This belongs to Boeing: http://www.emdrive.com/flightprogramme.htmlAnd maybe this as Boeign bought all the SPR EM Drive IP in 2010: http://emdrive.com/demonstratorengine.html
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"There are merits to rebuilding a device instead of simply retesting the same device.By building a new device, according similar specs and testing it, you can actually validate the principle behind the 2 devices (Shawyer's and EW's) if they produce similar results. If they contradict each other, you'll need additional testing, of course..By simply retesting the Shawyer's device you could potentially duplicate the same flaw. Just the measurement setup would be different....
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: 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 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.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/03/2015 08:06 pmThis belongs to Boeing: http://www.emdrive.com/flightprogramme.htmlAnd maybe this as Boeign bought all the SPR EM Drive IP in 2010: http://emdrive.com/demonstratorengine.htmlBoeing's Phantom Works, which has previously explored exotic forms of space propulsion, was said to be looking into it some years ago. Such work has evidently ceased. “Phantom Works is not working with Mr. Shawyer,” a Boeing representative says, adding that the company is no longer pursuing this avenue [as of Nov 5, 2012]. http://aviationweek.com/awin/propellentless-space-propulsion-research-continues
Well was not that dark as EW displayed the attached.Lower right is the Flight Thruster Boeing acquired from SPF (Shawyers company). Note it is rated as a "High Fidelity Test Article". Guess that means it works well and is highly reliable in the test results generated.
By simply retesting the Shawyer's device you could potentially duplicate the same flaw. Just the measurement setup would be different....
The fact that Boeing purchased the technology, then decided not to pursue it, is evidence that after their independent testing of his device, they must have concluded it to be useless (although I suppose it is possible that they are lying, and that it was a strategic statement designed to make everyone think it was pseudo-science so that they could have more time to develop it in secret).
Quote from: dustinthewind on 05/03/2015 05:54 pmQuote from: Rodal on 05/03/2015 05:47 pmQuote from: dustinthewind on 05/03/2015 05:42 pmIn your image, you have a T-Junction from a waveguide into the EM Drive truncated cone.Although Prof. Yang used such construction (for at least part of her tests), to my knowledge, NASA Eagleworks does not have any such T-Junction between the NASA truncated cone and a waveguide.If I am incorrect, I would appreciate being corrected.If I am correct, I don't understand the rationale that would support travelling waves in a completely enclosed truncated cone, as a travelling wave will not satisfy the boundary conditions necessary to solve Maxwell's equations for the tests performed by NASA Eagleworks.Dosn't a standing wave assume 100% power reflection? Such as a powerline with no one consuming power. I thought the moving magnetic field modes were a symbol or illustration of power transport to a location (thermal loss). Maybe I am mistaken?The issue of power dissipation due to the skin effect is fully addressed in the COMSOL Fnite Element analyses, which predicted the measured Q's. The COMSOL Finite Element analysis fully respects conservation of momentum and conservation of energy.There can only be travelling waves if there is a net momentum flux. But such momentum is prevented by the previous arguments based on conservation of momentum (unless suitable emission of particles can support the measured thrust).Thermal losses in a vacuum (unless there is outgassing, etc.) cannot support the claimed thrust forces, due to the previously addressed issue (what particles are being emitted, and what is their momentum).All the above is true under linear Maxwell's equations and special relativity. Otherwise one would have to argue for breaking of P T parity, nonlinear anisotropic effects, coupling interaction with outside fields, etc.
Quote from: Rodal on 05/03/2015 05:47 pmQuote from: dustinthewind on 05/03/2015 05:42 pmIn your image, you have a T-Junction from a waveguide into the EM Drive truncated cone.Although Prof. Yang used such construction (for at least part of her tests), to my knowledge, NASA Eagleworks does not have any such T-Junction between the NASA truncated cone and a waveguide.If I am incorrect, I would appreciate being corrected.If I am correct, I don't understand the rationale that would support travelling waves in a completely enclosed truncated cone, as a travelling wave will not satisfy the boundary conditions necessary to solve Maxwell's equations for the tests performed by NASA Eagleworks.Dosn't a standing wave assume 100% power reflection? Such as a powerline with no one consuming power. I thought the moving magnetic field modes were a symbol or illustration of power transport to a location (thermal loss). Maybe I am mistaken?
Quote from: dustinthewind on 05/03/2015 05:42 pmIn your image, you have a T-Junction from a waveguide into the EM Drive truncated cone.Although Prof. Yang used such construction (for at least part of her tests), to my knowledge, NASA Eagleworks does not have any such T-Junction between the NASA truncated cone and a waveguide.If I am incorrect, I would appreciate being corrected.If I am correct, I don't understand the rationale that would support travelling waves in a completely enclosed truncated cone, as a travelling wave will not satisfy the boundary conditions necessary to solve Maxwell's equations for the tests performed by NASA Eagleworks.
Quote from: SH on 05/03/2015 08:35 pmThe fact that Boeing purchased the technology, then decided not to pursue it, is evidence that after their independent testing of his device, they must have concluded it to be useless (although I suppose it is possible that they are lying, and that it was a strategic statement designed to make everyone think it was pseudo-science so that they could have more time to develop it in secret).Phantom Works often works on classified projects so that last conspiracy theory might not actually be too far fetched, especially considering how little they had to say about why they are no longer working with Shawyer. If anyone has contact with Shawyer, it might be interesting "experiment" to ask Shawyer how things are going with Phantom Works, to see if his response sounds suspiciously like someone who's been silenced under contract to not talk about it.
Quote from: Flyby on 05/03/2015 08:21 pmBy simply retesting the Shawyer's device you could potentially duplicate the same flaw. Just the measurement setup would be different....It's easier to reverse engineer a working alien technology if you have an example that you can perform experiments on, than it is to re-engineer that technology when it violates what you think you know about physics!The eagleworks drive is orders of magnitude lower thrust and cannot even be independently validated due to the low thrust levels. We don't even know if eagleworks will be capable of producing a higher thrust version, because their plans are based on a hypothetical understanding of how it works which has been highly criticized.We don't know if Shawyer's device actually produces the thrust levels that he claims. The fact that Boeing purchased the technology, then decided not to pursue it, is evidence that after their independent testing of his device, they must have concluded it to be useless (although I suppose it is possible that they are lying, and that it was a strategic statement designed to make everyone think it was pseudo-science so that they could have more time to develop it in secret).
{snip}We don't know if Shawyer's device actually produces the thrust levels that he claims. The fact that Boeing purchased the technology, then decided not to pursue it, is evidence that after their independent testing of his device, they must have concluded it to be useless (although I suppose it is possible that they are lying, and that it was a strategic statement designed to make everyone think it was pseudo-science so that they could have more time to develop it in secret).
Quote from: SH on 05/03/2015 08:35 pm{snip}We don't know if Shawyer's device actually produces the thrust levels that he claims. The fact that Boeing purchased the technology, then decided not to pursue it, is evidence that after their independent testing of his device, they must have concluded it to be useless (although I suppose it is possible that they are lying, and that it was a strategic statement designed to make everyone think it was pseudo-science so that they could have more time to develop it in secret).Or Boeing did not get a government grant to develop the thruster so they cancelled the project.
Quote from: SH on 05/03/2015 08:35 pmQuote from: Flyby on 05/03/2015 08:21 pmBy simply retesting the Shawyer's device you could potentially duplicate the same flaw. Just the measurement setup would be different....It's easier to reverse engineer a working alien technology if you have an example that you can perform experiments on, than it is to re-engineer that technology when it violates what you think you know about physics!The eagleworks drive is orders of magnitude lower thrust and cannot even be independently validated due to the low thrust levels. We don't even know if eagleworks will be capable of producing a higher thrust version, because their plans are based on a hypothetical understanding of how it works which has been highly criticized.We don't know if Shawyer's device actually produces the thrust levels that he claims. The fact that Boeing purchased the technology, then decided not to pursue it, is evidence that after their independent testing of his device, they must have concluded it to be useless (although I suppose it is possible that they are lying, and that it was a strategic statement designed to make everyone think it was pseudo-science so that they could have more time to develop it in secret).The moderators may have to start up a new thread devoted to em-drive conspiracy theories; or better yet just delete all such posts.
transcript from the video (timeframe 4:10):"...in fact... we actually transfered all our design and test data to Boeing.It is noticable that any subsequent programs have not been acknowledged in the public domain..."It doesn't really say it has been terminated by Boeing, just that no info is being released from their side. It could either mean it has gone "dark" (militarized), or that it is shelved (cancelled) or put on ice (on hold)... yours to pick..