Post by: opportunity on 11/07/2018 10:37:35
Post by: guest39538 on 11/07/2018 10:57:04
Anyone following that line of research?I follow my own research, I am trying to quit forums, but then something pops up that gets my interest. I have ideas about a EM drive .
Anyway back to trying quit forums .....
Post by: opportunity on 11/07/2018 11:07:55
"The Impossible Propulsion Drive Is Heading to Space". popularmechanics.com. 2 September 2016. Retrieved 9 October 2017.
Crew, Bec. "The 'Impossible' EM Drive Is About to Be Tested in Space". sciencealert.com. Retrieved 9 October 2017.
"NASA Team Claims 'Impossible' Space Engine Works—Get the Facts". nationalgeographic.com. 21 November 2016. Retrieved 9 October 2017.
Seeker (19 November 2016). "How The 'Impossible Drive' Could Break Newton's Third Law". Retrieved 9 October 2017 – via YouTube.
Ratner, Paul. "EM Drive, the Impossible Rocket Engine, May Be Closer to Reality". bigthink.com. Retrieved 9 October 2017.
Poitras, Colin (December 7, 2016). "To Mars in 70 days: Expert discusses NASA's study of paradoxical EM propulsion drive". Phys.org. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
Drake, Nadia; Greshko, Michael (21 November 2016). "NASA Team Claims 'Impossible' Space Engine Works—Get the Facts". Nationalgeographic.com: National Geographic. Retrieved 23 November 2016.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/nasas-em-drive-is-a-magnetic-wtf-thruster/
Who wants to try the so-called impossible?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/07/2018 11:21:16
The initial buzz about EM drive was central to it being enthalpic, and thus impossible.I will self proclaim again , I am the ''God'' of science, I know more about the Universe than most people could even comprehend. A drive is possible to achieve but by no means is it easy .
"The Impossible Propulsion Drive Is Heading to Space". popularmechanics.com. 2 September 2016. Retrieved 9 October 2017.
Crew, Bec. "The 'Impossible' EM Drive Is About to Be Tested in Space". sciencealert.com. Retrieved 9 October 2017.
"NASA Team Claims 'Impossible' Space Engine Works—Get the Facts". nationalgeographic.com. 21 November 2016. Retrieved 9 October 2017.
Seeker (19 November 2016). "How The 'Impossible Drive' Could Break Newton's Third Law". Retrieved 9 October 2017 – via YouTube.
Ratner, Paul. "EM Drive, the Impossible Rocket Engine, May Be Closer to Reality". bigthink.com. Retrieved 9 October 2017.
Poitras, Colin (December 7, 2016). "To Mars in 70 days: Expert discusses NASA's study of paradoxical EM propulsion drive". Phys.org. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
Drake, Nadia; Greshko, Michael (21 November 2016). "NASA Team Claims 'Impossible' Space Engine Works—Get the Facts". Nationalgeographic.com: National Geographic. Retrieved 23 November 2016.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/nasas-em-drive-is-a-magnetic-wtf-thruster/
Who wants to try the so-called impossible?
Post by: opportunity on 11/07/2018 11:23:07
Post by: guest39538 on 11/07/2018 11:38:43
EM drive is the worst thing to ask your tutor for funding, right?
Of course, the physics involved are ridiculous hard to do, but the rewards if successful are of major achievement. The same for most ''big'' projects, but building scale models cost less funds. You would have to pitch your ideas based solely on experimental prototypes , if you get a prototype working, you would be ''laughing''.
Of course you could pitch for funding , by having several concepts at the same time to work on. When I am painting a house I work on more than one room at a time. Maybe you need a multi pitch , that may generate more interest.
Post by: opportunity on 11/07/2018 12:04:02
Post by: guest39538 on 11/07/2018 12:06:59
Proof is no laughing matter.It is an English expression, you would be ''laughing'' means you would be sorted, all good.
Post by: opportunity on 11/07/2018 12:40:25
Post by: guest39538 on 11/07/2018 12:46:12
Sorted like Opium is prescribed?Sorted as in you would gain financial well being . Look, I have had another internet turn off letter this morning for not paying the bill, if you have any real plans or intentions it is becoming a now or never situation. I can't afford to keep the internet on for just wishful thinking and dreams. If anybody wants me research ''stuff'' and wants to fund the research, I will happily do it and will produce some new things from experimental research.
So that is my cards on the table to anybody interested before I finish doing science and end up back painting, which is not a dream or hope.
I know though ,with my mind, I shouldn't be painting for a living.
Post by: opportunity on 11/07/2018 13:16:45
EM and enthalpy was never in doubt.....yet bad science makes bad news.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/07/2018 13:20:04
There's a theory about EM drive coming out regarding enthalpy....It will only work as far as the inverse drop off, a EM drive can not rely on enthalpic. Bad science is just a mess about .....bad science seeks the attention of good science. Why search for science when I can bring science to me ?
Post by: opportunity on 11/07/2018 13:23:08
Post by: opportunity on 11/07/2018 13:26:55
Thats so stupid......help me allow people to tell me I am wrong....and that way I'm not so alone....?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/07/2018 13:29:21
I completely agree with what you're saying.....but the hardest thing for me to do is present a new paper that does a "fair" job on EM-thruster research.I have told you before I will help you write it up and present a model. I have all the scientists of our past thoughts inside my head, I can ''see'' everything they sore in more detail than they ever did .
I know the physics needed to make a propulsion device, it really will take a bit of ''magic'' to make it work. But in thought it works because it is the only way .
Post by: guest39538 on 11/07/2018 13:34:54
I've done harder things....like convince myself there's a point to going outside the square....right?Sometimes , you even confuse me ....
Thats so stupid......help me allow people to tell me I am wrong....and that way I'm not so alone....?
I am never alone, I always have me as you have you . Yourself is just an image of your former self. Bad science is my past, I was reborn when somebody woke me up.
I am the Box, I extend forever , I am always inside the box , but my box is bigger.
Post by: opportunity on 11/07/2018 13:40:32
Post by: opportunity on 11/07/2018 13:43:57
Post by: opportunity on 11/07/2018 13:45:47
Post by: guest39538 on 11/07/2018 13:45:55
Its done.....badly, goodly, whatever....I can only make it worse by being more precise.
Be precise , lets see what precision you think you have .
Post by: guest39538 on 11/07/2018 13:47:25
well....who wants to challenge EM-thruster theory, seriously? Like, for instance, was the initiAL idea from a dream...MAYBE a back-engineering?As in reverse engineering the entire universe and present physics ....yes
I took the Universe apart and put it back together again, that is why I understand the mechanics.
Enthalpic energy occupies the space-time in packets of quanta forming enthalpic density layers
Post by: opportunity on 11/07/2018 13:51:41
Post by: guest39538 on 11/07/2018 13:55:40
Gee, who brought me up, right?....who brought me up right? Who's sick of play on words?Yes, we can play on words all day long, we can make the good sound bad and we can make the bad sound good. So why not get to the point, what do you want help with and I will tell you , because lets face it, I can tell you all day long but will you really understand it completely? Could you adjust to errors or adjust the ideas ?
I don't think so, want to offer me a job? Are you even anybody ? Are you VIP or NIP ?
I can do any job .....I will upload the job details into me. Brain surgeon upload might take about 10 years though :o
Post by: guest39538 on 11/07/2018 14:08:56
I should just leave and go painting right ? Delusions of grandeur ? Or none delusions of truths?
Post by: opportunity on 11/07/2018 14:09:12
Post by: guest39538 on 11/07/2018 14:12:21
Not creating an argument against a very bad argument is what?defeat? not worthy of consideration ? not knowing there was a bad argument? not paying attention ? confused?
I don't know , you tell me?
I can't argue to much on here about anything, I get told off for swearing by the moderators so I have to stay placid... I would be banned first post if I spoke my mind. What about you ?
Post by: opportunity on 11/07/2018 14:18:11
Post by: opportunity on 11/07/2018 14:20:05
Post by: guest39538 on 11/07/2018 14:25:00
How about I swore on what I know?I swear on what I know, I do not do belief. Science is science and critical thinking and objective logic are a part of science.
So what do you know about space objectively ?
Post by: opportunity on 11/07/2018 14:27:37
Post by: guest39538 on 11/07/2018 14:30:50
Do you hold hope for new ideas?I know I will have new ideas, not hope it, I do a job , I always look for ways to improve that job for maximum efficiency . I look towards taking out the competition and being the best . Team competition is healthy , you know, I want to be better than you so I can have braggers rights :P
Post by: guest39538 on 11/07/2018 14:34:50
My curiosity draws me back, I know you are a ''troll'' in reality.
You didn't really think it would work did you ?
So transparent indeed.....
Post by: guest39538 on 11/07/2018 14:56:49
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: opportunity on 11/07/2018 15:09:20
Why are you interested in my questions?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/07/2018 15:11:35
Trolls are dolls for children with no hope.Because who else but me and you as really been discussing EM drives?
Why are you interested in my questions?
Nobody else will talk to you by the look of it.
added- I think you have possible investors ?
So logically, if you know them and I know you, its who you know right ?
added- There is a distinct difference between delusional and wishful thinking. I can only hope you are more than just a whatever!
Post by: opportunity on 11/07/2018 15:39:57
There are hopes and there are hopes....why would anyone hope in a way that doesn't hope for what they hope?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/07/2018 15:47:40
So, who's been put out for not being up to good knowledge?No idea, want to tell me more ?
''why would anyone hope in a way that doesn't hope for what they hope?''
You are bing onfusing agaon. I hpoe for waht i cn get out of life
Post by: opportunity on 11/07/2018 15:51:04
Post by: guest39538 on 11/07/2018 15:53:22
there are those who look and there are who seek......are you just looking or are you seeking......I neither look or seek, I don't do why I do the htings i do, i ont know why ios ay the things io say, if i could turn back time , i could find a way ,cheers
Do u raly thonk u ar opening mne up any ?
I am in business mode, wats your business ere
your busines is minds right .
Post by: guest39538 on 11/07/2018 16:01:49
th voices the voices tell them to stop tell them stiop stop stop stop
So your a shrink then ? analyse that......
P.s At least I had chance to be , just little old me before my internet goes off, mischievous and not being a total bore......
Post by: Kryptid on 11/07/2018 16:30:13
Post by: guest39538 on 11/07/2018 16:56:40
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2169809-impossible-em-drive-doesnt-seem-to-work-after-all/Well , space-time is everywhere and no matter where you are in the Universe, there is space-time which does not diminish any way .
Post by: guest39538 on 11/07/2018 17:53:57
Like, for instance, was the initiAL idea from a dream...MAYBE a back-engineering?
So thinking back to this post, I know your intentions now and know you are one of two types of people, one is the sort that likes social activity and other being a scientist who likes to play with copper, am I right ?
Post by: opportunity on 12/07/2018 00:05:41
My post wasn't to inspire a greater understanding of our own pet "beliefs" and "opinions".
This post was meant to stimulate debate about the current dialogue on EM thruster research. I think the current dialogue on EM thruster research is "very very" vague. To top it off, no one can actually state "why" the research began in the first place; there is NO basic theory in contemporary science that says, "yes, lets try this, this should work". Its as though someone came along with a cavity chamber and produced movement and then said, "it must be this" or "it must be that" while enraging the scientific world about ideas of contradicting the conservation of energy and momentum. Its so very strange how all this work came about. Was it random luck they found movement. ALL the papers that criticise the findings say that the movement is because of not using mu-metal. What? Are they serious? And to think the research was based on solid science from the start? How did NASA get involved with this?? Any good physicist working with microwaves and cables knows that the cables used in microwave transmission are the "most greatly" shielded of all cables, and for those cables to move in the presence of the Earth's magnetic field is absolutely ludicrous. So very ludicrous.
Take these criticisms for instance:
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/05/nasa-emdrive-impossible-physics-independent-tests-magnetic-space-science/
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/nasas-em-drive-is-a-magnetic-wtf-thruster/
I am about to publish a paper that has picked the guts out of both EM thruster research and associated criticisms of EM thruster research.... in using ….well....I'll post the link when it is up.
I think the people here in this forum are a great audience of new ideas, no one holds back, and everyone is willing to stand up to a decent hearing.....knowing the audience is always a good thing, so thank you to everyone who has provided input thus far.
Post by: Kryptid on 12/07/2018 00:51:47
Any good physicist working with microwaves and cables knows that the cables used in microwave transmission are the "most greatly" shielded of all cables, and for those cables to move in the presence of the Earth's magnetic field is absolutely ludicrous. So very ludicrous.
As quoted from the link I provided:
Quote
Most of their setup was completely shielded from outside fields, but some of the cables did not fit inside the box and there may have been a few centimetres left unshielded, Tajmar says. The current running through those unprotected cables could interact with a magnetic field to push the EM drive forward. When they calculated the strength of this effect, they found that it could produce a few micro-Newtons of thrust. The thrust that they measured from the EM drive was 4 micro-Newtons.
This may not be representative of every single version of the drive that has been built, but it was indeed a likely problem with this particular drive. The only way to know would be to perform more tests with better shielding. The ideal test would be to put one on a spacecraft far from magnetic fields and see if it can give the ship any detectable acceleration.
Post by: opportunity on 12/07/2018 01:19:39
Post by: guest39538 on 12/07/2018 01:28:07
his post was meant to stimulate debate about the current dialogue on EM thruster research.
Before I go to bed I would just like to give you a question , don't you think they would be better off spending their time , firstly learning how to manipulate the field they are trying to repulse against? It is sort of like building a boat with no water at the moment, until you know all about water , you don't know if the boat will work.
Post by: Kryptid on 12/07/2018 05:41:36
Thanks for reading that fine-print, as I have, yet their description is fluff. Where is the research data that shows coaxial cables carrying a microwave field when interacting with the earths magnetic field produces such thrust?
-We know that current-carrying wires generate a magnetic field.
-We know that a force exists between two magnetic fields (in this case, that generated by the device and that generated by the Earth).
-We know enough about the laws of electricity and magnetism to calculate how large that force should be. In that very same section I quoted, they said that their calculations were consistent with the measured force.
Post by: Liz888 on 12/07/2018 08:17:23
Post by: Colin2B on 12/07/2018 10:39:41
interesting!Hi there @Liz888 welcome to the forum.
It would be helpful if you could make your posts a contribution to answering the question asked in the opening post rather than vague comments.
Thanks
Post by: opportunity on 12/07/2018 19:28:58
Thanks for reading that fine-print, as I have, yet their description is fluff. Where is the research data that shows coaxial cables carrying a microwave field when interacting with the earths magnetic field produces such thrust?
-We know that current-carrying wires generate a magnetic field.
-We know that a force exists between two magnetic fields (in this case, that generated by the device and that generated by the Earth).
-We know enough about the laws of electricity and magnetism to calculate how large that force should be. In that very same section I quoted, they said that their calculations were consistent with the measured force.
That's OK for naked wires, yet coaxial cables carrying mircrowaves? Its very unlikely.
Some of you might be familiar with a theory I've been working on regarding time and the golden ratio. The interesting thing about the theory is that it is able to "reach"/derive what appears to be EM cavity thruster technology. Here's the link for anyone interested: http://viXra.org/abs/1807.0215
I think the theory is a more solid description of the effect (EM propulsion).
Post by: guest39538 on 12/07/2018 19:53:41
I have read some of and browsed through your link, it will take several reads to understand thoroughly . However, I have got to admit that looks like science and looks quite good. That must of took some serious dedication , well done , I hope others give it some attention that it deserves. You and Bogie have some great dedication, my written theories are 'chit' compared.Thanks for reading that fine-print, as I have, yet their description is fluff. Where is the research data that shows coaxial cables carrying a microwave field when interacting with the earths magnetic field produces such thrust?
-We know that current-carrying wires generate a magnetic field.
-We know that a force exists between two magnetic fields (in this case, that generated by the device and that generated by the Earth).
-We know enough about the laws of electricity and magnetism to calculate how large that force should be. In that very same section I quoted, they said that their calculations were consistent with the measured force.
That's OK for naked wires, yet coaxial cables carrying mircrowaves? Its very unlikely.
Some of you might be familiar with a theory I've been working on regarding time and the golden ratio. The interesting thing about the theory is that it is able to "reach"/derive what appears to be EM cavity thruster technology. Here's the link for anyone interested: http://viXra.org/abs/1807.0215
I think the theory is a more solid description of the effect (EM propulsion).
Added- I don't think anything sunk in though with regards to negative energy ,but oh well , good luck.
Post by: Kryptid on 12/07/2018 22:11:27
That's OK for naked wires, yet coaxial cables carrying mircrowaves? Its very unlikely.
Electromagnetic radiation interacting with a conductive surface generates electric currents (an important fact that has to be taken into consideration when designing stealth aircraft). Since electric currents generate magnetic fields, you have a mechanism present to interact with the Earth's field.
Post by: opportunity on 13/07/2018 10:37:51
I've done EM thruster research, and I know in using cables the RF needs shielding, otherwise you're facing a microwave field, literally, in your face. To say cables have movement with the Earth's magnetic field with cables designed not to bleed microwave fields is..... "odd".....to say the least.
A coaxial cable is a Faraday cage.....they're not designed to bleed an RF....heat, maybe, not a RF.
Box, thanks also.....negative energy is easy to understand, the hard bit is making it work.
Post by: guest39538 on 13/07/2018 10:55:00
Thanks Kryptid. I understand what you're saying.Dude , do you want me help you and tell you where everyone goes wrong ?
I've done EM thruster research, and I know in using cables the RF needs shielding, otherwise you're facing a microwave field, literally, in your face. To say cables have movement with the Earth's magnetic field with cables designed not to bleed microwave fields is..... "odd".....to say the least.
A coaxial cable is a Faraday cage.....they're not designed to bleed an RF....heat, maybe, not a RF.
Post by: opportunity on 13/07/2018 11:01:36
Post by: opportunity on 13/07/2018 11:06:04
Post by: guest39538 on 13/07/2018 11:09:07
First, forget superlatives and assumptions.No assumptions here, I will put it plain and simple. When people consider an anti gravity drive, their instant instinct is to get something to push off the floor , thrust. Yes this is needed to create the critical balance.
But, people only consider push ignoring pull, that is the mistake, so all we need to do is make one of these:
stid.jpg (221.97 kB . 2780x1880 - viewed 2506 times)It pulls instead of pushes, ''front wheel drive''. Consider pulling an elastic band, it pulls back .
Ok , you got it now, can I retire from this ? I am working on energy .
Post by: opportunity on 13/07/2018 11:12:27
Post by: guest39538 on 13/07/2018 11:15:00
I'll converse only if you're not ad-hoc'ing this post to suit something that you're still trying to nut out of you're own making.It not made up, consider space-time in being a spatial field, that has elastic properties, rubbery, can curve and stretch. It will pull back if we can pull it towards us.
A sort of quantum slingshot.
Post by: opportunity on 13/07/2018 11:16:50
Made down?
Post by: opportunity on 13/07/2018 11:19:08
Post by: guest39538 on 13/07/2018 11:25:07
Box, I raised a good point about the RF field in wires, and any potential leakage, and how that in a "coaxial wire fail" scenario that electromechanical scenario could interact with a fixed magnetic field......you ignored that it seems.I ignored that for the reason, firstly the concept has to be correct or it will never work. When considering this , the view to take is there is no bodies , just a spatial field of neutral measurement with a single neutral object ''sitting'' in a central position.
The simple question is how to move the object considering both object and field is neutral and there is no acting forces.
We simply have to apply the force by using physics and our minds.
In this diagram I further explain, give N a mechanism to move?
N.jpg (107.64 kB . 2780x1880 - viewed 2384 times)Post by: opportunity on 13/07/2018 11:29:41
Would that help? Or is that proof bursting too many bubbles at the one time to the point its unsustainable for the scientific community?
Post by: guest39538 on 13/07/2018 11:39:38
Do I need to upload proof of how the thruster works (experiment-1: http://vixra.org/abs/1807.0215)?Your link not working, do you want the solution diagram to the question? Is science and the world really ready for this ? I think it is above their heads to be honest to comprehend at this time. The two plate experiment needs doing first to prove the field exists.
Would that help? Or is that proof bursting too many bubbles at the one time to the point its unsustainable for the scientific community?
Post by: opportunity on 13/07/2018 11:42:10
try this: http://vixra.org/abs/1807.0215
Go Experiment-1.....or has the conversation already been derailed?
The Casimir effect is at best on an atomic/molecular level.....what sort of results are we hoping there?
Should Experiment-1 be demonstrated? Or would that be too disruptive?
Post by: guest39538 on 13/07/2018 11:47:37
The )? was the problem.The Casmir effect uses uncharged plates, my experiment uses charged plates and intends to curve space-time by using correct physics.
try this: http://vixra.org/abs/1807.0215
Go Experiment-1.....or has the conversation already been derailed?
The Casimir effect is at best on an atomic/molecular level.....what sort of results are we hoping there?
qfc.jpg (293.73 kB . 3168x1708 - viewed 2367 times)
or we could say
Post by: opportunity on 13/07/2018 11:52:22
Its hard for me therefore to consider independent ideas that do not cite a proper curriculum of Endeavor.
I do know what the game here is......everyone wants to get somewhere first......with their own stuff......but, why? Why not just embrace everything that is available to be put together?
Post by: guest39538 on 13/07/2018 11:55:34
Should Experiment-1 be demonstrated? Or would that be too disruptive?I have looked at your experiment, have you done this experiment? Does it work ? Explain further more.
Post by: guest39538 on 13/07/2018 11:58:04
My work is not my work; it depends on such great people in science, and I make no compromises there in my work. My papers reference at least 130 independent works, over the 7 papers.There is no game here, I am trying to give you help and advice . There is only one possible way to get a drive work and that is balance and pull.
Its hard for me therefore to consider independent ideas that do not cite a proper curriculum of Endeavor.
I do know what the game here is.
There is no other way , here is the solution,
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: guest39538 on 13/07/2018 11:59:55
everyone wants to get somewhere first......with their own stuff......but, why? Why not just embrace everything that is available to be put together?Why not accept the free advice I am giving you to help you, you need your drive also for push. You need push and pull to climb a ladder.
Post by: opportunity on 13/07/2018 12:00:10
Should Experiment-1 be demonstrated? Or would that be too disruptive?I have looked at your experiment, have you done this experiment? Does it work ? Explain further more.
The latest paper has been based on well over 100 different EM thruster experiments. What doesn't work isn't going to be told, and that refines the process of theory. Eventually one gets to a point of getting to what can only work.
Why don't I ask this question: "what's the balance between theory and results and is there a scientific community rule of thumb in being ready for new results and new theory"?
Post by: guest39538 on 13/07/2018 12:01:51
Exactly, the absolute one thing that can possibly work.Should Experiment-1 be demonstrated? Or would that be too disruptive?I have looked at your experiment, have you done this experiment? Does it work ? Explain further more.
The latest paper has been based on well over 100 different EM thruster experiments. What doesn't work isn't going to be told, and that refines the process of theory. Eventually one gets to a point of getting to what can only work.
Post by: opportunity on 13/07/2018 12:04:05
I've spent 4 figures on cables alone in dealing with what appears to be a plasma field.
The problem with the research is that when you set up a resonance, a RF resonance, how is a charged particle mass going to be contained without arcing everything out? Its easy.
Post by: guest39538 on 13/07/2018 12:05:10
Why don't I ask this question: "what's the balance between theory and results and is there a scientific community rule of thumb in being ready for new results and new theory"?No idea, want to tell me?
Post by: guest39538 on 13/07/2018 12:07:06
Paper 7 ( http://vixra.org/abs/1807.0215 ) details how hard that is though.But space-time is not gravity, gravity is density spots.
Post by: guest39538 on 13/07/2018 12:08:48
The problem with the research is that when you set up a resonance, a RF resonance, how is a charged particle mass going to be contained without arcing everything out? Its easy.Distance , also I already give the plasma design with the machine part 1.
Post by: opportunity on 13/07/2018 12:08:57
What is that?
Post by: guest39538 on 13/07/2018 12:11:57
Told, inferred. For instance, you get people who say a sinusoidal RF wire coaxial moves in a solid earth-based magnetic field. What is that?Sounds like Faraday force to me..?
What is that?
Post by: opportunity on 13/07/2018 12:14:47
The basics are that if you have a DC wire carrying current in a magnetic field, yes, you will get movement, but AC, going back and forth...where's the direction and why? So stupid the criticism has been.
Post by: guest39538 on 13/07/2018 12:17:16
If it was DC, sure, but AC? A microwave field in a coaxial cable designed to keep it in?Doe's the direction of AC sort of create an eliptic shape of charge , sort of a ring circuit?
The basics are that if you have a DC wire carrying current in a magnetic field, yes, you will get movement, but AC, going back and forth...where's the direction and why? So stupid the criticism has been.
Post by: opportunity on 13/07/2018 12:18:32
Do you know what AC is?
Post by: guest39538 on 13/07/2018 12:19:58
Direction of AC?Alternative current, it goes ''up'' and ''down'' the other wire doesn't it ?
Do you know what AC is?
That is easy to create in a saucer design,
Post by: opportunity on 13/07/2018 12:21:58
Not sure about your comment re. saucer design though....where's the "cup"....and the "tea"?
Post by: guest39538 on 13/07/2018 12:23:50
Yeah....Tesla championed this idea against Edison......because of the fact so much energy would not be lost in using AC over vast distances compared to DC.Yes , I know all about the Tesla and Edison feud . AC is just a loop really , perhaps DC is more practical for experimenting.
Quote
Not sure about your comment re. saucer design though....where's the "cup"....and the "tea"?
Two Dc ring circuits with the currents running opposite directions.
Post by: opportunity on 13/07/2018 12:25:42
Why does science ask us to be dedicated? And, yeah, maybe innovative in the place we live?
Box, look at my first three "analaogies" in the paper ( http://vixra.org/abs/1807.0215 ) .....they explain the EM skeleton.
Post by: guest39538 on 13/07/2018 12:35:45
Box, go DC.....you might find something. You might need deep pockets. I've done that research, yet with your previous posts I wouldn't suggest it.Well, you know I couldn't afford to do the experiments, so there is hardly a worry , although I could do it on a shoe string budget.
Post by: opportunity on 13/07/2018 12:44:37
Experiment-1.....delivers, is everyone going to try to explain that their own way?
I think that's good for people to do that. Tear it to pieces. Put it together again, time and time again.
Post by: opportunity on 13/07/2018 15:24:15
Box, go DC.....you might find something. You might need deep pockets. I've done that research, yet with your previous posts I wouldn't suggest it.Well, you know I couldn't afford to do the experiments, so there is hardly a worry , although I could do it on a shoe string budget.
What's your budget?
Post by: Kryptid on 13/07/2018 17:34:01
Thanks Kryptid. I understand what you're saying.
I've done EM thruster research, and I know in using cables the RF needs shielding, otherwise you're facing a microwave field, literally, in your face. To say cables have movement with the Earth's magnetic field with cables designed not to bleed microwave fields is..... "odd".....to say the least.
A coaxial cable is a Faraday cage.....they're not designed to bleed an RF....heat, maybe, not a RF.
What is a microwave "field"? You do realize I'm not talking about microwaves leaking out of the cable, right? I'm talking about an induced magnetic field generated by the microwaves interacting with the cable that they are contained in.
Post by: opportunity on 13/07/2018 17:38:34
Post by: Kryptid on 13/07/2018 17:41:20
Tell me that again...help me not hear nonsense...
Given that I don't know which part you fail to understand, I'm not sure how.
Post by: opportunity on 13/07/2018 17:49:16
Post by: Kryptid on 13/07/2018 20:31:31
I've offer you to understand me ( http://vixra.org/abs/1807.0215 ) ....and you're easy in making pot shots?
I'm not talking about warp fields or negative energy. I'm talking about an induced magnetic field generated by unshielded EM drive cables interacting with the Earth's magnetic field as a plausible explanation for the measured thrust. So which one of the following statements do you disagree with?
- Electromagnetic radiation impinging on a conductive surface generates electric currents.
- Electric currents generate magnetic fields.
- Microwaves and magnetic fields are not the same thing.
- Structures and materials that shield against microwaves will not necessarily shield against magnetic fields.
- The Earth has a magnetic field.
- Two magnetic fields experience a force between them.
Also, are we talking about microwaves moving through a cable or electric current moving through wires? If the former, then why are you bringing up the issue of AC vs. DC? If the latter, then why are you talking about microwaves leaking or not leaking?
Post by: guest39538 on 13/07/2018 22:57:02
The same length as a piece of string , who knows until progression. I Would SPEND what was needed ,Box, go DC.....you might find something. You might need deep pockets. I've done that research, yet with your previous posts I wouldn't suggest it.Well, you know I couldn't afford to do the experiments, so there is hardly a worry , although I could do it on a shoe string budget.
What's your budget?
Post by: opportunity on 14/07/2018 03:50:08
I've offer you to understand me ( http://vixra.org/abs/1807.0215 ) ....and you're easy in making pot shots?
I'm not talking about warp fields or negative energy. I'm talking about an induced magnetic field generated by unshielded EM drive cables interacting with the Earth's magnetic field as a plausible explanation for the measured thrust. So which one of the following statements do you disagree with?
- Electromagnetic radiation impinging on a conductive surface generates electric currents.
- Electric currents generate magnetic fields.
- Microwaves and magnetic fields are not the same thing.
- Structures and materials that shield against microwaves will not necessarily shield against magnetic fields.
- The Earth has a magnetic field.
- Two magnetic fields experience a force between them.
Also, are we talking about microwaves moving through a cable or electric current moving through wires? If the former, then why are you bringing up the issue of AC vs. DC? If the latter, then why are you talking about microwaves leaking or not leaking?
I see where the problem is, on two fronts.
First, anyone who uses microwave RF energy HAS TO use VERY WELL shielded cables that leak next to NO RF energy.
Secondly, if you're NOT using a shielded cable with RF microwaves you're going to get BURNT.....and furthermore as that energy is relatively AC it won't move in ANY definite direction in a fixed magnetic field.
That's just basic.
I've spent a LOT of time and money researching EM thrusters, and believe me, proper cables do NOT induce an EM field that interacts with the Earth's magnetic energy. Apologies if that sounds tierce.
The most ridiculous report I read said there wasn't enough "mu" metal in the chamber itself.....in the "chamber! A perfect faraday cage chamber!? That is so nuts. I would suggest you have a look at how the EM thruster is designed without taking the word of an articles using words like "unicorn" for granted.
Put it this way, "every" EM experiment that feeds microwaves into the chamber arcs out after 30 seconds.....thats how much energy is being played with. If the magnetron is directly attached to the chamber, the head will arc out after 30 seconds, and if cables are used, the cable connection will fail at the chamber. Now, if "anyone" uses unshielded cables they may as well not ever try to do the experiment because they will be losing all their energy in the unshielded cable.....please take a look at my paper, it explains all that, and does NOT even try to promote the use of unshielded cables.
So, when someone chimes in with ridiculous criticisms, it sounds very offensive when it is repeated without proper consideration.
Lastly, I've seen wires jump in experiments before, never with coaxial cables used with AC or carrying RF. I have seen coaxial cables jump in certain conditions though, and that usually involves 20,000 Volts despite low current and its always DC and involves the outer rubber sleeve of the coaxial cable becoming charged and being effected by the 20,000 volt power source,
Post by: Kryptid on 14/07/2018 05:50:06
I see where the problem is, on two fronts.
First, anyone who uses microwave RF energy HAS TO use VERY WELL shielded cables that leak next to NO RF energy.
This is why I said that shielding against microwaves is not the same as shielding against magnetic fields. By all means, shield all of the microwaves that you want to. That won't necessarily shield any magnetic fields produced by the device.
Quote
Secondly, if you're NOT using a shielded cable with RF microwaves you're going to get BURNT.....and furthermore as that energy is relatively AC it won't move in ANY definite direction in a fixed magnetic field.
Microwaves are neither AC nor DC, so what are you talking about? Is this cable designed to carry electric current, microwaves or both?
Quote
I've spent a LOT of time and money researching EM thrusters, and believe me, proper cables do NOT induce an EM field that interacts with the Earth's magnetic energy. Apologies if that sounds tierce.
How does the cable avoid creating a magnetic field? The laws of physics seem to demand that it does.
Post by: guest39538 on 14/07/2018 10:23:26
I've spent a LOT of time and money researching EM thrusters,Well, I considered your theory, it doesn't work for me, I think you are full of chit and just trolling because it doesn't work.
Post by: opportunity on 16/07/2018 07:14:06
I see where the problem is, on two fronts.
First, anyone who uses microwave RF energy HAS TO use VERY WELL shielded cables that leak next to NO RF energy.
This is why I said that shielding against microwaves is not the same as shielding against magnetic fields. By all means, shield all of the microwaves that you want to. That won't necessarily shield any magnetic fields produced by the device.QuoteSecondly, if you're NOT using a shielded cable with RF microwaves you're going to get BURNT.....and furthermore as that energy is relatively AC it won't move in ANY definite direction in a fixed magnetic field.
Microwaves are neither AC nor DC, so what are you talking about? Is this cable designed to carry electric current, microwaves or both?QuoteI've spent a LOT of time and money researching EM thrusters, and believe me, proper cables do NOT induce an EM field that interacts with the Earth's magnetic energy. Apologies if that sounds tierce.
How does the cable avoid creating a magnetic field? The laws of physics seem to demand that it does.
Kryptid,
When a researcher uses a magnetron, there are two options, one is connect the magnetron directly to a chamber.....like a standard microwave oven, the other is to connect to a "launcher" that connects directly to a coaxial cable that then connects to another chamber. So, when "wires" are considered, any researcher in their right mind would use a coaxial cable to carry the microwave field from the magnetron to the closed cavity they are testing. Why? To prevent "field loss", to prevent "EM" field loss, to prevent "microwve EM" field loss. How? A coxial cable suited for microwave carriage is usually a double faraday cage, a thin metal plating surrounded by a wire mesh. Why? To prevent EM loss. What is EM? EM is electromagnetism....and this includes a magnetic field.
Does that make sense so far?
Post by: Kryptid on 16/07/2018 07:47:59
Does that make sense so far?
It doesn't, actually. You can't use the terms "microwave" and "magnetic field" interchangeably. Both are manifestations of the electromagnetic interaction, but they are different manifestations of it with notably different properties. I have never heard of such a thing as a microwave "field". Every usage of the term "microwave" that I have ever heard of before makes reference to specific wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation that carry energy and not to any kind of field analogous to a magnetic field. What is this term you are using and where did you get it from?
Post by: opportunity on 16/07/2018 08:15:29
Kryptid, what is your background exactly?
Maybe start with the explanation of a microwave oven?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven
Post by: opportunity on 16/07/2018 12:43:41
Post by: guest39538 on 16/07/2018 13:08:11
Anyone?A microwave oven irradiates food from the core , outwards.
Post by: opportunity on 16/07/2018 13:13:52
Imagine if it wasn't as simple as that...
Post by: guest39538 on 16/07/2018 13:35:28
That's good....imagine if we didn't know that?
Raw food?
Overcooked food?
Is your question directed at something specific ? or more like ramblings.
Post by: opportunity on 16/07/2018 13:45:16
Raw raw is what you're looking at.....totally raw.
Ask your best friends what raw is.
Post by: guest39538 on 16/07/2018 13:58:45
Raw food?
Raw raw is what you're looking at.....totally raw.
Ask your best friends what raw is.
Well we can look at raw is several ways, you know like raw food, raw in wrestling, red roar if we spent to long on the beach, sushi.
Post by: opportunity on 16/07/2018 14:03:33
Post by: guest39538 on 16/07/2018 14:07:22
Lets just raw the topic, right....the question.Raw material ?
You are confusing , I wish you would just be frank about things instead of riddles.
Post by: opportunity on 16/07/2018 14:13:59
Maybe I should not have said anything?
Have you a good basis of understanding?
Post by: guest39538 on 16/07/2018 14:24:08
Have you a good basis of understanding?
Of course..explain ?
Sometimes definitions need defining.
Post by: opportunity on 16/07/2018 14:27:34
You're asking me to explain something?
More than that, how do I know for sure you're asking me something that is helping you?
It would work if you were confessing something....PM there.
Post by: guest39538 on 16/07/2018 14:33:53
You're flying something, and its not what I'm offering.Ok, perhaps I should slow down and consider more intricately what you are saying. I confess I am good at science because I learnt science , I may not explain it precise to what you understand but I know I am good. So what about you ?
You're asking me to explain something?
More than that, how do I know for sure you're asking me something that is helping you?
It would work if you were confessing something.
Post by: opportunity on 16/07/2018 14:38:36
You're as lucky as I am.
I don't know why I'm here....it seems stupid given the responses.
Post by: guest39538 on 16/07/2018 14:44:37
Me? I'm terrible.At times, but then at other times. I don't know what compels me to come back here or why I am here. Do you ever think , there is a question somebody wants to ask or an answer you are searching for ?
You're as lucky as I am.
I don't know why I'm here....it seems stupid given the responses.
I mean I can put my mind into science , especially fields. I may play a bit dumb about fields, but I consider I know fields quite well.
Post by: opportunity on 16/07/2018 14:51:48
Have you learnt anything?
I don't think its possible given the menagerie of responses....yet....
Post by: guest39538 on 16/07/2018 14:53:28
Yes.I am a master at fields, I consider myself one of the best, I had a good teacher who had loads of experience in spatial fields.
Have you learnt anything?
I only had to be told once, I got it about fields.
Quote
menagerie of responses....yet....
Don't show your hand until it is needed , poker tactics.
Post by: opportunity on 16/07/2018 14:58:16
This is better:
Post by: guest39538 on 16/07/2018 15:10:07
Kryptid….EM...microwaves....not a part of the EM field spectrum....was that you?
This is better:
Microwave energy is a part of field convergence theory , have a look at Bogies work, he says it well using overlaying parent arenas. Imagine loads of bubbles converging to make one bubble.
The earths field with have underlay or overlay convergence of the suns field.
Post by: opportunity on 16/07/2018 15:14:42
Post by: guest39538 on 16/07/2018 15:20:07
I wouldn't post if I thought I had something weak to say.
I wouldn't post if I thought I had something weak to say.Where I am from we are blunt and say it how it is...among friends. I don't have friends here..
Second thoughts I have some friends here ..
I mean what can shock right ?
Who cares if we die tomorrow?
But have fun on the way right ?
One needs to confirm things to proceed in the right manner?
One needs to understand thoroughly in plain English to be certain but one can be almost certain.
Science can have ambiguity right ?
I understand you are interested in field research, I am interested in field research. I think we are understand each other. How do we get a paper on such a subject ? I would need a paper for the subject for sure?
Post by: guest39538 on 16/07/2018 15:58:22
I am hypnotized now , how could Flash resist lol, surely resistance is futile. It was a good movie for the time, everyone wanted to be flash .
Post by: guest39538 on 16/07/2018 16:15:39
Opps gone mad, I think he wants me to marry ming . :o :D :D
I need to pass my driving test, its not like I cant drive though .
Should I be saying geeee.
Post by: opportunity on 16/07/2018 16:17:54
You grow up this way.
Post by: opportunity on 16/07/2018 16:24:31
Post by: guest39538 on 16/07/2018 16:24:47
This is basic 70's.....I remember flash gordon, who didn't want to be a hero .
You grow up this way.
Post by: guest39538 on 16/07/2018 16:26:32
Yes , I was a star trek ''fan'' and lost in space and doctor who ''fan''. Voyager is cool too, I like the more modern versions.
Post by: opportunity on 16/07/2018 16:27:29
Post by: opportunity on 16/07/2018 16:33:50
Post by: guest39538 on 16/07/2018 16:42:53
How does one address such a question, maybe you understand needy and greedy ...
Post by: guest39538 on 16/07/2018 16:43:54
Are we ready for thruster technology?Are you trying to help me ?
Post by: opportunity on 16/07/2018 17:02:03
Why don't we give them a head start, right?
Post by: guest39538 on 16/07/2018 17:15:26
Are we worried about regimes with big tech?
Why don't we give them a head start, right?
I don't care about regimes as long as I am on the right side of the fence.
Post by: opportunity on 16/07/2018 17:18:51
Is it possible to just sit by? How does one be a part of a movement forward if there's no input of the movement forward?
Post by: guest39538 on 16/07/2018 17:25:11
What's moving forward? What's moving? Is there a need to do something?Of course I can sit by, spatial fields are all around us.
Is it possible to just sit by?
Post by: opportunity on 16/07/2018 17:27:19
Post by: guest39538 on 16/07/2018 17:33:57
The gaol cells of others? What of your own input? Is it about telling them how reality works? Is it because you can be better than someone else at explaining what they have decided not to pay particular attention to?Are you asking if I could build a transformer where I live ?
Perhaps just a few miles away , somewhere a bit less urban for safety . are we still discussing fields?
Added- You are rather confusing at times, why do I even speak to you when you change the conversation to ''mumble'' what hardly makes sense?
Allowing you to ''troll'' me is quite fascinating, ::)
Post by: Kryptid on 16/07/2018 20:24:57
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151110083028.htm
Thank you for that. I had never heard of this before. I presume that what is meant by microwave "field" in this case is any area of space that microwaves are passing through. It still isn't a magnetic field so what I said before about shielding one not necessarily shielding the other is still true.
Quote
Kryptid, what is your background exactly?
I'm not a scientist, but I do have a degree in biology.
Quote
Kryptid….EM...microwaves....not a part of the EM field spectrum....was that you?
I never said that microwaves were not a part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Post by: opportunity on 16/07/2018 21:24:06
Biology does not transfer to physics.
EM is a field, it has many wavelengths with many terms, one of them microwave. If you can't accept that, you're using magical thinking.
...and I hate to say this, Kryptid, but guess what......guess what EM field runs at 50Hz...….OMG.....that's Right, AC.... :o
Post by: Kryptid on 16/07/2018 21:32:01
Biology does not transfer to physics.
I'm well aware that they are two distinct fields of science. That doesn't mean I'm uninformed about physics.
Quote
EM is a field, it has many wavelengths with many terms, one of them microwave. If you can't accept that, you're using magical thinking.
Again, when did I ever say that microwaves were not one of the wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum? What I have said is that magnetic fields are not microwaves. Magnetic fields are not the same thing as electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation is an excitation of an electromagnetic field (i.e. energy propagating through that field). Electromagnetic radiation carries energy whereas static electromagnetic fields do not.
You can easily make a material that will block particular wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation without blocking a magnetic field. A piece of opaque plastic is one such material. It will block visible light from travelling through it but a magnetic field will not be impeded.
So for final clarification: are you or are you not claiming that any material that blocks microwaves will also block magnetic fields?
Post by: opportunity on 16/07/2018 21:35:22
EM is a field, it has many wavelengths with many terms, one of them microwave. If you can't accept that, you're using magical thinking....and I hate to say this, Kryptid, but guess what......guess what EM field runs at 50Hz...….OMG.....that's Right, AC....
Kyptid:
EM is a field, it has many wavelengths with many terms, one of them microwave. If you can't accept that, you're using magical thinking.
...and I hate to say this, Kryptid, but guess what......guess what EM field runs at 50Hz...….OMG.....that's Right, AC....
Now, do you want a similar description of coaxial cables that aim to block the microwave field that a "wire" surrounded by "metal" is "designed" to do?
Post by: Kryptid on 16/07/2018 21:45:34
EM is a field, it has many wavelengths with many terms, one of them microwave. If you can't accept that, you're using magical thinking.
You already said this and I already told you that I agree that microwaves are a part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Quote
...and I hate to say this, Kryptid, but guess what......guess what EM field runs at 50Hz...….OMG.....that's Right, AC....
Alternating current? That's not an electromagnetic field. That's just a particular form of electric current (which is composed of electrons, unlike electromagnetic radiation which is composed of photons). So what does that have to do with whether microwaves and magnetic fields are always blocked by the same materials?
Quote
Now, do you want a similar description of coaxial cables that aim to block the microwave field that a "wire" surrounded by "metal" is "designed" to do?
No, I want an answer to the question I posted earlier: so for final clarification: are you or are you not claiming that any material that blocks microwaves will also block magnetic fields?
Post by: opportunity on 16/07/2018 21:52:07
I am now getting genuinely concerned about discussing physics in the "new theory" section.....I may have to go to a new forum.
Post by: Kryptid on 16/07/2018 21:56:11
Kryptid, you need to talk to your physics teacher about AC, Hz, and so on.
What physics teacher? I graduated from college ten years ago. I know what alternating current is. I know what Hertz are.
Quote
Like, when electrons go up and down an aerial at a certain frequency of AC, its not a jumping castle......
I never said that it was.
Why are you avoiding my question about magnetic field vs. microwave shielding?
Post by: opportunity on 16/07/2018 21:59:39
Post by: Kryptid on 16/07/2018 22:11:25
…....because you haven't googled "coaxial cable" yet...….its so obvious......I'll reply in 12 hours.....shouldn't take that long for you to get the heads up.
I've already looked up coaxial cables. What they are and how they work has no effect on my question about whether magnetic fields and microwaves are the same thing (they aren't) nor whether they are always blocked by the same materials (they aren't). Alternating current isn't a field either. It makes use of fields and it generates fields, but it is not a field itself. It is merely a mechanism that transfers kinetic energy between valence electrons in a conductor.
I do expect coaxial cables to have some degree of magnetic shielding, but that doesn't mean that such shielding eliminates all magnetic interactions. The experimenters speaking of some section of the coaxial cables being unshielded doesn't necessarily mean that the cable was stripped in some way. The text states that a box was used to shield the device against external magnetic fields and a few centimeters of cable was left outside of the box, thus not having that extra shielding.
Post by: opportunity on 25/07/2018 11:19:26
Post by: opportunity on 25/07/2018 14:03:50