Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3  (Read 1800589 times)

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
An email to Dr. White head, Eagleworks, JSC, NASA:

Quote
Hi Dr. White,

I'm an active member of the NSF EMDrive discussion forum and of the Reddit EMDrive group and an engineer by training.

On both forums your Appendix A titled

"Analysis  of  Conservation of  Energy for Interplanetary Space  Missions using Electric  Propulsion"

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140013174.pdf

has been claimed to be in error, being

1) The calculations for the start-final KE analysis is negative but is shown as positive.

2) The analysis fails to use the Oberth effect on the KE of the ships fuel.

Your comments are most welcome as possible CofE violation for long term thrusting spacecraft needs to be understood, especially if applicable to non propellantless drive technology.

I would also like to further understand this statement of yours:

"When this situation  occurs,  in  order  to  ensure  that  the  input  energy  is equal  to  the  change  in  kinetic  energy,  the  thrust  to  power performance  will  have  to  decrease  over  time."

How will this happen? How will the ship know when to stop obeying A = F/M and start reducing force generation to not break CofE? What will happen if the ship continually accelerates?

I actively support your work at Eagleworks and believe those that say your Q Thruster / EMDrive can't work as claimed because then CofE will be violated are incorrect.

Hopefully your reply will help others to understand apparent CofE violation with propellantless thrusters is not the show stopper they think it is.

Best regards

I didn't mention the NSF members
deltaMass,
WarpTech,
frobnicat

who appatently have claimed Dr. White is wrong.

Do hope they come forward once Dr. White responds and take up their claims directly with Dr. White.

Getting the CofE issue clearly resolved one way or the other is so important so we can move forward and leave an incorrect assumption (one or the orher) behind.

When I initially had issues with Roger Shawyer, I didn't call him out in a public forum, making comments behind his back that he was incorrect. I gave him the courtesy of answering my concerns, which he did.
Add Rodal to that list too. I remember because of "imprimatur(a)"
« Last Edit: 06/23/2015 07:50 AM by deltaMass »

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5916
  • Likes Given: 5256
An email to Dr. White head, Eagleworks, JSC, NASA:

Quote
Hi Dr. White,

I'm an active member of the NSF EMDrive discussion forum and of the Reddit EMDrive group and an engineer by training.

On both forums your Appendix A titled

"Analysis  of  Conservation of  Energy for Interplanetary Space  Missions using Electric  Propulsion"

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140013174.pdf

has been claimed to be in error, being

1) The calculations for the start-final KE analysis is negative but is shown as positive.

2) The analysis fails to use the Oberth effect on the KE of the ships fuel.

Your comments are most welcome as possible CofE violation for long term thrusting spacecraft needs to be understood, especially if applicable to non propellantless drive technology.

I would also like to further understand this statement of yours:

"When this situation  occurs,  in  order  to  ensure  that  the  input  energy  is equal  to  the  change  in  kinetic  energy,  the  thrust  to  power performance  will  have  to  decrease  over  time."

How will this happen? How will the ship know when to stop obeying A = F/M and start reducing force generation to not break CofE? What will happen if the ship continually accelerates?

I actively support your work at Eagleworks and believe those that say your Q Thruster / EMDrive can't work as claimed because then CofE will be violated are incorrect.

Hopefully your reply will help others to understand apparent CofE violation with propellantless thrusters is not the show stopper they think it is.

Best regards

I didn't mention the NSF members
deltaMass,
WarpTech,
frobnicat

who appatently have claimed Dr. White is wrong.

Do hope they come forward once Dr. White responds and take up their claims directly with Dr. White.

Getting the CofE issue clearly resolved one way or the other is so important so we can move forward and leave an incorrect assumption (one or the orher) behind.

When I initially had issues with Roger Shawyer, I didn't call him out in a public forum, making comments behind his back that he was incorrect. I gave him the courtesy of answering my concerns, which he did.
Add Rodal to that list too. I remember because of "imprimatur(a)"
deltaMass, I certainly don't mind to be added to a list with  WarpTech, frobnicat and you :) , but I wondered what did I really write and upon searching I found that what I wrote about "imprimatur(a)" was in reference to Hawking: I wrote that White and Woodward deserve the same consideration as Hawking.  The purpose of my post was to ask you <<How do you address Woodward's conjecture ?  (he claims that it is perfectly compatible with GR)>>


This is what I wrote about ""imprimatur(a)":

Quote from: Rodal http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1370827#msg1370827

Quote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 12:28 AM

I must reject the analysis by J & W in Appendix A, but thanks for the link.

I have already mentioned in my preamble that not only is any propellantless propulsion craft capable of perpetuum mobile operation, but that free energy is available on top of that to boot.

This causes many people to break out in hives, or to resort to chewing their towels.  ::)
Well, when somebody like Hawkings proposes chronology protection to prevent time travel:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_protection_conjecture

it is invested with the imprimatura of somebody serious. So White and Woodward deserve the same attention and respect.

How do you address Woodward's conjecture ?  (he claims that it is perfectly compatible with GR)


to which deltaMass answered:

Quote from: deltaMass
Having been raised in the sixties, I am kinda allergic to imprimatura imprimaturs. A pox on them, say I.

Having said that, I think that it was proper for you (deltaMass) to address the Energy Paradox, and that the more light that is shed on this paradox, the better.
« Last Edit: 06/23/2015 02:03 PM by Rodal »

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
It's Hawking and imprimatur btw. Fair enough if you wish to place Woodward and White together with Hawking. It is certain, at least, that all three are serious. I do recall a slightly previous remark you made about White's paper that expressed rather greater surprise. I'd go find it except for the so-called "search function" here.

Offline graybeardsyseng

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • Texas, USA
  • Liked: 159
  • Likes Given: 636
I have a 7 ton car lift in my shop that is buried in over 3 feet of bedrock and concrete so I figured I would use that as it's stable.

Thoughts? Questions?

Shell

In my own speculative experimental design I also have thought about using a very large beam with a laser pointer. 

Question.  Does something as massive as that beam really need any additional dampening?   Without doing the math, I envisaged that any changes would happen slowly, the mass of the beam dampening most artifacts. 

Also, because it will be slow, you need to be mindful of cooling since everything will need to run for long periods of time.
Good points. I worried about the pendulum effect that I've seen on other tests and the slow movement of other outside forces is a concern. I remember setting up anti-vibration tables in a lab and watching cars and trucks drive by a 100 foot away. Even when we would set up our semiconductor equipment in a lab with a concrete floor we could detect the bending movement of the floor and into our machines by someone walking next to it. Very small movements, but a issue when they were expecting submicron accuracies. 

Cooling is a issue and I hope the holes in the Copper Frustum help, free hanging with holes I should get away from a hot air balloon effect but still need to worry about hot air eddie currents from the frustum. Turning the drive around should give me subtracting data for the total deviations.

The lasers are great to monitor deflections and vibrations of the beam, plus they are very cheap.

I hope by putting the beam between the 2 stainless steel cables I can reduce movement in one direction and the oil damper should help with any others... hope.

Thanks for your input, I don't feel so alone in doing this.

Shell

Very impressive setup.   I too lust for your shop!!

One comment though - very glad to see you are using laminate for your beam.  That should eliminate a lot of issues but one thing I would add (and you may have and I just missed it - keeping up with amount of data on this thread taxes my  reading speed - getting old is tough work) is a way of watching out for twist along the long axis.   The laminate SHOULD limit or hopefully eliminate this but I have seen long thin laminate columns experience experimentally significant twist;  not necessarily visible to naked eye.

The EMDRIVE shouldn't add enough force to cause a problem here but anomalous inputs might (temp./humidity etc).   Reflected laser to spot on wall might be able to be rigged up but would of course need to eliminate normal motion.   

This is a SMALL effect, but then again we are looking for small signals. 

Herman
EMdrive - finally - microwaves are good for something other than heating ramen noodles and leftover pizza ;-)

Offline Chrochne

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 182
  • Liked: 104
  • Likes Given: 247
Roger Shawyer kindly sent me a copy of his EMDrive paper that is currently under peer review. All I can say is WOW. All doubt will be removed. Apologises but can't yet share it.

Would make one comment.

The EMDrives on the IXS Clark are old tech, working at only 4N/kW. If  you think the voyage times here

http://emdrive.wiki/Potential_EMDrive_solar_system_explorer_ship

look good, well lets just say they need to be revised downward quite a bit.

Still in bed, recovering slower than desired, damn old age, but getting there. My build start still looks like 4 to 6 weeks away but the design steadly improves. Force measurement system will follow what Shawyer did in the Flight Thruster demo setup as attached. Hang it from a spring and measure the generated forces on a digital scale. Typical KISS enginerring.



This is quite a WOW post Mr. Traveller. I try to speculate that second generation EmDrive (prototype) is operational? I can not wait to read that paper you speak about. I also can not imagine what storm it will start here on the forum (and not only here). I already feel sorry for the moderators.

Anyway thank you for interesting post.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8011
  • UK
  • Liked: 1278
  • Likes Given: 168

Roger Shawyer kindly sent me a copy of his EMDrive paper that is currently under peer review. All I can say is WOW. All doubt will be removed. Apologises but can't yet share it.

Would make one comment.

The EMDrives on the IXS Clark are old tech, working at only 4N/kW. If  you think the voyage times here

http://emdrive.wiki/Potential_EMDrive_solar_system_explorer_ship

look good, well lets just say they need to be revised downward quite a bit.

Still in bed, recovering slower than desired, damn old age, but getting there. My build start still looks like 4 to 6 weeks away but the design steadly improves. Force measurement system will follow what Shawyer did in the Flight Thruster demo setup as attached. Hang it from a spring and measure the generated forces on a digital scale. Typical KISS enginerring.



This is quite a WOW post Mr. Traveller. I try to speculate that second generation EmDrive (prototype) is operational? I can not wait to read that paper you speak about. I also can not imagine what storm it will start here on the forum (and not only here). I already feel sorry for the moderators.

Anyway thank you for interesting post.

If he's going to make any headway in persuading his many detractors he's going to need more than a peer reviewed paper. He's going to need a functioning 2nd generation drive at the very least.

Offline Stormbringer

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






The liquid connection of choice here is something called Galinstan. Do check it out. It's far safer than mercury.

I am *not* going to test this out personally; but I have read that elemental mercury isn't too dangerous or even biologically active. It's methyl-mercury and dimethyl mercury that are biologically active and very toxic.

http://www.epa.gov/mercury/exposure.htm

« Last Edit: 06/23/2015 11:19 AM by Stormbringer »
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline TheTraveller

If he's going to make any headway in persuading his many detractors he's going to need more than a peer reviewed paper. He's going to need a functioning 2nd generation drive at the very least.

Don't believe he cares what his many detractors think. Do believe many here may have undisclosed reasons behind their deep seated dislike of him.

So yes I agree the peer review paper will have little effect on changing deep rooted opinions.

It is a pitty to see intelligent people invest so much intellectual capital in opposing Roger Shawyer and his EMDrive invention that there is no way for them to later alter their position and still be credible.
"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
....

Let's try to work through this.  The standard convention is to take z as the axis of symmetry (the longitudinal axis of the cone) but the way you labeled them, it looks like x is your axis of symmetry, is that correct?

If x is the axis of symmetry, then y and z are perpendicular to it. 
On the trapezium-looking cross section with axis y perpendicular to it, the axis of the trapezium are x and z, is that correct?

OK, if the answer is yes, on your y plot, what are you plotting:

Ex ?

Ez?

Hx?

Hz?

X is the axis of symmetry. The antenna is to the +Y edge of the cavity. Z completes the coordinate system.

I am plotting a snap shot of the x, y and z corrdinate values of the Ez field. More than that you'd have to ask a physicist.
Can you plot the Absolute Value of the E field:

for example, for the cross-section with normal y

instead of Ez, can you have contour plot Sqrt[(Ex)^2 + (Ez)^2]

That is not an option that I see in the h5topng manual. Maybe HDFview has that option but I think you're asking for some MatLab data processing. If so, then no, I can't, maybe someone else would like to accept the challenge. I know that Meep users commonly reduce data using MatLab programs so it's likely possible.

Your Ex component should be zero (I keep forgetting that you are using x for the longitudinal axis)

There should only be a magnetic field Hx component in the longitudinal direction for x for TE modes.

That's why it is called Transverse Electric: there should not be an electric field in the longitudinal direction

It is for a circular cross section with normal x you need to plot Sqrt[Ez^2+Ey^2]

Can you please verify that your Ex is zero ?

Can you give us a plot of the Hx field for the TE mode?



I'm thinking that we need to consider the coordinate systems in a little more detail. The origon of the of the EM fields is the location of the antenna. The x, y, and z coordinates of the EM fields start at that origin. The fields do pass through the origon of the cavity which is on the central axis of rotation equidistant from the ends.

Meep calculates from the origin of the cavity but the field patterns are at an angle to that origin, maybe by as much as 45 degrees. The antenna center is offset from the big end by 1.35 inches and the central axis by the radius of the cavity minus 7 mm in the Y edge direction of the cavity. So the field pattern coordinate values detected by meep are a vector combination of the field patterns generated by the antenna.

To me the implication seems to be that patterns detected by meep will not coincide with the theorecal patterns except when the antenna is centered within the cavity.

The electric field must satisfy the boundary conditions of the problem.  The boundary conditions are dictated by copper metal in circular cross-sections, not in Cartesian square cross-sections. 

To hope to answer the questions you raise we have to start by understanding what is it that you are plotting.


So far I have understood that:

1) You chose a coordinate Cartesian system that has its origin x=0,y=0,z=0 at the antenna location

2) You chose the x axis to be aligned parallel to the longitudinal axis of symmetry of the cone

3) You chose to plot the component of the Electric field vector in the z direction (Ez), in one of the perpendicular directions to the longitudinal axis of the cone. 

4) To further understand what you are plotting we need you to answer, for the TE mode:

a) is the component of the electric field in the longitudinal direction Ex, zero in your analysis?  If not, what is the magnitude of Ex compared to Ey and Ez ?

b) can you produce plots of the electric field in the longitudinal direction  Ex in the different cross sections so we see what Ex looks like ?

c) can you plot the magnetic field in the longitudinal direction Hx, so we can see what it looks like?

It will probably take even more plots to understand what you are plotting: Hx, Hy and Ey in the different cross sections.  That's the price one has to pay for using cartesian coordinates (the intrinsic coordinates are spherical because the cone has a circular cross section, rather than a square cross section, and the boundary conditions have to be specified on a circular cross section) and for plotting cartesian components rather than the absolute value of the vector.

Cartesian coordinates are alien, extrinsic to the cone, regardless of the complications of the antenna.

If the Ez field looks symmetric in one cross sectional view, but it looks very unsymmetric at a cross-section rotated by 90 degrees from the symmetric view, somehow the electric field still has to satisfy the boundary conditions along the circumference, and the electric field has to be continuous.

With the present information it is difficult to see how the electric field goes continuously from this:



to this:


by rotating the cross-section by 90 degrees around the longitudinal  x axis of symmetry of the cone, and simultaneously being continuous and satisfying the boundary conditions around the circumference.

« Last Edit: 06/23/2015 01:06 PM by Rodal »

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5916
  • Likes Given: 5256
NOTE: in private messages with Rotosequence it looks like Google Chrome is necessary to be able to see these pictures below.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////

One interpretation is that this picture:



does not conform to the expected symmetric pattern of standing waves, simply because this is not a standing wave pattern.

This is a travelling wave pattern set-up by the RF feed.  As long as the RF feed is on, these travelling waves keep travelling away from the RF feed (at the upper left hand end of the image).  At the narrow right-hand end of the cone these travelling waves may become evanescent waves.

If so, the force would not only be towards the narrow end, but also it would be preferentially oriented away from the RF feed, towards the narrow end corner that is opposite to the RF feed.

/////////////////////////////

On the other hand, the section at 90 degrees from it shows the standing wave pattern:



So the continuity problem may be resolved by the fact that the standing wave may be symmetric and continuous while the travelling wave is not.

Both the travelling wave and the standing waves co-exist inside the truncated cone.  One view shows the travelling wave dominating and the other cross-section shows the standing wave dominating.   It will take more effort to sort out what is going. 

We need to know the magnitude of these fields in these images to make progress in understanding them.  We need numbers associated with these images.
« Last Edit: 06/23/2015 01:26 PM by Rodal »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
If he's going to make any headway in persuading his many detractors he's going to need more than a peer reviewed paper. He's going to need a functioning 2nd generation drive at the very least.

Don't believe he cares what his many detractors think. Do believe many here may have undisclosed reasons behind their deep seated dislike of him.

So yes I agree the peer review paper will have little effect on changing deep rooted opinions.

It is a pitty to see intelligent people invest so much intellectual capital in opposing Roger Shawyer and his EMDrive invention that there is no way for them to later alter their position and still be credible.

I've read countless back and forths about shawyer with dismay, for this solves nothing. People naturally pick sides. we should get past it and not spend intellectual capital on what I call a p*ssing contest. forum should focus on experiments, personal theories and methods, not opinions of who's right and wrong...its boring imho.

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1227
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1294
  • Likes Given: 1745
If he's going to make any headway in persuading his many detractors he's going to need more than a peer reviewed paper. He's going to need a functioning 2nd generation drive at the very least.

Don't believe he cares what his many detractors think. Do believe many here may have undisclosed reasons behind their deep seated dislike of him.

So yes I agree the peer review paper will have little effect on changing deep rooted opinions.

It is a pitty to see intelligent people invest so much intellectual capital in opposing Roger Shawyer and his EMDrive invention that there is no way for them to later alter their position and still be credible.

Just FYI, I notified Paul March regarding the integration error as soon as I found it. I have nothing personal against Roger Shawyer. His relativistic mathematics is blatantly wrong, anyone can do the math and know it's wrong. There are significant forces on the side walls that cannot be neglected. It appears to me that SPR ignores the correct way to do the math with Maxwell's equations, because it doesn't give him the answer he wants. To me, that is the sign of someone who is either uninterested in understanding it thoroughly, or is trying to hide something or deceive someone. Rather than simply say, "I don't know why it works, but you can see that it does." He's been trying to develop it for over a decade, yet has not made much progress due to his incorrect theory.

Todd

Offline Fugudaddy

  • Member
  • Posts: 31
  • Rochester NY
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 70
The end of the beam opposite of the drive is a laser pointer to monitor any disturbances. (thrust hopefully) Still looking at scales so I've not put one into my layout.
Thoughts? Questions?

The other beam that Rfmwguy showed had a lot of problem with ambient air currents from even him moving around the room. Is there isolation from air/drafts besides the oil can? Since heating seems to be a factor, is it important to have a reading on the air temp when the testing is run?

Side note: I am totally amazed and impressed at the work that people are putting into this project. It's a blessing to get to be a wee tiny part and I am quite confident that the (literally) thousands of others who are watching this thread carefully feel that way as well.

There's a lot of different approaches to this problem, there's a lot of very worthy skepticism, and it appears that there's going to be a *lot* of data to start pouring through in the coming months. Exciting times. :D

Offline TheTraveller

A much longer video of the EmDrive Demonstrator engine on the rotary air bearing test rig has just been released:

http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.html
"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
A much longer video of the EmDrive Demonstrator engine on the rotary air bearing test rig has just been released:

http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.html

Also interesting notes (I don't recall whether this information is new or not):

Quote from: Shawyer
Notes on Test video:

The field strengths within the thruster equate to a power level of 17MW. Signal leakage causes EMC effects within the fixed video camera. This leads to the apparent vertical movements.

The engine only starts to accelerate when the magnetron frequency locks to the resonant frequency of the thruster, following an initial warm up period. This test operation eliminates possible spurious forces.

The rotary air bearing supports a total load of 100kg, with a friction torque resulting in a calibrated resistance force of 8.2 gm at the engine centre of thrust.

For this test a thrust of 96 mN was recorded for an input power of 334 W.

I don't know how he claims to have measured the 96 mN on the air-bearing
« Last Edit: 06/23/2015 01:44 PM by Rodal »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
MOMENTUM ENHANCEMENT

I think I just solved the momentum enhancement problem, and learned something new in the process. I'm working on my DC analysis, since now I'm 99% convinced microwaves are not causing thrust. In the course of my day, I was trying to figure out how much momentum is carried away by a quantum of magnetic flux. Very interesting answer, probably best described quantum mechanically, though that is not how I came to this conclusion.

In a superconductor, the momentum of the cooper pair is given by; p = h/λ
A quantum of magnetic flux is given by: Φ=h/2e

Therefore, momentum/volt-sec = p/Φ = 2e/λ

In macroscopic terms, the momentum carried away by the magnetic flux, depends on the recoil momentum of the charge per unit length of the electrons flowing in the copper. This value is an intrinsic property of the copper based on the free electron density, which is only slightly altered by collisions, heat and relativistic effects (velocity).
 
So far, I have shown that due to the inductance gradient of the cone geometry, there is a force acting on the current and magnetic flux, pushing it toward the big end. I've also shown that the drift velocity at the small end is much larger than at the big end, so as the current is pushed toward the big end, it is losing momentum in the form of magnetic flux. The amount of momentum gained by the frustum will depend on the difference in drift velocity, the momentum stored as magnetic flux AND, on how much of it can escape.
Todd

WOW!!!  This is VERY interesting!!  When you say "AND, on how much of it can escape." are you referring to the magnetic flux that is storing the momentum?  If so what is the mechanism that it uses to escape in your view?  Thanks!

Yes, but I'm still working on it. It's partially due to resistance of the copper. When there is a voltage drop, it means flux is escaping the loop. For DC it's no problem, but for microwaves, the only thing that might explain it would be excessive heat causing the skin effect to degrade. IMO, thrust is more likely due to the DC offset from the half-wave 60Hz rectification driving the magnetron, than it is from the microwaves.
Todd

That says thrust is proportional  to frequency. Laser cavities here we come. Or maybe just very high frequency driven magnatrons. The reason they switch at 60 Hz is because 60 Hz is at the wall socket but there isn't any good reason not to use a 400 Hz generator or go even much higher. Might need to re-design the magnatron but that's no biggie compared to the payoff, if the thruster works that way.

Well now, seems like an interesting theory to pursue. Let's break this down in picoseconds...walk me thru a burst of em into the fulcrum, making initial contact with the nearest wall...what happens next if I might ask?

Offline TheTraveller

A much longer video of the EmDrive Demonstrator engine on the rotary air bearing test rig has just been released:

http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.html

Also interesting notes (I don't recall whether this information is new or not):

Quote from: Shawyer
Notes on Test video:

The field strengths within the thruster equate to a power level of 17MW. Signal leakage causes EMC effects within the fixed video camera. This leads to the apparent vertical movements.

The engine only starts to accelerate when the magnetron frequency locks to the resonant frequency of the thruster, following an initial warm up period. This test operation eliminates possible spurious forces.

The rotary air bearing supports a total load of 100kg, with a friction torque resulting in a calibrated resistance force of 8.2 gm at the engine centre of thrust.

For this test a thrust of 96 mN was recorded for an input power of 334 W.

I don't know how he claims to have measured the 96 mN on the air-bearing

The thrust is generated by the EMDrive being 9.8g at the centre of thrust, working against a load of 8.2g at the centre of thrust.

Note the frequency call outs.
« Last Edit: 06/23/2015 02:07 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

Just FYI, I notified Paul March regarding the integration error as soon as I found it. I have nothing personal against Roger Shawyer. His relativistic mathematics is blatantly wrong, anyone can do the math and know it's wrong. There are significant forces on the side walls that cannot be neglected. It appears to me that SPR ignores the correct way to do the math with Maxwell's equations, because it doesn't give him the answer he wants. To me, that is the sign of someone who is either uninterested in understanding it thoroughly, or is trying to hide something or deceive someone. Rather than simply say, "I don't know why it works, but you can see that it does." He's been trying to develop it for over a decade, yet has not made much progress due to his incorrect theory.

Todd

What reply did you receive?
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline Flyby

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 382
  • Belgium
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 47
If he's going to make any headway in persuading his many detractors he's going to need more than a peer reviewed paper. He's going to need a functioning 2nd generation drive at the very least.

Don't believe he cares what his many detractors think. Do believe many here may have undisclosed reasons behind their deep seated dislike of him.

So yes I agree the peer review paper will have little effect on changing deep rooted opinions.

It is a pitty to see intelligent people invest so much intellectual capital in opposing Roger Shawyer and his EMDrive invention that there is no way for them to later alter their position and still be credible.

It' s important to make a distinction between detractors, skeptics and critics.
Science has only got this far thanks to critical thinking. It is what drives researchers further to more indepth research and produce even more compelling evidence of their theories.

Not that you need to be skilled in marketing (you're not selling toothpaste here), but knowing how to communicate with the "outside world" is absolutely crucial. And it is in that respect that Shawyer himself seems to be his worst enemy....

I'd gladly see Shawyer's name next to all the great inventors and researchers of the 20th/21th century. IF this really turns out to be real, he more then deserves it.... But as so many said before , exceptional claims need exceptional proof.

so...I'm looking forward to what his paper(s) will present? I only hope , for his own reputations sake, it has some serious content, because the poor man had to endure a lot of FLAK already...
He needs something that brings more then esoteric projections of flying cars in 50 year time...
Let's start with a few kilograms of force, then I'll be on the front row applauding his achievement...

And really, my attitude has nothing to do with being a detractor, but of healthy skepticism...

I do believe there is something interesting going on, but "believing" just doesn't cut it when it comes down to doing science and engineering...

Offline TheTraveller

"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Tags: