Quote from: Rodal on 05/03/2015 01:09 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 05/03/2015 12:59 pm...I'm hopeful we can get Mr. Shawyer to participate here IF folks are civil.I would not bet on that. The uncivil level of attack displayed by several new posters in this thread during the last few days has been such that I would not be surprised if Star-Drive decides not to post any further Eagleworks test information here. These uncivil attacks are launched by anonymous posters that hide behind monickers without ever revealing their real names. I very much doubt that these uncivil posters would dare to express themselves this way, face-to-face in a public presentation, as in an AIAA meeting, for example. I very much doubt that they would express themselves that way in writing if they would do it under their real name. It is certainly conduct never seen at professional meetings or in academia.I must say I'm rather perplexed and puzzled by the sudden hostility that some of the newer participants demonstrate...There is absolutely nothing wrong with being skeptic but i thought that curiosity was one of the key characteristics of being a scientist/researcher/engineer. There is no better way to make progress then to have a thesis and antithesis collide in a civil manner.I really do not understand what can be obtained or achieved by aggressively attacking people or their ideas. If you aim to disprove a theory then all you need to do is mass enough evidence that their theory is flawed.Personally I find it still too early trying to come up with theories until the effect has been validated or not.For me the most compelling evidence so far is still the 2007 rotating Demonstrator video by R Shawyer. All we can do now is wait for Eagleworks to duplicate that test (and improve on some of the possible setup flaws, like hot jet exhaust nullification).If the test fails, then the credibility of the device will get a serious hit...If the test succeeds, it will most likely be a turning point in the research (and funding) of the EM drive.So, instead of shooting lead at each other, why don't we just all relax and be supportive to the Eagleworks team so they can finalize that crucial test by July?Pro or contra, you'll have your answer by July...That said, it was to foresee that giving more publicity to the research through the NASA publication article, would attract some of the most aggressive opinionated people inhere.On the positive side however, it also attracted some very much needed new participants that have clearly high level qualifications... (be them pro or contra, it doesn't matter)I suppose it is up to the mods to weed out the offensive ones...As for mr Shawyer, i think it is already obvious that he will not engage into the discussion here, partially because of the engagements he already has with other parties, as he explained in that private conversation, partially because he had his share of abusive language in the past........eagerly anticipating the next , high power test from Eagleworks...
Quote from: Mulletron on 05/03/2015 12:59 pm...I'm hopeful we can get Mr. Shawyer to participate here IF folks are civil.I would not bet on that. The uncivil level of attack displayed by several new posters in this thread during the last few days has been such that I would not be surprised if Star-Drive decides not to post any further Eagleworks test information here. These uncivil attacks are launched by anonymous posters that hide behind monickers without ever revealing their real names. I very much doubt that these uncivil posters would dare to express themselves this way, face-to-face in a public presentation, as in an AIAA meeting, for example. I very much doubt that they would express themselves that way in writing if they would do it under their real name. It is certainly conduct never seen at professional meetings or in academia.
...I'm hopeful we can get Mr. Shawyer to participate here IF folks are civil.
The problem is I predict that Eagleworks will succeed and still nobody will be impressed. Remember cold fusion? Excess heat beyond chemistry... replicated... 10x energy input... 100x energy input... the thing produced so much heat that it melted down in the middle of the night.. heat in palladium... nickle... thin films... neutrons... maybe it isn't fusion but something else... zero point energy...Yet year after year nobody was producing a commercial product, viable theory or convincing demo. For some the only explanation was a conspiracy. Anyone remember the "hot fusion (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words)." preventing research into cold fusion in order to protect their programs? I bet Jed Rothwell is still chasing cold fusion. I do know that ICCF-19 was held last month.Emdrive has all the same properties. An extraordinary claim much more so than cold fusion in fact. A theory that makes no sense. People making up new theories to fit bad experiments. Other people day dreaming about how we can build a real spaceship now. Arguments over how to obtain funding. Free bubble up and rainbow stew.I'm sorry. I don't mean to be rude, unpleasant or confrontational but sometimes reality is unpleasant. In time most will give up on the EMdrive. Some will stay and probably drift into conspiracy theories. A trickle of new results will continue to excite a younger crowd. As a result the EM drive will never succeed and never ever ever go away.Talk to me in ten years and see if I'm not right. I hope I'm wrong.
QuoteShawyer developed a theory and built a device to test it. If his theory is nonsense then the first conclusion we should reach is that his test results are nonsense. Either that or he is the luckiest person in the world. If he cannot see and address the violation of Galilean relativity then I wouldn't trust him to test a light bulb.This is wrong in so many different ways I don't know where to start...
Shawyer developed a theory and built a device to test it. If his theory is nonsense then the first conclusion we should reach is that his test results are nonsense. Either that or he is the luckiest person in the world. If he cannot see and address the violation of Galilean relativity then I wouldn't trust him to test a light bulb.
I was surprised to see that the experiment results have not confirmed a null result yet. While I hope they do turn up a useful propulsion system, my money is still on a null result. While this thread seems to have produced useful discussion, it seems that it is still being cluttered with references to Shawyer's theory. I have a physics background up through intermediate quantum mechanics, with just a touch of particle physics. I would like to answer some of the questions regarding Shawyer's theory so the discussion can move on to theories that are at least plausible such as the White's QV model.Quote from: KittyMoo on 05/03/2015 04:27 pmQuoteShawyer developed a theory and built a device to test it. If his theory is nonsense then the first conclusion we should reach is that his test results are nonsense. Either that or he is the luckiest person in the world. If he cannot see and address the violation of Galilean relativity then I wouldn't trust him to test a light bulb.This is wrong in so many different ways I don't know where to start...By "this is wrong" are you referring to the emdrive theory paper by Shawyer? A partial list of things he demonstrates he does not understand in that paper include:-the principle of relativity (the foundation of special relativity)-how to apply velocity transforms in special relativity-how to do a force balance (he ignores the slanted walls)-the definition of an open vs closed systemI don't see how a person who fails at basic physics in this way could actually design an accurate experiment or correctly calculate the resulting forces.Note that ppnl's post used the word "nonsense" not "wrong". Plenty of respectable physicists come up with wrong theories. In this case the theory is complete nonsense and demonstrates a lack of understanding*. In this case the experiment results cannot be trusted, hence the other labs attempting to replicate the results.If anyone needs clarification on what exactly is wrong with Shawyer's paper, let me know, so we can get this out of the way.*A less charitable assumption would be that this is deliberate, but "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."
By "this is wrong" are you referring to the emdrive theory paper by Shawyer?
Quote from: PaulF on 05/03/2015 12:36 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 05/03/2015 12:24 pmQuote from: PaulF on 05/03/2015 12:12 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 05/03/2015 12:05 pmNever really thought about this before, but is light in a cavity resonator gravitationally redshifted?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshiftDo you mean natural (i.e. earth) or artificial gravity that could be generated by space-time warping or other quantum voodoo?I mean, if you had an Emdrive sitting the table (large diameter down) here on Earth, and it was energized by feeding RF into a slot/probe located at the large diameter. Would an observer at the small end notice a red shift?Would seem to me that if the thrust produced is horizontally, gravity can't have effect on it, besides bending it a teeny weeny bit. Time dilation at beginning and endpoint are same (same distance from gravity well), so in effect 0.Vertically you could measure it, but the redshift from earth's gravity is already extremely difficult to measure, but if you could you could then detract that from the redshift value measured in the cavity.Quoteso in effect 0.So nonzero? Say outside the bandwidth of a very narrow bandwidth cavity?
Quote from: Mulletron on 05/03/2015 12:24 pmQuote from: PaulF on 05/03/2015 12:12 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 05/03/2015 12:05 pmNever really thought about this before, but is light in a cavity resonator gravitationally redshifted?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshiftDo you mean natural (i.e. earth) or artificial gravity that could be generated by space-time warping or other quantum voodoo?I mean, if you had an Emdrive sitting the table (large diameter down) here on Earth, and it was energized by feeding RF into a slot/probe located at the large diameter. Would an observer at the small end notice a red shift?Would seem to me that if the thrust produced is horizontally, gravity can't have effect on it, besides bending it a teeny weeny bit. Time dilation at beginning and endpoint are same (same distance from gravity well), so in effect 0.Vertically you could measure it, but the redshift from earth's gravity is already extremely difficult to measure, but if you could you could then detract that from the redshift value measured in the cavity.
Quote from: PaulF on 05/03/2015 12:12 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 05/03/2015 12:05 pmNever really thought about this before, but is light in a cavity resonator gravitationally redshifted?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshiftDo you mean natural (i.e. earth) or artificial gravity that could be generated by space-time warping or other quantum voodoo?I mean, if you had an Emdrive sitting the table (large diameter down) here on Earth, and it was energized by feeding RF into a slot/probe located at the large diameter. Would an observer at the small end notice a red shift?
Quote from: Mulletron on 05/03/2015 12:05 pmNever really thought about this before, but is light in a cavity resonator gravitationally redshifted?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshiftDo you mean natural (i.e. earth) or artificial gravity that could be generated by space-time warping or other quantum voodoo?
Never really thought about this before, but is light in a cavity resonator gravitationally redshifted?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
so in effect 0.
Ok guys, so a lot of new people into this thread, but this thread is mainly for the development of the EM Drive. We knew this would happen, so we have a new "Entry Level" thread for opening questions and general questions.I've moved the last few pages of new members asking questions into that thread, so if you posted here and can't see it, don't worry, it's in this thread.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.0Posting this notice as some sites are linking to this thread and not the section or the article, so people are thinking this is the only thread on this. Remember to use the above link and allow this thread to continue with the Eaglework folk and others updating progress.
I really like the Shawyer Demonstrator device (attached). As an engineer I can appreciate designing, building and testing it plus the hours and money involved. It is a serious and professionally built device. It is not a toy but a real working thruster that can be taken anywhere to have additional tests done.Maybe if EW asked Shawyer nicely, they could test it? At least then they have an established test data base and working device to work from.
There's other perfectly sane ways of interacting with the QV which have been posted literally a thousand times in THIS forum over and over again since October.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/03/2015 01:21 pmI really like the Shawyer Demonstrator device (attached). As an engineer I can appreciate designing, building and testing it plus the hours and money involved. It is a serious and professionally built device. It is not a toy but a real working thruster that can be taken anywhere to have additional tests done.Maybe if EW asked Shawyer nicely, they could test it? At least then they have an established test data base and working device to work from.Why doesn't Sawyer just bring it to Glenn Research Center to test there? They already offered to test the device if it can produce more than 100 micro-newton, and Shawyer's device is purportedly well above that.
Quote from: SH on 05/03/2015 07:50 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 05/03/2015 01:21 pmI really like the Shawyer Demonstrator device (attached). As an engineer I can appreciate designing, building and testing it plus the hours and money involved. It is a serious and professionally built device. It is not a toy but a real working thruster that can be taken anywhere to have additional tests done.Maybe if EW asked Shawyer nicely, they could test it? At least then they have an established test data base and working device to work from.Why doesn't Sawyer just bring it to Glenn Research Center to test there? They already offered to test the device if it can produce more than 100 micro-newton, and Shawyer's device is purportedly well above that.I also proposed EW to test either the SPF Demonstrator device or the SPF Flight Thruster (which Boeing should have sitting on a shelf) which it seems is considered a "High Fidelity Test Article"
Quote from: SH on 05/03/2015 07:50 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 05/03/2015 01:21 pmI really like the Shawyer Demonstrator device (attached). As an engineer I can appreciate designing, building and testing it plus the hours and money involved. It is a serious and professionally built device. It is not a toy but a real working thruster that can be taken anywhere to have additional tests done.Maybe if EW asked Shawyer nicely, they could test it? At least then they have an established test data base and working device to work from.Why doesn't Sawyer just bring it to Glenn Research Center to test there? They already offered to test the device if it can produce more than 100 micro-newton, and Shawyer's device is purportedly well above that.Is that device someone up thread said belongs to Boeing now?
Quote from: Mulletron on 05/03/2015 12:39 pmQuote from: PaulF on 05/03/2015 12:36 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 05/03/2015 12:24 pmQuote from: PaulF on 05/03/2015 12:12 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 05/03/2015 12:05 pmNever really thought about this before, but is light in a cavity resonator gravitationally redshifted?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshiftDo you mean natural (i.e. earth) or artificial gravity that could be generated by space-time warping or other quantum voodoo?I mean, if you had an Emdrive sitting the table (large diameter down) here on Earth, and it was energized by feeding RF into a slot/probe located at the large diameter. Would an observer at the small end notice a red shift?Would seem to me that if the thrust produced is horizontally, gravity can't have effect on it, besides bending it a teeny weeny bit. Time dilation at beginning and endpoint are same (same distance from gravity well), so in effect 0.Vertically you could measure it, but the redshift from earth's gravity is already extremely difficult to measure, but if you could you could then detract that from the redshift value measured in the cavity.Quoteso in effect 0.So nonzero? Say outside the bandwidth of a very narrow bandwidth cavity?For weak gravitational field the frequency ratio between top and bottom is ft/fb = (1 + Rs/2rt - Rs/2rb) where Rs is Schwarzschild radius, rt and rb distance from centre of body (earth centre). From there, sorry this is French wikipedia, I don't find a convenient English resource for the same formula.For Earth Rs is about 9mm, so lets say we have 0.3m altitude difference at earth surface (6.371e6m) => ft/fb = 1 - 3.3e-17This is one part in 3e16 redshift in frequency.Likewise any Doppler effect affecting the relative wavelengths (momentums) of photons between forward and backward plates of an accelerating frustum would indeed induce a non 0 net force : this force would always be opposite to the acceleration (ie. never a thrust) and in fact could be interpreted as the inertia of the mass equivalent of energy bouncing back and forth in the cavity (whatever its shape). The time constant of a photon in a Q=10000 about 0.3m across frustum would be like 10µs, at 100W pumped into the frustum there is then on the order of 1e-3 J EM energy content at any given time, that is equivalent to 1.1e-20 kg of mass, or an apparent added "force of inertia" of 1.1e-19N for a spacecraft accelerating at 1g, or equivalently an added weight of 1.1e-19N vertically for a resting frustum on earth.In summary, within classical frameworks, yes there can be non 0 net force of EM radiation in an accelerating cavity, but this will be vanishingly small forces, and always opposite to acceleration (aka "inertia").Is it correct ?
Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/03/2015 08:03 pmQuote from: SH on 05/03/2015 07:50 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 05/03/2015 01:21 pmI really like the Shawyer Demonstrator device (attached). As an engineer I can appreciate designing, building and testing it plus the hours and money involved. It is a serious and professionally built device. It is not a toy but a real working thruster that can be taken anywhere to have additional tests done.Maybe if EW asked Shawyer nicely, they could test it? At least then they have an established test data base and working device to work from.Why doesn't Sawyer just bring it to Glenn Research Center to test there? They already offered to test the device if it can produce more than 100 micro-newton, and Shawyer's device is purportedly well above that.I also proposed EW to test either the SPF Demonstrator device or the SPF Flight Thruster (which Boeing should have sitting on a shelf) which it seems is considered a "High Fidelity Test Article"Good luck with that being as from what was posted up thread it has been implied that's gone dark as they say.