Colin,
Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence...
There's an art to doing science. One has the knack or not...
Stick with hardball experimental fact (peer reviewed facts) not conjecture
if you want to engineer something new. Eg. the stuff I do, independent flux
criterion is old-old EM, EPR/Bell/Aspect has been checked to 46 standard
deviations, electromagnetic momentum in static induction cases pretty well
known and checked.
Then apply logic to take the next step...
(I propose a paradigm shift here: The Engineer as the Theoretician - both
mathematical modelling and the design of experiments to enter new realms).
Now there are certain things which beggar belief, holies of holies that if
you are going to challenge them require a mechanism. They require
intellectual input to say just how that *is so*, to open a new door, but we
do that step by step at a time without Mathmagical Fizziks (unless you are
genuinely gifted at it and have a track record like Dirac, Pauli, Feynman,
Schwinger) ----
*Theory based on hardball facts*. Use Occam's Razor for goddam sake!
(I like Occam, he lived just down the A3 out of London other side of the M25
way back in the 11th C on the way to Surrey Uni. Hail Occam!!).
Now when people start talking about violating the *1st Law* it can only
mean:
1) The constants of nature have changed over the timescale of your
experiment.
2) That some new force has been found.
((Incidentally with the Steorn stuff why, if some new force has been found,
would it couple exclusively to magnetic forms of energy? Why not light,
heat, phonons? One can bet if some new process had been discovered *it would
generate heat* - processes happening on the micro-level would tend to get
randomised and end up that way - take the heat of radioactive decay.))
Similar concerns arise with violations of momentum or momenergy (in
Relativistic parlance) conservation. Break momentum conservation and one has
automatically broken the 1st law in other inertial frames unless there is
something to take up the 'slack'.
That something could be an 'ether' try: Graham and Lahoz, "Observation of
static electromagnetic angular momentum in vacuo", Nature Vol. 285, 154
(1980).
It won't be ZPE: "Comment on Zero-point Fluctuations and The Cosmological
Constant", Michel F.C., Astrophysical Journal, 466:660-667, (1996).
Because that stuff is based on a false premise. Period. (See the paper).
Now as regards theory of EM waves and how they exchange momentum and angular
momentum, an error here would propagate ('xcuse the pun) into other areas of
physics to make it obvious that standard EM theory was incorrect despite
billions of person-hours of physicists and engineers.
Regards, my two-cents worth.
Remi.
P.S. It sort of reminds me of radical student protests: yeah, let's throw
out the establishment. Yeah! Let's abolish the system! Yeah let's abolish
erudition! Let's talk in grunts. Abolish reasoned debate so old fashioned!
Abolish logic! Abolish speech. Grunt, growl, snarl, hiss. You get the
picture.
-----Original Message-----
From: Colin Quinney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 08 September 2006 21:30
To: Remi Cornwall; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; vortex-l@eskimo.com;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Emdrive Engine
Hi Remi,
Thank you. I greatly appreciated your response.
In that paper on your web site, you linked to a paper by Andreas Rathke-
who is a director of Special Projects at the European Space Agency..
The topic was in reference to the EMDrive device. I'm just an observer..,
but I am sorry to say that I did not agree with his "conclusion".
'Microwave spacecraft propulsion by a closed resonant cavity'
http://uk.geocities.com/remicornwall/MicrowaveEMProp.pdf
.. wherein he states :
"Having found, that the principle of the microwave engine proposed by SPR
relies on a
misconception, it comes as a surprise, that a prototype of the engine
nevertheless
generates appreciable thrust. Possible explanations for this are however
easily spotted:
On the one hand air expelled from the microwave cavity could generate the
thrust. On
the other hand the apparatus could acquire a charge during the experiment,
which
would then generate a Coulomb force and invalidate the force measurement.
Also a
direct coupling between the microwave generator and the measurement device
needs
to be excluded.
In conclusion the recently proposed concept of microwave propulsion by a
closed
resonant cavity violates fundamental principles of physics, i.e. momentum
and energy
conservation and is hence obviously not feasible."
= = =
I do not understand the kind of thinking that dismisses experimental
evidence because it violates a theory we were taught.
Yes there may be artefact. Probably is, in fact. And yes the theory may be
flawed. (but **if** it turns out to be real... then find a theory that
fits.) He said that the possible artefacts needed to be excluded but nowhere
mentions doing that. He is the director of Special projects at the ESA. Did
he not assign it to a working group?
He effectively dismissed the whole thing because.. it cannot exist. And yet
he had a working model in front of him, otherwise why did he state (Quote:)
"the prototype generated appreciable thrust". ?
I have heard that the EMDrive folks used a digital scale to measure the
force. That's a no-no-, agreed... but.. has anyone test measured it with
a mechanical scale?
= = =
Cheers,
Colin
From: "Remi Cornwall" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Colin,
> Try http://uk.geocities.com/remicornwall/ElectromagneticPropulsion.htm
>
> I've a section on Shawyer and a short paper by Andreas Rathke of ESA.
> Remi.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Colin Quinney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 07 September 2006 15:34
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; vortex-l@eskimo.com;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Vo]: Emdrive Engine
>
> Group,
>
> September 2006 The Engineer Online :
> http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Articles/Article.aspx?liArticleID=295931
>
> SPR's EMDrive :
> <http://www.emdrive.com/>
>
> Antigravity... or very close to it.
> BBGB (Blow by Grinding Blow) or,, as close to enough information was
> herein
> supplied from picture and description for some of us to attempt a
> replication. There is also a patent, but I do not yet have that number. I
> thought I should just pass this along, all that I have..
>
> The short description is : an unbalanced 2 gm force- derived from : a
> 2.45
>
> GHz microwave- bouncing back and forth within a resonant chamber- that
> is
> wider on one it's ends..
>
> The developer is a UK company SPR, director is Roger Shawyer.
> <http://www.emdrive.com/>
>
> Nasa is sceptical but there are reports of seven (7) independent reviews
> by
> : BAE Systems, EADS Astrium, Siemens, and the IEE.
> And... DTI ( a UK government agency?) has awarded the company 125,00
> pounds
>
> for the prototype, part of a three year 250,000 pounds Program. For Space
> Propulsion (said to reduce the Mars mission from 9 to 3 months, etc.)
>
> Additional links:
>
> 2004 The Engineer Online
> http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Articles/266633/Defying%20gravity.htm
>
> EUREKA DECEMBER 2002 FEATURE STORY (plus a 2004 update)
> A force for space with no reaction & a perfect PICTURE
> http://www.shelleys.demon.co.uk/fdec02em.htm
> A paper giving the theory and a summary of the experimental work is
> available free by e mail application to [EMAIL PROTECTED] , giving name
> and
>
> affiliation.
>
> Note that they intend to increase the Q factor by orders of magnitude in
> the
>
> future.
>
> Cheers,
> Colin Quinney
>
