Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10  (Read 210071 times)

Online flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
  • France
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 862
Dear Phil (aka TheTraveller): you went to China for a long time to monitor your large TE013 spherical end EmDrive Mark 3 or quite approaching build, as well as the KISS thruster previously aimed for 3rd party independent tests.

You said a few days ago elsewhere that the KISS thruster is now cancelled:
Quote from: TheTraveller
KISS Thruster project is abandoned. Sorry to say but there is no such thing as a low cost and simple to build EmDrive. My bad mistake.

And you told incredible positive results with a high end spherical end build:
Quote from: TheTraveller
Achieved 5N/kW with 50g thrust using 100W rf. Non cryo and non superconducting.

But now you are again postponing your program, saying you will instead focus on TE011 cavities with very large and very curved big ends:
Quote from: TheTraveller
Believe TE011 mode is the way to go as it increases the number of end plate adsorb & emit events.
Quote from: TheTraveller
My work is now focused on TE011 cavities with big end plates as the modelling shows they can deliver higher Q and higher number of transits.

Have yet to build a TE011 spherical end plate cavity as building the highly curved small and big end plates to a optical tolerance of 1/10 wave accuracy is not an easy nor low cost task.

It is really time now to show us a picture of one of your EmDrive builds recently made in China when you were there, monitoring build process then conducting tests.

I fear nobody, including all of your supporters, will listen to you anymore if you don't publish a single little piece of evidence besides written claims. And this would be perfectly logic and normal.

Offline ThatOtherGuy

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 133
  • Liked: 63
  • Likes Given: 21
A somewhat "dry" approach, but I agree, TT made a whole lot of claims in time, but he never supported them with documents or images, now, I don't think that showing some images of his prototypes (or the test rig) could violate whatever shady "trade secret" so, given the bold claims he made, I think it's time for him to show us some evidence, otherwise we may conclude that all his claims are just a balloon of fried air

Offline OttO

  • Member
  • Posts: 81
  • France
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 10
On arxiv today:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.04999
An improved method to measure microwave induced impulsive forces with a torsion balance or weighing scale



EDIT Added from a few days ago
https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.08117
A New Torsion Pendulum for Gravitational Reference Sensor Technology Development
« Last Edit: 06/19/2017 12:23 PM by OttO »

Offline Chrochne

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 164
  • Liked: 99
  • Likes Given: 221
On arxiv today:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.04999
An improved method to measure microwave induced impulsive forces with a torsion balance or weighing scale



EDIT Added from a few days ago
https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.08117
A New Torsion Pendulum for Gravitational Reference Sensor Technology Development

Author is Peter Lauwer. He posted this on page 14 of this thread.
« Last Edit: 06/19/2017 01:21 PM by Chrochne »

Online flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
  • France
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 862
Funny Business at the ArXiv
 
McCulloch is not the only physicist facing this kind of omerta from arXiv anonymous administrators. I know others. Although publishing in peer-review academic, non predatory access journals, they have in common being alternate candidates to standard ΛCDM concordance cosmological model. It's a topsy-turvy world: the arXiv, which used to be a preprint server, now acts like a peer-review postprint club, at least in the field of cosmology.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5717
  • USA
  • Liked: 5667
  • Likes Given: 5049
Funny Business at the ArXiv
 
McCulloch is not the only physicist facing this kind of omerta from arXiv anonymous administrators. I know others. Although publishing in peer-review academic, non predatory access journals, they have in common being alternate candidates to standard ΛCDM concordance cosmological model. It's a topsy-turvy world: the arXiv, which used to be a preprint server, now acts like a peer-review postprint club, at least in the field of cosmology.
Scientists with breakthrough ideas have to break through and work within the peer review system, just like a patent clerk (Einstein, who in 1906 was promoted to Technical Examiner Second Class) in Switzerland was able to break through more than 100 years ago.  It was even more difficult at that time than it is now to get published and to be heard.  In the end, if one has a real scientific breakthrough it will be known, and in time, be accepted by the peer-review process.

At a time that was more difficult to get paper published, when he was a patent clerk and a young father, in 1905, Einstein wrote five articles and had them published (going through difficult peer review -his paper had to be communicated-) in the prestigious Annalen der Physik (Annals of Physics), including his paper of special relativity http://users.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kleinert/files/1905_17_891-921.pdf  (which broke with the -at the time- practically sacred Newtonian ideas, valiantly claiming that the speed of light is constant).
« Last Edit: 06/19/2017 05:36 PM by Rodal »

Offline RERT

Dr. Rodal - by silver plating one end of a copper piece, one can increase asymmetry and simultaneously raise Q - if you accept that Q rises as resistance falls.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5717
  • USA
  • Liked: 5667
  • Likes Given: 5049
Dr. Rodal - by silver plating one end of a copper piece, one can increase asymmetry and simultaneously raise Q - if you accept that Q rises as resistance falls.
Yes, but it is only a 6% difference with copper as I wrote previously, and silver is expensive.  If one wants to do it you only need to silver plate the inner surface of an electromagnetically resonant cavity.  There is no useful purpose in silver plating the outside surface of an electromagnetically resonant cavity, so when this is done, the silver coating and mirror finishing is done on the inner surfaces, not the exterior surfaces. 
« Last Edit: 06/19/2017 03:55 PM by Rodal »

Online flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
  • France
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 862
Funny Business at the ArXiv
 
McCulloch is not the only physicist facing this kind of omerta from arXiv anonymous administrators. I know others. Although publishing in peer-review academic, non predatory access journals, they have in common being alternate candidates to standard ΛCDM concordance cosmological model. It's a topsy-turvy world: the arXiv, which used to be a preprint server, now acts like a peer-review postprint club, at least in the field of cosmology.
Scientists with breakthrough ideas have to break through and work within the peer review system, just like a patent clerk (Einstein) in Switzerland was able to break through more than 100 years ago.  It was even more difficult at that time than it is now to get published and to be heard.  In the end, if one has a real scientific breakthrough it will be known, and in time, be accepted by the peer-review process.

Except Einstein published his founding papers in 1905 in German in Annalen der Physik, a journal with a high acceptance rate (90-95%) with no anonymous referees, but identified editors he could discuss with.

About peer review, Max Planck said:
"To shun much more the reproach of having suppressed strange opinions
than that of having been too gentle in evaluating them."


And the publication of the foundational paper describing the double helical structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953 would have been jeopardised in the context of the classic review system as we know it, because of its speculative nature.*

I maintain that about the lambda-CDM model, all those anonymous referees who are also the same physicists who publish their papers among the same journals have de facto a conflict of interest when facing provoking new ideas that could potentially destroy the thousand of papers already published and on which their career is based upon. According to this, something is rotten in the state of modern science.

Do you know that in order to be able to publish one solid paper based on general relativity (no crackpot theory) but involving a model alternative to the lambda-CDM model, with no conceptual nor mathematical error, with a good correlation to observations, with predictions, you have to make about 50 attempts to various journals? Do you know that 99% of those attempts are refused with the terse sentence "Sorry, we don't publish speculative works" in less than three minutes after the mail has been submitted, meaning the work has not even been read? Why, in your opinion, Heidi Fearn had to resort to a paid open-access journal to manage to publish her Gravitational Absorber Theory about Mach effects in general relativity which – and you know this very well, as I even think you are the one who coined this new name for the non-steady-state Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravity – has no conceptual error and implies many breakthroughs? (just one example among many others)


*Source: Hate the peer-review process? Einstein did too
« Last Edit: 06/19/2017 04:09 PM by flux_capacitor »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5717
  • USA
  • Liked: 5667
  • Likes Given: 5049
...
Except Einstein published his founding papers in 1905 in German in Annalen der Physik, a journal with a high acceptance rate (90-95%) with no anonymous referees, but identified editors he could discuss with.
...
Annalen der Physik was a most prestigious journal, and papers had to be communicated by experts in the field.  Yes, I certainly agree that the peer review process was very different at that time (1905) than it is now, (and later on while in the US Einstein became upset at the peer review process) but the number of people working in Physics, and the number of journals was also much smaller than it is now.  There has been an explosive number of journals since then, and I for one am very thankful for the peer review process for "cutting down the noise".   :)
« Last Edit: 06/19/2017 04:10 PM by Rodal »

Online flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
  • France
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 862
There has been an explosive number of journals since then, and I for one am very thankful for the peer review process for "cutting down the noise".   :)

The system is indeed so effective that it cuts down both ends of the Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution of works in cosmology: the crackpot noise on the left that wanted to surreptitiously infiltrate its broken concepts, and also any new innovative upcoming revolution on the right, much too quicker for our epoch. Just fit your career within the standard model at the average rate and everything will be alright :)

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
  • Liked: 73
  • Likes Given: 123
...
Except Einstein published his founding papers in 1905 in German in Annalen der Physik, a journal with a high acceptance rate (90-95%) with no anonymous referees, but identified editors he could discuss with.
...
Annalen der Physik was a most prestigious journal, and papers had to be communicated by experts in the field.  Yes, I certainly agree that the peer review process was very different at that time (1905) than it is now, (and later on while in the US Einstein became upset at the peer review process) but the number of people working in Physics, and the number of journals was also much smaller than it is now.  There has been an explosive number of journals since then, and I for one am very thankful for the peer review process for "cutting down the noise".   :)

I think it's clear that to the vast majority of scientists, EMDrive, MEGA drives, Mach effects and all such attendant ideas such as propellent-less propulsion are considered noise if not crackpot ideas. These ideas have to fight very very hard for recognition. Those here that do the work in these fields are hero's.

Offline tchernik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 224
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 525

I think it's clear that to the vast majority of scientists, EMDrive, MEGA drives, Mach effects and all such attendant ideas such as propellent-less propulsion are considered noise if not crackpot ideas. These ideas have to fight very very hard for recognition. Those here that do the work in these fields are hero's.

As long as they have empirical evidence and the scientific method (based on open exchange of information and independent replications) on their side, yes, they are.

But failing that, such 'heroic' people would only be strongly deluded -or just persistent- crackpots.

I think both the Emdrive and MEGA thrusters so far fulfill the above requirements for being incipient science, with their replication information freely available and experiments now being out of the control of any single individual.

But it doesn't make them totally free of the pitfalls of cargo cult science. Like people seeing (or asserting to see) things that aren't there, because of over-eagerness or the simple wish for them to be true.

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
  • Liked: 73
  • Likes Given: 123

I think it's clear that to the vast majority of scientists, EMDrive, MEGA drives, Mach effects and all such attendant ideas such as propellent-less propulsion are considered noise if not crackpot ideas. These ideas have to fight very very hard for recognition. Those here that do the work in these fields are hero's.

As long as they have empirical evidence and the scientific method (based on open exchange of information and independent replications) on their side, yes, they are.

But failing that, such 'heroic' people would only be strongly deluded -or just persistent- crackpots.

I think both the Emdrive and MEGA thrusters so far fulfill the above requirements for being incipient science, with their replication information freely available and experiments now being out of the control of any single individual.

But it doesn't make them totally free of the pitfalls of cargo cult science. Like people seeing (or asserting to see) things that aren't there, because of over-eagerness or the simple wish for them to be true.

It's funny that Feynman, who popularized that term, cargo cult science, built his reputation on processes that one cannot observe, of which there is only indirect evidence.

Offline R.W. Keyes

  • Member
  • Posts: 65
  • Massachusetts
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 42
Some notes on my progress towards construction:

When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. On the flip side of that nugget of wisdom, being adaptive gets the job done. In my case the hammer is a 3D printer of good quality and size, so I will be putting my thoughts into using it. Without going too much into the realm of plastics engineering, let me just say that for purposes other than EMdrive I am going to be printing in a much stiffer, tougher, higher-temp plastic than is normally used. I will be printing in Ultem 1010. This should enable me to overcome any issues with temperature and stiffness with the cheaper, more common ABS (but at a higher cost).

Then there is the plating issue. While electroless plating of ABS is well documented, the same can't be said of Ultem. I'll have to get good at plating Ultem before I can dive into making a cavity out of it.

Why not silver? Yes, it's only 6% more conductive. It's more expensive, but prohibitively so? I checked yesterday and the spot price of silver is $16.69/Ounce (I know I'd be paying more retail). Plating can produce a very thin layer, making the most out of that ounce, depending on surface area and plating thickness. Also, Plating can be restricted to the useful interior surface only, but I may want to plate the outside for better heat dissipation. And, speaking of heat, it is not just the increase in Q that the use of silver provides, but also of course reduction in waste heat, which not only causes measurement issues but could also deform lesser plastics such as ABS, or even, under high power, Ultem.

In other news, my two LimeSDRs have arrived. I'll be doing some VNA tests on my existing 2.4 gHz antennas to get a feel for its capabilities before I tackle any EMdrive cavitities. Which I should do anyhow, as I have too many 2.4 gHz omnis and should sell off most of them (contact me if you are interested).

And yes, I plan to do the plating myself. I've looked at electroless and it doesn't seem too difficult or dangerous.

I plan on having ironed out the difficulties with plating of copper and /or silver on Ultem in a few months. This will enable me to not only try out my own cavity designs, but also take orders from others for their designs. I can't give exact figure on the cost yet, but my Ultem should be much cheaper than what is currently being offered in the 3D printing market.

Other tidbits: skeptical but not dismissive of TT's claims, waiting for his paper & patent. Also, Arxiv's treatment of McCullough is bad but not atypical.  I'll leave out my rants on the deficiencies of the current practice of science.

Best,
RWK

Offline TheTraveller

Guys,

Interesting breadcrumb from Roger.

Who is the US company, AIM, that has detailed knowledge of EmDrive theory AND has solved the EmDrive high Q acceleration issue?

Why has Roger decided to out AIM?


"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.”
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline TheTraveller

Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.

Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.
« Last Edit: 06/19/2017 11:09 PM by TheTraveller »
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.”
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Online flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
  • France
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 862
Guys,

Interesting breadcrumb from Roger.

Who is the US company, AIM, that has detailed knowledge of EmDrive theory AND has solved the EmDrive high Q acceleration issue?

Why has Roger decided to out AIM?

Maybe AIM Aerospace Inc.?
But this is a firm specialized in designing and manufacturing composite substructures for aircraft wings and cabin interior furnitures, notably for Boeing's planes and military customers, as well as UK Ministry of Defence and BAE Systems.


EDIT: Identity of the firm given by TT in a following post.

An answer to my previous message about showing us some pictures of your Chinese trip?
« Last Edit: 06/20/2017 01:10 PM by flux_capacitor »

Offline masterharper1082

  • Member
  • Posts: 42
  • Onalaska, WI USA
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 7
Some notes on my progress towards construction:

When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. On the flip side of that nugget of wisdom, being adaptive gets the job done. In my case the hammer is a 3D printer of good quality and size, so I will be putting my thoughts into using it. Without going too much into the realm of plastics engineering, let me just say that for purposes other than EMdrive I am going to be printing in a much stiffer, tougher, higher-temp plastic than is normally used. I will be printing in Ultem 1010. This should enable me to overcome any issues with temperature and stiffness with the cheaper, more common ABS (but at a higher cost).

Then there is the plating issue. While electroless plating of ABS is well documented, the same can't be said of Ultem. I'll have to get good at plating Ultem before I can dive into making a cavity out of it.

Why not silver? Yes, it's only 6% more conductive. It's more expensive, but prohibitively so? I checked yesterday and the spot price of silver is $16.69/Ounce (I know I'd be paying more retail). Plating can produce a very thin layer, making the most out of that ounce, depending on surface area and plating thickness. Also, Plating can be restricted to the useful interior surface only, but I may want to plate the outside for better heat dissipation. And, speaking of heat, it is not just the increase in Q that the use of silver provides, but also of course reduction in waste heat, which not only causes measurement issues but could also deform lesser plastics such as ABS, or even, under high power, Ultem.

In other news, my two LimeSDRs have arrived. I'll be doing some VNA tests on my existing 2.4 gHz antennas to get a feel for its capabilities before I tackle any EMdrive cavitities. Which I should do anyhow, as I have too many 2.4 gHz omnis and should sell off most of them (contact me if you are interested).

And yes, I plan to do the plating myself. I've looked at electroless and it doesn't seem too difficult or dangerous.

I plan on having ironed out the difficulties with plating of copper and /or silver on Ultem in a few months. This will enable me to not only try out my own cavity designs, but also take orders from others for their designs. I can't give exact figure on the cost yet, but my Ultem should be much cheaper than what is currently being offered in the 3D printing market.

Other tidbits: skeptical but not dismissive of TT's claims, waiting for his paper & patent. Also, Arxiv's treatment of McCullough is bad but not atypical.  I'll leave out my rants on the deficiencies of the current practice of science.

Best,
RWK
I don't think you should bother with silver plating the outside. The convective thermal resistance dominates the overall thermal resistance (convective & conductive). You will actually slightly *increase* the conductive thermal resistance by doing a thin silver plating on the outside (due to increased path length), and more importantly, you will virtually eliminate any radiation to the environment.  A better solution is a thin layer of lamp black paint. You will slightly increase the conductive thermal resistance (bad), but significantly improve the emissivity at long wavelength IR radiation caused by heating the test article (good).

mh

Offline spupeng7

...
Except Einstein published his founding papers in 1905 in German in Annalen der Physik, a journal with a high acceptance rate (90-95%) with no anonymous referees, but identified editors he could discuss with.
...
Annalen der Physik was a most prestigious journal, and papers had to be communicated by experts in the field.  Yes, I certainly agree that the peer review process was very different at that time (1905) than it is now, (and later on while in the US Einstein became upset at the peer review process) but the number of people working in Physics, and the number of journals was also much smaller than it is now.  There has been an explosive number of journals since then, and I for one am very thankful for the peer review process for "cutting down the noise".   :)

... and for the likes of myself who want to publish experimental philosophical notions in the hope of exposure and/or feedback, there is viXra.org who have allowed me to reach an audience of a thousand since 2014.

Their bar is lower and their tolerance of amateurish presentation allows us amateurs access to something as similar as it needs to be, to publication under peer review. jmn..
Optimism equals opportunity.

Tags: