The dynamic tests therefore conclusively proved that the engine obeys all Newton’s laws, and that although no reaction mass is required, the engine is not a reactionless machine. Reaction occurs between the EM wave and the reflector surfaces of the resonator, and the law of conservation of momentum is maintained with the transfer of the momentum of the EM wave to the engine

Hard to understand why he continues to write ( http://www.emdrive.com/testnotes.pdf ):Quote from: ShawyerThe dynamic tests therefore conclusively proved that the engine obeys all Newton’s laws, and that although no reaction mass is required, the engine is not a reactionless machine. Reaction occurs between the EM wave and the reflector surfaces of the resonator, and the law of conservation of momentum is maintained with the transfer of the momentum of the EM wave to the engine I don't understand why doesn't he get together with someone at a University in the UK to come up with a valid explanation for conservation of momentum, and to explain his experimental results. We have more than a decade of the scientific community not agreeing with this explanation.

So the photons at the wide end have more inertia, and photons gain mass going from the narrow to the wide end. You'll note that mass-energy is not conserved in the usual way here because the horizon causes the zero point field to become real: just as black hole horizons cause virtual particles to become real (Hawking radiation). To conserve momentum the cavity has to move towards the narrow end.

Why did Shawyer's rig stop accelerating while under continuous power input?

Quote from: aero on 06/22/2015 12:47 AM@Rodal - I have: BIG DIAMETER = 0.27246 m SMALL DIAMETER = 0.068115 m LENGTH = 0.4890240258390259 mPardon the extra digits from the calculation.Running in 3-D with bandwidth opened up to 0.5 * drive frequency (drive = ~1.95GHz), Meep finds 4 frequencies:1.58530024E+0091.83409637E+0092.08402579E+0092.33698507E+009 Hz Q - in order620.675008923133.41473139131211.3296422825141.0133154386 This is electric excitation with antenna = 0.2 * wavelength, perpendicular to and centered on the central axis of rotation.OK - I just read the rest of your post. I'll look for the location of the antenna in the Brady cone, and put it there. But as I recall, that was for exciting a TM mode?Those dimensions BIG DIAMETER = 0.27246 m SMALL DIAMETER = 0.068115 m LENGTH = 0.4890240258390259 mhave lots of natural frequencies around that range. Here are just a few, for flat ends:Mode frequency (GHz)TE011 1.73146TE012 2.0553TE013 2.3431TM211 1.9874TM212 2.40296TM213 2.72512TE111 0.965122TE112 1.24641TE113 1.50459TM111 1.51277TM112 1.89759TM113 2.20088

@Rodal - I have: BIG DIAMETER = 0.27246 m SMALL DIAMETER = 0.068115 m LENGTH = 0.4890240258390259 mPardon the extra digits from the calculation.Running in 3-D with bandwidth opened up to 0.5 * drive frequency (drive = ~1.95GHz), Meep finds 4 frequencies:1.58530024E+0091.83409637E+0092.08402579E+0092.33698507E+009 Hz Q - in order620.675008923133.41473139131211.3296422825141.0133154386 This is electric excitation with antenna = 0.2 * wavelength, perpendicular to and centered on the central axis of rotation.OK - I just read the rest of your post. I'll look for the location of the antenna in the Brady cone, and put it there. But as I recall, that was for exciting a TM mode?

Quote from: deltaMass on 06/23/2015 03:37 PMWhy did Shawyer's rig stop accelerating while under continuous power input?You need to enable the sound and listen to what was said.It stopped accelerating because the magnetron power supply was switched off.

Quote from: TheTraveller on 06/23/2015 03:51 PMQuote from: deltaMass on 06/23/2015 03:37 PMWhy did Shawyer's rig stop accelerating while under continuous power input?You need to enable the sound and listen to what was said.It stopped accelerating because the magnetron power supply was switched off.Do you have the raw data?Why did the drive frequency keep being changed?Can we see the time series data for all rotating objects on the cart (on/off/speed)?

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

Correct. One can write T = P/v until the cows come home, but there's nobody able to say how something disconnected from everything in an asymptotically field-free flat spacetime can know its v-value. If it could, then Einstein's postulate of there being no preferred inertial reference frame is gainsayed, and the jig is up.However, this does work splendidly for a car tyre on a road.

Quote from: WarpTech on 06/23/2015 01:31 PMJust 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.ToddWhat reply did you receive?

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

Quote from: TheTraveller on 06/23/2015 02:10 PMQuote from: WarpTech on 06/23/2015 01:31 PMJust 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.ToddWhat reply did you receive?None. We have conversed on other topics but not that one. All in all, as I said the integration was embarrassing but the discrepancy does not effect their conclusions or data. Just their theory.Todd

Quote from: WarpTech on 06/23/2015 06:11 PMQuote from: TheTraveller on 06/23/2015 02:10 PMQuote from: WarpTech on 06/23/2015 01:31 PMJust 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.ToddWhat reply did you receive?None. We have conversed on other topics but not that one. All in all, as I said the integration was embarrassing but the discrepancy does not effect their conclusions or data. Just their theory.ToddHave a link?

Quote from: Rodal on 06/23/2015 01:59 AMQuote from: aero on 06/22/2015 12:47 AM@Rodal - I have: BIG DIAMETER = 0.27246 m SMALL DIAMETER = 0.068115 m LENGTH = 0.4890240258390259 mPardon the extra digits from the calculation.Running in 3-D with bandwidth opened up to 0.5 * drive frequency (drive = ~1.95GHz), Meep finds 4 frequencies:1.58530024E+0091.83409637E+0092.08402579E+0092.33698507E+009 Hz Q - in order620.675008923133.41473139131211.3296422825141.0133154386 This is electric excitation with antenna = 0.2 * wavelength, perpendicular to and centered on the central axis of rotation.OK - I just read the rest of your post. I'll look for the location of the antenna in the Brady cone, and put it there. But as I recall, that was for exciting a TM mode?Those dimensions BIG DIAMETER = 0.27246 m SMALL DIAMETER = 0.068115 m LENGTH = 0.4890240258390259 mhave lots of natural frequencies around that range. Here are just a few, for flat ends:Mode frequency (GHz)TE011 1.73146TE012 2.0553TE013 2.3431TM211 1.9874TM212 2.40296TM213 2.72512TE111 0.965122TE112 1.24641TE113 1.50459TM111 1.51277TM112 1.89759TM113 2.20088Some more frequencies (TE114, TE115 and TE116)Mode frequency (GHz)TE011 1.73146TE012 2.0553TE013 2.3431TM211 1.9874TM212 2.40296TM213 2.72512TE111 0.965122TE112 1.24641TE113 1.50459TE114 1.75336TE115 1.999TE116 2.24676TM111 1.51277TM112 1.89759TM113 2.20088It looks like in this image:you are exciting mode shape TE115.Is that the Yang of the Brady extended cone geometry? My results below are for the extended Brady cone geometryIt would be helpful if you could plot the magnetic fields in the cross-direction Hz and the longitudinal direction Hx

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.

There has been little interest in the EmDrive in the West so far, and Shawyer's government funding has ended. Boeing's Phantom Works, which has previously explored exotic forms of space propulsion, was said to be looking into it some years ago. Such work has evidently ceased. “Phantom Works is not working with Mr. Shawyer,” a Boeing representative says, adding that the company is no longer pursuing this avenue.