Already been done.http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.htmlWatch the videos.

Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/07/2015 07:39 AMAlready been done.http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.htmlWatch the videos.Not really. Large air bearings will give you their own thrust with the slightest imperfection or obstruction. A wheel is much cleaner and believable.

Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/07/2015 07:39 AMQuote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 07:31 AMThe main attraction would be to get an EmDrive to accelerate a wheel from rest, period.That would be a Red Letter Day indeed - irrespective of the CofE issue.That would be headline news.Because of the coax RF feed I assume you'll mount the RF amp and any associated electronics next to the cavity?Already been done.http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.htmlWatch the videos.RF amp will be mounted next to the cavity but outside the Faraday Cage. If it leaks too much RF, will put it in it's own Faraday Cage.The videos are nice, but until the mechanisms are replicated by an independent third party, it doesn't count for beans. Third party replication and verification is what makes the scientific method such a powerful tool. If the replication experiments are successful, then it'll be time to shout it from the rooftops.

Quote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 07:31 AMThe main attraction would be to get an EmDrive to accelerate a wheel from rest, period.That would be a Red Letter Day indeed - irrespective of the CofE issue.That would be headline news.Because of the coax RF feed I assume you'll mount the RF amp and any associated electronics next to the cavity?Already been done.http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.htmlWatch the videos.RF amp will be mounted next to the cavity but outside the Faraday Cage. If it leaks too much RF, will put it in it's own Faraday Cage.

The main attraction would be to get an EmDrive to accelerate a wheel from rest, period.That would be a Red Letter Day indeed - irrespective of the CofE issue.That would be headline news.Because of the coax RF feed I assume you'll mount the RF amp and any associated electronics next to the cavity?

I disagree that they confirmed CofE observed. What was demonstrated was constant angular velocity at constant thrust. That represents zero acceleration. That does not correspond to either a constant acceleration model (non-CofE) nor to a decreasing acceleration model (CofE). What it shows is that an equilibrium was reached between the thrust and the friction at a particular angular velocity.Friction is not our friend because it muddies the waters. It needs to be modelled and it dissipates power to boot. Basically, it complicates the analysis. Nevertheless, one is going to have to deal with it in the data analysis.

If it works, the Twitter verse will do the shouting.

QuoteIf it works, the Twitter verse will do the shouting.Really? As far as I can see, all you'll have proven is that a hot metal cone mounted on a turntable can create enough convection currents to move it around a bit

Ensuring that the device is encased and no heat is getting out sounds very sensible, yes.

Quote from: dustinthewind on 05/07/2015 03:46 AMQuote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 02:19 AMQuote from: WarpTech on 05/07/2015 02:13 AMQuote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 01:49 AMQuote from: WarpTechI think I found the error in your analysis. You said,v = a*t = (F/m)*tThis statement "assumes" acceleration is a constant. It is not a constant, so...It is constant if and only if F is a constant of the motion. Which, as I have argued with recourse to SR, it indeed is.Did you find any other mistakes?No, and I hear you. I believe energy is Force x Distance and Power in = Power out, and energy is conserved. I also believe SR is an "approximation" to a more accurate theory that includes the relative energy of the local quantum vacuum. That is how my model works, because that is how the Math in GR and QED tells us it should work.Todd D.My mention of SR is simply in order to highlight a core principle of Einstein's thinking about space and time; to whit, there is no preferred inertial frame, such that physics there is different to physics in another one.Are you really saying that you reject this?What about with respect to the "Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation" CMBR? Couldn't we say the universe has this as an absolute frame? https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=16121186223305818545&hl=en&as_sdt=0,48Lets say there is a God view looking above far from all gravitational fields observing the universe and stationary with respect to its boundaries. (It should have a finite size if it had a beginning and an expansion.) Light falling into gravity fields I would think should slow down, (considering the limit when light reaches an event horizon). From inside a gravity field I should think light should still appear to be going c due the shrinking of the ruller. This could give the appearance of the index of refraction (gravitational lensing). Two objects traveling towards each other @ .6c still appear from the God view to be approaching at 1.2c though I suppose the two observers both have their (space/time) warped so it appears to them they are not approaching each other at 1.2c but rather v<c. I mean sure time/space screws our perceptions all up but why not have an absolute frame of the universe or CMB where either we are moving with respect to it or we arent? Or am I missing something. Congratulations! You have just "correctly" described the Polarizable Vacuum Model of General Relativity. However, we do not need the CMBR. We simply define an observer "at infinity" to have a refractive index, K=1. From that perspective, he can observe the relative value of K, for all gravitational fields, where K > 1. If he sees something moving FTL, he will assign that space with a relative value of, K < 1. It is still not a preferred frame, because K can be "defined" as 1 anywhere, and all observations are relative to that definition. Mark Millis has said that the CMBR is a preferred frame. IMO, it doesn't make the Math any easier, it just confuses people. As an engineer, I see all things as relative and take everything with a grain of salt. Todd

Quote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 02:19 AMQuote from: WarpTech on 05/07/2015 02:13 AMQuote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 01:49 AMQuote from: WarpTechI think I found the error in your analysis. You said,v = a*t = (F/m)*tThis statement "assumes" acceleration is a constant. It is not a constant, so...It is constant if and only if F is a constant of the motion. Which, as I have argued with recourse to SR, it indeed is.Did you find any other mistakes?No, and I hear you. I believe energy is Force x Distance and Power in = Power out, and energy is conserved. I also believe SR is an "approximation" to a more accurate theory that includes the relative energy of the local quantum vacuum. That is how my model works, because that is how the Math in GR and QED tells us it should work.Todd D.My mention of SR is simply in order to highlight a core principle of Einstein's thinking about space and time; to whit, there is no preferred inertial frame, such that physics there is different to physics in another one.Are you really saying that you reject this?What about with respect to the "Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation" CMBR? Couldn't we say the universe has this as an absolute frame? https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=16121186223305818545&hl=en&as_sdt=0,48Lets say there is a God view looking above far from all gravitational fields observing the universe and stationary with respect to its boundaries. (It should have a finite size if it had a beginning and an expansion.) Light falling into gravity fields I would think should slow down, (considering the limit when light reaches an event horizon). From inside a gravity field I should think light should still appear to be going c due the shrinking of the ruller. This could give the appearance of the index of refraction (gravitational lensing). Two objects traveling towards each other @ .6c still appear from the God view to be approaching at 1.2c though I suppose the two observers both have their (space/time) warped so it appears to them they are not approaching each other at 1.2c but rather v<c. I mean sure time/space screws our perceptions all up but why not have an absolute frame of the universe or CMB where either we are moving with respect to it or we arent? Or am I missing something.

Quote from: WarpTech on 05/07/2015 02:13 AMQuote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 01:49 AMQuote from: WarpTechI think I found the error in your analysis. You said,v = a*t = (F/m)*tThis statement "assumes" acceleration is a constant. It is not a constant, so...It is constant if and only if F is a constant of the motion. Which, as I have argued with recourse to SR, it indeed is.Did you find any other mistakes?No, and I hear you. I believe energy is Force x Distance and Power in = Power out, and energy is conserved. I also believe SR is an "approximation" to a more accurate theory that includes the relative energy of the local quantum vacuum. That is how my model works, because that is how the Math in GR and QED tells us it should work.Todd D.My mention of SR is simply in order to highlight a core principle of Einstein's thinking about space and time; to whit, there is no preferred inertial frame, such that physics there is different to physics in another one.Are you really saying that you reject this?

Quote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 01:49 AMQuote from: WarpTechI think I found the error in your analysis. You said,v = a*t = (F/m)*tThis statement "assumes" acceleration is a constant. It is not a constant, so...It is constant if and only if F is a constant of the motion. Which, as I have argued with recourse to SR, it indeed is.Did you find any other mistakes?No, and I hear you. I believe energy is Force x Distance and Power in = Power out, and energy is conserved. I also believe SR is an "approximation" to a more accurate theory that includes the relative energy of the local quantum vacuum. That is how my model works, because that is how the Math in GR and QED tells us it should work.Todd D.

Quote from: WarpTechI think I found the error in your analysis. You said,v = a*t = (F/m)*tThis statement "assumes" acceleration is a constant. It is not a constant, so...It is constant if and only if F is a constant of the motion. Which, as I have argued with recourse to SR, it indeed is.Did you find any other mistakes?

I think I found the error in your analysis. You said,v = a*t = (F/m)*tThis statement "assumes" acceleration is a constant. It is not a constant, so...

Quote from: WBY1984 on 05/07/2015 08:10 AMQuoteIf it works, the Twitter verse will do the shouting.Really? As far as I can see, all you'll have proven is that a hot metal cone mounted on a turntable can create enough convection currents to move it around a bit Good comment.Will add an IR camera video feed so we can see what the heat is doing. Could also put the EM Drive inside a 25mm thick foam box.Are you OK with those changes eliminating any heat anomaly?This dynamic test will only be done once the static tests show significant thrust and there is a input power to thrust curve available. This rotary test is not designed to measure thrust but to show how the power consumed by the EM Drive varies as rotary load varies, which to the EM Drive would be like a performance curve of power versus accelerative load mass.

Heh. Even when it's inside a sealed box?

That's why they're building a high power test of ±1Kw or so, hopefully by July...

Quote from: Flyby on 05/07/2015 10:14 AMThat's why they're building a high power test of ±1Kw or so, hopefully by July...I'm fairly sure it's +1 KW

Quote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 10:21 AMQuote from: Flyby on 05/07/2015 10:14 AMThat's why they're building a high power test of ±1Kw or so, hopefully by July...I'm fairly sure it's +1 KW 1.2 KW.