What are /r/EmDrive's favorite Products & Services?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

Mr Killer, I (and others) appreciate your counterpoints on this sub, but please don't mislead.

To my reading, Tajmar quotes an error of +/- 20μN around 98.2 μN. Whilst I agree it is not clear if this error bound is 95%, 99% or even 66%, it is certainly not centred around 0.

https://mega.nz/#!2VYkxJTL!Wfl6Bu59oQX0YEL8-DhisNopoes3be1h9MvgaK3HT-o

"we expected a thrust of 98.2 μN according to Shawyer’s models."

"The thrusts observed with the oil-damped torsion balance were close to the original prediction taking our small Q factor into account (around +/- 20 μN for 700 W of microwave power – still an order of magnitude more effective than pure radiation thrust)."

I started a Quora question on the topic. I'm hopping one day I'll get a good answer. https://www.quora.com/Considering-Fermis-Paradox-could-humans-have-industrialized-during-the-age-of-dinosaurs-based-on-resources-vs-a-survivability-question

I think the interesting part to consider is, could we have used other means to jumpstart an industrialized economy.

• could we have created hydrogen from electrolysis, the Egyptians had batteries. was this efficient enough?
• could we have burned biomass, and then burned a 2nd time as a locomotive fuel? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_gas

Another thought, i've heard that Neanderthals might have been smarter than us, but we were meaner. It might be that other intelligent species are not as aggressive as we are. A lot of our energy density improvements came from war. It's sad but true.

> The reason why I first came here was to debunk McCulloch.

Haha yeah I remember that. When you have a chance give this blog post of his a read or the paper he based the blog post on (preferable if short on time, only 4 pages long).

I'm pretty sure McCulloch knows just enough about algebra and common notation to make it kinda sorta look like he's doing something that resembles theoretical physics, but he just makes definitions up as he goes along.

In fairness, shoutout to /u/memcculloch if he wants to hear my reasons for saying this paper is nonsensical, and to have a go at countering them.

“How the Flawed Journal Review Process Impedes Paradigm Shifting Discoveries”

http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol12.pdf

https://www.academia.edu/17964553/Condensed_Matter_Nuclear_Science_October_2015

EmDriven is correct. Mine is pixel position. The pixel coordinate system traditionally has an inverted y-axis. (see the following image: https://processing.org/reference/environment/images/coordinates2D3D.png)

Because of this reversal, mine could be interpreted as representing frustum position (with the units left unspecified).

Many experts in the field of physics have pointed out that the EM Drive is impossible and don't find any evidence or theoretical motivation to support investigating it.

Those who work in Eagleworks for NASA are also ~~not~~ physicists. Those few that have ventured forward to publicly say something about the EM Drive have not been "civil" about its merits. In fact the topic of reactionless drives is banned on r/physics and physics.stackexchage.com as they are considered fringe or crackpot concepts.

EDIT: Dr. White has a physics degree, but the experimenter Paul March whom I was thinking about does not.

We can learn something from Pharmaceutical research. Recently it has become clear that failure to publish negative results has led to biased research and misplaced confidence in drug effects. Ben Goldacre (published in The Guardian) a great series on this problem:

http://genius.com/Ben-goldacre-bad-pharma-annotated

The problem is so severe there is talk of mandatory prior registration of all medical trials.

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-real-risks-of-cherry-picking-in-science.aspx

The core goal for the researchers on this subreddit should be a reproducible anomaly. If not reproducible, any result (null or not) is of much less value.

Also, it's unrealistic to expect anyone could design the "perfect" experiment first time. Rather, there will be a series of tests with gradually improving measurement and control over variables until the anomaly is well described in a reproducible study.

That "final" experiment is the one that could be published, as the methods can be repeated and there is reasonable confidence the results are interesting. Or not, in which case we can all have closure on the matter.

The RF power amplifier:

http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/100w-High-Power-Broadband-Power-amplifier_60125990298.html

TTEMD already said the same guys can custom-make those RF amps rated at 1000 W power output. So I think that if everything goes ok, maybe the next phase will be to ramp up the power.

There's a lot that can be said about a man who only wishes to leave the world better than he found it. The need to believe in something more, to find meaning, and the drive to secure one's legacy must be incredibly powerful. I recently read Viktor Frankl's book, "Man's Search for Meaning" and I learned from this that above all else, the need to feel there's meaning in one's life is powerful. If this meaning isn't realized, it leads to despair. In the afterword, he credits this to helping him survive being in the concentration camps.

Of course. Do you know physics? Light passing through a quarter wave plate of such a material will exert a measurable torque on it, as in this famous experiment from 1936.

Only those, who don't know about classical physics demand this new one.

@ u/IamAClimateScientist @ u/Chrochne @ u/aimtron

Deleted comments like the one IamAClimateScientist made are freely restorable using uneddit. I have checked it, and restored the comment so I could see it. I have also taken a screenshot if it matters.

If you are curious, you can follow the procedure linked above on the deleted comment and view the comment yourself. I feel like slapping a link to the screenshot would be at least impolite, but I can provide it if asked.

I note that the phrase "old man with the terminal cancer" does not appear in the deleted comment. Neither do the words "old," "man," "terminal," or "cancer."

"The, "with," and "of" do appear.

That being said, it was a fairly harsh comment that (in my opinion) conveyed frustration, annoyance, and significant dislike of the person in question.

Edit: addition: There was only one deleted comment on the thread that I could see, and when restored it turned out to be from Iamaclimatescientist... so I think I got the right one.

> Dr. Rodal is long term subscriber of NASA forum, until his account wasn't hacked, I don't see any reason for contacting him.

The basic assumption of journalism is to verify your sources, especially when it is posted on website forums because it could be anyone. Is he this guy?

https://www.linkedin.com/in/joserodal with these publications? https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jose_Rodal/publications

A mechanical engineer who does computer models? Someone with no real background in physics or electromagnetics?

Do you mean something like this?

There is a WifiManager class in the Android SDK that gives low-level access to this data.

Your remark about the coordinate r reminds me of this stunning paper about the initial mistake made by the scientific community that lead to the black hole singularity:

• Petit, J.P.; d'Agostini, G. (21 March 2015). "Cancellation of the singularity of the Schwarzschild solution with natural mass inversion process". Modern Physics Letters A. 30(9): 1550051. doi:10.1142/S0217732315500510.

> The variable R introduced by the author in this paper was not the radial position but an auxiliary variable. However, during the following years, several authors (among them A. Einstein) have made a mistake using this variable as a true spatial coordinate leading to the prediction of a singularity that clearly do not really exist.

For more information on narrowing magnetron oven magnetron freq splatter (too wide a bandwidth) due to both freq pushing and freq pulling, join EmDriveresearch.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/emdriveresearch

Current papers have shown oven magnetrons can be limited to have a bandwidth of +-5kHz by tight control of magnetron current.

Panasonic Inverter microwave oven power supplies appear to do just that. Tightly control magnetron current.

Thanks for responding. Simply using multiple magnetrons won't give a resulting amplitude fully the same as that number of times a single one. But you won't need it to be to confirm or disprove the validity of the thrust.

For example amateurs have used multiple magnetrons to get high power microwaves:

TRIO OF MAGNETRONS POWER A MICROWAVE RIFLE. Dan Maloney October 22, 2016
http://hackaday.com/2016/10/22/trio-of-magnetrons-power-a-microwave-rifle/

A waveguide can also be used to concentrate the microwave energy to a small region to fit inside a small vacuum chamber:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waveguide_(electromagnetism)#Hollow_metallic_waveguides

I'll do you a favor and point you to something that will make your life a lot easier and better:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140203153113-6526187-how-to-avoid-seeming-like-an-arrogant-know-it-all-jerk

See #3.

Okay I tried again and found this:

https://prezi.com/xd39a4jsu4p8/nano-bio-chemical-technology-the-experiments/

You can make graphene flakes using pencil and sticky tape. It's not high quality single sheet graphene but it might be close enough and it's very cheap.

Great post.

A must-read book on the way ahead for cosmology and physics:-

The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time by Roberto Mangabeira Unger and Lee Smolin 2014.

In it Smolin argues that momentum and energy are intrinsic and that any effect of matter beyond the cosmological horizon (the Mach effect) violates causality.

Jackson Classical Electrodynamics. It is a standard graduate-level textbook on classical electrodynamics. Chapter 8 is devoted to wave guides and resonant cavities.

I know what you're saying, but again, it's precision vs accuracy. If you want accurate results, this is the wrong way to look at it, especially if the purported signal is so tiny compared to ambient oscillations. You cannot know b-B accurately if you don't control for systematics by studying them on B first. You have to make B as noiseless as possible (or at least understand the noise on B), that includes systematics like oscillations driven by outside forces. If that's not the case then why does LIGO take great pains to do this? Their case is similar to yours, but they understand they have to damp high noise levels from outside that will swamp or fake their signal. It's not enough to say that b-B will have A automatically subtracted out when your signal is buried in something you didn't understand in the first place, because you say it affects both equally so who cares? You need to understand them on B alone, first before you can do that. Otherwise you'll never get an accurate reading.

I refer you again to this link:

http://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys276/Hill/Information/Notes/ErrorAnalysis.html

And I'll leave you a reference before I go:

http://www.amazon.com/Reduction-Error-Analysis-Physical-Sciences/dp/0072472278/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1441194938&sr=1-1&keywords=data+reduction+and+error+analysis+for+the+physical+sciences

That's exactly why I've been skeptical. But if it's energy-mass-information that's conserved, then I guess it's possible to get extra energy by losing information. Note that Mike's reply says you do in fact get extra kinetic energy.

I just found out about all this so I can't explain any further. I've got his book on the way.