Author Topic: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive  (Read 192669 times)

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3761
  • Liked: 471
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive
« Reply #180 on: 05/01/2015 09:32 AM »
Someone said that the reference frame of the wave inside the resonant cavity becomes a preferred frame of reference, since the wave is what's said to be losing energy. I don't know enough to say if that's plausible or outright nonsense.


Here's one of the very first refutations published against Shawyer's EMdrive - it's by someone named John Costella:

http://johncostella.webs.com/shawyerfraud.pdf

Costella is apparently a PhD in electrodynamics, and his website shows an interest in investigating diverse things, including JFK's assassination.
« Last Edit: 05/01/2015 09:32 AM by sanman »

Online RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
  • Liked: 554
  • Likes Given: 764
Re: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive
« Reply #181 on: 05/01/2015 09:42 AM »
Here's one of the very first refutations published against Shawyer's EMdrive - it's by someone named John Costella:

http://johncostella.webs.com/shawyerfraud.pdf

Costella is apparently a PhD in electrodynamics, and his website shows an interest in investigating diverse things, including JFK's assassination.

I'm not really okay with any attempt to discredit someone's analysis/critique of EM drive by invoking what they have to say about something else. EM Drive needs to be able to stand on its own two feet, and if the critics are right, they're right, and if they're wrong, they're wrong. What they have to say about other things aren't relevant.
« Last Edit: 05/01/2015 09:43 AM by RotoSequence »

Online Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 80
Re: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive
« Reply #182 on: 05/01/2015 09:46 AM »


A FAQ will not change the fact that you are on the horns of a dilemma. Either the thing accelerates constantly and you violate energy and momentum or it does not and you create a preferred frame of reference. Which is it?

I heard a sacred cow lowing in the meadow. I must slay it.

The universe does have preferred directions. Time is an obvious example. But the data from the cosmic background radiation and studies of the large scale structure of the universe have issues that are best tentative explained (at least for now) by it having preferred directions WRT  some of it's other properties.
The rotations of galaxies has a preferred alignment. Dark Flow also seems to indicate a preferred direction as well. The universe itself appears to be spinning.

Die cow, die.   ;D
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline TheTraveller

Someone said that the reference frame of the wave inside the resonant cavity becomes a preferred frame of reference, since the wave is what's said to be losing energy. I don't know enough to say if that's plausible or outright nonsense.


Here's one of the very first refutations published against Shawyer's EMdrive - it's by someone named John Costella:

http://johncostella.webs.com/shawyerfraud.pdf

Costella is apparently a PhD in electrodynamics, and his website shows an interest in investigating diverse things, including JFK's assassination.
Calling the EMDrive a fraud is walking the plank, especially as multiple labs, in multiple countries, testing various build variations, all found significant thrust.

Still don't understand why EagleWorks didn't test Shawyers 2009 demo device? 214mN/kW would be SO FAR above noise/error as to totally remove any doubt. But instead they built their variation that produced microNewton thrust at mosquito levels and introduced room for doubters to live another day.
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline ppnl

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Liked: 99
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive
« Reply #184 on: 05/01/2015 09:51 AM »
A FAQ will not change the fact that you are on the horns of a dilemma. Either the thing accelerates constantly and you violate energy and momentum or it does not and you create a preferred frame of reference. Which is it?
Force is not Work.

Shawyer clearly states when the cavity moves, it's Q drops, which means it's load impedance as seen by the microwave generator on board the ship drops. This causes the microwave generator to deliver more energy into the resonate cavity to restore the lost cavity energy (due to lower cavity Q due to cavity energy converted into Kinetic energy by the EMDrive) from the electrical source

No where does Shawyer claim the EMDrive will constantly accelerate, as you assume, without needing more microwave energy to be inputted into the resonate cavity.

If you would like to review what Shawyer has said, please read all the papers and links here: www.emdrive.com

See his theory paper and equations for power needed to support EMDrive acceleration:
http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf

I never said force is work. Force times distance is work but I have no idea why that is relevant here.

I do not assume that the thing accelerates constantly. I asked you if it accelerates constantly. You see if it accelerates constantly you have one problem and if it does not you have a different problem.

Ok you are going with it does not accelerate constantly although getting that out of you was like pulling teeth. Do you understand how this violates relativity and just about all of modern physics? It would almost be simpler to violate COE.

For example it creates the problem that the power needed by the drive would change massively depending on the time of year. Do you understand why?

Offline TheTraveller

A FAQ will not change the fact that you are on the horns of a dilemma. Either the thing accelerates constantly and you violate energy and momentum or it does not and you create a preferred frame of reference. Which is it?
Force is not Work.

Shawyer clearly states when the cavity moves, it's Q drops, which means it's load impedance as seen by the microwave generator on board the ship drops. This causes the microwave generator to deliver more energy into the resonate cavity to restore the lost cavity energy (due to lower cavity Q due to cavity energy converted into Kinetic energy by the EMDrive) from the electrical source

No where does Shawyer claim the EMDrive will constantly accelerate, as you assume, without needing more microwave energy to be inputted into the resonate cavity.

If you would like to review what Shawyer has said, please read all the papers and links here: www.emdrive.com

See his theory paper and equations for power needed to support EMDrive acceleration:
http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf

I never said force is work. Force times distance is work but I have no idea why that is relevant here.

I do not assume that the thing accelerates constantly. I asked you if it accelerates constantly. You see if it accelerates constantly you have one problem and if it does not you have a different problem.

Ok you are going with it does not accelerate constantly although getting that out of you was like pulling teeth. Do you understand how this violates relativity and just about all of modern physics? It would almost be simpler to violate COE.

For example it creates the problem that the power needed by the drive would change massively depending on the time of year. Do you understand why?
I'm just a hack engineer who designs, builds and commissions stuff. Mostly guided by a well educated gut, from making lots of stupid mistakes.

I see the "Laws of Physics" as a set of assumptions, which seem to closely fit and predict what we have so far observed. That the EMDrive works is beyond doubt. That it seems to violate the LAWS as you understand them is, with respect, your issue. Shawyer has no issue with his understanding of the LAWS nor do I.

As for me, I think I can design one into a ship and make it work. What happens inside the resonate cavity and why is above my pay grade. What it works, is for me beyond doubt. That how it reacts to power input and kinetic energy output is understood enough to use it to move stuff.

BTW my frame of reference is my gut, which is now asking me for a nice glass of Red.
« Last Edit: 05/01/2015 10:15 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 ppnl

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Liked: 99
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive
« Reply #186 on: 05/01/2015 10:23 AM »
A FAQ will not change the fact that you are on the horns of a dilemma. Either the thing accelerates constantly and you violate energy and momentum or it does not and you create a preferred frame of reference. Which is it?
Force is not Work.

Shawyer clearly states when the cavity moves, it's Q drops, which means it's load impedance as seen by the microwave generator on board the ship drops. This causes the microwave generator to deliver more energy into the resonate cavity to restore the lost cavity energy (due to lower cavity Q due to cavity energy converted into Kinetic energy by the EMDrive) from the electrical source

No where does Shawyer claim the EMDrive will constantly accelerate, as you assume, without needing more microwave energy to be inputted into the resonate cavity.

If you would like to review what Shawyer has said, please read all the papers and links here: www.emdrive.com

See his theory paper and equations for power needed to support EMDrive acceleration:
http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf

I never said force is work. Force times distance is work but I have no idea why that is relevant here.

I do not assume that the thing accelerates constantly. I asked you if it accelerates constantly. You see if it accelerates constantly you have one problem and if it does not you have a different problem.

Ok you are going with it does not accelerate constantly although getting that out of you was like pulling teeth. Do you understand how this violates relativity and just about all of modern physics? It would almost be simpler to violate COE.

For example it creates the problem that the power needed by the drive would change massively depending on the time of year. Do you understand why?
I'm just a hack engineer who designs, builds and commissions stuff. Mostly guided by a well educated gut, from making lots of stupid mistakes.

I see the "Laws of Physics" as a set of assumptions, which seem to closely fit and predict what we have so far observed. That the EMDrive works is beyond doubt. That it seems to violate the LAWS as you understand them is your issue. Shawyer has no issue with his understanding of the LAWS nor do I.

As for me, I think I can design one into a ship and make it work. What happens inside the resonate cavity and why is above my pay grade. What it works, is for me beyond doubt. That how it reacts to power input and kinetic energy output is understood enough to use it to move stuff.

BTW my frame of reference is my gut, which is now asking me for a nice glass of Red.

Yes well as a "hack engineer" you may want to figure out why your ship works fine in December but fails to produce significant thrust in June. To do that you will need to understand frames of reference. But if you take the time to do that you may rethink your confidence in the drive.


Offline TheTraveller

Yes well as a "hack engineer" you may want to figure out why your ship works fine in December but fails to produce significant thrust in June. To do that you will need to understand frames of reference. But if you take the time to do that you may rethink your confidence in the drive.
Your reference link?
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

So Nasa tested the EM drive and it worked according to several news generators? Doesn't that defy Newtons laws of motion?Don't get me wrong this is wonderful news and the fact that some age old set in stone laws now have question marks could change the way we think about space travel. I mean we've been looking for the elusive "Gravaton" to no avail the fact EM drive works indicates different rules apply. I hope the results generate more experiments! Great work!

Offline Nilof

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 885
  • Liked: 355
  • Likes Given: 535
Re: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive
« Reply #189 on: 05/01/2015 11:42 AM »
A FAQ will not change the fact that you are on the horns of a dilemma. Either the thing accelerates constantly and you violate energy and momentum or it does not and you create a preferred frame of reference. Which is it?
Force is not Work.

Shawyer clearly states when the cavity moves, it's Q drops, which means it's load impedance as seen by the microwave generator on board the ship drops. This causes the microwave generator to deliver more energy into the resonate cavity to restore the lost cavity energy (due to lower cavity Q due to cavity energy converted into Kinetic energy by the EMDrive) from the electrical source

No where does Shawyer claim the EMDrive will constantly accelerate, as you assume, without needing more microwave energy to be inputted into the resonate cavity.

If you would like to review what Shawyer has said, please read all the papers and links here: www.emdrive.com

See his theory paper and equations for power needed to support EMDrive acceleration:
http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf

So how exactly does that apply to the case where it is traveling at a constant velocity and fighting friction? By the principle of relativity, there is no difference between the case of static thrust and the case of static velocity. So you can still use this to create more work than you put into it.
For a variable Isp spacecraft running at constant power and constant acceleration, the mass ratio is linear in delta-v.   Δv = ve0(MR-1). Or equivalently: Δv = vef PMF. Also, this is energy-optimal for a fixed delta-v and mass ratio.

Offline Chris Bergin

Commander Chris Hadfield just tweeted it to his 1.3 million followers.  :o

Offline ppnl

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Liked: 99
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive
« Reply #191 on: 05/01/2015 12:36 PM »
Yes well as a "hack engineer" you may want to figure out why your ship works fine in December but fails to produce significant thrust in June. To do that you will need to understand frames of reference. But if you take the time to do that you may rethink your confidence in the drive.
Your reference link?

What link? If the thrust is frame dependent then your ship will be in very different inertial frames in December and June and your drive will perform very differently depending on the time of year. That is a logical consequence of your choice to say that it does not accelerate constantly with constant energy input.

You don't even understand the nature of the problem I'm trying to explain.

Offline TheTraveller

So how exactly does that apply to the case where it is traveling at a constant velocity and fighting friction? By the principle of relativity, there is no difference between the case of static thrust and the case of static velocity. So you can still use this to create more work than you put into it.
If the ship is travelling at constant velocity, there is no acceleration occurring, no thrust being produced by the EMDrive, so the EMDrive is switched OFF.

When the EMDrive generates thrust, unless restrained from moving, it will cause the mass of what ever it is attached to move / accelerate, dropping resonate cavity Q, causing the EMDrive microwave load impedance to drop, causing the microwave generator to transfer more energy into the resonate cavity to restore the loss of cavity energy converted to kinetic, causing the microwave generator to draw more power from the primary electrical energy source.

COE is conserved.

All EMDrive does is to convert electrical energy into, if the EMDrive moves, kinetic energy. No OU. No free energy.

Ok a new / strange energy conversion technique but so was the 1st coil generating a magnetic field, so was the 1st motor, converting electrical energy into a magnetic field, into torque.

For the coil, the motor and the EMDrive, COE was conserved.

Interesting history of the development of electrical energy being converted into torque:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_electric_motor

Soon to be added: History of the development of electrical energy being converted into kinetic energy:
« Last Edit: 05/01/2015 12:58 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 TheTraveller

What link? If the thrust is frame dependent then your ship will be in very different inertial frames in December and June and your drive will perform very differently depending on the time of year. That is a logical consequence of your choice to say that it does not accelerate constantly with constant energy input.

You don't even understand the nature of the problem I'm trying to explain.
When did I say the EMDrive will not constantly accelerate if supplied with a constant energy input to the magnetron, maintaining a constant level of microwave energy in the resonant cavity as cavity microwave impedance drops, due to acceleration, from cavity stored energy conversion into kinetic?

It converts electrical energy into kinetic energy, if the EMDrive is allowed to move.
« Last Edit: 05/01/2015 01:03 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 Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6960
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 535
  • Likes Given: 610
Re: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive
« Reply #194 on: 05/01/2015 01:10 PM »
That last illustration, with the double ring "Enterprise", shows a bluish exhaust or ionization trail.  Maybe I misunderstood something, but I thought the EM drive did not have an exhaust.  Artistic license?  Pre-existing picture?

I don't know the provenance of this particular picture but it's based on a much, much older work. The 'S.S. Enterprise' was production art that originally came from the Star Trek art studio in the late 1970s. The original oil painting was used in a licensed book called "Spaceflight Chronology" (1979) in which it was described as a pre-Federation star liner. Prints and models based on the original work have also been used as set dressings in several of the Next Generation-era shows.
« Last Edit: 05/01/2015 01:30 PM by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2409
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 374
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive
« Reply #195 on: 05/01/2015 01:23 PM »
A FAQ will not change the fact that you are on the horns of a dilemma. Either the thing accelerates constantly and you violate energy and momentum or it does not and you create a preferred frame of reference. Which is it?
Force is not Work.

Shawyer clearly states when the cavity moves, it's Q drops, which means it's load impedance as seen by the microwave generator on board the ship drops. This causes the microwave generator to deliver more energy into the resonate cavity to restore the lost cavity energy (due to lower cavity Q due to cavity energy converted into Kinetic energy by the EMDrive) from the electrical source

No where does Shawyer claim the EMDrive will constantly accelerate, as you assume, without needing more microwave energy to be inputted into the resonate cavity.

If you would like to review what Shawyer has said, please read all the papers and links here: www.emdrive.com

See his theory paper and equations for power needed to support EMDrive acceleration:
http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf

I never said force is work. Force times distance is work but I have no idea why that is relevant here.

I do not assume that the thing accelerates constantly. I asked you if it accelerates constantly. You see if it accelerates constantly you have one problem and if it does not you have a different problem.

Ok you are going with it does not accelerate constantly although getting that out of you was like pulling teeth. Do you understand how this violates relativity and just about all of modern physics? It would almost be simpler to violate COE.

For example it creates the problem that the power needed by the drive would change massively depending on the time of year. Do you understand why?

Ok,

     Let me see if I can break this down to its simplest elements that laymen can understand.

     One, in order for it to the drive to work, energy has to be expended to create a propulsive force. (ie. Thrust)

     Two, "for every action, there has to be an equal and opposite reaction".  Basic Newtonian Physics, not a hundred percent accurate, but close enough.

     Three, electricity is being used to create Radio Frequencies within "The Device".

     Four, somehow, these "Radio Waves" are imparting their energy to "The Device" in such a way as to produce kinetic force in one particular direction.  (ie. Thrust)

     Five, the "Radio Waves" seem to be being expended in a direction opposite of the direction of thrust, if I understand the diagrams I have seen so far.

     Six, since energy is matter in a more coherent form than lasers or plasma, mass is being expended in a direction opposite the direction of motion.

     Seven, again, unless I am misunderstanding these diagrams, heat is being generated as part of this conversion of energy to thrust.

     Eight, in order to continue to generate thrust, more energy must be expended in order to generate RF, which is converted by "The Device" into heat and thrust.

     Nine, so, in order to generate thrust; mass, in the form of energy, is being expended and expelled in a direction of motion opposite of the direction of thrust, energy is being used to impart this motion. Heat is being generated as a byproduct of this process, and an amount of energy, similar to or larger than the normal amount of energy needed to break free of inertia and produce thrust, is being used, and if no additional energy is applied to the device, it stops generating thrust.  I think that pretty much sums up what we know so far.

     So, Ten, it appears as though this device is a more efficient form of thrust convertion device than are chemical, plasma or nuclear rockets, which require mass be expended in the form of propellent, in order to produce thrust.  It appears that mass, in the form of electrons, in this case, are being expended in order to impart thrust, but doing so in a much more energy efficent manner.

     Finally, if "The Device" is indeed producing thrust in this manner, and we don't quite have a grasp on HOW it's doing what it does, (I'm pretty sure there is some very simple explaination that everybody is overlooking, as these things usually wind up being) I'm not really quite sure WHAT particular law of physics that it is violating. none of the laws of motion or thermodynamics appear to be violated on the face of it. So, if it is indeed producing thrust, as all the tests so far seem to indicate, now all we need to do is figure out HOW it's doing it!

Oh! I also forgot to mention that the amount of theurst varies according to both the input of energy and the frequency of the RF generated.  (From what I think I understand, the higher the frequency, the more thrust is directly cvreated by "The Device")  Again, no violation of thermodynamics or Newtonian physics.
« Last Edit: 05/01/2015 01:33 PM by JasonAW3 »
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6960
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 535
  • Likes Given: 610
Re: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive
« Reply #196 on: 05/01/2015 01:29 PM »
Jason, thanks for the explanation that's simple enough for a guy who flunked A-level physics to understand!
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline ppnl

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Liked: 99
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive
« Reply #197 on: 05/01/2015 01:36 PM »
What link? If the thrust is frame dependent then your ship will be in very different inertial frames in December and June and your drive will perform very differently depending on the time of year. That is a logical consequence of your choice to say that it does not accelerate constantly with constant energy input.

You don't even understand the nature of the problem I'm trying to explain.
When did I say the EMDrive will not constantly accelerate if supplied with a constant energy input to the magnetron, maintaining a constant level of microwave energy in the resonant cavity as microwave impedance drops from cavity energy conversion to kinetic?

It converts electrical energy into kinetic energy, if the EMDrive is allowed to move.

That is what I was asking when I asked if it accelerated constantly. I mean constantly with constant power input. If power input is constant then total energy input increases linearly with time producing constant acceleration so velocity increases linearly with time. But kinetic energy increases with the square of velocity and so increases with the square of time.

Power input (electrical energy) is constant while energy output (kinetic energy) is growing much faster and at an ever increasing rate. That violates COE. That is because kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity.

If you had an electric car, 100% efficient and no friction losses, and gave it constant power input it would not accelerate constantly. It would start off with good acceleration but that would quickly fall to near zero as its velocity increased. You would need ever higher power inputs in order to just maintain constant acceleration. If your EMdrive works any different then it violates COE.


Offline TheTraveller

Ok,

     Let me see if I can break this down to its simplest elements that laymen can understand.

     One, in order for it to the drive to work, energy has to be expended to create a propulsive force. (ie. Thrust)

     Two, "for every action, there has to be an equal and opposite reaction".  Basic Newtonian Physics, not a hundred percent accurate, but close enough.

     Three, electricity is being used to create radio Frequencies within "The Device".

     Four, somehow, these "Radio Waves" are imparting their energy to "The Device" in such a way as to produce kinetic force.  (ie. Thrust)

     Five, the "Radio Waves" seem to be being expended in a direction opposite of the direction of thrust, if I understand the diagrams I have seen so far.

     Six, since energy is matter in a more coherent form than lasers or plasma, mass is being expended in a direction opposite the direction of motion.

     Seven, again, unless I am misunderstanding these diagrams, heat is being generated as part of this conversion of energy to thrust.

     Eight, in order to continue to generate thrust, more energy must be expended in order to generate RF, which is converted by "The Device" into heat and thrust.

     Nine, so, in order to generate thrust; mass, in the form of energy, is being expended and expelled in a direction of motion opposite of the direction of thrust, energy is being used to impart this motion. heat is being generated as a byproduct of this process, and an amount of energy, similar to or larger than the normal amount of energy needed to break free of inertia and produce thrust, is being used, and if no additional energy is applied to the device, it stops generating thrust.  I think that pretty much sums up what we know so far.

     So, Ten, it appears as though this device is a more efficient form of thrust convertion device than are chemical, plasma or nuclear rockets, which require mass be expended in the form of propellent, in order to produce thrust.  It appears that mass, in the form of electrons, in this case, are being expended in order to impart thrust, but doing so in a much more energy efficent manner.

     Finally, if "The Device" is indeed producing thrust in this manner, and we don't quite have a grasp on HOW it's doing what it does, (I'm pretty sure there is some very simple explaination that everybody is overlooking, as these things usually wind up being) I'm not really quite sure WHAT particular law of physics that it is violating. non-of the lawsof motion or thermodynamicsa appear to be violated on the face of it. So, if it is indeed producing thrust as all the tests so far seem to indicate, now all we need to do is figure out HOW it's doing it!

Heat is created by eddy currents in the walls of the cavity. They draw energy from the cavity energy, reducing stored cavity energy and cavity Q which is energy input per cycle to energy loss per cycle. This lost cavity energy reduces cavity stored energy and resultant generated thrust. The heat loss is not involved in thrust generation. It actually reduces thrust.

No mass is being expelled.

Please read: http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf
« Last Edit: 05/01/2015 01:53 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 JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2409
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 374
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: FEATURE ARTICLE: Evaluating NASA's Futuristic EM Drive
« Reply #199 on: 05/01/2015 01:38 PM »
Jason, thanks for the explanation that's simple enough for a guy who flunked A-level physics to understand!

      Hey, I try.  I'm just trying to simplify the concepts enough that everybody can wrap their heads around what is happening.
My God!  It's full of universes!

Tags: