Silver Stackers logo

Silver Stackers

Discussion forum for those
who love to stack precious metals

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Forum registration is temporarily disabled due to a spam attack.
  • Index
  • » Platinum
  • » Will Platinum Demand Tank With Move Toward Electric Vehicles?

#26 2016-12-28 06:41:34

Ipv6Ready
Silver Stacker
From: North Sydney
Registered: 2016-01-08
Posts: 1,868
Trades :   36 

Re: Will Platinum Demand Tank With Move Toward Electric Vehicles?

The perpetual motion might be for nought, yes does smell.

But at the same time there are likely trying to invent or concoct super frictionless oil/lubricant etc
It doesn't always have to the main reason for the research. At the minimum it might be the only connect to these devices is that a young researcher learned it ropes.

Look at microwave the reason for research had nothing to do with why everyone has one.


Looking for 40 pre1944 shilling details in the link
http://forums.silverstackers.com/topic- … -worn.html

Offline

#27 2016-12-28 06:49:01

Ipv6Ready
Silver Stacker
From: North Sydney
Registered: 2016-01-08
Posts: 1,868
Trades :   36 

Re: Will Platinum Demand Tank With Move Toward Electric Vehicles?

Plus people believe we will run out of PM.
We will not run out, there is so much of it buried in landfill it will be mined when technology and price deem it worthwhile.

Just like we get gas from landfills now, thirty years ago people would have laughed at the idea. But now it's normal business.

They will come a time when all the landfills are dug up just like we dig up open pit mines.
In a ton of old mobile phones there are more than ten times the amount of gold than the richest mines.
People recycle tv for copper because it is easy, technology will make gold, silver, rare earth, copper, and all the exotic material easy to get, one day soon


Looking for 40 pre1944 shilling details in the link
http://forums.silverstackers.com/topic- … -worn.html

Offline

#28 2016-12-28 06:53:21

BullionQuestions
Member
Registered: 2016-12-26
Posts: 20
Trades :   

Re: Will Platinum Demand Tank With Move Toward Electric Vehicles?

Looking at this image from 2006:

Fig237_1.jpg

50% of the Pt use in 2006 was for catalytic converters. It's reasonable to assume that will drop nearly to zero within 15 years. According to this article, most of the world demand for Pt jewelery is in Japan: http://www.platinum.matthey.com/about-p … /jewellery . That is nice but trends can change quickly, especially if it's mainly in one country.

I'm sure these situations are priced in to the current low Pt price, but I'm wondering if it can continue going lower.

Offline

#29 2016-12-28 06:53:44

FortySeven
Member
From: Melbourne
Registered: 2015-07-01
Posts: 93
Trades :   

Re: Will Platinum Demand Tank With Move Toward Electric Vehicles?


Buy silver - they've stopped making it. (with apologies to Mark Twain)

Offline

#30 2016-12-28 18:11:53

sfstacker
Member
Registered: 2016-10-25
Posts: 308
Trades :   

Re: Will Platinum Demand Tank With Move Toward Electric Vehicles?

BullionQuestions wrote:

It has been known for over 100 years that photos have mass, and therefore, momentum.

No sir, you are incorrect. Photons do not have mass. However they do have momentum. E=mc2 dictates that they SHOULD have mass but they don't.

If you could stop a photon and place it on a scale it would not have a weight. The only reason why we think photons have mass is because e=mc2 dictates they should have a mass. But they dont. It's a quantum physics thing beyond the understanding of most scientists in the field. However, it is the general thought in the science field that light does not have mass. Non of these electromagnetic waves do. Although you may find supporting links on the internet dictating that photons do have mass you will NOT find anything that isn't based off the E=MC2. At best saying photons have mass is a theory. I don't even believe you'll find stephen hawking or Neil degrass tyson. In fact I believe he even wrote an article explaining how even though photon have zero mass they can still be pulled into black holes.

The confusion with the EMDrive you seem to have is the whole conservation of energy problem. Momentum or energy is being created without the destruction of a propellant. I full understand that and you demonstrated that you have as well. But with the EMDrive and even the link about the satellite I posted it's a completely different situation.

It's like arguing that the addition of CO2 in to the atmosphere contributes to global warming then making a counterargument that CO2 when tested alone has a head transfer limit.

The EMDrive is different. It's not perpetual motion. An "propellant" is still being used. In this case its an electromagnetic wave instead of a combustible element. So get any ideas of "free energy" or "perpetual energy" out of your head. You're only confusing yourself by misunderstanding how the EMDrive works.

Offline

#31 2016-12-28 18:40:43

radiobirdman
Silver Stacker
From: the cuntry
Registered: 2011-04-25
Posts: 2,238
Trades :   59 

Re: Will Platinum Demand Tank With Move Toward Electric Vehicles?

Photons have "mass" inversely proportional to their wavelength!

Last edited by radiobirdman (2016-12-28 18:41:58)

Offline

#32 2016-12-28 18:52:19

sfstacker
Member
Registered: 2016-10-25
Posts: 308
Trades :   

Re: Will Platinum Demand Tank With Move Toward Electric Vehicles?

FortySeven wrote:

I've already seen that first video. And a few other videos saying that the EMDrive doesn't work.

Although I'm a firm believer YouTube has up to date educational content related to science news I'm going to have to go with the link I posted, the actual article written by the scientists testing the EMDrive, instead of the YouTube videos made by someone not affiliated with said testing..

Offline

#33 2016-12-28 21:41:36

BullionQuestions
Member
Registered: 2016-12-26
Posts: 20
Trades :   

Re: Will Platinum Demand Tank With Move Toward Electric Vehicles?

sfstacker wrote:
BullionQuestions wrote:

It has been known for over 100 years that photos have mass, and therefore, momentum.

No sir, you are incorrect. Photons do not have mass. However they do have momentum. E=mc2 dictates that they SHOULD have mass but they don't.

I also posted, I understand that photons don't have "rest mass", but they are never at rest, so that's something beyond my understanding. Yes, photons don't have mass, but they have momentum so they act like they have mass, which is what explains all those effects such as thermal recoil, the Pioneer anomaly, etc.

sfstacker wrote:

If It's a quantum physics thing beyond the understanding of most scientists in the field. However, it is the general thought in the science field that light does not have mass.

I agree, and it's definitely beyond my understanding. But relative to propulsion, they have momentum, and so they act like any other propellant.

sfstacker wrote:

At best saying photons have mass is a theory. I don't even believe you'll find stephen hawking or Neil degrass tyson. In fact I believe he even wrote an article explaining how even though photon have zero mass they can still be pulled into black holes.

Right, it's absolutely accepted physics that photons have no rest mass, but they have momentum and are subject to gravitational pull, so they act like they have mass... This is far beyond my understanding.

sfstacker wrote:

The confusion with the EMDrive you seem to have is the whole conservation of energy problem.

NO IT IS NOT. The EM drive doesn't claim to conserve energy. It takes a lot of energy to generate its thrust. But it absolutely does violate conservation of momentum. And by creating a system which burns 1000 watts of power to generate a micro Newton of thrust, you have a very noicy experimental setup.

Nothing is coming out of it. And that's the problem. That's a claim which is beyond extraordinary. And the effect they are measuring is at the limit of detection, in systems which have many sources of noise. I can probably prove that my refrigerator violates conservation of momentum also if I measured it closely enough, because any system that measures something that big and complicated is going to have a lot of noise.

sfstacker wrote:

The EMDrive is different. It's not perpetual motion. An "propellant" is still being used. In this case its an electromagnetic wave instead of a combustible element.

But you're not understanding: in the EMDrive, the wave is in an enclosed chamber (a cavity). It does not leave. Nothing is coming out the back. That's why I say, no propellant is being used. Energy is being used, obviously.

Let me explain it a different way: if I shoot a gun, a bullet comes out and I feel recoil. If I'm on very smooth roller skates and I shoot a gun, I'll start moving. I've expended energy. The bullet has momentum and so I pick up equal and opposite momentum. This is obvious right? And this is how thermal recoil works in satellites, and how the Pioneer anomaly works, and how solar sails work. They're just using photons instead of a bullet, but it's the same.

Now imagine that I'm on my roller skates with my gun in my right hand, and in my left hand, I'm holding some kind of bullet trap device that's on a stick. I can hold it out in front of the gun, so the bullet comes out and then flies into the trap. I'm holding the gun in one hand, the trap in the other, and I'm on perfectly smooth roller skates. I fire the gun.  (Let's imagine for a moment that somehow no burning gunpowder or gases come out with the bullet. Maybe instead of a gun I use a big crossbow, or the gun uses a compressed spring instead of powder, and I'm in a vacuum, for example. Let's assume my skates are frictionless also.)

What happens? As the bullet leaves the gun, it has momentum, so I must have momentum also. I'll start moving, just as before. But now something else happens - the bullet gets caught in the bullet trap. Its momentum goes to zero. So my momentum will change as well. My momentum must also go to zero. I will end up in exactly the same place I started, with no change of velocity or position. I can keep shooting (expending energy) into my bullet trap, but because the system started with no momentum, it's going to end with no momentum, with me standing there not moving.

That's basically what the EMDrive is claiming to do, by burning energy and bouncing microwaves around in a cavity.

It doesn't make any sense and is not connected to the perfectly well understood ideas of a solar sail and thermal recoil.

sfstacker wrote:

So get any ideas of "free energy" or "perpetual energy" out of your head. You're only confusing yourself by misunderstanding how the EMDrive works.

Violating conservation of momentum is just as far out as "free energy", and if you had some device which could violate conservation of momentum, it would probably violate those others as well, although I can't clearly figure out how.

Basically they have set up an experiment that uses a lot of energy to

Offline

#34 2016-12-28 22:20:16

BullionQuestions
Member
Registered: 2016-12-26
Posts: 20
Trades :   

Re: Will Platinum Demand Tank With Move Toward Electric Vehicles?

Correction: I said "The EM drive doesn't claim to conserve energy". I should have said, the EM drive doesn't claim to violate conservation of energy

Offline

#35 2016-12-28 22:29:59

sfstacker
Member
Registered: 2016-10-25
Posts: 308
Trades :   

Re: Will Platinum Demand Tank With Move Toward Electric Vehicles?

BullionQuestions wrote:

But you're not understanding: in the EMDrive, the wave is in an enclosed chamber (a cavity). It does not leave. Nothing is coming out the back. That's why I say, no propellant is being used. Energy is being used, obviously.

No I am understanding in the emdrive a wave is enclosed in a chamber. I literally called it an "electromagnetic wave" in the post you quoted. So I don't understand your point in this post? Elaborate. After all you wrote I'm still not sure what your issue with the emdrive is?

Offline

#36 2016-12-29 00:48:55

BullionQuestions
Member
Registered: 2016-12-26
Posts: 20
Trades :   

Re: Will Platinum Demand Tank With Move Toward Electric Vehicles?

sfstacker wrote:
BullionQuestions wrote:

But you're not understanding: in the EMDrive, the wave is in an enclosed chamber (a cavity). It does not leave. Nothing is coming out the back. That's why I say, no propellant is being used. Energy is being used, obviously.

No I am understanding in the emdrive a wave is enclosed in a chamber. I literally called it an "electromagnetic wave" in the post you quoted. So I don't understand your point in this post? Elaborate. After all you wrote I'm still not sure what your issue with the emdrive is?

If you have a device which is not enclosed, and which is sending out EM waves (photons), in one direction, it's going to generate thrust. This is well-established physics. Here is the wiki article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure . It's the basis of solar sails. There's nothing controversial about this and never has been. Solar sails have been understood and were proposed over 100 years ago.

But as you say, it's a wave in an enclosed chamber. Nothing is coming out. This violates conservation of momentum. Can you see the significance of it being an enclosed chamber with nothing coming out? Put a hole in the chamber, so something can come out, then yeah it will generate thrust as expected.

It may not violate conservation of energy, but conservation of momentum is just much a law of physics, as is conservation of charge and some other similar laws.

A common statement of Newton's Third Law, which we now call conservation of momentum, is:

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction

That's how rockets work, that's how recoil of a gun works, that's how solar sails works.

The EM drive is somehow getting an action without an equal and opposite reaction.

Does this make sense?

Hey if it works, awesome, we have to re-write all of physics, but this claim is BEYOND EXTRAORDINARY and requires evidence and replication.

Offline

#37 2016-12-29 01:05:31

BullionQuestions
Member
Registered: 2016-12-26
Posts: 20
Trades :   

Re: Will Platinum Demand Tank With Move Toward Electric Vehicles?

Oh I think I should make it clear:

In the EM Drive Energy is being used but propellant is not being used.

Re-read my post about firing a gun while trapping the bullet. Clearly, when the gun fires, it uses energy, but by trapping the bullet, there's no propellant coming out of the system and that's why it doesn't generate thrust.

Every rocket out there uses some kind of propellant. Regular rockets burn H2 and O2 together, releasing energy and creating hot gases which fly out the back. The propellant is also the source of energy.

A "laser rocket", which is simply a big laser shooting out photons, is also possible in theory. It has an energy source (a nuclear reactor) and sends out photons (electromagnetic waves) as the propellant.

Other rockets separate propellant from energy. One rocket design is the ion thruster. An electric power source (solar panels or nuclear reactor) is used to generate an electric field which accelerates ions (particles) out. The energy is the solar panel and the propellant is the ion.

The EM drive has energy going in, just like all the others, but nothing is coming out. There's no propellant. That's the problem.

Offline

#38 2016-12-29 02:46:14

BullionQuestions
Member
Registered: 2016-12-26
Posts: 20
Trades :   

Re: Will Platinum Demand Tank With Move Toward Electric Vehicles?

Here's another way to look at it:

I'm wearing my frictionless skates again. I'm holding an electric fan with a battery on it. I turn on the fan.

What happens? I move, of course. The energy comes from the battery, and the air molecules hat the fan is moving are the propellant. Cool.

Now let's say that I get a big solid box, which is an enclosure. I put the fan into the enclosure, turn it on, and stand there in my skates.

Energy is being consumed, just as before. The "propellant" is trapped in the box. It's not leaving the box. It's just circulating around inside. What happens? I don't move. The same energy is being consumed, but because the box is an enclosure that doesn't let the propellant out, I'm not going anywhere!

The EM Drive is basically a fan in a box. If it works, it's beyond extraordinary, not because it's not consuming energy (it is consuming energy) but because it's not conserving momentum.

Offline

#39 2016-12-29 05:44:44

sfstacker
Member
Registered: 2016-10-25
Posts: 308
Trades :   

Re: Will Platinum Demand Tank With Move Toward Electric Vehicles?

BullionQuestions wrote:

The EM drive has energy going in, just like all the others, but nothing is coming out. There's no propellant. That's the problem.

Ah ok. That's actually not a problem. When the electromagnetic wave in generated and it moves through a vacuum it acts as if it has mass by transferring its momentum to the object it hits.  There's no kickback from this generation of energy. It's a radiation energy.

That's why the in the pioneer anomaly it was seen to give the satellite a spin and not a spin that was counter spun by a kickback.
I don't see why you see this as a problem. It's literally the same concept between the pioneer satellite and the EMDrive. It just happens to be that the EMDrive uses microwaves and the pioneer anomaly had to do with a thermal photon. And you can't argue "its different because they're different waves" because they're the still the same thing. Just at a different frequency and wavelength.

I don't think you've followed the most up to date news on the EMDrive. It's already been tested and peer reviewed by NASA. It generates thrust and a piece of technology we can reference where the same thing happened was with the Pioneer Satellite. So again, I'm still not sure where your confusion with the EMDrive lies when it's been tested already its technology referenced in something we previously studied.


ANYWAY....given that all of this is true that's why I worry them perfecting the EMDrive. It already generates thrust. Now if they can find a way to make the energy exchange even greater and produce an engine faster than any we have now then surely they can scale it down to small industrial/manufacturing purposes like using a 3D printer to configure atoms. I just hope not in my lifetime.

Offline

#40 2016-12-29 19:35:14

BullionQuestions
Member
Registered: 2016-12-26
Posts: 20
Trades :   

Re: Will Platinum Demand Tank With Move Toward Electric Vehicles?

First, I'm not going to refer to electromagnetic waves. I'll refer to them as photons because it's much easier to visualize what's going on if you think of them as particles with momentum, like tiny bullets. The wave-like nature of photons isn't important in any of this and it confuses it.

sfstacker wrote:
BullionQuestions wrote:

The EM drive has energy going in, just like all the others, but nothing is coming out. There's no propellant. That's the problem.

Ah ok. That's actually not a problem. When the electromagnetic wave in generated and it moves through a vacuum it acts as if it has mass by transferring its momentum to the object it hits.  There's no kickback from this generation of energy. It's a radiation energy.

That's a little bit confused. Energy generation doesn't have any kickback (recoil) but emitting a photon most certainly does have recoil. But you are right, the photon transfers momentum to the object it hits.

sfstacker wrote:

That's why the in the pioneer anomaly it was seen to give the satellite a spin and not a spin that was counter spun by a kickback.

Not sure that I full understand what you are saying, but in the Pioneer anomaly, there most certainly were "kickbacks" (recoil). It had a hot area somewhere, that was emitting photons, and emitting a photon generates kickback. These photons left the Pioneer spacecraft, and so momentum was conserved.

No physicist in the world thinks radiation pressure or thermal recoil is controversial. It's long long accepted standard physics. It's simply, photons have momentum and momentum is conserved. Photons are acting just like tiny bullets and Pioneer experiences recoil, same as if it's shooting off tiny bullets.

sfstacker wrote:

I don't see why you see this as a problem. It's literally the same concept between the pioneer satellite and the EMDrive. It just happens to be that the EMDrive uses microwaves and the pioneer anomaly had to do with a thermal photon.

No, the difference which you are not understanding is that Pioneer's thermal photons go off into space, whereas in the EM drive, they bounce off the walls of the cavity.

If I'm on my frictionless skates, and I have a small rocket, and I light it, I'll start moving. If I have that same small rocket, and I enclose it in a box, I will not move. Do you understand?

sfstacker wrote:

And you can't argue "its different because they're different waves" because they're the still the same thing. Just at a different frequency and wavelength.

Right, absolutely, microwave photons and thermal photons are the same thing, just different wavelength and energy.

sfstacker wrote:

I don't think you've followed the most up to date news on the EMDrive. It's already been tested and peer reviewed by NASA.

It was tested and they found a very tiny effect. It's small enough it could be experimental error. Great. Replicate it a few times. Again, if the effect is real, we need to re-write all of physics, going back to Newton's time, so this needs to be replicated several times before we do that.

sfstacker wrote:

It generates thrust and a piece of technology we can reference where the same thing happened was with the Pioneer Satellite.

Look, no scientist in the world thinks the Pioneer anomaly is controversial. There's no controversy about it. It took them a while to figure out where the thermal source was, but once they did, it worked by a mechanism (thermal recoil) which is accepted by all of science.

In contrast, the EM drive is considered to be bogus by almost every scientist who is even willing to discuss it.

Surely, there must be some difference between these two things, if one of them is accepted by everyone in the field, and the other is thoroughly rejected by everyone in the field? Either you know a lot more physics than they do, or you know a lot less physics than they do. Which one do you think it is?

And I'm not a physicist at all, but I do know enough to understand thermal recoil and conservation of momentum. I think you need to do some basic reading about conservation of momentum. There are some good videos, such as: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vdk5J-9S0I

sfstacker wrote:

So again, I'm still not sure where your confusion with the EMDrive lies when it's been tested already its technology referenced in something we previously studied.

It's only been replicated once, by NASA, at a level which is so small that it's probably noise.

sfstacker wrote:

ANYWAY....given that all of this is true that's why I worry them perfecting the EMDrive. It already generates thrust. Now if they can find a way to make the energy exchange even greater and produce an engine faster than any we have now then surely they can scale it down to small industrial/manufacturing purposes like using a 3D printer to configure atoms. I just hope not in my lifetime.

Don't worry, the EM drive will be added to the long long list of perpetual motion / free energy / free momentum / anti-gravity / etc systems that get proposed every few years.

If NASA's experiment had shown a result, labs around the world would be going crazy to replicate it. Do you see that happening? Is anyone making efforts to replicate this? No...

Anyway, I won't comment any more on this. You're lacking even a first-year physics course understanding of this situation and you're not trying to learn and you're eager to believe something that no one else who is a professional physicist believes. Either you're wrong or the entire world of physics is wrong. Which one is it?

Offline

#41 2016-12-29 21:46:06

radiobirdman
Silver Stacker
From: the cuntry
Registered: 2011-04-25
Posts: 2,238
Trades :   59 

Re: Will Platinum Demand Tank With Move Toward Electric Vehicles?

BullionQuestions wrote:

You're lacking even a first-year physics course understanding of this situation and you're not trying to learn and you're eager to believe something that no one else who is a professional physicist believes. Either you're wrong or the entire world of physics is wrong. Which one is it?

In Australia they make you watch this bloke in pre school or did when I was young

Have been trying to give ffstacker a few tips on the basics, with a few vids
But she thinks we're all silly old dumb f$cks

Offline

#42 2016-12-29 21:49:41

sfstacker
Member
Registered: 2016-10-25
Posts: 308
Trades :   

Re: Will Platinum Demand Tank With Move Toward Electric Vehicles?

BullionQuestions wrote:

First, I'm not going to refer to electromagnetic waves. I'll refer to them as photons because it's much easier to visualize what's going on if you think of them as particles with momentum, like tiny bullets. The wave-like nature of photons isn't important in any of this and it confuses it.

sfstacker wrote:
BullionQuestions wrote:

The EM drive has energy going in, just like all the others, but nothing is coming out. There's no propellant. That's the problem.

Ah ok. That's actually not a problem. When the electromagnetic wave in generated and it moves through a vacuum it acts as if it has mass by transferring its momentum to the object it hits.  There's no kickback from this generation of energy. It's a radiation energy.

That's a little bit confused. Energy generation doesn't have any kickback (recoil) but emitting a photon most certainly does have recoil. But you are right, the photon transfers momentum to the object it hits.

sfstacker wrote:

That's why the in the pioneer anomaly it was seen to give the satellite a spin and not a spin that was counter spun by a kickback.

Not sure that I full understand what you are saying, but in the Pioneer anomaly, there most certainly were "kickbacks" (recoil). It had a hot area somewhere, that was emitting photons, and emitting a photon generates kickback. These photons left the Pioneer spacecraft, and so momentum was conserved.

No physicist in the world thinks radiation pressure or thermal recoil is controversial. It's long long accepted standard physics. It's simply, photons have momentum and momentum is conserved. Photons are acting just like tiny bullets and Pioneer experiences recoil, same as if it's shooting off tiny bullets.

sfstacker wrote:

I don't see why you see this as a problem. It's literally the same concept between the pioneer satellite and the EMDrive. It just happens to be that the EMDrive uses microwaves and the pioneer anomaly had to do with a thermal photon.

No, the difference which you are not understanding is that Pioneer's thermal photons go off into space, whereas in the EM drive, they bounce off the walls of the cavity.

If I'm on my frictionless skates, and I have a small rocket, and I light it, I'll start moving. If I have that same small rocket, and I enclose it in a box, I will not move. Do you understand?

sfstacker wrote:

And you can't argue "its different because they're different waves" because they're the still the same thing. Just at a different frequency and wavelength.

Right, absolutely, microwave photons and thermal photons are the same thing, just different wavelength and energy.

sfstacker wrote:

I don't think you've followed the most up to date news on the EMDrive. It's already been tested and peer reviewed by NASA.

It was tested and they found a very tiny effect. It's small enough it could be experimental error. Great. Replicate it a few times. Again, if the effect is real, we need to re-write all of physics, going back to Newton's time, so this needs to be replicated several times before we do that.

sfstacker wrote:

It generates thrust and a piece of technology we can reference where the same thing happened was with the Pioneer Satellite.

Look, no scientist in the world thinks the Pioneer anomaly is controversial. There's no controversy about it. It took them a while to figure out where the thermal source was, but once they did, it worked by a mechanism (thermal recoil) which is accepted by all of science.

In contrast, the EM drive is considered to be bogus by almost every scientist who is even willing to discuss it.

Surely, there must be some difference between these two things, if one of them is accepted by everyone in the field, and the other is thoroughly rejected by everyone in the field? Either you know a lot more physics than they do, or you know a lot less physics than they do. Which one do you think it is?

And I'm not a physicist at all, but I do know enough to understand thermal recoil and conservation of momentum. I think you need to do some basic reading about conservation of momentum. There are some good videos, such as: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vdk5J-9S0I

sfstacker wrote:

So again, I'm still not sure where your confusion with the EMDrive lies when it's been tested already its technology referenced in something we previously studied.

It's only been replicated once, by NASA, at a level which is so small that it's probably noise.

sfstacker wrote:

ANYWAY....given that all of this is true that's why I worry them perfecting the EMDrive. It already generates thrust. Now if they can find a way to make the energy exchange even greater and produce an engine faster than any we have now then surely they can scale it down to small industrial/manufacturing purposes like using a 3D printer to configure atoms. I just hope not in my lifetime.

Don't worry, the EM drive will be added to the long long list of perpetual motion / free energy / free momentum / anti-gravity / etc systems that get proposed every few years.

If NASA's experiment had shown a result, labs around the world would be going crazy to replicate it. Do you see that happening? Is anyone making efforts to replicate this? No...

Anyway, I won't comment any more on this. You're lacking even a first-year physics course understanding of this situation and you're not trying to learn and you're eager to believe something that no one else who is a professional physicist believes. Either you're wrong or the entire world of physics is wrong. Which one is it?

I don't know why you're still discussing this. It's already been tested, confirmed as working, and seen as not significant enough to further test or manufacture. You've also been given a reference as to where the same concept already has been observed in the Pioneer satellite. I don't know how you can sit there with a straight face and tell me it doesn't work when another piece of machinery displays the same properties. You can argue that the machines are different. However, you can't argue that the laws wont work as proposed with the EMDrive when they've been seen to work on the Pioneer satellite.

At that point you're then choosing to ignore a fact because it doesn't fit in with how you believe the EMDrive should work. Based on everything you've written in your past few posts YOU and I both know you're too smart to think that way so why are you choosing to do so?

Last edited by sfstacker (2016-12-29 21:55:41)

Offline

#43 2016-12-30 05:54:24

BullionQuestions
Member
Registered: 2016-12-26
Posts: 20
Trades :   

Re: Will Platinum Demand Tank With Move Toward Electric Vehicles?

Ok... look...

The Pioneer Anomaly is not really an anomaly anymore. They figured out it was thermal recoil, in other words, it's Newton's Third Law of Motion, just like every other rocket, solar sail, gun recoil, ever in history. It's 100% understood by established physics. Every physicist in the world understands how the Pioneer Anomaly works: it's shooting out photons, which are like tiny bullets, which have moment, and which create thrust. Simple!

The EM Drive does not send anything out. It creates photons, but instead of go out, they are trapped within a chamber (the "resonant cavity"). The EM Drive emits a photon, causing thrust, but then that photon hits the opposite wall of the chamber and creates an equal and opposite thrust, and the net result is - no thrust. Just like turning on a fan inside an enclosed box. It consumes energy but does not generate any thrust. If the EM drive works, it violates conservation of momentum.

You are simply ignoring the difference between Pioneer and the EM drive: one is an open system, and one is enclosed. Hey if you cut a hole in the EM drive, so that it's an open system, it would work exactly the same way the Pioneer anomaly works, except with microwaves instead of thermal photons, but the effect and the physics would be the same.

It's already been tested, confirmed as working, and seen as not significant enough to further test or manufacture.

Anything which violates the laws of physics would absolutely be studied. It would suddenly be the only thing physicists could talk about. They wouldn't be able to think about anything else for the next ten or twenty years. When Einstein proposed general relativity, the effects were so small that they are almost beyond our ability to detect, and they have absolutely no practical use in today's world, and yet governments and physicists spent decades and billions of dollars on devices such as gravity wave detectors and Gravity Probe B and others to measure these effects, because hey, when you discover a new fundamental law of physics, you test it, no matter how hard or expensive that test is, you do it, and then you replicate it again 100 times.

Violating conservation of momentum would be BIGGER than any of Einstein's discoveries. Einstein didn't undo Newtonian physics, he just showed that they need to be adjusted and speeds close to the speed of light. The EM drive would actually undo Newtonian physics, forcing us to rewrite the last 400+ years of physics theories. There would be no bigger science discovery in any of our lifetimes. Again, if it's a real effect, of producing thrust without conserving momentum (nothing is leaving the chamber), there would be almost nothing else of interest in the world of physics today.

But physicists are all completely ignoring this because it's just another anti-gravity device.

Thomas Townsend Brown invented a similar electromagnetic anti-gravity device in the 1920s, and  Eugene Podkletnov invented one using electromagnetism and superconductors in 1992. Neither of those could be replicated of course. They're both very similar in claims to the EM Drive.

There is a reward of one million Euros, called the Göde Award, for a working anti-gravity device. The EM Drive could easily win that award if they can demonstrate it. Hey the published design of the EM drive is really simple. I could build it myself for $50k and collect the million Euros. Except I wouldn't, I would just be out $50k. I would be super-happy to loan anyone here $100k to build the EM drive and win the Göde Award and collect one million Euros. The terms of my loan are, you don't owe me anything if you win the Göde Award award, but you owe me $200k if you don't win it. I'm absolutely serious and I can easily come up with $100k. I wish someone would take me up on this, although I require some way of collecting my $200k if, by some crazy chance the EM drive doesn't do its job.

Here's where you apply for the million Euros: http://www.goede-stiftung.org/en/goede-award/

Offline

#44 2016-12-30 07:24:38

BullionQuestions
Member
Registered: 2016-12-26
Posts: 20
Trades :   

Re: Will Platinum Demand Tank With Move Toward Electric Vehicles?

Correction: I said there's no practical use for general relativity. I then wondered if that was really true so I did a search. I was wrong. Apparently the GPS satellite system operates at high enough precision that general relativity effects need to be taken into account for it to work properly. Probably some other high precision timing / satellite systems would be sensitive to general relativity effects.

Offline

  • Index
  • » Platinum
  • » Will Platinum Demand Tank With Move Toward Electric Vehicles?

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB