Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 2  (Read 2100444 times)

Offline ppnl

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Liked: 99
  • Likes Given: 13
...
I'm hopeful we can get Mr. Shawyer to participate here IF folks are civil.
I would not bet on that.  The uncivil level of attack displayed by several new posters in this thread during the last few days has been such that I would not be surprised if Star-Drive decides not to post any further Eagleworks test information here.  These uncivil attacks are launched by anonymous posters that hide behind monickers without ever revealing their real names.  I very much doubt that these uncivil posters would dare to express themselves this way, face-to-face in a public presentation, as in an AIAA meeting, for example.  I very much doubt that they would express themselves that way in writing if they would do it under their real name.  It is certainly conduct never seen at professional meetings or in academia.

I must say I'm rather perplexed and puzzled by the sudden hostility that some of the newer participants demonstrate...
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being skeptic but i thought that curiosity was one of the key characteristics of being a scientist/researcher/engineer.
There is no better way to make progress then to have a thesis and antithesis collide in a civil manner.

I really do not understand what can be obtained or achieved by aggressively attacking people or their ideas. If you aim to disprove a theory then all you need to do is mass enough evidence that their theory is flawed.

Personally I find it still too early trying to come up with theories until the effect has been validated or not.
For me the most compelling evidence so far is still the 2007 rotating Demonstrator video by R Shawyer.
All we can do now is wait for Eagleworks to duplicate that test (and improve on some of the possible setup flaws, like hot jet exhaust nullification).

If the test fails, then the credibility of the device will get a serious hit...
If the test succeeds, it will most likely be a turning point in the research (and funding) of the EM drive.

So, instead of shooting lead at each other, why don't we just all relax and be supportive to the Eagleworks team so they can finalize that crucial test by July?

Pro or contra, you'll have your answer by July...

That said, it was to foresee that giving more publicity to the research through the NASA publication article, would attract some of the most aggressive opinionated people inhere.
On the positive side however, it also attracted some very much needed new participants that have clearly high level qualifications... (be them pro or contra, it doesn't matter)

I suppose it is up to the mods to weed out the offensive ones...

As for mr Shawyer, i think it is already obvious that he will not engage into the discussion here, partially because of the engagements he already has with other parties, as he explained in that private conversation, partially because he had his share of abusive language in the past....


....eagerly anticipating the next , high power test from Eagleworks... 8)

The problem is I predict that Eagleworks will succeed and still nobody will be impressed. Remember cold fusion? Excess heat beyond chemistry... replicated... 10x energy input... 100x energy input... the thing produced so much heat that it melted down in the middle of the night.. heat in palladium... nickle... thin films... neutrons... maybe it isn't fusion but something else... zero point energy...

Yet year after year nobody was producing a commercial product, viable theory or convincing demo. For some the only explanation was a conspiracy. Anyone remember the "hot fusion mafia" preventing research into cold fusion in order to protect their programs? I bet Jed Rothwell is still chasing cold fusion. I do know that ICCF-19 was held last month.

Emdrive has all the same properties. An extraordinary claim much more so than cold fusion in fact. A theory that makes no sense. People making up new theories to fit bad experiments. Other people day dreaming about how we can build a real spaceship now. Arguments over how to obtain funding. Free bubble up and rainbow stew.

I'm sorry. I don't mean to be rude, unpleasant or confrontational but sometimes reality is unpleasant. In time most will give up on the EMdrive. Some will stay and probably drift into conspiracy theories. A trickle of new results will continue to excite a younger crowd. As a result the EM drive will never succeed and never ever ever go away.

Talk to me in ten years and see if I'm not right. I hope I'm wrong.


Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1109
  • Liked: 774
  • Likes Given: 1007

The problem is I predict that Eagleworks will succeed and still nobody will be impressed. Remember cold fusion? Excess heat beyond chemistry... replicated... 10x energy input... 100x energy input... the thing produced so much heat that it melted down in the middle of the night.. heat in palladium... nickle... thin films... neutrons... maybe it isn't fusion but something else... zero point energy...

Yet year after year nobody was producing a commercial product, viable theory or convincing demo. For some the only explanation was a conspiracy. Anyone remember the "hot fusion mafia" preventing research into cold fusion in order to protect their programs? I bet Jed Rothwell is still chasing cold fusion. I do know that ICCF-19 was held last month.

Emdrive has all the same properties. An extraordinary claim much more so than cold fusion in fact. A theory that makes no sense. People making up new theories to fit bad experiments. Other people day dreaming about how we can build a real spaceship now. Arguments over how to obtain funding. Free bubble up and rainbow stew.

I'm sorry. I don't mean to be rude, unpleasant or confrontational but sometimes reality is unpleasant. In time most will give up on the EMdrive. Some will stay and probably drift into conspiracy theories. A trickle of new results will continue to excite a younger crowd. As a result the EM drive will never succeed and never ever ever go away.

Talk to me in ten years and see if I'm not right. I hope I'm wrong.

@ppnl we're here to solve problems, not handwave and accept the world will never find a better way. If you don't have any solutions, you're in the wrong place.
« Last Edit: 05/03/2015 06:22 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline TheTraveller

Here is a thought experiment that goes into a EM Drive physical action that doesn't yet seem to be discussed.

Imagine an EM Drive mounted on horizontally free to spin rotary arm, small and large end plates vertical, at right angles to the rotary arm. No microwave energy in the cavity.

A push by your finger on either the small or large end plates will induce rotation in opposite directions.

Now stop the EM Drive and fill the cavity full of microwave energy.

Note it does not move, no thrust in either direction is generated.

Now push on the small end plate with your finger and note it refuses to move, feels like the rotary arm is fixed in place, unless your applied force exceeds that the EM Drive can generate in Generator mode. Note the load on the microwave Generator drops as does current drawn from the power supply. Measuring the cavity temperature should see it increase as the force from your finger, applied to the small end plate, is converted into increased stored cavity microwave energy, which as it can't flow back to the electrical energy source must eventually turn into heat.

Stop applying force to the small end plate.

Now apply force to the larger end plate. Note the EM Drive quickly moves away from your finger and power supply current increases.

While the last operation may be familiar, the 1st may be a new area for discussion.

All these device characterists are explained by Shawyer.
« Last Edit: 05/03/2015 06:54 PM by TheTraveller »
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Online meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1223
  • Liked: 1135
  • Likes Given: 294
I was surprised to see that the experiment results have not confirmed a null result yet. While I hope they do turn up a useful propulsion system, my money is still on a null result.

While this thread seems to have produced useful discussion, it seems that it is still being cluttered with references to Shawyer's theory. I have a physics background up through intermediate quantum mechanics, with just a touch of particle physics. I would like to answer some of the questions regarding Shawyer's theory so the discussion can move on to theories that are at least plausible such as the White's QV model.

Quote
Shawyer developed a theory and built a device to test it. If his theory is nonsense then the first conclusion we should reach is that his test results are nonsense. Either that or he is the luckiest person in the world. If he cannot see and address the violation of Galilean relativity then I wouldn't trust him to test a light bulb.
This is wrong in so many different ways I don't know where to start...

By "this is wrong" are you referring to the emdrive theory paper by Shawyer? A partial list of things he demonstrates he does not understand in that paper include:

-the principle of relativity (the foundation of special relativity)
-how to apply velocity transforms in special relativity
-how to do a force balance (he ignores the slanted walls)
-the definition of an open vs closed system

I don't see how a person who fails at basic physics in this way could actually design an accurate experiment or correctly calculate the resulting forces.

Note that ppnl's post used the word "nonsense" not "wrong". Plenty of respectable physicists come up with wrong theories. In this case the theory is complete nonsense and demonstrates a lack of understanding*. In this case the experiment results cannot be trusted, hence the other labs attempting to replicate the results.

If anyone needs clarification on what exactly is wrong with Shawyer's paper, let me know, so we can get this out of the way.

*A less charitable assumption would be that this is deliberate, but "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1109
  • Liked: 774
  • Likes Given: 1007
I was surprised to see that the experiment results have not confirmed a null result yet. While I hope they do turn up a useful propulsion system, my money is still on a null result.

While this thread seems to have produced useful discussion, it seems that it is still being cluttered with references to Shawyer's theory. I have a physics background up through intermediate quantum mechanics, with just a touch of particle physics. I would like to answer some of the questions regarding Shawyer's theory so the discussion can move on to theories that are at least plausible such as the White's QV model.

Quote
Shawyer developed a theory and built a device to test it. If his theory is nonsense then the first conclusion we should reach is that his test results are nonsense. Either that or he is the luckiest person in the world. If he cannot see and address the violation of Galilean relativity then I wouldn't trust him to test a light bulb.
This is wrong in so many different ways I don't know where to start...

By "this is wrong" are you referring to the emdrive theory paper by Shawyer? A partial list of things he demonstrates he does not understand in that paper include:

-the principle of relativity (the foundation of special relativity)
-how to apply velocity transforms in special relativity
-how to do a force balance (he ignores the slanted walls)
-the definition of an open vs closed system

I don't see how a person who fails at basic physics in this way could actually design an accurate experiment or correctly calculate the resulting forces.

Note that ppnl's post used the word "nonsense" not "wrong". Plenty of respectable physicists come up with wrong theories. In this case the theory is complete nonsense and demonstrates a lack of understanding*. In this case the experiment results cannot be trusted, hence the other labs attempting to replicate the results.

If anyone needs clarification on what exactly is wrong with Shawyer's paper, let me know, so we can get this out of the way.

*A less charitable assumption would be that this is deliberate, but "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

Thank you for the well put together post. I think you are being a bit harsh with your words toward Shawyer. Citing previous information reported here....luckily I have an excellent memory.

Shawyer is an Aerospace Engineer. Not a physicist. What I believe is that he made the device, and then the theory came later.

The issues with his theory are old news. That is why I just said we should not get hung up on his theory. There is NO accepted theory of EMdrive. Welcome to the group. We need people with your training.
« Last Edit: 05/03/2015 07:25 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline KittyMoo

  • Member
  • Posts: 23
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 33
Quote
By "this is wrong" are you referring to the emdrive theory paper by Shawyer?
No. I am referring to the complete lack of understanding of the scientific principle by ppnl.
« Last Edit: 05/03/2015 07:04 PM by KittyMoo »

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
Never really thought about this before, but is light in a cavity resonator gravitationally redshifted?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
Do you mean natural (i.e. earth) or artificial gravity that could be generated by space-time warping or other quantum voodoo?

I mean, if you had an Emdrive sitting the table (large diameter down) here on Earth, and it was energized by feeding RF into a slot/probe located at the large diameter. Would an observer at the small end notice a red shift?
Would seem to me that if the thrust produced is horizontally, gravity can't have effect on it, besides bending it a teeny weeny bit. Time dilation at beginning and endpoint are same (same distance from gravity well), so in effect 0.

Vertically you could measure it, but the redshift from earth's gravity is already extremely difficult to measure, but if you could you could then detract that from the redshift value measured in the cavity.

Quote
so in effect 0.

So nonzero? Say outside the bandwidth of a very narrow bandwidth cavity?

For weak gravitational field the frequency ratio between top and bottom is ft/fb = (1 + Rs/2rt - Rs/2rb) where Rs is Schwarzschild radius, rt and rb distance from centre of body (earth centre). From there, sorry this is French wikipedia, I don't find a convenient English resource for the same formula.

For Earth Rs is about 9mm, so lets say we have 0.3m altitude difference at earth surface (6.371e6m) => ft/fb = 1 - 3.3e-17
This is one part in 3e16 redshift in frequency.

Likewise any Doppler effect affecting the relative wavelengths (momentums) of photons between forward and backward plates of an accelerating frustum would indeed induce a non 0 net force : this force would always be opposite to the acceleration (ie. never a thrust) and in fact could be interpreted as the inertia of the mass equivalent of energy bouncing back and forth in the cavity (whatever its shape). The time constant of a photon in a Q=10000 about 0.3m across frustum would be like 10s, at 100W pumped into the frustum there is then on the order of 1e-3 J EM energy content at any given time, that is equivalent to 1.1e-20 kg of mass, or an apparent added "force of inertia" of 1.1e-19N for a spacecraft accelerating at 1g, or equivalently an added weight of 1.1e-19N vertically for a resting frustum on earth.

In summary, within classical frameworks, yes there can be non 0 net force of EM radiation in an accelerating cavity, but this will be vanishingly small forces, and always opposite to acceleration (aka "inertia").
Is it correct ?

Offline Andy USA

  • Lead Moderator
  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 963
  • Los Angeles, California
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 79
Ok guys, so a lot of new people into this thread, but this thread is mainly for the development of the EM Drive. We knew this would happen, so we have a new "Entry Level" thread for opening questions and general questions.

I've moved the last few pages of new members asking questions into that thread, so if you posted here and can't see it, don't worry, it's in this thread.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.0

Posting this notice as some sites are linking to this thread and not the section or the article, so people are thinking this is the only thread on this.

Remember to use the above link and allow this thread to continue with the Eaglework folk and others updating progress.

A reminder, as we still have people jumping in and perhaps missing key parts or interrupting a thread covering developments with questions better placed in the other thread.

I would also remind people to ensure their posts are respectful and useful, not noise or insulting. Insulting posts show a weak position and are subject to removal if they lower the tone of this forum (new people may not be aware how this forum is a civil and friendly place. We do not shy from removing people and posts who think they can jump in feet first and be rude).

Otherwise this is a good thread and all opinions are welcome.

Offline TheTraveller

I was surprised to see that the experiment results have not confirmed a null result yet. While I hope they do turn up a useful propulsion system, my money is still on a null result.

While this thread seems to have produced useful discussion, it seems that it is still being cluttered with references to Shawyer's theory. I have a physics background up through intermediate quantum mechanics, with just a touch of particle physics. I would like to answer some of the questions regarding Shawyer's theory so the discussion can move on to theories that are at least plausible such as the White's QV model.

Quote
Shawyer developed a theory and built a device to test it. If his theory is nonsense then the first conclusion we should reach is that his test results are nonsense. Either that or he is the luckiest person in the world. If he cannot see and address the violation of Galilean relativity then I wouldn't trust him to test a light bulb.
This is wrong in so many different ways I don't know where to start...

By "this is wrong" are you referring to the emdrive theory paper by Shawyer? A partial list of things he demonstrates he does not understand in that paper include:

-the principle of relativity (the foundation of special relativity)
-how to apply velocity transforms in special relativity
-how to do a force balance (he ignores the slanted walls)
-the definition of an open vs closed system

I don't see how a person who fails at basic physics in this way could actually design an accurate experiment or correctly calculate the resulting forces.

Note that ppnl's post used the word "nonsense" not "wrong". Plenty of respectable physicists come up with wrong theories. In this case the theory is complete nonsense and demonstrates a lack of understanding*. In this case the experiment results cannot be trusted, hence the other labs attempting to replicate the results.

If anyone needs clarification on what exactly is wrong with Shawyer's paper, let me know, so we can get this out of the way.

*A less charitable assumption would be that this is deliberate, but "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."
It would seem Yang Juan uses a very similar explanation in her recent EM Drive paper. In case you have not had an opportunity to read it, here is the link: http://www.emdrive.com/yang-juan-paper-2012.pdf
« Last Edit: 05/03/2015 07:47 PM by TheTraveller »
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5834
  • USA
  • Liked: 5904
  • Likes Given: 5251
Objections and technical criticism of theories and experiments are encouraged but they should be addressed as in technical journals.  Technical theories are best addressed with technical arguments, mathematics and references.

Any name calling just serves to weaken any such argument, if newcomers like to employ abusive language in addition to or rather than technical arguments, mathematics or references, they do not belong in this forum.
« Last Edit: 05/03/2015 08:07 PM by Rodal »

Offline SH

  • Member
  • Posts: 32
  • Mass
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 12
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.

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.

Offline SH

  • Member
  • Posts: 32
  • Mass
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 12
There's other perfectly sane ways of interacting with the QV which have been posted literally a thousand times in THIS forum over and over again since October.

I have been reading these threads quite diligently lately but I am not sure what you are referring to.  A link would be appreciated!

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7990
  • UK
  • Liked: 1277
  • Likes Given: 168

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.

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.

Is that device someone up thread said belongs to Boeing now?

Offline TheTraveller

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.

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 SPR Demonstrator device or the SPR Flight Thruster (which Boeing should have sitting on a shelf) which it seems is considered a "High Fidelity Test Article"
« Last Edit: 05/03/2015 08:18 PM by TheTraveller »
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7990
  • UK
  • Liked: 1277
  • Likes Given: 168

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.

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"

Good luck with that being as from what was posted up thread it has been implied that's gone dark as they say.

Offline TheTraveller


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.

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.

Is that device someone up thread said belongs to Boeing now?
This belongs to Boeing: http://www.emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html

And maybe this as Boeign bought all the SPR EM Drive IP in 2010: http://emdrive.com/demonstratorengine.html
« Last Edit: 05/03/2015 08:17 PM by TheTraveller »
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline KittyMoo

  • Member
  • Posts: 23
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 33
We will have to wait until a B3 floats out of the hanger then? ;)

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 1361
Never really thought about this before, but is light in a cavity resonator gravitationally redshifted?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
Do you mean natural (i.e. earth) or artificial gravity that could be generated by space-time warping or other quantum voodoo?

I mean, if you had an Emdrive sitting the table (large diameter down) here on Earth, and it was energized by feeding RF into a slot/probe located at the large diameter. Would an observer at the small end notice a red shift?
Would seem to me that if the thrust produced is horizontally, gravity can't have effect on it, besides bending it a teeny weeny bit. Time dilation at beginning and endpoint are same (same distance from gravity well), so in effect 0.

Vertically you could measure it, but the redshift from earth's gravity is already extremely difficult to measure, but if you could you could then detract that from the redshift value measured in the cavity.

Quote
so in effect 0.

So nonzero? Say outside the bandwidth of a very narrow bandwidth cavity?

For weak gravitational field the frequency ratio between top and bottom is ft/fb = (1 + Rs/2rt - Rs/2rb) where Rs is Schwarzschild radius, rt and rb distance from centre of body (earth centre). From there, sorry this is French wikipedia, I don't find a convenient English resource for the same formula.

For Earth Rs is about 9mm, so lets say we have 0.3m altitude difference at earth surface (6.371e6m) => ft/fb = 1 - 3.3e-17
This is one part in 3e16 redshift in frequency.

Likewise any Doppler effect affecting the relative wavelengths (momentums) of photons between forward and backward plates of an accelerating frustum would indeed induce a non 0 net force : this force would always be opposite to the acceleration (ie. never a thrust) and in fact could be interpreted as the inertia of the mass equivalent of energy bouncing back and forth in the cavity (whatever its shape). The time constant of a photon in a Q=10000 about 0.3m across frustum would be like 10s, at 100W pumped into the frustum there is then on the order of 1e-3 J EM energy content at any given time, that is equivalent to 1.1e-20 kg of mass, or an apparent added "force of inertia" of 1.1e-19N for a spacecraft accelerating at 1g, or equivalently an added weight of 1.1e-19N vertically for a resting frustum on earth.

In summary, within classical frameworks, yes there can be non 0 net force of EM radiation in an accelerating cavity, but this will be vanishingly small forces, and always opposite to acceleration (aka "inertia").
Is it correct ?

Close, those forces are similar to the observed forces.  Perhaps @Rodal has the page reference back to my calculation which is what I beleive you are stating.

Edit:  I think this was it (have to check)

"
The proposition that dispersion caused by an accelerating frame of reference implied an accelerating frame of reference caused by a dispersive cavity resonator. (to 1st order using massless, perfectly conducting cavity)


Starting with the expressions for the frequency of an RF cavity:

f = (c/(2*Pi))*((X/R)^2+((p*Pi)/L)^2)^.5

For TM modes, X = X[sub m,n] = the n-th zero of the m-th Bessel function.
[1,1]=3.83, [0,1]=2.40, [0,2]=5.52 [1,2]=7.02, [2,1]=5.14, [2,2]=8.42, [1,3]=10.17, etc.

and for TE modes, X = X'[subm,n] = the n-th zero of the derivative of the m-th Bessel function.
[0,1]=3.83, [1,1]=1.84, [2,1]=3.05, [0,2]=7.02, [1,2]=5.33, [1,3]=8.54, [0,3]=10.17, [2,2]=6.71, etc.

Rotate the dispersion relation of the cavity into doppler frame to get the Doppler shifts, that is to say, look at the dispersion curve intersections of constant wave number instead of constant frequency.

df = (1/(2*f))*(c/(2*Pi))^2*X^2*((1/Rs^2)-(1/Rb^2))

and from there the expression for the acceleration g from:

g = (c^2/L)*(df/f) such that:

g = (c^2/(2*L*f^2))*(c/(2*Pi))^2*X^2*((1/Rs^2)-(1/Rb^2))

Using the "weight" of the photon in the accelerated frame from:

"W" = (h*f/c^2)*g =>  "W" = T = (h/L)*df

gives thrust per photon:

T = (h/(2*L*f))*(c/(2*pi))^2*X^2*((1/Rs^2)-(1/Rb^2))

If the number of photons is (P/hf)*(Q/2*pi) then:

NT = P*Q*(1/(4*pi*L*f^3))*(c/(2*pi))^2*X^2*((1/Rs^2)-(1/Rb^2))"
« Last Edit: 05/03/2015 08:16 PM by Notsosureofit »

Offline TheTraveller


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.

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"

Good luck with that being as from what was posted up thread it has been implied that's gone dark as they say.
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.
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline Flyby

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 382
  • Belgium
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 46
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.

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....

Tags: