Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 2  (Read 2101454 times)

Offline KittyMoo

  • Member
  • Posts: 23
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 33
"High Fidelity Test Article" is just a name/label... Copied from Shawyer's literature.
It could have been named "1000N/kW Test Article"
Would that have made any difference without independent testing?

Offline ppnl

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Liked: 99
  • Likes Given: 13

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.

I'm not hand-waving. I'm pointing out that that Shawyer is.

He claims that it obeys COM and maybe it does. Maybe it reacts against the quantum vacuum, the dark matter field or matter in a parallel universe. But Shawyer never makes any such claim. In the end we have a device accelerating in one direction and nothing appears to go in the other direction. Until Shawyer can say what is being pushed in the other direction he cannot know that it obeys COM.

Shawyer claims that it obeys COE. He does this by clumsily equating energy transferred to the device to a calculation of the change in kinetic energy. But since kinetic energy is frame dependent he creates a preferred frame in violation of relativity. Now if he had done this on purpose it would be one thing. But he never mentions the frame roblem. It is just a side effect of his hand-waving. Maybe the thing does obey COE but until Sawyer shows where the preferred frame he cannot know this.

It is an extraordinary level of hand-waving.

And I am not saying things will not get better. My first computer operated at 4.77 mhz, had 32 kilobytes of memory and cost 3000 dollars. I now have alienware with 16 gigabytes of memory and a terabyte hard-drive for less than 2000. Don't talk to me about how things have changed. 

Offline SH

  • Member
  • Posts: 32
  • Mass
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 12
I like the 'turntable test.'  Seems like something the Eagleworks team should shoot for.  But...does this system of measuring thrust have any flaws that might skew the results?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but It appears to me that this apparatus is merely a measure of total displacement, not force, and it is only your assumption that the displacement is due to a consistent net force.  Any unconstrained vibrating object restricted to planar motion is likely to form a random walk across the plane, but when you restrict the motion to 1 dimension (clockwise or counterclockwise), as was done in this turntable, then the displacement will monotonically go either clockwise or counterclockwise, because a complete reversal of direction would require overcoming the existing momentum.  In other words, I think the motion in this video could be explained by mere vibrations that have no net force, with a direction of motion that is restricted by the conditions at initialization.
« Last Edit: 05/03/2015 10:44 PM by SH »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7995
  • UK
  • Liked: 1278
  • Likes Given: 168
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

Boeing'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

In this case that either means precisely what it says or it means the complete opposite which version you believe your mileage may vary with and not something I'll speculate on.
« Last Edit: 05/03/2015 10:52 PM by Star One »

Offline KittyMoo

  • Member
  • Posts: 23
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 33
Measurement of force from the various EM devices seem to go to great lengths to eliminate gravity as a force (excepting maybe some of the Cannae experiments.)
Is it plausible that the local gravity vector is involved in the anomalous thrusts?
Eg the difference between the experiments is how 'level' they are wrt the local gravity vector.
Would an 'up-down' weight measuring setup be a good idea as a compliment to existing measurements and eliminate some possible experimental errors?

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5913
  • Likes Given: 5253
I like the 'turntable test.'  Seems like something the Eagleworks team should shoot for.  But...does this system of measuring thrust have any flaws that might skew the results?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but It appears to me that this apparatus is merely a measure of total displacement, not force, and it is only your assumption that the displacement is due to a consistent net force.  Any unconstrained vibrating object restricted to planar motion is likely to form a random walk across the plane, but when you restrict the motion to 1 dimension (clockwise or counterclockwise), as was done in this turntable, then the displacement will monotonically go either clockwise or counterclockwise, because a complete reversal of direction would require overcoming the existing momentum.  In other words, I think the motion in this video could be explained by mere vibrations that have no net force, with a direction of motion that is restricted by the conditions at initialization.

Very interesting suggestion.  But I would have expected random vibrations to produce random walk motion in one direction with a ratchet form of stick-slip friction or a bearing acting with a ratchet-like action, as found in molecular motors


F. Ju¨licher, A. Ajdari, J. Prost, Rev. Mod. Phys. 69 (1997) 1269.

R. Lipowsky, in: J. Freund, T. Po¨ schel (Eds.), Stochastic Processes in Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Springer, Berlin, 2000, pp. 21–31.

R.D. Astumian, P. Ha¨ nggi, Physics Today 55 (11) (2002) 33.

The ratchet-like action would explain why it wants to move in only one direction (a factor TheTraveller has pointed out). (Without the ratchet-like action, just with stick slip friction it would initially move in either direction, depending on initial conditions)

Also, a displacement vs. time plot should be able to reveal the random vibration (performing Autocorrelation and Power Spectral Density via FFT). 

I performed Autocorrelation and Power Spectral Density analysis of the NASA Eagleworks data (of course only to the extent  allowed by the Nyquist frequency of the digitization from a picture, so not able to explore high frequencies).  The NASA Eagleworks data was fully explained by the natural frequency of the torsional (horizontal) pendulum and did not reveal random vibration (to the restricted extent previously explained).

There is not enough data available from Shawyer or Yang to perform a similar analysis, unfortunately.
« Last Edit: 05/03/2015 11:35 PM by Rodal »

Assuming the cavity isn't somehow spewing particles, how else could completely enclosing the test setup nullify the measured thrust?  Admittedly I know very little about these things and prefer to leave things to the experts (occasionally I can't resist the temptation to interject, mindful of my ignorance).  But assuming the null test is valid, any theory to account for the thrust will have to account for this test, it would seem.  Just seems like the null test should be getting more consideration.  Pardon my ignorance if this is a stupid comment.

http://enu.kz/repository/2009/AIAA-2009-5070.pdf

Edit: if anything you'd think the null test would nullify those theories suggesting that the anomalous thrust is due to some vibrational or heat transfer to the support device for the frustum.  I'm assuming that the support device was enclosed too.  Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2015 01:21 AM by lasoi »

Offline Eye_one

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • United States
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I posted yesterday in this thread http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.300 hoping to get a reply to a question on if this device producing gravity I realize now the question I posted was vague and the way I comprised the post might look childish so I'll try to expand on it.

The original post was as follows.
Quote
I apologize in advance my understanding is likely no where near where it should be but, there are no stupid questions only stupid people so prove me stupid.

Is it possible this device is condensing spacetime at one side and expanding it at the other creating a gravitational flow to one side?

This could explain some things like why when more power is put in the force becomes more directional or why the force changes depending on its orientation to the Earth's gravitational field.

Maybe somebody should place an atomic clock in the force it is producing.

I would like to correct a mistake in my original question before I start. When I said expanding spacetime at one side that is wrong it would simply be less compressed than the other side.

As I said in my original post my understanding of physics is not where it should be so it should be easy to prove this wrong for most of you and if you take 5 minutes to do so I will be extremely grateful.

I'll explain how I think this might be happening. If there is a denser concentration of microwaves in one side of the chamber compared to the other and these groups of microwaves are manipulating spacetime it would create a gravitational flow.

Basically I'm asking if it's possible this device is producing force by passing gravitons between groups of microwaves?

Yes I realize this probably sounds like crazy pseudo-science so I apologize in advance if you think this wasted your time.

Offline SH

  • Member
  • Posts: 32
  • Mass
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 12
Very interesting suggestion.  But I would have expected random vibrations to produce random walk motion in one direction with a ratchet form of stick-slip friction or a bearing acting with a ratchet-like action, as found in molecular motors...
The ratchet-like action would explain why it wants to move in only one direction (a factor TheTraveller has pointed out). (Without the ratchet-like action, just with stick slip friction it would initially move in either direction, depending on initial conditions)

The direction of motion could be controlled with a ratchet, but that would be pretty difficult to conceal and so would be an unlikely way to cheat.

More likely would be to have a very slight inclination, or to set it up so there is slightly more friction on one side than the other, thus controlling the initial otherwise random direction of movement. 

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5913
  • Likes Given: 5253
Very interesting suggestion.  But I would have expected random vibrations to produce random walk motion in one direction with a ratchet form of stick-slip friction or a bearing acting with a ratchet-like action, as found in molecular motors...
The ratchet-like action would explain why it wants to move in only one direction (a factor TheTraveller has pointed out). (Without the ratchet-like action, just with stick slip friction it would initially move in either direction, depending on initial conditions)

The direction of motion could be controlled with a ratchet, but that would be pretty difficult to conceal and so would be an unlikely way to cheat.

More likely would be to have a very slight inclination, or to set it up so there is slightly more friction on one side than the other, thus controlling the initial otherwise random direction of movement.
I didn't mean that an actual ratchet was used to conceal the motion of course, instead I meant that something in the system is naturally acting as a ratchet, that's why I gave the example with references about molecular motors whose motion work as a ratchet random walk.   





The references I gave in my prior post actually deal with random walks that have a preferred direction, called in academia ratchet motion.

A biased random walk is another type of possible random walk.  But due to biased stick-slip it would be a ratchet random walk.

 One would have to examine the system, for anything that unintentionally acts like a ratchet.

just a few examples of a ratchet mechanism due to stick slip friction:






« Last Edit: 05/04/2015 12:55 AM by Rodal »

Offline SH

  • Member
  • Posts: 32
  • Mass
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 12
One would have to examine the system, for anything that unintentionally acts like a ratchet.

Interesting.  However, this would only be necessary in order to figure out exactly what was going on, if other methods of measuring the force were negative.

The real test that should be done is measuring the force using different methods, because if the experiment is somehow interacting with one type of measurement apparatus, it is unlikely to be interacting with others.  If the force is real, then any method of measuring the force should produce the same result.

Perhaps we have been thinking about this problem the wrong way, trying to think of ways that a force would be generated, rather than trying to think of ways that the measurement apparatus used by EW might possibly be biased by the experiment.

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5913
  • Likes Given: 5253
One would have to examine the system, for anything that unintentionally acts like a ratchet.

Interesting.  However, this would only be necessary in order to figure out exactly what was going on, if other methods of measuring the force were negative.

The real test that should be done is measuring the force using different methods, because if the experiment is somehow interacting with one type of measurement apparatus, it is unlikely to be interacting with others.  If the force is real, then any method of measuring the force should produce the same result.

Perhaps we have been thinking about this problem the wrong way, trying to think of ways that a force would be generated, rather than trying to think of ways that the measurement apparatus used by EW might possibly be biased by the experiment.

Well, that was one my earlier thoughts of course (probably @frobnicat remembers  :) )

I thought there could be chaotic motion resulting from nonlinear coupling in the pendulum setup.  I actually modeled with Mathematica the nonlinear coupled equations of motion and I found certain conditions leading to chaotic motion (I posted them in earlier pages of the first thread).  @frobnicat warned me that was perhaps too elaborate a thought: apparently he was right as the data from NASA Eagleworks that I analyzed did not display any chaotic motion that I could pick up from my FFT analysis.

But I didn't model the whole intricate system.  I only modeled what Paul March was able to give me details for (in the first thread Paul March also had to stop posting due to abusive rude behavior from other posters  :(  so the number of questions I could ask him were limited  ) 
« Last Edit: 05/04/2015 01:22 AM by Rodal »

Offline ThinkerX

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Alaska
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 59
Quote
The real test that should be done is measuring the force using different methods, because if the experiment is somehow interacting with one type of measurement apparatus, it is unlikely to be interacting with others.  If the force is real, then any method of measuring the force should produce the same result.

Except, in a sense, we already have that.  Shawyer tested one of his devices (and maybe others???) on the turntable; while Eagleworks uses a very different means for their device.  Should Eagleworks somehow produce a device that generates 'thrust' using both detection instruments, then that goes a long ways towards verifying this effect...especially if both are done in a vacuum.  Hmmm...would the turntable device even fit in a vacuum chamber?

Offline aminordisaster

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • Florida
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 15
I posted yesterday in this thread http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.300 hoping to get a reply to a question on if this device producing gravity I realize now the question I posted was vague and the way I comprised the post might look childish so I'll try to expand on it.

The original post was as follows.
Quote
I apologize in advance my understanding is likely no where near where it should be but, there are no stupid questions only stupid people so prove me stupid.

Is it possible this device is condensing spacetime at one side and expanding it at the other creating a gravitational flow to one side?

This could explain some things like why when more power is put in the force becomes more directional or why the force changes depending on its orientation to the Earth's gravitational field.

Maybe somebody should place an atomic clock in the force it is producing.

I would like to correct a mistake in my original question before I start. When I said expanding spacetime at one side that is wrong it would simply be less compressed than the other side.

As I said in my original post my understanding of physics is not where it should be so it should be easy to prove this wrong for most of you and if you take 5 minutes to do so I will be extremely grateful.

I'll explain how I think this might be happening. If there is a denser concentration of microwaves in one side of the chamber compared to the other and these groups of microwaves are manipulating spacetime it would create a gravitational flow.

Basically I'm asking if it's possible this device is producing force by passing gravitons between groups of microwaves?

Yes I realize this probably sounds like crazy pseudo-science so I apologize in advance if you think this wasted your time.

Simply put, photons carry the electromagnetic force of which microwaves are a part of. Photons have no mass therefor do not manipulate spacetime, only travel through it. The term "denser" can not apply to a massless particle.

The theoretical graviton is similar to the photon in that it is massless and it carries the gravitational force. Any mechanism for the absorption or emission of gravitons hasn't made much sense.

If this interests you, may i suggest "The Theory of Almost Everything" by Robert Derter. It will introduce you to some basic principles you will need to know.

Everyone knew nothing before they knew something!
"Feynman, I know why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass" "Why?" "Because they are all the same electron!"

Offline SH

  • Member
  • Posts: 32
  • Mass
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 12
It is very sad when people come to a forum hiding under monickers behaving in an abusive way which they would never dare do face to face or using their real names, and prevent communication with researchers, oh well

I don't blame people for being close-minded about something that appears to violate the known laws of physics.  From religion to pseudo science to mystics, mind readers, astrology, a person is constantly being bombarded by contradictory beliefs of others, and in general I think it is important to build up an established basis of truths and be close-minded to any idea that violates those truths. 

I also don't blame people for being frustrated at the media for sensationalizing articles that appear to violate the known laws of physics, and being frustrated at how quickly they see other people will reject established laws of physics, and I can see how they would be upset at the authors for misleading people into believing something they know is false, just as I am sometimes upset to see a psychic mislead my girlfriend into thinking she has received a message from her dead grandmother.  It's in effect preying upon the less knowledgeable and filling their heads with jelly beans, and contributing to a culture that does not respect science.

Therefore, I can understand how that would cause a lot of upset people to come here in an angry state to vent about how all this is garbage...

I personally am quite intrigued by this EM drive, and I am allowing myself on this rare occasion to indulge in the act of fantasizing about the implications if it is proven to be real....but it does not bother me to see these other more close-minded people.

I think it is simply important to have a space that is separated, where those who choose to entertain the idea can do so without continuous distraction from those who want to vent their frustration.

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 1361
I posted yesterday in this thread http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.300 hoping to get a reply to a question on if this device producing gravity I realize now the question I posted was vague and the way I comprised the post might look childish so I'll try to expand on it.

The original post was as follows.
Quote
I apologize in advance my understanding is likely no where near where it should be but, there are no stupid questions only stupid people so prove me stupid.

Is it possible this device is condensing spacetime at one side and expanding it at the other creating a gravitational flow to one side?

This could explain some things like why when more power is put in the force becomes more directional or why the force changes depending on its orientation to the Earth's gravitational field.

Maybe somebody should place an atomic clock in the force it is producing.

I would like to correct a mistake in my original question before I start. When I said expanding spacetime at one side that is wrong it would simply be less compressed than the other side.

As I said in my original post my understanding of physics is not where it should be so it should be easy to prove this wrong for most of you and if you take 5 minutes to do so I will be extremely grateful.

I'll explain how I think this might be happening. If there is a denser concentration of microwaves in one side of the chamber compared to the other and these groups of microwaves are manipulating spacetime it would create a gravitational flow.

Basically I'm asking if it's possible this device is producing force by passing gravitons between groups of microwaves?

Yes I realize this probably sounds like crazy pseudo-science so I apologize in advance if you think this wasted your time.

Simply put, photons carry the electromagnetic force of which microwaves are a part of. Photons have no mass therefor do not manipulate spacetime, only travel through it. The term "denser" can not apply to a massless particle.

The theoretical graviton is similar to the photon in that it is massless and it carries the gravitational force. Any mechanism for the absorption or emission of gravitons hasn't made much sense.

If this interests you, may i suggest "The Theory of Almost Everything" by Robert Derter. It will introduce you to some basic principles you will need to know.

Everyone knew nothing before they knew something!

Confined photons in particular do have an energy density and affect spacetime as does any other (ie the cavity when filled w/ photons is heavier than when empty)

Offline tchernik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 247
  • Liked: 297
  • Likes Given: 577
I just wish we could remain on topic and talk about Emdrive experimental results, instead of the umpteenth attempt of refutation from new comers, that add nothing to the same umpteenth+1 reasons already brought and discussed here.

I'm not hostile to criticism, but the arguments of violation of conservation momentum, conservation of energy and relativity are well known. Just read the thread history people.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2015 01:48 AM by tchernik »

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3468
  • Liked: 453
  • Likes Given: 114
I think it is simply important to have a space that is separated, where those who choose to entertain the idea can do so without continuous distraction from those who want to vent their frustration.
Yes and the moderators have made some attempts.

Suggestion: perhaps this thread could be temporarily moved to a harder to find location or renamed or a new thread (3) created. (this last one would completely solve the apparent direct linking, but any EM thread that pops to the top of the advanced topics forum will get hits from newcomers who don't read the fineprint)

It isnt my place to suggest something to the moderators though. This is a suggestion to people who post regularly here, to think about suggesting to the moderators in whichever variation suits you.

Offline inquisitive-j

  • Member
  • Posts: 6
  • United States
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 2
I just wish we could remain on topic and talk about Emdrive experimental results, instead of the umpteenth attempt of refutation from new comers, that add nothing to the same umpteenth+1 reasons already brought and discussed here.

I'm not hostile to criticism, but the arguments of violation of conservation momentum, conservation of energy and relativity are well known. Just read the thread history people.

I agree completely. It's well established that it "shouldn't" work. The question is if it does work. I really wish people would leave the naysaying and the conspiracy theories at the door. It's useful to point out things that might create the appearance of thrust and to suggest a way to control for those things. It's not helpful to say that it can't work so stop experimenting. I also think that constructing theories to explain a thrust we aren't yet sure exists is a bit premature to say the least.

 I think we should concentrate on getting higher quality data. From there we can construct or refute theories.

Offline TheTraveller

"High Fidelity Test Article" is just a name/label... Copied from Shawyer's literature.
It could have been named "1000N/kW Test Article"
Would that have made any difference without independent testing?
Interesting.
Can't find where Shawyer gives it that label. His web page on the Flight Thruster never mentions it.
http://www.emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html
Please share your information.
Thanks.
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.”
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Tags: