Hello,Mine is the perspective of an outsider who has followed EM Drive for a couple years and this forum only recently. I have been considering dialog about lulls in new information from companies and organizations involved in research along with a lack of funding or even commitment to aggressively pursue the technology. It seems the EM Drive has the potential to be extremely disruptive (understatement). If one accepts the technology as legitimate and predictable in line with what is mentioned here and elsewhere then you would rationally have to accept as legitimate the implications of that technology. Projected non-superconducting EM Drive capabilities are considerable enough but if superconducting cavities can be expected to be integrated into systems routinely 30 years from now, air and space platforms (planes and rockets) could be obsolete for many of the uses considered routine now. That is more than a little disruptive.For someone in charge of budgeting, planning and charting a course for any of the organizations this could impact it could give them, and the people routing information to them, pause. If EM Drive is legitimate and its potential is realized how does one justify 20 or 30 year plans and the multi-billion dollar programs to develop the technology needed to execute them if they may be obsolete shortly after they mature? A deliberate and initially skeptical approach can make sense from this perspective. If and when EM Drive's potential is accepted and unlocked it may introduce some risk and hard questions for a number of people and organizations. I'm not suggesting these dynamics are deliberate acts, but more so that they may just be an inherent part of the environment.Just some thoughts from someone outside the aerospace/NASA community, thanks for humoring them.
Quote from: Intrigued on 10/10/2015 04:48 amJust some thoughts from someone outside the aerospace/NASA community, thanks for humoring them.You have just given reasons why planning 30 years a head is very risky. On the other hand I suspect in 40 years time we may have EMDrive cars, driving above roads first built by the Romans 2000 years ago.
Just some thoughts from someone outside the aerospace/NASA community, thanks for humoring them.
A question - I'm sure that it has been answered here somewhere but I don't remember the details.In which direction does the speed of light accelerate in the EM drive cavity? That is, are the EM waves moving faster as they approach the large end, or the small end of the frustum? I think it must be the large end because that fits with the idea that the waves interact with the QV and drag the virtual particles (EM disturbances in the vacuum) along with them, accelerating them toward the large end. And of course, just as in Paul March's square dance analogy, the virtual particles disappear into the QV before they do anything more than suck momentum from the EM waves of the frustum. On the other hand, I could be confused about the reaction-action-reaction phenomenon. Maybe its a triple dance step.This is really a pretty simple answer to the question of "What is the cause of the thrust?"
VNA on the way. NSF-1701 Qr measurement late next week. Will take screen shots.I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming
Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/10/2015 03:35 pmVNA on the way. NSF-1701 Qr measurement late next week. Will take screen shots.I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming Attaboy big guy! Now you can do some big boy/girl testing.Shell
After five threads there is no statistically significant data set supporting the "EMDrive" hypothesis. More than 50% of posts in this thread now come from three members, all conducting their own amateur experiments. Interest has plummeted exponentially in this thread and on Reddit. How does any of this relate to spaceflight?
Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/10/2015 06:40 pmAfter five threads there is no statistically significant data set supporting the "EMDrive" hypothesis. More than 50% of posts in this thread now come from three members, all conducting their own amateur experiments. Interest has plummeted exponentially in this thread and on Reddit. How does any of this relate to spaceflight?An amateur experiment is exponentially better than the one you are conducting
Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/10/2015 06:41 pmQuote from: Tetrakis on 10/10/2015 06:40 pmAfter five threads there is no statistically significant data set supporting the "EMDrive" hypothesis. More than 50% of posts in this thread now come from three members, all conducting their own amateur experiments. Interest has plummeted exponentially in this thread and on Reddit. How does any of this relate to spaceflight?An amateur experiment is exponentially better than the one you are conducting I thought the conclusion of your particular experiment was that the effect of displacement from turning the magnetron on is statistically significant.
Quote from: Tetrakis on 10/10/2015 06:40 pmAfter five threads there is no statistically significant data set supporting the "EMDrive" hypothesis. More than 50% of posts in this thread now come from three members, all conducting their own amateur experiments. Interest has plummeted exponentially in this thread and on Reddit. How does any of this relate to spaceflight?Is that like Amateur Hams and the work they have done? I've invested almost 50 years of building electronics and 40 in engineering to back this work up. I've set aside, in my shop a 18x22 foot dedicated lab to test this in. This is not like hanging a drive from a shower curtain and driving it with a WalMart $100 microwave oven, watching it move. I can say the same for the rest of the builders here that we are very serious at building the best testing devices we can and between all of us we have over a 100 years of engineering backgrounds. Not quite amateur class.How does it relate to spaceflight? Why don't you tell me how it doesn't.Shell
Quote from: SeeShells on 10/10/2015 06:55 pmQuote from: Tetrakis on 10/10/2015 06:40 pmAfter five threads there is no statistically significant data set supporting the "EMDrive" hypothesis. More than 50% of posts in this thread now come from three members, all conducting their own amateur experiments. Interest has plummeted exponentially in this thread and on Reddit. How does any of this relate to spaceflight?Is that like Amateur Hams and the work they have done? I've invested almost 50 years of building electronics and 40 in engineering to back this work up. I've set aside, in my shop a 18x22 foot dedicated lab to test this in. This is not like hanging a drive from a shower curtain and driving it with a WalMart $100 microwave oven, watching it move. I can say the same for the rest of the builders here that we are very serious at building the best testing devices we can and between all of us we have over a 100 years of engineering backgrounds. Not quite amateur class.How does it relate to spaceflight? Why don't you tell me how it doesn't.ShellWhatever you say, you amateur... lol
Quote from: RotoSequence on 10/10/2015 06:47 pmQuote from: rfmwguy on 10/10/2015 06:41 pmQuote from: Tetrakis on 10/10/2015 06:40 pmAfter five threads there is no statistically significant data set supporting the "EMDrive" hypothesis. More than 50% of posts in this thread now come from three members, all conducting their own amateur experiments. Interest has plummeted exponentially in this thread and on Reddit. How does any of this relate to spaceflight?An amateur experiment is exponentially better than the one you are conducting I thought the conclusion of your particular experiment was that the effect of displacement from turning the magnetron on is statistically significant. Yes, it was by me and the data analsyst as well as those who bothered to download the paper.This poster is uninformed...
Quote from: aero on 10/10/2015 03:44 amA question - I'm sure that it has been answered here somewhere but I don't remember the details.In which direction does the speed of light accelerate in the EM drive cavity? That is, are the EM waves moving faster as they approach the large end, or the small end of the frustum? I think it must be the large end because that fits with the idea that the waves interact with the QV and drag the virtual particles (EM disturbances in the vacuum) along with them, accelerating them toward the large end. And of course, just as in Paul March's square dance analogy, the virtual particles disappear into the QV before they do anything more than suck momentum from the EM waves of the frustum. On the other hand, I could be confused about the reaction-action-reaction phenomenon. Maybe its a triple dance step.This is really a pretty simple answer to the question of "What is the cause of the thrust?"Which Simulation would you think is causing thrust?Added: It's not that simple because both actions of this simulation can seemingly lead to thrust, it depends what theory you adhere to as to what causes thrust. This is the same simulation run, but reversed. You can see why I decided to do two different frustum excitements in my experiment.Busy day today.ShellAdded. I believe this last is EW's design but with the antennas in the small end. I don't have the loop in the big end simulation.
I suppose I should be more specific. The data is borderline significant, but the "result" claimed is based on a faulty experimental design. The experiments were not performed in vacuum, and so there is no real way to completely eliminate thermal effects from the data. Without vacuum tests the "results" are not credible, even if the data was really good. I'm sure that if I put a toaster on the end of a lever and measured the force when on or off, that I would be able to extract some kind of similar signal from the noise.And as I have said before, I am a chemist. I'm trying to inject some "non-enthusiast" perspective into the thread. I understand that you are all excited about the Eagleworks data, but if you want people outside the thread to care about what you do you should do it right or not at all.