Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 2  (Read 2102881 times)

Offline NovaSilisko

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1828
  • Liked: 1435
  • Likes Given: 1305
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.

Entirely agreed. I'm still a skeptic but I still want to see it tested thoroughly and robustly, just giving up at it solves nothing. I want to see each and every possible source of thrust eliminated until either it stops producing thrust, or a genuine mystery force remains.

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5916
  • Likes Given: 5256
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)

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/phodens.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/rayj.html#c1

https://cas.web.cern.ch/cas/Denmark-2010/Lectures/Wolski-2.pdf
« Last Edit: 05/04/2015 03:40 AM by Rodal »

Offline TheTraveller

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.
Sounds good to me.

1st thing for EWs to do is to realise, using their existing thrust measurement setup is that they will never measure thrust as long as the EM Drive is restrained from movement and not put into Motor or Generator mode by the application of an outside initial force.

They need to apply a small force to the big end to see acceleration (Motor mode) or a force to the small end to measure resistance (Generator mode).

Shawyer has also made it clear there is no need to put a dielectric inside the cavity & stated that doing so will reduce cavity Q (which will reduce thrust) and increase losses.

Seems to me that if anyone wishes to test an EM Drive, they should follow what Shawyer has said in what to avoid inside the cavity and how to put the drive into either Motor mode or Generator mode.

Matters not if there is agreement or not with Shawyer's theory.
http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf

His testing instructions are very clear.
http://www.emdrive.com/EmDriveForceMeasurement.pdf

I would speculate that an internal dielectric, placed on the small end wall, will generate a thrust, without initial movement as if a thrust had been placed on the small end plate. The direction of this dielectric generated force will not put the EM Drive into the desired accelerate / Motor mode but instead put it into the resistance / Generator mode, meaning the EM Drive will try to resist the thrust generated by the dielectric.

This seems clear from my reading of the data & emails Shawyer has provided.

If I was doing the tests, I would setup to measure the resistance / Generator mode as all you need to do is to apply a force to the small end and measure if there is any resistance to that force generated by the EM Drive. Seems easier to do than indirectly measuring acceleration via Shawyers suggested method as attached.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2015 03:48 AM 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 Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 80

Shawyer has also made it clear there is no need to put a dielectric inside the cavity & stated that doing so will reduce cavity Q (which will reduce thrust) and increase losses.

Seems to me that if anyone wishes to test an EM Drive, they should follow what Shawyer has said in what to avoid inside the cavity and how to put the drive into either Motor mode or Generator mode.

{snipped to keep the focus on my target}
His testing instructions are very clear.
http://www.emdrive.com/EmDriveForceMeasurement.pdf

{snipped to keep focus on my target}

This seems clear from my reading of the data & emails Shawyer has provided.


This point coupled with another poster's post (vulture4 at post 323 in the other thread http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.msg1368687#msg1368687 ) revealing how projects like these are funded or not clarifies something that has troubled me for years. Something I have found inexplicable now makes more sense.

NASA also attempted to replicate Podkletnov's anomalous gravity effect in a spinning superconductor. They failed to replicate the effect and vindicate Podkletnov. Subsequently Podkletnov claimed and the engineers involved apparently verified that they could not fabricate a test article identical to his specification nor could they replicate the rotational velocity that he specified with materials they had on hand.

Obviously with these deficiencies extant they could not replicate but neither could they really nullify his work. When I read of Podkletnov's objections I was astonished that NASA, In my mind the most formidable scientific and technically adept organization on earth would choose either to ignore vital technical details or else be unable to provide the necessary resources for a project they chose to take on like that.

Now I am sadder and wiser. :(
« Last Edit: 05/04/2015 04:30 AM by Stormbringer »
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline SethR

  • Member
  • Posts: 1
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Could a gravitational "Meissner effect" explain what we see here?

If such a gravitational anomaly could exist, it might explain Shawyer's early experiments?
« Last Edit: 05/04/2015 04:21 AM by SethR »

Offline ppnl

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

Well by the thread title this isn't the place to discuss experimental results. This is the thread to discuss space flight applications. That pretty much demands a discussion of COE, COM, frame dependence and such. If it violates COE can we make it power itself? And if we create frame dependence do we need to launch with the earths orbit or against? These are application relevant questions.

I certainly have no problem with people discussing the experimental setup but really who is off topic here?

Offline TheTraveller

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:







Yes there is a Rachet mode but internal to the EM Drive. As Shawyer has explained, a EM Drive will not of itself move. It needs an unbalancing of the cavity forces. Push it one way and it resists as if it had infinite mass. Push it the other way and it moves as if it had no mass. This action forms a natural ratchet.

In the design of Shawyers space plane it lifts a 300t vehicle to GEO altitude but at 0.05g. I suggest the low g is due to the EM Drive lift engine working in ratchet mode, where random upward forces fractionally lift a weightless vehicle via motor mode, while random downward forces are resisted by generator mode. Thus the EM Drive lift motors will cause the 300t mass to act like it has 0 mass and using random activated motor / generator mode very slowly climbs from sea level to GEO altitude.

What this also says is a EM Drive, for space flight, needs an auxiliary engine, Hall thruster would work ok, to ensure the EM Drive cavity was always in Motor mode. As the EM Drive will make the vehicle virtually massless, in relation to the Hall thruster, the required auxilary thrust would be very low.

This operarional characteristics may be why Boeing lost interest. As either be happy with random ratched mode acceleration of 0.05g or you need an auxilary thruster to continually place the cavity in motor mode.

So maybe rename the EM Drive to EM Mass Neutralisation Device.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2015 04:54 AM 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 Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 80
if what  you say is true there is no way Boeing or anyone else involved with any form of propulsion but especially aviation or space flight would lose interest. any reduced mass is astoundingly useful. Even if the thing only reduced mass by 1 percent it would revolutionize everything. Nothing would ever be the same again. Automobiles, trains, planes, rockets; everything.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2015 05:04 AM by Stormbringer »
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Online meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1236
  • Liked: 1144
  • Likes Given: 297
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

I hadn't read through that paper before. While they make the incorrect claim that classical EM can explain the thrust, they don't include enough detail in the theory to see where they went wrong. Their statements of the EM creating a radiation pressure, and that any force would be calculated by using surface integrals is basically correct. If this calculation was correctly done with Maxwell's equations, the time-averaged force would be 0.

Most of the paper is on the experiment and setup. I haven't gone through all of their calculation details, but it looks like they are trying to account for various sources of error.

Quote from: Yang Juan
Based on the installation orientation of Figure 2, when the thruster is working normally, if the electromagnetic coil 3 is working, the net thrust is from the microwave resonator large end to the small end; if the electromagnetic coil 4 is working, the net thrust is from the microwave resonator small end to the large end.   

I may be misunderstanding this part, since it seems to have been translated from Chinese. It seems like they are saying that by using the different coils, the direction of the force changes. The coils are external to the cavity based on the diagram. Unless they mean that the coils are EM based sensors to detect the motion, but that would be a weird choice in this case since leaked EM radiation could throw it off. If they are active devices, then it seems like an alternative possible source for the force ... turning on an electromagnet near a piece of metal.

Does anyone know what those coils actually are for? They don't seem to be mentioned later.

I haven't read the entire thread, but I feel like this paper was probably discussed at some point, if so could someone point me to where that was? I found nothing from a search. They provide enough structural details that an assessment of how well they controlled for biases in the experiment design could be made. I don't want to rehash that if it has already been thoroughly considered.

Offline PushHigher

  • Member
  • Posts: 17
  • Nevada, USA
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 21
For the last week or so, I've been reading through this thread and trying to grapple with the physics involved using my limited understanding of relativity.  As a child I used to love reading about Einstein and his thought experiments.  I decided to try it and came up with the following diagram of my thought process.  Take it with a grain of salt.  It's likely wrong, full of spelling mistakes, bad scientific assumptions etc.

One of the points I feel is lacking in this thread is how we should try to optimize this effect by increasing the EM Drive's efficiency. Shawyer eludes to this in his recent conversations.  If we could increase the effect significantly it becomes much easier to prove/disprove.  Further more, increasing efficiency would be key for space-travel  so the diagram also includes some thoughts I had on the subject.

Feedback welcome.


« Last Edit: 05/04/2015 07:47 AM by Galactic Penguin SST »

Offline TheTraveller

if what  you say is true there is no way Boeing or anyone else involved with any form of propulsion but especially aviation or space flight would lose interest. any reduced mass is astoundingly useful. Even if the thing only reduced mass by 1 percent it would revolutionize everything. Nothing would ever be the same again. Automobiles, trains, planes, rockets; everything.
Is not what I say. Is what Shawyer explains in his how to measure the forces pdf and in his explanation of how his space plane would do a 0.05g vertical lift.

As another example of EM Drive ratchet mode operation, assume we had a EM Drive with a motor & generator mode maximum force generation of 9.8 Newtons and the device had a mass of 0.5kg.

Now support it 1 mtr off the ground via say a small pedestal table, oriented such that the force of gravity would put the EM Drive into Generator / force resistance mode.

Next switch it on.

Now remove the pedestal support table.

Observe it is hovering as the downward 0.5kg weight is opposed by generator mode, which has a max ability to resist 9.8 Newtons of force or 1kg of mass at the Earth's surface.

Note that if you push down with your finger, it resists your pressure and feels as if the pedestal table were still there.

If you push up, from under the hovering EM Drive, it moves up and appears to be massless / weightless.

Next start placing additional 50g masses on the top of the hovering EMDrive.

After placing 10 of these (0.5kg) on the top, again now push down and observe the EM Drive moves down as if massless because your additional finger pressure exceeds the EM Drive generator mode max force generation capability. Pushing up achieves the same thing.

Now place the 11th 50g mass on the top of the EM Drive and observe it fall to the ground as if it's power had been cut off.

These thought experiment results are supported by what Shawyer has written but not in this way.

I trust this shows how the EM Drive is unlike anything humanity has experienced before. So please do not move forward thinking it is like a propellantless Hall thruster or rocket motor that generates thrust when the cavity is filled with microwave energy.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2015 06:26 AM 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 Eye_one

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • United States
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0


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!

Photons effect spacetime just like every other particle. Hence why a box full of light weighs more than a box full of nothing.

If the term denser doesn't describe more particles condensing to one side versus the other how should I describe it?

I'm a bit confused by the part on the graviton are you saying the mechanism I described doesn't make sense or no description makes sense?

I'll look into that book I haven't been to the public library in far longer than I care to admit and I have a few other books I'd like to read.

Sorry to everyone for going a bit of the topic of the use of this device in space travel but, I believe finding out exactly what it's doing is probably the most important aspect of how it can be applied in a spacecraft.

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
if what  you say is true there is no way Boeing or anyone else involved with any form of propulsion but especially aviation or space flight would lose interest. any reduced mass is astoundingly useful. Even if the thing only reduced mass by 1 percent it would revolutionize everything. Nothing would ever be the same again. Automobiles, trains, planes, rockets; everything.
Is not what I say. Is what Shawyer explains in his how to measure the forces pdf and in his explanation of how his space plane would do a 0.05g vertical lift.

As another example of EM Drive ratchet mode operation, assume we had a EM Drive with a motor & generator mode maximum force generation of 9.8 Newtons and the device had a mass of 0.5kg.

Now support it 1 mtr off the ground via say a small pedestal table, oriented such that the force of gravity would put the EM Drive into Generator / force resistance mode.

Next switch it on.

Now remove the pedestal support table.

Observe it is hovering as the downward 0.5kg weight is opposed by generator mode, which has a max ability to resist 9.8 Newtons of force or 1kg of mass at the Earth's surface.


So if I read you well and equivalence principle holds, having a rocket in deep space accelerating, by conventional mean, at 1g, a floor that is orthogonal to this acceleration, a pedestal resting on this floor, a powered EM drive resting on this pedestal in same configuration, remove the pedestal and one will observe the EM drive hovering above that floor (that is still accelerating at 1g). Meaning we now have a powered EM drive not needing to be "pushed" to accelerate at 1g (there is no longer any interaction between rocket and device).

Stop the conventional thrust of the rocket : the rocket will stop accelerating and proceed as an inertial mass at constant velocity (relative to whatever inertial frame). Let the device escape from an open front bay : it will continue to accelerate at 1g since it was no longer interacting with the rocket when the change in acceleration of the rocket occurred (no interaction => whatever change in rocket trajectory ignored). We now have a "conventionally" accelerating (thrusting) EM drive needing no added force.

So why bother with a Hall thruster ? Just put behind a big dumb powder booster that makes your EM drive accelerate at 1g for a fraction of a second the time it takes for the EM drive to "record" that acceleration as a "starting point". BTW, same argument above could be made if acceleration was 0.5g instead of 1g : this means we now have to add a new intrinsic variable to a moving object. What physical mechanism explains this memory effect of "initial acceleration" into an ongoing acceleration of given magnitude ?

Quote
...
I trust this shows how the EM Drive is unlike anything humanity has experienced before. So please do not move forward thinking it is like a propellantless Hall thruster or rocket motor that generates thrust when the cavity is filled with microwave energy.

Don't underestimate the aptitude of intelligent people to integrate counter intuitive formal systems when they show internal consistency.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2015 09:29 AM by frobnicat »

Offline TheTraveller

if what  you say is true there is no way Boeing or anyone else involved with any form of propulsion but especially aviation or space flight would lose interest. any reduced mass is astoundingly useful. Even if the thing only reduced mass by 1 percent it would revolutionize everything. Nothing would ever be the same again. Automobiles, trains, planes, rockets; everything.
Is not what I say. Is what Shawyer explains in his how to measure the forces pdf and in his explanation of how his space plane would do a 0.05g vertical lift.

As another example of EM Drive ratchet mode operation, assume we had a EM Drive with a motor & generator mode maximum force generation of 9.8 Newtons and the device had a mass of 0.5kg.

Now support it 1 mtr off the ground via say a small pedestal table, oriented such that the force of gravity would put the EM Drive into Generator / force resistance mode.

Next switch it on.

Now remove the pedestal support table.

Observe it is hovering as the downward 0.5kg weight is opposed by generator mode, which has a max ability to resist 9.8 Newtons of force or 1kg of mass at the Earth's surface.


So if I read you well and equivalence principle holds, having a rocket in deep space accelerating, by conventional mean, at 1g, a floor that is orthogonal to this acceleration, a pedestal resting on this floor, a powered EM drive resting on this pedestal in same configuration, remove the pedestal and one will observe the EM drive hovering above that floor (that is still accelerating at 1g). Meaning we now have a powered EM drive not needing to be "pushed" to accelerate at 1g (there is no longer any interaction between rocket and device).

Stop the conventional thrust of the rocket : the rocket will stop accelerating and proceed as an inertial mass at constant velocity (relative to whatever inertial frame). Let the device escape from an open front bay : it will continue to accelerate at 1g since it was no longer interacting with the rocket when the change in acceleration of the rocket occurred (no interaction => whatever change in rocket trajectory ignored). We now have a "conventionally" accelerating (thrusting) EM drive needing no added force.

So why bother with a Hall thruster ? Just put behind a big dumb powder booster that makes your EM drive accelerate at 1g for a fraction of a second the time it takes for the EM drive to "record" that acceleration as a "starting point". BTW, same argument above could be made if acceleration was 0.5g instead of 1g : this means we now have to add a new intrinsic variable to a moving object. What physical mechanism explains this memory effect of "initial acceleration" into an ongoing acceleration of given magnitude ?

Quote
...
I trust this shows how the EM Drive is unlike anything humanity has experienced before. So please do not move forward thinking it is like a propellantless Hall thruster or rocket motor that generates thrust when the cavity is filled with microwave energy.

Don't underestimate the aptitude of intelligent people to integrate counter intuitive formal systems when they show internal consistency.
Your example is interesting.

Here Shawyer says the measurements for the Flight Thruster where done with the Em Drive oriented up and down.
http://www.emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html
So following your excellent example, the EM Drive should do as you suggest. Continue to generate thrust at 1g, once removed from the Earth reference frame.

According to what Shawyer says in his "How to measure thrust" pdf and his space plane pdf, what you suggest should happen. The hovering EM Drive in a 1g accelerating rocket (frame of reference) should continue to hover in a 1g accelerating frame of reference, once exiting the bay doors. Assuming HAL opened them on command.

BTW it is not my EM Drive. I just read the data Shawyer has presented and worked out how such as device would work if placed in front of me and I had to work out how to test it. Which is something I have had to do many times.

Let the testing begin.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2015 10:25 AM 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 Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Liked: 775
  • Likes Given: 1012
Mr. Shawyer passed this along to share. See attachment. I didn't see it on his website. Maybe I missed it.

Looks like it goes along with the IAC-14 presentation here:
http://www.emdrive.com/iac2014presentation.pdf

The conference, page 133:
http://www.iafastro.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/IAC-2014-Final-Programme.pdf

He didn't give permission to share the email text this time. If he ever emails back, I'll ask for permission.

We're all very fortunate to have the inventor of EmDrive contributing to the discussion.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2015 10:29 AM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Liked: 775
  • Likes Given: 1012
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!

Yes, "lately" is the operative word. I've stopped posting the same stuff in hopes newcomers will start at page 1 and make their own conclusions. Forums are great for discussion happening here and now, but horrible for knowledge management. People just hopping in the discussion now are in the same situation as we were back at the start:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.0
I'm pretty clueless now, but I was super really clueless back then.

Speaking of KM, is there anyone out there that has what it takes and is willing to volunteer and set up a wiki or something?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki

I've set up a MediaWiki server before and it wasn't too bad. That is a good platform. I'm simply stretched too thin right now to try it again. My previous attempt at KM (just a simple Google Doc, which was pretty bad didn't catch on so I deleted it:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B4PCfHCM1KYoTXhSUTd5ZDN2WnM&usp=sharing



« Last Edit: 05/04/2015 11:03 AM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline TheTraveller

Mr. Shawyer passed this along to share. See attachment. I didn't see it on his website. Maybe I missed it.

Looks like it goes along with the IAC-14 presentation here:
http://www.emdrive.com/iac2014presentation.pdf

The conference, page 133:
http://www.iafastro.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/IAC-2014-Final-Programme.pdf

He didn't give permission to share the email text this time. If he ever emails back, I'll ask for permission.

We're all very fortunate to have the inventor of EmDrive contributing to the discussion.
Please thank Roger Shawyer for this information and thank you for sharing.

Seems Shawyer has thrown down a gauntlet.
Let the games begin.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2015 10:56 AM 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 Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5916
  • Likes Given: 5256
Mr. Shawyer passed this along to share. See attachment. I didn't see it on his website. Maybe I missed it.

Looks like it goes along with the IAC-14 presentation here:
http://www.emdrive.com/iac2014presentation.pdf

The conference, page 133:
http://www.iafastro.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/IAC-2014-Final-Programme.pdf

He didn't give permission to share the email text this time. If he ever emails back, I'll ask for permission.

We're all very fortunate to have the inventor of EmDrive contributing to the discussion.
Please thank Roger Shawyer for this information and thank you for sharing.

Seems Shawyer has thrown down a gauntlet.
Let the games begin.

Concerning the phrase “Shawyer has thrown down a gauntlet” , my understanding is that it means to challenge or confront someone.  Please explain further:

Who is being challenged by Shawyer? 
What is the challenge?
« Last Edit: 05/04/2015 11:18 AM by Rodal »

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
  • Liked: 554
  • Likes Given: 763
Concerning the phrase “Shawyer has thrown down a gauntlet” , my understanding is that it means to challenge or confront someone.  Please explain further:

Who is being challenged by Shawyer? 
What is the challenge?

I think the challenge is to catch up to the state of Shawyer's own research, so that it can be surpassed.  :)

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5916
  • Likes Given: 5256
Last year's R. Shawyer's conference presentation slides had been already posted in this thread.  I had not seen the final version of the presentation paper (the attachment in @Mulletron's post) but, although it is nice to have for reference, I did not see something there that we had not discussed or reviewed before (including the latest superconducting design by Shawyer which we have discussed multiple times), as well as his project studies for aerospace.

That conference was 6 months ago. 

There are several things that are NOT new, and that have been discussed for several months in these threads, for example:

* that R. Shawyer no longer uses any dielectric inserts in his EM Drive
* that the latest design of R. Shawyer is superconducting with Doppler compensation, and large cone angle and spherical ends



As an example of what can happen in 6 months of R&D, during the last 6 months, NASA Eagleworks reported:

1) The first time that any organization has conducted EM Drive tests in a vacuum
2) A positive signal in their interferometer tests, using an EM Drive pillbox shape as the test item.

QUESTIONS:

Is there any update on what is the progress with Shawyer's superconducting EM Drive?

Does he report an experimental Q?

Does he report any experimental measurements during the last 6 months?

Does anybody have an explanation why Shawyer reports measurements of force in opposing directions for the Demonstrator engine and ONLY for this engine (it cannot be a typo, since it is repeated in the final version of the conference paper).

If I have missed something new, that had not been reviewed previously, I would appreciate if somebody could point it out. 

If there nothing new that can be pointed out, there is no need to reply.

Thanks.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2015 01:24 PM by Rodal »

Tags: