• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

RW M-drive?

U

Uncle Bob

SOC-14 1K
This was recently posted this to the deckplans Yahoo group. I have looked over the proposal, and I anm uncomfortable with some parts, but I can't find the flaw.
Relativity drive: The end of wings and wheels?
Bob


----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Jeffrey Schwartz <schwartz.jeffrey@gmail.com>
To: deckplans@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 11:38:32 PM
Subject: [deckplans] Woot! Finally getting M-Drives in real life! (grin)

http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/mg19125681.400;jsessionid=NMGHKBGMCGMM

Check these out - they even get hot like 'real' thruster plates....

__._,_.___
 
Reading all the way to the end the technology sounds more like the beginings of contra-grav lifters rather than a full on maneuver drive.

Still, if it works it will be quite something.
 
It either proves relativity's side effects.

Hostile Scientific Jealousy by the nay-sayers...

I'm pleased to see he's gotten measurable thrust. Next goal should be a test in 0-G.....

And it screams "non-emmisive thruster" to me, not "Gravity Interrupter"
 
It's almost certainly a vibration-based device that works because scales are inaccurate when dealing with rapidly fluctuating force.
 
I think it's a possible future technology and am largely optomistic about it. Personally i would love to see the oil industry tipped on it's head, it's time to abandon fossil fuels. Let's face it the main reason why alternative technology like this doesn't make it off the drawing board is because the vested interests out there block its inception.

Anyway it seems plausible, despite my first thought that it would violate the law of the conservation of momentum.
 
I think using Newtonian forces alone, the fact that the walls are tapered would mean that any energy hitting them would produce a slight downward force, the sum of these would probably make up the difference between the end plate sizes, therefore no net thrust. However, the relativistic effects of microwave interactions is beyond me.

If it works, it could provide thrust in space or contra grav. Thrust is thrust.

If the guys at New Scientist can't figure out its validity, nobody on this board will, though they might hotly debate it for weeks.
 
This is not the first time I've heard of this theory in Traveller. We bandied this about in college in 1982 as an alternate power source when we were poring over the LBB's(use of light emission to power thrust).

I note the Chinese and the USAF are in competition for his work...

I noted also the loss of Q-energy in current Particle accelerators is copmpared to the problem with the M-drive prototype.

Leads me to wonder if in an enginering crises scenario for a Traveller game, say a Trav version of "Flight of the Phoenix" on a 1kton Chrysanthemum-class DE (which had by canon a pair of sponsoon mounted PA guns) where they convert the PA's into one of these drives to get off some rockball to the jump point?

Sound like an good adventure idea?
 
Hm. Reading more about this:
You might think the forces on the end walls will cancel each other out, but Shawyer worked out that with a suitably shaped resonant cavity, wider at one end than the other, the radiation pressure exerted by the microwaves at the wide end would be higher than at the narrow one.
Click to expand...
He's flatly wrong; once you integrate in the force on the sides of the chamber, the net effect is zero. Radiation pressure works just like gas pressure; if his machine worked, you could do the same thing by filling up a malformed balloon with air.
If the guys at New Scientist can't figure out its validity, nobody on this board will
Click to expand...
New Scientist is by no stretch of the imagination a credible source; they publish articles full of bogus science all the time.
 
Originally posted by Anthony:
Hm. Reading more about this:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You might think the forces on the end walls will cancel each other out, but Shawyer worked out that with a suitably shaped resonant cavity, wider at one end than the other, the radiation pressure exerted by the microwaves at the wide end would be higher than at the narrow one.
Click to expand...
He's flatly wrong; once you integrate in the force on the sides of the chamber, the net effect is zero. Radiation pressure works just like gas pressure; if his machine worked, you could do the same thing by filling up a malformed balloon with air.</font>[/QUOTE]The article said he got it to work, so either he cheated or it works.
 
Originally posted by Kaale Dasar:
The article said he got it to work, so either he cheated or it works.
Click to expand...
No, he could have been using a method that causes his balance to malfunction, without being aware that he was generating a measurement error. He could also be generating an effect he's not aware of, such as an interaction with air or with a magnetic field.
 
Intentional or not, if it's measurement error, he's cheated. At least in academia, cheating doesn't require intent, merely violation of the rules.

I suspect that it's on the level... (pun intended)

I hope it's correct. The question really is "does it work for the reasons he thinks it does?"

And to test this, the best bet is to try it out in a real application.
 
Originally posted by Aramis:
Intentional or not, if it's measurement error, he's cheated. At least in academia, cheating doesn't require intent, merely violation of the rules.
Click to expand...
No, incompetence is not the same as cheating.

And to test this, the best bet is to try it out in a real application.
Click to expand...
Nah. There are some fairly simple tests that will deal with most of the sources of possible error, that are a lot cheaper than a real application. The main ones (in order) involve trying different types of measuring equipment, testing in a compartment shielded from magnetic fields, and testing in a vacuum.
 
Originally posted by TheEngineer:
Anybody took a look at Shawyer's high school physics paper (http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf) ?

Guess its sad but true, that another regular engineer starts to tell stories in order to get some audience.... :(
Click to expand...
Hey, IANAE (i am not an engineer) and I do not have the math background to understand relativity, but, what part of the paper do you have a problem with? It's layout? The formula's? The test environment?

I am curious as to the criteria that you are using to justify the "tell stories" part of your statement.

I have dealt with many different "facts" and "figures", knowing full well that you can make anything look good on paper, but, the idea that he would post this so publically without believing in the concept.....From the way you responded, it feels like you caught him in a glaring lie.

He is stating his test environment, the results that he believes he is getting and a theory that he is assuming is true as it matches his test results.

He may be a fool (as we all could be, since we all are victums of our own perceptions and beliefs) but, I do not see any evidence of intentional "story telling". Perhaps I am wrong and you spotted something I have missed.

I am not trying to justify his paper, nor am I trying to attack it or you, just trying to understand your perceptions as to the flaws in his paper.

best regards

Dalton
 
He has consulted with named university physicists,who ought to be screaming blue murder if they didn't approve his work. At first I tended to agree with Anthony that we had an experimental error here. It would be simple enough to check: hang it on a pendulum. If it swings back and forth it isa vibration-based illusion. If it can maintain a conistant angle on the pendulum, then thr thrust is real.

Commander Drax this thing does not generate energy,in fact it eats it in huge quantities, and until we get get fusion we will be burning jp4 in turbines.

Conservation of energy and momentum bother me too. BTW, as far as I can tell relativity has little to do it, mostly working from pre-Einstein Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz transformations. A Anthony said, radiation pressure alone does not explain it, But something odd hsppenas with resonant chambers and I am not quite ready to scream "busted".
 
Actually, looking at it again, I'm inclined to guess it's some form of air thruster. As such, it's remarkably inefficient.
 
Hi !

Well, this source gives a few more hints:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive

Dalton, the reason why I call it "story telling" is, because its fairly easy to read but sadly conflicts with the most tested facts in the physical world (conservation rules) and the author seems to be quite reluctant to pass his work thru regular testing processes.
OTOH its hard to find someone willing to spend precious time and money to find errors of an experiment.

Anyway, I am pretty open to new ideas but right now this one really just a story.

Regards,

TE
 
I've read that this guy was REJECTED by more traditional review means, not that he didn't try them.

You can't force peers to review your work. The few who have posted refuse flatly to consider it might be working.

He's explaining his effect based upon the difference between kinetic particles and photons; photons can't lose speed in colliding; they either change direction or they lose all momentum... and get absorbed.

Now, my limited understanding is that light pressure is the reciprocal of the bisection of the angle formed by incoming and outgoing paths.

Now, it's not violating conservation of energy; photons get absorbed to "pay" for the thrust, and the rate of conversion to work is incredibly well below that of other forms of thrust, there's plenty of waste heat.

It could be magnetic. It could be exactly what he thinks it is. It could be deception. It could be measurement error.

I'm hoping it's a case of the reviewers feared ridicule since it is an unusual integration of several different and well accepted theories in a novel way.

Much like some of Heisenberg's stuff was...
Or like the various string-theorists... Those outside simply ridicule, rather than review. Those inside are accused of bias because they bother to consider. At least, until it explains something shown to work but not explainable elsewise.

Interesting side note: The description fits the images in the 1974 Star Trek Tech Manual for the Impulse Drive.
 
When I first directed some of my associates to the original report, they ridiculed the whole thing without even reading past the second paragraph.

One of the arguments is that the nasa site lists that we need reactionless drive and since nasa believes we still need it, this guy could not have found it......

I do not know if this guy is on the level. I do not know if the experiments work or not.

What I do know is that even the most learned among us, are the first to scream blashphemy when something new is presented. If a new idea does not fit into our small little world view, we dismiss it outright.

I presented the new report to two individules who have a greater IQ than most, and who pride themselves in their wide knowledge. It was shameful as they would not even read the entire article or understand the difference between a laymans (the reporter) description of what is going on and what may actually be going on. If something sounds different, you do not dismiss it, you research and prove it wrong. Science is the proof of what does not work. We can never prove truth, we can only prove the approximation of truth or in better terms, we can say that this is what happened when we tried it. Discounting someones work without proving it wrong, just because it sounds wrong, does not do anyone any justice and it is a step back into the dark ages.

Just my 2c.

Dalton
 
Hi !

Most people do not read further, because the script starts with an assumption, which does not consider the very basic law of conservation of momentum.
Its very brave to start a new idea this way, but its really kind of silly to proceed with the formal deduction by using direct consequences of the above law.

Really, I like new ideas, but this one appears to be HOAX.

Regards,

TE
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top