chamber?

    And the thrust is forwards, backwards or nil depending on supplied power? And it only draws a few microamps and can be stacked with multiple thrusting units without loading up the supply further? And he thinks it will accelerate to FTLS? And his main "Faraday cage" isn't _actually_ grounded but is connected to the _negative_ pole of his onboard power supply? The device violates CofE, CofM, SR, and Conservation of Miracles.

    Oh, why doesn't anyone ever give ME one of these things to test and evaluate. Fifteen fucking years I have been in the business, professionally and amateurishly, and nobody has _ever_ shown me anything unequivocally unusual, with the exception of Viktor Rosznyay or however it's spelt, and that lasted a whole afternoon.
  10.  
    Shall I make a pitch for you?