I agree, it's slightly below how to mix the prefect martini in zero gravity.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/nasas-em-drive.884753/#post-5625535

"- The analysis of the measurement data is poor enough that there is some doubt as to whether the effect they've measured even exists."
Ouch!

"Of course things could change if more evidence comes in..."
That's good to know...

"...but based on what we have so far, this is much more likely to be cold fusion all over again than a major new development. There are plenty of places on the Internet where such things can be discussed, but Physics Forums is not one of those places."
Ouch again!

I consider myself a true scientist, and I always submit to the facts. In this case, yes, I admit that so far the evidence is weak and far from compelling, and so I think that more definitive data is needed to prove/disprove (the latter being more likely) this thing once and for all... But who knows? There are some examples out there of extraordinary phenomena that took a long time to be properly explained and experimented with, such as ball lightning, for instance.

 

I liked the later paragraphs addressing the proper attitude to maintain. "I have an observation I can't explain. What's going on?"

 

Skepticism is healthy as long as it's directed at devising better experiments. "Man will never fly" skepticism is not science.

I just saw a prageru video that mentioned the NY Times announcement that "Man will never fly in a million years" nine days prior to the Wright Brothers flight.

 

Private investment generally works well if there's a buck to be made but what about things that are not, such as the development of drugs for rare diseases, or inventing the internet.

 

I would like to go out on a limb, and hopefully it doesn't break that I fall on my proverbial Newtonian head.

If Newton discovered Gravity, and we still don't fully understand it or can explain it only to a point there are still mysteries. One such mystery is Gravity has no opposite, since emdirve is not banned here as a topic, I would like to ask the questions.

So, if we find the emdirve actually has measurable force, according to one paper I read, maybe the weight of an Iphone and another said equal to the weight of a Mosquito.

1. If Gravity is observed measured, then in out of the 4 forces not having an opposite, why then is this true?

I would say maybe what is observed and again I say, still under investigation. Maybe what is seen and un-explainable.

2. Could it be an example of Anti-Gravity occuring?

kv

 

Private investment generally works well if there's a buck to be made but what about things that are not, such as the development of drugs for rare diseases, or inventing the internet?

The "internet" didn't take off until someone recognized it could be monetized as ARPANET was around a very long time, before Al Gore invented the internet. Once computers became profitable at a lower cost, then the internet had a chance. Drugs can be monetized as well. The question is, how much would one of those "rare disease" drugs cost the limited market consumer?

There is nothing stopping anyone from using the crowdfunding to take donations to solve any problem they wish to solve. All one has to do is convince enough to support their idea. Mans credulity is tested daily on the crowdfunding sites.

 

The question is, how much would one of those "rare disease" drugs cost the limited market consumer?

Yes, how much is a life worth?
Should probably get rid if Medicare and let those old people die too, since they're not pulling their weight anymore.

 

Should probably get rid if Medicare and let those old people die too, since they're not pulling their weight anymore.

That too could happen. Maybe if the medicare recipients didn't PAY into the system, you would stand a better chance. Between the individual and employer, it amounts to 2.9 percent of your wages. Higher if your in the "defined" rich bracket.

 

I would like to go out on a limb, and hopefully it doesn't break that I fall on my proverbial Newtonian head.

If Newton discovered Gravity, and we still don't fully understand it or can explain it only to a point there are still mysteries. One such mystery is Gravity has no opposite, since emdirve is not banned here as a topic, I would like to ask the questions.

So, if we find the emdirve actually has measurable force, according to one paper I read, maybe the weight of an Iphone and another said equal to the weight of a Mosquito.

1. If Gravity is observed measured, then in out of the 4 forces not having an opposite, why then is this true?

I would say maybe what is observed and again I say, still under investigation. Maybe what is seen and un-explainable.

2. Could it be an example of Anti-Gravity occuring?

kv

1.0
You are so far out on a limb you must have anti-gravity. The geometry of the gravity force (Einstein implied that gravity was curvature in space-time and not a force) is actually the geometry of the true physical space. We have pretty good experimental data that confirms our ideas on how gravity works so it's not really a total mystery and a comparison with other forces (usually EM) seems strained.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B

2. No.

 

A decent overview:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-test-says-it-works-anyway/?wpisrc=nl_az_most

 

I hadn't heard of this possible explanation before:

"The phenomenon might be evidence of a hypothesis developed by Woodward, called the Mach effect, in which the energy generated by the accelerating body is actually stored within the body."

For me at least, the Mach principle is one of physics major mysteries. It's involvement in this technology is pretty cool.

This last sentence pretty much sums up my own take:

"Writing in Forbes, astrophysicist Brian Koberlein said, “Even as a skeptic I have to admit the work is valid research. This is how science is done if you want to get it right. Do experiments, submit them to peer review, get feedback, and reevaluate. For their next trick the researchers would like to try the experiment in space. I admit that’s an experiment I’d like to see.” "

 

I hadn't heard of this possible explanation before:

"The phenomenon might be evidence of a hypothesis developed by Woodward, called the Mach effect, in which the energy generated by the accelerating body is actually stored within the body."

http://www.otherhand.org/home-page/...in-physics-at-cal-state-university-fullerton/

But Tom, is this stuff ……real?

I….don’t…. know. And I say that after being involved in chasing it down for 10+ years. At this point, I see arguements on both sides.

Fundamentally, the mathematics are extremely compelling. I have yet to come across anyone credible in General Relativity who can say why the derivation is incorrect. About as damning as I’ve heard is something along the lines of, “Wait,…This can’t be right….But I don’t know why it’s not right”. The math is straightforward.

The effect (or something like it) has been demonstrated in a wide variety of different types of devices and experimental setups. Something has been observed if it’s merely capacitors being shuttled back and forth, but also with later generation devices composed of all PZT discs. The most recent generation of devices were a very different design having capacitors embedded in a magnetic field which used the Lorentz Force to move the ions in the capacitor dielectric (These were called Mach Lorentz Thrusters). And the force measuring setups have ranged from various load cell devices to ballistic pendulums to multiple torsion arm pendulums, in which movement is actually observed. The fact the movement is produced in torsion arm apparatus suggests it just can’t be RF pickup or ground loops contaminating the recording of the load cell data.

OTOH, the results have always been very small, well below what the theory says.

As time progressed and the experimental apparatus more refined, the “effect” seemed to get smaller, and that’s a REAL bad sign. It was already well below what the theory predicted. That sets off alarm bells. After all this time, if something isn’t in hand to float around a table top, its should still at least be producing unequivocal results.

The instrumentation to date is hand-wired and complex, with potential for ground loops.

I am aware of only one positive replication attempt, and even that experimenter (Paul March) had concerns over its validity. All other replication attempts have either been negative or ambiguous. My own experiments were ambiguous.

It seems to make the effect happen, a lot of parameters for the test devices, some not clearly understood, need to be “just so”. The question remains, are the devices being dialed in to create a real effect, or do things need to be just so to cause merely a false positive?

 

http://www.otherhand.org/home-page/...in-physics-at-cal-state-university-fullerton/

Thanks, Nsa. I'm going to take the time to read the whole page later on. It looks very interesting.

 

Thanks, Nsa. I'm going to take the time to read the whole page later on. It looks very interesting.

I think it's very interesting that as our experiments increase in precision and resolution the signal 'effects' get smaller. Usually this results in data than makes it easier to see a solid signal effect in a noisy background but so far when we eliminate possible false positive paths in experiments our desired effect decreases to just above the noise level.

 

That's because it's a quantum effect. The closer you look, the more it hides.

 

Great name for it.
WTF-thruster

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/11/nasas-em-drive-still-a-wtf-thruster/

What's more, the discussion section is not very encouraging. It's essentially a laundry list of strange things that happen because of vacuum fluctuations, coupled to—for no reason that I can discern—Bohm's pilot wave interpretation of quantum mechanics. Whatever Bohm's failings might be, I'm pretty sure he didn't deserve that.

I know that I sound a bit flippant and dismissive of this work. I promise you that I went into this paper determined to be skeptical but positive. Unfortunately, all of my positive thoughts drained through the gaping holes in the paper, leaving me at skeptical and exasperated.

 

Have you ever studied Mach's principle? I have. The group that turned me on to Parson's magneton theory base their gravitational theories on it. I now believe it to be false.

The reason I say this is because all force and fields are local only. This is simply because of distance.

There is an exception.....and that is emission. Emission is the only way a force or field can leave the neighborhood.

Modern science says that the electric field of an electron propagates out into the universe. This is utterly false. If we measure the diameter of the universe, and then go out 1000 diameters.........we can place two charged pith balls. There will be a distance that we can separate the balls.............and they will not interact. Before one charge can effect another charge, the effect of the first charge must overcome the inertia of the second charge.

And where does the power come from for this universe filling propagation? A 2X360 degree infinite field takes a lot of power. That's crap.

I know of at least 3 and maybe 4 distinct electric fields. The first field is a static stationary gradient......such as comes of a charged sphere. This field is a simple voltage gradient. It holds a potential in a constant area. A power supply electric field.

The second field is an emitted electric field. This is also a linear gradient.......but this gradient is moving and has velocity, it is not stationary. The field can deliver power......but only when added to the magnetic component on absorption. Absorption is the process of converting a linear field into an angular field. During flight....it only has potential. However, it is a moving density change. This moving density change is power...but very little. The power in emission comes from the angular angle with the magnetic.

The third field is an angular field. A rotating electric field has power. All by itself, it has power. This is why a charge field is short distance. The power is proportional with the angular velocity.

With a static or linear field, the only way to change density, is to change the magnitude or the distance. With a angular field.....to change density (power).....all we need to do is change angular velocity.

And fourth, gravity might be a weak cousin the the electric. The gravity field is also an angular field and thus has power also. However, the angular velocity of gravity is very slow, compared the the electric. Compared with the the electric, gravity is very weak. A gravity field is the very weak result of two asymmetrical inertias. These gravity generators (dipoles) in a large object are NOT aligned. But they are related in phase (time). Gravity is a net field (weak), not a converged field, like the electric. Inertia has the property of ignoring and resisting all external stimuli. In other words.....inertia is the exact opposite of Mach's principle.

Try this , this afternoon. Fill a bucket half full of water. Now attach the bucket to the universe and let it rotate.
Mach says that the water will crawl up the bucket wall. I say it won't. Even if Mach's principle is correct.....there would be only be one location where the universe can rotate. And that's at the center.

The Woodward effect.

This fellow tries to explain how the force (energy) of acceleration is transferred to a increase in mass. And of course he, like everybody else, has it wrong.

Take a rotating ring and put a timing mark on it with a piece of chalk. Attach a strobe light and originate this ring for to see the timing mark at 12 o'clock. The electron is sitting there, spinning, idling. The timing mark is at 12 o'clock.
As you accelerate the charge.............you will see the timing mark advance. This is because you are super imposing a rotation on a rotation. When you accelerate a charge, not only will the charge move with the acceleration......it also moves the charge perpendicular to the acceleration, as a spin component.

When the acceleration, causes the timing mark to advance 360 degrees, the particle will jump to a rotational velocity, twice the original rotation. And the ring circumference will be one half the original. You have super imposed one rotation on top of another. This rotation is double or a multiple of the original rotation. This increase in angular velocity is an increase in electric density, magnetic density, mass, power, and inertia. All of these increases are due to reduced area and increased density. All this came from acceleration energy.

It's really quite simple.

 

It's really quite simple.

I counted 14 paragraphs.

 

If you accelerate the particle to 355 degrees.....then stop and let the timing mark reset to zero....then accelerate to 355 degrees again.........one should be able to accelerate the charge to any velocity.......without a gain in mass or inertia.

Putt-putt propulsion.

 

If you accelerate the particle to 355 degrees.....then stop and let the timing mark reset to zero....then accelerate to 355 degrees again.........one should be able to accelerate the charge to any velocity.......without a gain in mass or inertia.

Putt-putt propulsion.

Just like a fancy Pop-Pop boat.