Axil,
I always read your posts as they are informative and have independent backup urls. Not to mention something new to learn. Before I swell your head with anymore complements. I wonder why if the 2009 monopole experiment has been duplicated as would assume that this has been done. Well, why do they not have a Nobel for this. Now understand if Dirac says they are possible I am sure they are possible. But everything possible in math has not been proven experimentally. And the reverse is true. Some experiments just donot have working usable theories. LENR and EM drive are examples. So are you saying that spinliquids are related to EMdrive? or monopoles or both. Or just a possible explanation? I am clearly missing the connection. Thx.
NASA Paper Measuring Thrust from EmDrive Replication Has Leaked
-
-
Quote
Has anyone tried putting a simple cloud chamber near a working LENR device or the EmDrive, it would be an easy experiment to do!
Cloud chamber is insensitive to low energy particles like the scalar waves. Instead of it, I proposed the following experiment...QuoteEM Drive blocks the aether in one direction and receives a push from the other direction
The simplest way, how to understand is is to utilize the dense aether model, which considers the vacuum as a dense superfluid with no resistance. But once we introduce some turbulence into it, then the resulting vortices already have some inertia and they can be utilized as a reference frame enabling the swimming in vacuum. The jellyfishes are utilizing this principle for their motion through water.But after then we face the same problem, how to introduce the turbulence into superfluid, once it's superfluous. Every paddle would pass through it without resistance, i.e. no turbulence can be formed anyway. But we can introduce waves into it and to leave these waves resonate at place in such a way, the motion of vacuum within standing waves would resemble the turbulence. And this is IMO what the EMDrive does. BTW this is also the way, in which the tornadoes are forming within the atmosphere.
-
Axil,
I always read your posts as they are informative and have independent backup urls. Not to mention something new to learn. Before I swell your head with anymore complements. I wonder why if the 2009 monopole experiment has been duplicated as would assume that this has been done. Well, why do they not have a Nobel for this. Now understand if Dirac says they are possible I am sure they are possible. But everything possible in math has not been proven experimentally. And the reverse is true. Some experiments just donot have working usable theories. LENR and EM drive are examples. So are you saying that spinliquids are related to EMdrive? or monopoles or both. Or just a possible explanation? I am clearly missing the connection. Thx.The last Nobel prise(2016) has been given to three condensed matter physicist for this type of exotic work
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/04/…2016-nobel-prize-physics/
There is a half dozen people that have produced monopole quasiparticles of one form or another.
There are some scientists that beleive that most of the cosmos is emergent from the properties of the vacuum.
http://dao.mit.edu/~wen/NSart-wen.html
If an engineer can control the way virtual particles behave, then all kinds of exotic effects might be produced including the kind of things that are going on in LENR and the EMdrive.
-
What published works?
See E. Compari, S. Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, S. Veronesi, "Overview of H-NI Systems: Old Experiments and New Setup" or 10th International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen Loaded Metals, 10-14 April 2012, F. Piantelli and W. Collis, chart 30. Both have the same photograph of the Ni rod in the cloud chamber. -
Quote from damn_right _man: “Quote from axil: “Quote from damn_right _man: “Quote from axil: “Quote from damn_right _man: “Muons are said to need a lot of energy to be "produced".”
Read this paper to understand how that…
QuoteSolid authoritative detection and identification is what Holmlid will provide when the particle detector data is made available, you know...5 sigma.
is not, what someone will do, nor is it, what someone is able to do, and for a geologist I doubt, that any sigma value will be provided, since such guys cannot distinguish muons from other particles in cloud/smoke chambers. For sure not a geologist.
Form the perspective of 5 sigma, this sounds like Rossis "keep them believing" strategy. Nothing to worry about, nor to take serious in any substantial way, as long it is the same bla bla as at the end of 2015.
-
is not, what someone will do, nor is it, what someone is able to do, and for a geologist I doubt, that any sigma value will be provided, since such guys cannot distinguish muons from other particles in cloud/smoke chambers. For sure not a geologist.
Form the perspective of 5 sigma, this sounds like Rossis "keep them believing" strategy. Nothing to worry about, nor to take serious in any substantial way, as long it is the same bla bla as at the end of 2015.
Particle physicists use particle detectors that can detect and characterize any sub atomic particle. That is why Holmlid is going to use such a particle detector. I don't know it but I guess it will likely be a detector at CERN since Holmlid deals with the CERN community for peer review.
-
Quote
Particle physicists use particle detectors that can detect and characterize any sub atomic particle. That is why Holmlid is going to use such a particle detector. I don't know it but I guess it will likely be a detector at CERN since Holmlid deals with the CERN community for peer review
-
SKEPTICAL LOOK AT EM DRIVE.
"It’s one of the most intriguing stories of the year: NASA’s version of the 'impossible' EM Drive appears to produce thrust, violating Newton’s third law and hence our current understanding of the physics that govern the Universe.
But just because NASA’s space drive test passed peer-review last month, doesn’t mean it actually works, says Brice Cassenti, an expert in advanced propulsion systems at the University of Connecticut. In fact, due to the array of errors that could have affected the experiment, he says the only way we can actually know the truth is to test the EM Drive in space.
"Many scientists and engineers feel the thrust measurements reported for the EM Drive are due to experimental error," Cassenti said in a recent interview.
"Adding to this is the fact that those who believe the results are valid do not yet have an experimentally or a theoretically plausible proven physical explanation. I personally believe that there is a mundane explanation for the results.
-
It may turn out to not work at all, but there have been enough positive results to warrant further testing. It is encouraging that they find a similar level of thrust in the vacuum compared with in the air. Like the author said, it is unlikely to be a real effect, but it is worth examining.
The existing data show the most important variables are the size of the small and big ends. Smaller is better on the small end and bigger on the big end. It makes one wonder if a cone might end up being the most efficient should this prove to be real.
-
I think of the EM drive as conceptually similar to a quarter-wave pipe loudspeaker. (AKA a transmission line speaker, sometimes).
One difference is that a QWP is open at one end, so the fundamental resonant frequency (ie the bass extension) can 'escape' to your ears, but the pipe can still reflect/sustain a standing wave inside, as the open end is really just a quarter wave anti-node. Note, this fundamental frequency / deepest playable note is proportional to the length of the pipe.
Anyway... The parts of the analogy I find interesting are that if you reduce the width of the closed end (making a tapered quarter-wave pipe), the fundamental resonant frequency becomes lower, for a given pipe length.
Why does the taper have this effect? Is it due to the speed of sound being lower at the small end? Or just the group velocity? Does this alter the momentum of the air molecules (aka photons...)?
And to tie into Jack Cole's idea about a cone possibly being the optimal shape of a resonant cavity... If you taper one end of your TQWP to be infinitely small (ie a cone), it stops resonating, and starts absorbing the sound being produced by the rear of the driver... Essentially turning it into an Infinite Baffle speaker cabinet. The B&W Nautilus is an example of this.
http://www.bowers-wilkins.co.uk/Speakers/Home_Audio/Nautilus
-
In fact, due to the array of errors that could have affected the experiment, he says the only way we can actually know the truth is to test the EM Drive in space.
That is absurd. If the thing works, there has to be a way to confirm that on the ground, here on earth, without going into space. It should be basic Newtonian physics. Hanging it on a swing made of fishing line should do it. Going into space might actually confuse the issue. It would also increase the cost by millions of dollars.If the experiment as presently performed is not adequate for some reason, it should be improved, not made millions of dollars more expensive.
-
@JedRothwell you are rational, but is the problem rational.
if Evidenecs were rationally weighted mainstream would work on LENR.What made Wright Brother's plane accepted is a demo in France, not facts.
-
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2…prove-propellentless.html
Cannae will try to prove propellentless propulsion in space in 2017 and has ambitious space probe designs with 33 years of constant acceleration to reach 3% of lightspeed
-
Quote from Alan Smith: “In fact, due to the array of errors that could have affected the experiment, he says the only way we can actually know the truth is to test the EM Drive in space.”
That is absurd. If the thing works, there has to be a way to…I agree. If you can measure the gravitational constant G with a torsion pendulum, measuring this would be easier. My personal view on how this effect might work is that the quantum vacuum continuously creates anti-particle pairs that travel a short distance before recombining. It is these particles against which the EM drive reacts. The E and B fields inside the cavity need to be assymetrical, but the force is developed in exactly that; an assymetrical cavity. The fact that a vacuum has an electrostatic permittivity that is easily measured between parallel capacitor plates supports this view.
-
Quote from Alan Smith: “In fact, due to the array of errors that could have affected the experiment.....
Just to be clear, it wasn't me that said that, it was Brice Cassenti, an expert in advanced propulsion systems at the University of Connecticut.
-
Saying there are artifacts is just an easy bet, like saying the lottery ticket is not a winning one.
I see two good reason to be concerned by this critic :- the critic is not a theoretician but someone who know practical problems...
- He notice a concrete problems, that there is a signe error somewhere
I don't understand all, and normally if this critic is serious it should be submitter to the peer reviewed journal and answered by White and March either with an explanation, or with a proposal for a new experiment.
-
That is absurd. If the thing works, there has to be a way to confirm that on the ground, here on earth, without going into space. It should be basic Newtonian physics. Hanging it on a swing made of fishing line should do it. Going into space might actually confuse the issue. It would also increase the cost by millions of dollars.If the experiment as presently performed is not adequate for some reason, it should be improved, not made millions of dollars more expensive.
http://today.uconn.edu/2016/12…-fact-or-science-fiction/
Q. Everyone seems to be excited about the EM Drive being tested in space as the next step. What advantages are there to testing the device in space versus here on Earth?
Cassenti A. If the EM drive is tested in space, then the acceleration could be directly measured, which would eliminate all of the confusion associated with force measurements. Space would provide an ideal vacuum, so the device would not have to be placed in a vacuum chamber, and it would provide a weightless environment, eliminating any need for a support (current tests rely on a balance arm so any resulting forces can be measured). But space missions are expensive – at a cost of $10,000 to launch one pound of material into orbit. It may be better to first try to experimentally find the cause for the thrust measurement, and only when the cost on the ground begins to approach the cost for an orbital mission should an experiment in space be performed.
-
Quote from Dan21: “Quote from Alan Smith: “In fact, due to the array of errors that could have affected the experiment.....”
Just to be clear, it wasn't me that said that, it was Brice Cassenti, an expert in advanced propulsion systems at the…
Actually, I was agreeing with Jed in that the thrust should be easy to measure without the expense of going to orbit.
-
http://phys.org/news/2012-10-mystery-ball-lightning.html
Lowke used eye-witness accounts of ball lightning by two former US Air Force pilots to verify the theory. Former US Air Force lieutenant Don Smith recalls: "After flying for about 15 minutes, there developed on the randome (radar cover) two horns of Saint Elmo's fire. It looked as if the airplane now had bull's horns...they were glowing with the blue of electricity."
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tesla/esp_tesla_20.htm
From theses experiences it became apparent that the fire balls resulted from the interaction of two frequencies, a stray higher frequency wave imposed on the lower frequency free oscillation of the main circuit.
As the free oscillation of the circuit builds up from the zero point to the quarter wave length node it passes through various rates of change. In a current of shorter wavelength the rates of change will be steeper. When the two currents react on each other the resultant complex will contain a wave in which there is an extremely steep rate of change, and for the briefest instant currents may move at a tremendous rate, at the rate of millions of horsepower.
This condition acts as a trigger which may cause the total energy of the powerful longer wave to be discharged in an infinitesimally small interval of time and at a proportionately tremendously great rate of energy movement which cannot confine itself to the metal circuit and is released into surrounding space with inconceivable violence.
It is but a step, from learning how a high frequency current can explosively discharge a lower frequency current, to using the principle to design a system in which these explosions can be produced by intent.
The following process appears a possible one but no evidence is available that it is the one Tesla evolved: An oscillator, such as he used to send power wirelessly around the earth at Colorado Springs, is set in operation at a frequency to which a given warship is resonant. The complex structure of a ship would provide a great number of spots in which electrical oscillations will be set up of a much higher frequency than those coursing through the ship as a whole.
These parasite currents will react on the main current causing the production of fireballs which by their explosions will destroy the ship, even more effectively than the explosion of the magazine which would also take place. A second oscillator may be used to transmit the shorter wavelength current.
In the highly resonant transformer secondary comprising the magnifying transmitter, the entire energy accumulated in the excited circuit, instead of requiring a quarter period for transformation from static to kinetic, could spend itself in less time, at hundreds of thousands of horsepower. Thus for example, producing artificial fireballs by suddenly causing the impressed oscillations to be more rapid than free ones of the secondary. This shifted the point of maximum electrical pressure below the elevated terminal capacity and a ball of fire would leap great distances.
...if the points of maximum pressure should be shifted below the terminal, along the coil, a ball of fire might break out and destroy the support or anything else in the way. For the better appreciation of the nature of this danger it should be stated, that the destructive action may take place with inconceivable violence. This will cease to be surprising when it is borne in mind, that the entire energy accumulated in the excited circuit, instead of requiring, as under normal working conditions, one quarter of the period or more for its transformation from static to kinetic form, may spend itself in an incomparably smaller interval of time, at the rate of many millions of horsepower.
http://overunity.com/15458/are-scalar-waves-bs/20/wap2/
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/c…getdoc/slac-pub-13583.pdf
A Ball Lightning Model as a Possible Explanation of Recently Reported Cavity Lights*
Abstract The salient features of cavity lights, in particular, mobile luminous objects (MLO’s), as have been experimentally observed in superconducting accelerator cavities, are summarized. A model based upon standard electromagnetic interactions between a small particle and the 1.5 GHz cavity excitation field is described. This model can explain some features of these data, in particular, the existence of particle orbits without wall contact. While this result is an important success for the model, it is detailed why the model as it stands is incomplete. It is argued that no avenues for a suitable extension of the model through established physics appear evident, which motivates an investigation of a model based upon a more exotic object, ball lightning. As discussed, further motivation derives from the fact that there are significant similarities in many of the qualitative features of ball lightning and MLO’s, even though they appear in quite different circumstances and differ in scale by orders of magnitude. The ball lightning model, which incorporates electromagnetic charges and currents, is based on a symmetrized set of Maxwell's equations in which the electromagnetic sources and fields are characterized by a process called dyality rotation. It is shown that a consistent mathematical description of dyality rotation as a physical process can be achieved by adding suitable (phenomenological) current terms to supplement the usual current terms in the symmetrized Maxwell's equations. These currents, which enable the conservation of electric and magnetic charge, are called vacuum currents. It is shown that the proposed ball lightning model offers a good qualitative explanation of the perplexing aspects of the MLO data. Avenues for further study are indicated
-
At the expense of boring you with an anecdote, one of my employees had extensive lower-body burn scars, a childhood accident precipitated by ball lightning. During a big thunderstorm the door of the family's little cottage was blown open by a lightning strike right outside the house. A ball of lightning entered the room - and everybody's hair actually stood on end I was told - and after a moment it rushed towards the iron fire grate and blew the contents out, mostly over the story-teller.
Strange but true.
