Quote from: TheTraveller on 07/30/2015 08:35 amQuote from: deltaMass on 07/30/2015 07:30 amShawyer has it all backwards. The easiest application of all is mild thrust in space - say, station keeping around LEO. That's the low hanging fruit - literally. Next easiest depends on N/W. It's either free energy forever (there might be a small market for that, who knows?) or lifting one's own weight off the ground. But if you can float, you can get to LEO. At LEO and above, you can do all three.He has just made a public fool of himself. It's a shame, but there it is.Would suggest it is easier to get funding to build a military EMDrive powered UAV than it is to get funding to build a min TRL 8 space rated EMDrive.That makes no sense. If you can lift off, you can keep lifting. In the year 2015, there are as yet no Space Police. Bop up to the ISS, take a few pix, come down again.
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/30/2015 07:30 amShawyer has it all backwards. The easiest application of all is mild thrust in space - say, station keeping around LEO. That's the low hanging fruit - literally. Next easiest depends on N/W. It's either free energy forever (there might be a small market for that, who knows?) or lifting one's own weight off the ground. But if you can float, you can get to LEO. At LEO and above, you can do all three.He has just made a public fool of himself. It's a shame, but there it is.Would suggest it is easier to get funding to build a military EMDrive powered UAV than it is to get funding to build a min TRL 8 space rated EMDrive.
Shawyer has it all backwards. The easiest application of all is mild thrust in space - say, station keeping around LEO. That's the low hanging fruit - literally. Next easiest depends on N/W. It's either free energy forever (there might be a small market for that, who knows?) or lifting one's own weight off the ground. But if you can float, you can get to LEO. At LEO and above, you can do all three.He has just made a public fool of himself. It's a shame, but there it is.
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/30/2015 08:47 amQuote from: TheTraveller on 07/30/2015 08:35 amQuote from: deltaMass on 07/30/2015 07:30 amShawyer has it all backwards. The easiest application of all is mild thrust in space - say, station keeping around LEO. That's the low hanging fruit - literally. Next easiest depends on N/W. It's either free energy forever (there might be a small market for that, who knows?) or lifting one's own weight off the ground. But if you can float, you can get to LEO. At LEO and above, you can do all three.He has just made a public fool of himself. It's a shame, but there it is.Would suggest it is easier to get funding to build a military EMDrive powered UAV than it is to get funding to build a min TRL 8 space rated EMDrive.That makes no sense. If you can lift off, you can keep lifting. In the year 2015, there are as yet no Space Police. Bop up to the ISS, take a few pix, come down again.This is a complete and final admittance by Shawyer, saying it for anybody that cares to read between the lines that Shawyer thinks that the EM Drive does not work effectively in a vacuum: Shawyer must think that the EM Drive cannot generate enough propulsion in a vacuum even to move a small satellite.face it: Shawyer has been at this longer than anybody else, his first patent in the late 1980's.Yet he has NEVER reported a single EM Drive test in a vacuum. Zero, nada, zilch tests in vacuum.Neither Prof. Yang has reported a single test in vacuum (even though anybody acquainted with the resources at her University, it should be easy for her to do so). It is obvious that space applications require the least amount of thrust. The abandonment of space applications and substituting them with this Quixotic effort for commercial flight applications demanding huge amount of thrust is as loud a statement any inventor can make that Shawyer thinks that the EM Drive requires air to operate effectively.Instead of doing what should be easy: to demonstrate a tiny EM Drive propulsion in space, Shawyer diverts the attention to long-term R&D efforts of a Quixotic effort which appears impossible by comparison. As difficult as they may appear to be, this must mean that in Shawyer's eyes, Space Applications of the EM Drive even at the tiniest of thrust, are even more difficult to achieve.
This is a complete and final admittance by Shawyer, saying it for anybody that cares to read between the lines that Shawyer thinks that the EM Drive does not work effectively in a vacuum: Shawyer must think that the EM Drive cannot generate enough propulsion in a vacuum even to move a small satellite.[snipped]It is obvious that space applications require the least amount of thrust. The abandonment of space applications and substituting them with this Quixotic effort for commercial flight applications demanding huge amount of thrust is as loud a statement any inventor can make that Shawyer thinks that the EM Drive requires air to operate effectively.
It would be a game-changer nevertheless if a floater could be built, even if it only worked in air. Needless to say, I don't believe it can because of the ridiculous numbers being bandied about. I also note that interstellar travel is largely an airless endeavour.
