I just want to say that this discussion has brought together cites and sources that i would spend a life time trying to find and i would not have been able to find a tenth of it on my own. at first i had doubts about the thread but now it's invaluable. thanks everyone.
Quote from: frobnicat on 09/16/2014 01:17 amIf you find flaw in the mechanics of this perpetual motion, please tell exactly where, because I see none. If it is still not making sense to you then consider the EM thruster hypothesis to be wrong, and forget about the propulsion applications.First and foremost, can you derive the excess energy mathematically? How much input power are you using to impart 1 Newton of thrust, and what is the precise mathematical relationship you're using to generate even more power, start to finish, with your generator than was put in?
If you find flaw in the mechanics of this perpetual motion, please tell exactly where, because I see none. If it is still not making sense to you then consider the EM thruster hypothesis to be wrong, and forget about the propulsion applications.
Quote from: frobnicat on 09/15/2014 10:45 pm...this would be a first step toward that (to me) very mesmerizing possibility of an energy generator based on the effect.I hate to burst your bubble, but electromagnetic thrust can't be a real phenomenon and a "free energy" device at the same time.If EM drives are real, building a generator out of an EM drive would be no different than using an electric fan to drive a wind power generator.
...this would be a first step toward that (to me) very mesmerizing possibility of an energy generator based on the effect.
i may have a differing definition but there are all sorts of free energy sources.yes they eventually run down. some in millions or billions of years; which is not trivial.
Free energy - Heat pumps. Much more heat or cooling provided than the heat energy value of the electricity used to operate them.
Quote from: wembley on 09/15/2014 07:18 pmQuote from: aero on 08/07/2014 06:33 pmHere is an article with a more accepting slant. Still has errors but what can you do. The tests were NOT performed in vacuum.http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/10-qs-about-nasa-impossible-driveI have been trying to find out whether some of the tests were preformed in a vacuum. From the paper, it sounds as though some of them were not -- but why have the detailed description of the evacuation process if none of them were? Can anyone shed any light?Also, my understanding is that this technology could fit on a cubesat, presumably that would be a fairly cheap test?Hi,The Wired UK article was very confusing to me when I first saw it weeks ago. The Wired UK staff should have done a better job. It gives the impression that some of the NASA "Anomalous thrust ..." experiments were conducted inside a vacuum chamber in a partial vacuum:<<the full report describes tests in which turbo vacuum pumps were used to evacuate the test chamber to a pressure of five millionths of a Torr, or about a hundred-millionth of normal atmospheric pressure.>> WRONG !These particular tests (the reported NASA Cannae and Frustum tests) were NOT conducted in a vacuum. They were conducted at ambient pressure.The NASA authors state in the paper that none of these tests (reported in the NASA "Anomalous thrust ..." paper ) were conducted in a vacuum because they realized that the electrolytic capacitors they had would not work in a vacuum.Dr. Woodward conducted some of his tests in a vacuum (NOT at a NASA facility)._______________________________<<Also, my understanding is that this technology could fit on a cubesat, presumably that would be a fairly cheap test?>> It would cost several millions of dollars at a minimum (not cheap for me but cheaper than it would have cost decades ago). Also, whether these devices are ready for scale-up and testing in space is a debatable subject that is being debated in this thread...
Quote from: aero on 08/07/2014 06:33 pmHere is an article with a more accepting slant. Still has errors but what can you do. The tests were NOT performed in vacuum.http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/10-qs-about-nasa-impossible-driveI have been trying to find out whether some of the tests were preformed in a vacuum. From the paper, it sounds as though some of them were not -- but why have the detailed description of the evacuation process if none of them were? Can anyone shed any light?Also, my understanding is that this technology could fit on a cubesat, presumably that would be a fairly cheap test?
Here is an article with a more accepting slant. Still has errors but what can you do. The tests were NOT performed in vacuum.http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/10-qs-about-nasa-impossible-drive
Where does it say that NONE of them were in a vacuum(I know some weren't), and why does it describe the evacuation protocol?
Also a cubesat is only a kilo, so getting it up should be less than $100k, and the construction costs aren't that high...?
......As author of the WIRED UK piece I take your point, but believe me, there were reasons Where does it say that NONE of them were in a vacuum(I know some weren't), and why does it describe the evacuation protocol?Also a cubesat is only a kilo, so getting it up should be less than $100k, and the construction costs aren't that high...?
shows that Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s EM drive is claimed (with "measurements" performed elsewhere -not at NASA-) to have a thrust force 2000 to 4000 times higher than the drives recently tested at NASA.What information does WiredUK have in this regard? Is Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s EM drive going to go into orbit soon - at a cost less than $100k-?
.Cannae are certainly continuing their work and have previously discussed a Cubesat mission with a thruster producing 3 micronewtons -- note their website is back up again now in slightly altered form --http://cannae.com//2-uncategorised/48-cubesatThere is no indication who they are partnering with, but we they have talked to various aerospace players previously.
Yang Juan's work is also progressing largely undercover, but does appear to be progressing. I wrote a piece about this for Aviation Week which should appear shortly. My guess would be they will be the first to launch, unless NASA decide to sieze the initiative. However, the lack of comments from NASA suggests that the agency do not have any great appetitie for it, but I would be interested to hear otherwise. The lack of public statements for a new development doesn't seem normal to me, but others may know better?
Quote from: wembley on 09/16/2014 12:51 pm.Cannae are certainly continuing their work and have previously discussed a Cubesat mission with a thruster producing 3 micronewtons -- note their website is back up again now in slightly altered form --http://cannae.com//2-uncategorised/48-cubesatThere is no indication who they are partnering with, but we they have talked to various aerospace players previously.The Cannae drive had the worst performance (in measured thrust force and specific force) of any drive measurement reported at NASA. Furthermore, NASA testing showed that Cannae's slots made no difference, as NASA reported testing a Cannae device with no slots and NASA reported about the same performance. This prompted John Baez and other scientists' negative reaction (see https://plus.google.com/117663015413546257905/posts/C7vx2G85kr4), with Baez stating << They tested a [Cannae with slots] device that was designed to work and one [Cannae without slots] that was designed not to work. They both worked>>. Quote from: wembley on 09/16/2014 12:51 pmYang Juan's work is also progressing largely undercover, but does appear to be progressing. I wrote a piece about this for Aviation Week which should appear shortly. My guess would be they will be the first to launch, unless NASA decide to sieze the initiative. However, the lack of comments from NASA suggests that the agency do not have any great appetitie for it, but I would be interested to hear otherwise. The lack of public statements for a new development doesn't seem normal to me, but others may know better?Do you have any recent information (or link) regarding any work of Yang Juan after the already reported (2010) paper [whose translation to English is freely available in Shawyer's site, see: http://www.emdrive.com/NWPU2010translation.pdf] showing their tests at the Chinese university ?Please note that Yang Juan did not conduct the Chinese University reported tests in a vacuum chamber either.
The 2012 Yang Juan paper (which is also on Shawyer's site ) is more important than the 2010 one, but there are a few others including a recent one I address in AvWeek.
If people think there is some ongoing conspiracy...
Also, my understanding is that this technology could fit on a cubesat, presumably that would be a fairly cheap test?