Chinese building Anti Gravity Drive (Emdrive)

Which he has already tried and been told its none sense because it doesn't conform. But it still works....



Demos of perpetual motion machines almost always work (some scammers are too useless to even manage that) because otherwise how are they going to persuade investors to waste their money.


Simple rule: any "breakthrough" in science which is publicised by the media before a) a proper scientific paper and b) replication by an uninterested outsider, is a con. Always. Without exception.



M
 
In no way, shape, or form does his "paper" prove that momentum is conserved. He's done nothing more than bodge a force diagram, intelligible to high school students. There is no truth whatsoever in his work, and this will have been explained to him in great deal by many people. Cranks rarely consider this a reason to stop peddling their rubbish.

People, couldn't we have just the tiniest bit more faith in our scientific community? There are physicists and engineers out there with unimaginable intellect, who would love to discover something that turned our laws of physics on their head. The notion of the scientific community resisting change, or actively refusing to consider new, alternative theories is complete rubbish. Everyone wants to discover the next big thing, or at least have some part in its development.

So if someone has had an idea/invention/theory that could shake the foundations of physics, which then gets immediately and unilaterally shot down by the scientific community with the use of high school physics, then it's more than likely that the idea/invention/theory is utterly, utterly wrong.
 
Teki, do you go on ghost walks? And do you believe the frequent sightings of chinese lantens in the sky ar UFO's?
 
Teki, do you go on ghost walks? And do you believe the frequent sightings of chinese lantens in the sky ar UFO's?

I went to the dungeons in Edinburgh, does that count?

And no, i dont believe in the glowing orbs as UFO pictures.
 
For this test a thrust of 96 mN was recorded for an input power of 334

Considering this thing is floating in the air (staying still), shouldn't the thrust equal the force of gravity - i.e. the thrust will need to be equal to the weight to keep it still in the air.
 
There are physicists and engineers out there with unimaginable intellect, who would love to discover something that turned our laws of physics on their head. The notion of the scientific community resisting change, or actively refusing to consider new, alternative theories is complete rubbish. Everyone wants to discover the next big thing, or at least have some part in its development.

They also can't afford to look stupid, if they tie their flag to something like this and it is indeed a scam their reputation would go through the floor and their careers with it - nobody wants to end up teaching in a high school.

Not saying this is the case here, I too find it hard to believe a few KW of microwaves could move anything, but fear of ridicule can and does stop a lot of research scientists and engineers poking their noses into controversial areas.

It would be nice though, burning chemicals to propel us is as old fashioned as burning oil or gas (directly) to light our homes, could you imagine that?
 
I've read a few scientific papers, but that i would call far from scientific.
It's not claiming to be a scientific paper? It's a brief paper outlining a fundamental mistake in Shawyer's paper, the mistake is there plain as day and is one which renders the device useless, the mistake suggests that there is a greater force in one direction which would provide acceleration, as it's wrong there can be no acceleration, i.e. the device could never work.
 
They also can't afford to look stupid, if they tie their flag to something like this and it is indeed a scam their reputation would go through the floor and their careers with it - nobody wants to end up teaching in a high school.

Not saying this is the case here, I too find it hard to believe a few KW of microwaves could move anything, but fear of ridicule can and does stop a lot of research scientists and engineers poking their noses into controversial areas.
With something as groundbreaking as this could be though, you'd get someone else following it up, they obviously wouldn't be making a song and dance about it until they believed it themselves, this rather significantly suggests that no scientists whatsoever have been convinced of this, not just no scientists of emminence.
 
I've read a few scientific papers, but that i would call far from scientific.

What do you think about the part which essentially renders his entire analysis void?

Dr. John P. Costella said:
Now look back at Shawyer’s Figure 2.4. He has Fs1 and Fs2 pointing perpendicular to the axial direction, not perpendicular to the cone’s walls.
His arrows are wrong.
This is the fundamental blunder that renders Shawyer’s paper meaningless. If you remember your high school physics, it is simple enough to draw a diagram to prove to yourself that, when a particle bounces off the wall of the cone, the increase in the particle’s momentum in the axial direction is exactly balanced by the impulse imparted to the cone in the opposite direction.

This is what has already been argued by those who have bothered to wade through Shawyer’s pa-per. It is not affected by all the ‘wave-land’ equations that Shawyer throws in. It is the fundamental error in his analysis.
So what do we really find out from this analysis, when we do it correctly? Simply this: when a par-ticle bounces around elastically inside a closed container, neither of them go anywhere. If you start in the right reference frame, then when the particle is moving left, the container is moving right; when the particle is moving up, the container is moving down; and so on. When the particle and the container collide, the directions of motion change, but their momenta still add up to zero. Nothing accelerates.
There is no ‘drive’.
 
What do you think about the part which essentially renders his entire analysis void?

As the engine accelerates, momentum is lost by the electromagnetic wave and gained by the spacecraft, thus satisfying the conservation of momentum. In this process, energy is lost within the resonator, thus satisfying the conservation of energy.

The law of the conservation of momentum is the basis of the static thrust equation, the law of the conservation of energy is the basis of the dynamic thrust equation. Provided these two fundamental laws of physics are satisfied, there is no reason why the forces inside the resonator should sum to zero.

The equations used to calculate the guide wavelengths in the static thrust equation are very non-linear. This is exploited in the design of the resonator to maximise the ratio of end plate forces, while minimising the axial component of the side wall force. This results in a net force that produces motion in accordance with Newton's laws.

That's the reply he gave to that paper.
 
Back
Top Bottom