It would seem SPR has added another business model, as a contract end product EMDrive enabled builder, to it's traditional EMDrive IP licensor business model.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 07/30/2015 04:12 amhttp://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-roger-shawyer-paper-describing-space-propulsion-uavs-finally-passes-peer-review-1513223Quote"Our aim at the moment is not to necessarily go for these space applications, because they will take so long to come to fruition. So what we've decided as a company is to forget space, and to go for terrestrial transport business, which is huge," Shawyer told IBTimes UK."The logic is, if you can lift a vehicle reasonably gently with no large accelerations, then you can manufacture the air frame using much lower technology than would be used on an aircraft."Terrafugia's TF-X flying car concept, due to launch in 2021, could benefit from the use of the EmDrive space propulsion technology, according to Roger Shawyer.Shawyer says his firm, Satellite Propulsion Research Ltd, is currently designing a drone that has no propellers or wings, and it plans to carry out the first test flights powered by EmDrive microwave space propulsion in 2017.I keep my fingers crossed he can deliver that Mr. Traveller. I just also hope SPR have enough funds to do that. It will be expensive as well and more - He still needs to develop such drive and it will be no fun. Of course floating drone is way more better proof than any paper published. I would wish to work for SPR just to be their marketing manager .
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-roger-shawyer-paper-describing-space-propulsion-uavs-finally-passes-peer-review-1513223Quote"Our aim at the moment is not to necessarily go for these space applications, because they will take so long to come to fruition. So what we've decided as a company is to forget space, and to go for terrestrial transport business, which is huge," Shawyer told IBTimes UK."The logic is, if you can lift a vehicle reasonably gently with no large accelerations, then you can manufacture the air frame using much lower technology than would be used on an aircraft."Terrafugia's TF-X flying car concept, due to launch in 2021, could benefit from the use of the EmDrive space propulsion technology, according to Roger Shawyer.Shawyer says his firm, Satellite Propulsion Research Ltd, is currently designing a drone that has no propellers or wings, and it plans to carry out the first test flights powered by EmDrive microwave space propulsion in 2017.
"Our aim at the moment is not to necessarily go for these space applications, because they will take so long to come to fruition. So what we've decided as a company is to forget space, and to go for terrestrial transport business, which is huge," Shawyer told IBTimes UK."The logic is, if you can lift a vehicle reasonably gently with no large accelerations, then you can manufacture the air frame using much lower technology than would be used on an aircraft."Terrafugia's TF-X flying car concept, due to launch in 2021, could benefit from the use of the EmDrive space propulsion technology, according to Roger Shawyer.Shawyer says his firm, Satellite Propulsion Research Ltd, is currently designing a drone that has no propellers or wings, and it plans to carry out the first test flights powered by EmDrive microwave space propulsion in 2017.
I also note that interstellar travel is largely an airless endeavour.
[...]Just as long as he doesn't make it a black triangle as that will cause no end of fuss.
Quote from: aero on 07/30/2015 02:39 amHere is an example from meep-discuss that uses a square loop antenna. The example problem doesn't work but I think that was a different problem with his control file. Using ( 2 pi ) * something instead of ( 0 + 2 pi i ) * something. He should have been using a complex multiplier, that is, if I'm recalling the right / problem answer.This is the same example that I uploaded yesterday morning, but that is 10 pages up thread, so here it is again.I don't know much about loop antenna. This file makes a giant 2-D source (24 units X 24 units, infinitely thin) and a square metal loop 2.928 X .7 units (center line), the "wire" width is .2, height of .1 units. The loop is called a "scatterer" and is not generated by default. Does any of that sound right for a loop antenna?If I (or someone else) were to make a square loop antenna somehow, how would we know if it was a loop? What fields would we look at and what would they look like? Quickly testing different ideas can be painful if I use the truncated cone geometry/steps with long calculation times.
Here is an example from meep-discuss that uses a square loop antenna. The example problem doesn't work but I think that was a different problem with his control file. Using ( 2 pi ) * something instead of ( 0 + 2 pi i ) * something. He should have been using a complex multiplier, that is, if I'm recalling the right / problem answer.This is the same example that I uploaded yesterday morning, but that is 10 pages up thread, so here it is again.
...Anyway, as has been pointed out, the "can't do space because there's no air" argument doesn't hold up. You just put the drive in a pressurised gas box and/or let it push from the inside of the vehicle....
When we heard about Tajmar's title "side effects..." we hoped that his team had made measurements of the environment outside the EM Drive to see whether indeed nothing is being ejected, no electromagnetic fields, no distortions of the environment.Unfortunately he didn't make any such measurements...
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/30/2015 11:46 amIt would be a game-changer nevertheless if a floater could be built, even if it only worked in air. Needless to say, I don't believe it can because of the ridiculous numbers being bandied about. I also note that interstellar travel is largely an airless endeavour. I would suggest the Wright brothers would agree will you if you told them of the engineering stats for an A380. They would look at a modern jet engine with their mouths wide open, totally in disbelief.In reality the difference between the Wright Flyer and the A380 is just engineering hours and $.Will be no difference with EMDrive development as N/kW climb higher and higher.