Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next
1

If there is hostility to EM-Drive research you won't find it on this forum.   The moderators remove any comments that are not up to their standards for civility.   There is probably less criticism of experimental results than you would normally see at a scientic conference because of that.   Lately this forum has devolved into philosophical musings on the EM-Drive.  There are several DIY'rs who have built experiments yet we hear nothing about their tests.   Earlier this month there was a conference and nothing has come out of that.   I can only conclude that despite all the effort and talk there is still nothing to show.
Quote
There are several DIY'rs who have built experiments yet we hear nothing about their tests.   Earlier this month there was a conference and nothing has come out of that.   I can only conclude that despite all the effort and talk there is still nothing to show
You did see Rfmwguy's and Monrphic's test results! Where they showed what appears to be thrusts, but they were pushed to a higher bar as many did me last December when I reported something. This level of detail to present good data with all the errors quantified and accounted for take time and money. I'm glad they are taking the engineering time with the work it demands to present solid data.

On the Advanced Propulsion Workshop, I was pleasantly surprised. They were not a bunch of Kool Aid drinkers spouting nonsensical information and theories. A quite serious, down to earth nuts and bolts meeting to present detailed analytical analysis of advanced propulsion systems. I understand that the video of the meeting will be presented after they do the immense amount of work needed so we all can view it.

Best,
Shell

Actually I haven't seen any results.  All I saw was videos and some graphs.   Can you send me a link to any experiment reports that describe the protocol, and that show raw data from different test runs, etc?

As to the conference I think it would be helpful to publish the speaker list, an abstract of each talk and the powerpoint presentation.   That would be useful for interpreting the video when it is finally edited.    No one seems to want to discuss anything about the conference, aside from a few comments earlier.    So I think I am correct in assuming there have been no breakthroughs and that nothing new has happened in the last 2 years.    EW earlier attempts to ascribe first Lorentz error forces and then thermal effects (in the vacuum tests) as proof of an actual EM-Drive thrust has made me more of a skeptic.

For a start one of the speeches is embargoed that's the one relating to the AIAA paper. The other contributors have indicated that people will just have to wait. If you really want to see a few hints then I suggest reading some of Dr Rodal's recent posts.

Which AIAA paper? Thanks.

I am surprised that you did not know this. It is the NASA EW Paul March, Soony White's vacuum experiment paper.

Of course. I thought it might be a new critique of the Shawyer AIAA paper for some odd reason.
2
3
4
5
In the lower tanks? There is a pipeline in the middle.

Granted, but, again, why is it off to the side? Wouldn't it be more efficient to integrate the landing tank around the LOX pipe so the vehicle's loads are more symmetrical?
6
7
I assumed they were isolating entry/landing propellants from boost/departure propellants.


I would agree

What purpose does the tank asymmetry have here?

In the lower tanks? There is a pipeline in the middle.
8
SpaceX General Section / Re: ITS to the Moon - a lunar base
« Last post by MikeAtkinson on Today at 08:27 PM »
So ITS can land 300 tonnes of payload to the moon's surface and still take off and get back to earth?

Probably less, although I haven't done the sums yet. For most payloads the ITS Ship is likely to be volume limited to less than 300 tonnes.
9
10
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next