Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3  (Read 1804169 times)

Offline jmossman

  • Member
  • Posts: 72
  • San Jose, CA
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 173
I really think this is a critical insight.  The microwave frequencies being used are specifically tailored to heat water (as everybody is basically using a home microwave oven emitter) - this may indeed be a water molecule amplified maser.  The humidity at time of testing in the various locations should be measured and considered as a data point in the measured thrust.

The Flight Thruster EM Drive Shawyer built for Boeing was a sealed unit and operates at 3.85GHz.
http://www.emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html

The effect we are discussing will certainly take place in a sealed unit, if the gas inside the sealed cavity has the properties required for the effect to take place.  All that is required is for the gas inside the cavity to have these properties.  As per Prof. Yang's analysis in her 2010 paper.

So how would that work? Would the gas be ionized in a preferred direction such that a gas molecule accelerated in the positive direction (to pick a coordinate direction) would be less massive (by an electron or a few electrons) than the gas returning. The ionized gas reaches the base plate and on contact is deionized by accepting electrons from the metal then the less strongly ionized (neutralized) gas is accelerated (drifts) back to the other end finding the region within the cavity where ionization occurs with electrons given up to the cavity walls or other end. The cycle repeats.
(...)
Edit Add: I just described a recirculating ion gun didn't I? How hot is this antenna anyway?
(...)
Either way, zapping nice heavy ions back and forth really helps with the orders of magnitude of the effect, whatever it might be.  What might be happening is that the ions are standing in for us as nice heavy virtual protons to help out with the practical application of the various theoretical frameworks emerging here and elsewhere.  Hm.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1364682#msg1364682
Please remember that our copper frustum has a baked on silicone PCB anti-oxidation ~0.001" thick coating on its interior surfaces to keep the copper surfaces from oxidizing and thus lowering its Q-factor over time.

Wouldn't the silicone coating on the inside of EW's frustum prevent an ionization/de-ionization cycle (since neither the freed electrons and nor ions can make physical contact with the copper)?

-James
« Last Edit: 05/27/2015 12:12 AM by jmossman »

Offline kml

Edit:  since re-reading Shawyer's paper I realized that my thrust formula is just a restatement of his but in terms of group velocity instead of guide wavelength, and with the assumption that the group velocity at the fast end = c.    And his "design factor" restated as the group velocity index n


I've been following this topic since the beginning of thread 2.   There is some great work and exchange of ideas going on here.   Everything I have read so far seems to indicate that thrust is proportional to power and Q, and inversely proportional to the group velocity at the "slow" end.

This could be explained if "slower" photons transfer a higher proportion of their energy as momentum than those in a vacuum.   I.e. If P=E/c, replace c with group velocity vg: P=E/vg.

Then, instead of the normal reflected light pressure formula (F=force, W=power):

F=2W/c

replace c with group velocity vg

F=2W/vg

Thus the net force in a resonant (Q) cavity with a slow (Fs) end and fast (Ff) end is:

F = Q(Fs - Ff)

F = Q(2W/vg - 2W/c)

Another form of this formula substituting n = c/vg = sqrt(relative permittivity * relative permeability) = index of refraction in optics:

F = Q((2Wn - 2W) / c)

may be useful for working with non-tapered dielectric-only resonators.

Working backwards with some of the published results seems to give plausible values for slow end group velocity (and therefor n):

Vg = 2W / (F/Q + 2W/C)

n = c/vg

For example one of Shawyer's experiments:
F = .016
W = 850
Q = 5900
--> n = 1.47

One of Yang's experiments (TE011 mode):
F = .214
W = 1000
Q = 32000
--> n = 2.00


Tapered waveguides, high relative permittivity, high relative permeability or any combination can reduce group velocity which explains the wide variety of geometries and configurations that have produced results.   Operating a waveguide near it's cutoff frequency presents a very steep curve of reducing group velocity and increasing transmission loss.  This explains part of the difficulty of designing and tuning the truncated cone designs.   Also, experiments done with dielectric materials so far seem to be using extremely weak dielectrics (ex: PTFE K = 2.1, n = 1.45) possibly at less than half wavelength thickness, limiting effectiveness.

Based on this it seems that maximizing group velocity differential and Q would produce the best results. I'm designing an experiment to test this theory with a simple non-tapered rectangular waveguide and various dielectrics at one end.   Sapphire (n=3 @1ghz), and Strontium Titanate (n=17 @1ghz) look like good candidates that are readily available.

Another good test of this would be a free space optical resonator with very thin dielectric attached to one mirror. 
The problem with (proposed) optical emdrive's is the limited performance of available optical dielectrics. Ultra-thin sapphire (12.5 micron, n = 1.7 @650nm) is commercially available.
« Last Edit: 05/28/2015 05:14 AM by kml »

Offline Supergravity

  • Member
  • Posts: 43
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 3
I have been thinking about the direction the discussion is taking, and I have to admit I am less thrilled about the theoretical explanations than about the experimental reports. Except in one point: finding potential ways to raise the thrust.

I wouldn't expect any coherent theoretical explanation anytime soon, or ever. This device is not based on any valid theoretical model that is consistent with mainstream science and observation. All the proposed models still allow for violations in conservation of moment or conservation of energy, or even both. Shawyer's speculation is the only slightly reasonably grounded (but still incredibly fringe) one, and the most you can get from that "model" is a drive that is about as efficient as pointing a flashlight out the back of a vehicle.

I think it speaks for itself how much attention the scientific and engineering community are paying to this work. There certainly won't be any increase thrust, as any such thrust was due to thermal or electronic noise in the first place. The experimental method is botched, and the data is incomprehensible (the error bars are far too large to make any justifiable conclusions). Also, none of it has even been peer-reviewed and the researchers don't seem to be interested in repeatability or having other researchers take a much deeper look at their work. The fact that my previous post was "widely reported" and deleted just shows how incredibly sensitive they and their supporters are to any criticism.
« Last Edit: 05/26/2015 09:42 PM by Supergravity »

Offline Davinator

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 30
Your previous post was one of the worst posts on this thread, shouting "Because I don't like it you're all wrong" which is not objective, interesting or helpful to the evaluations on this thread, which has insightful posts from all sides of the argument. Because you likely felt it was a weak comment to make you ended it by attacking this site you're using to make such comments.

So you're only letting yourself down and your next post will deterime if you are welcome to continue to be part of that discussion.

Offline tchernik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 247
  • Liked: 297
  • Likes Given: 577
I have been thinking about the direction the discussion is taking, and I have to admit I am less thrilled about the theoretical explanations than about the experimental reports. Except in one point: finding potential ways to raise the thrust.

I wouldn't expect any coherent theoretical explanation anytime soon, or ever. This device is not based on any valid theoretical model that is consistent with mainstream science and observation. All the proposed models still allow for violations in conservation of moment or conservation of energy, or even both. Shawyer's speculation is the only slightly reasonably grounded (but still incredibly fringe) one, and the most you can get from that "model" is a drive that is about as efficient as pointing a flashlight out the back of a vehicle.

I think it speaks for themselves how much the scientific and engineering community are paying to this work. There certainly won't be any increase thrust, as any such thrust was due to thermal or electronic noise in the first place. The experimental method is botched, and the data is incomprehensible (the error bars are far too large to make any justifiable conclusions). Also, none of it has even been peer-reviewed and the researchers don't seem to be interested in repeatability or having other researchers take a much deeper look at their work. The fact that my previous post was "widely reported" and deleted just shows how incredibly sensitive they and their supporters are to any criticism.

OK. My feeling as a neophyte is that the experiments done so far do show there is some thrust and the people reporting it aren't frauds or liars, but that it isn't clear if such thrust is really an anomalous (unexplainable) one, of if it is completely mundane in its causes, like due to buoyancy or other thermal/ionic wind effects. That is, the the thrust effect is there, but the causes of it aren't clear.

Unfortunately the effect seems both small enough to be still in doubt, and large enough to be measurable. Something needs to be done to attempt to raise the effect's strength, and see if it can still occur above a threshold of reasonable doubt.

You seem to have made your mind about it, though.

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Liked: 776
  • Likes Given: 1013


Hello i am new in this forum. Based on my own simple model(flat end plates) the frequency has to be approximately 2.52GHz.
I hope this is helpfull :)

Hi, can you share your model?
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Supergravity

  • Member
  • Posts: 43
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 3
"Because I don't like it you're all wrong" which is not objective, interesting or helpful to the evaluations on this thread, which has insightful posts from all sides of the argument.

I admit that my post was much more snarkier and offensive in hindsight, so I apologize for that. But, do you deny that the mainstream scientific and engineering community would absolutely agree and endorse the main content of my post? Would you deny that mainstream theoretical physics is largely unimpressed and even greatly annoyed by the proposed theoretical explanations for the anomalous thrust observed in these experiments?

If you see my earlier posts, you would see I've had great technical discussions with others on here about  proposed models and how it fits with current science. I would love to discuss the esoteric details of an acceptable and viable model that is put forth, but, to my knowledge, no such actual model has been proposed to date.

Offline TheTraveller

I have been thinking about the direction the discussion is taking, and I have to admit I am less thrilled about the theoretical explanations than about the experimental reports. Except in one point: finding potential ways to raise the thrust.

I wouldn't expect any coherent theoretical explanation anytime soon, or ever. This device is not based on any valid theoretical model that is consistent with mainstream science and observation. All the proposed models still allow for violations in conservation of moment or conservation of energy, or even both. Shawyer's speculation is the only slightly reasonably grounded (but still incredibly fringe) one, and the most you can get from that "model" is a drive that is about as efficient as pointing a flashlight out the back of a vehicle.

I think it speaks for itself how much attention the scientific and engineering community are paying to this work. There certainly won't be any increase thrust, as any such thrust was due to thermal or electronic noise in the first place. The experimental method is botched, and the data is incomprehensible (the error bars are far too large to make any justifiable conclusions). Also, none of it has even been peer-reviewed and the researchers don't seem to be interested in repeatability or having other researchers take a much deeper look at their work. The fact that my previous post was "widely reported" and deleted just shows how incredibly sensitive they and their supporters are to any criticism.

In Shawyers Flight Thruster test the reported max thrust achieved was around 170mN.

Here and as attached.
http://emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html

That is approx 17 gf. Is a bit over the weight of 2 x US dollar coins. If I put them in your outstretched palm, could you feel the weight? Sure it is not a kg but the level is significant and not what some mosquito produces when it lands on your arm.

Comment away but maybe first do a bit of homework on the reported experimental results from Shawyer and the Chinese.
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.”
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline mwvp

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 254
  • Coincidence? I think Not!
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 30
Contemplating the least glamorous hypothesis for the, as yet sparsely confirmed effect, I considered asymmetric thermal dissipation of forward/backward (or thrust/reaction) momentum, as sorted by frequency components by the frustrum.

Then, in a flash of insight, I though of the Peltier cooler I saw at my favorite shop, the Goodwill Store. Only $8. Alas, why didn't I buy it yesterday?

And I remembered, years long past on a blog far, far away, a very similar campaign raged over thrust from a Peltier device, valid thrust measurement, thermal effects, et.

But I digress. My notion de jour:

Shawyer began his recently posted youtube interview by stating, as I recall, of his career in missile guidance in the 70's. Thoughts of fiber-optic gyros, Sagnac effect, et. come to mind.

Consider such a ring gyro with counter-propagating beams smushed from a circle into a linear waveguide, forward and reverse waves creating a single standing wave. Would not such a system, on long-axis (Z) acceleration, have forward and reverse components split into sum and difference frequencies?

A frustrum waveguide is electrically long at one end, short on the other, capacitive and inductive respectively. Or one might well think of using two, or more, coupled cavities, leading end tuned to a higher frequency than the trailing. And now, consider the low-frequency cavity as more lossy or dissipative than the high.

Asymmetrical frequency attenuation results in the dispersive line. The large end of the frustrum is more inductive and has higher I^2*L losses than the pointy-end capacitive loss. The momentum is radiated away as heat. See the Eagleworks TM212 frustrum tail glow?

It is not a closed system violating CoM, it is an open-system, separating forward and reverse propagating electromagnetic momentum by frequency, with the dispersive cavity then selectively dissipating and radiating the sorted momentum as heat.

As, I know, this has been espoused by some here prior. I'm just kind of slow on the uptake.

So why would a Peltier cooler generate thrust? An electric current drags high-frequency (hot) phonons from one end and leaving low-frequency (cold) phonons on the other. Kind of the same thing, in another media and operating regime. Or something like that.

I googled "Peltier Thrust" and found this:
http://www.theavalonfoundation.org/docs/peltier.html

Hal Puthoff mentioned. Usual suspect?

So, pending more evidence, at this time I'm persuaded this is a thermodynamic rather than a qv warping/compressing phenomena. I change my mind often about this stuff over the last couple weeks. If true, it precludes some exciting and energetic plasma applications.

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
A physicist pal has asked me a question I cannot answer about this stuff and so I will repeat it here:
"I want to know how they actually determine what the Q actually IS for the resonant mode of the particular cavity they are actually using. "

Offline Davinator

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 30
"Because I don't like it you're all wrong" which is not objective, interesting or helpful to the evaluations on this thread, which has insightful posts from all sides of the argument.

I admit that my post was much more snarkier and offensive in hindsight, so I apologize for that. But, do you deny that the mainstream scientific and engineering community would absolutely agree and endorse the main content of my post? Would you deny that mainstream theoretical physics is largely unimpressed and even greatly annoyed by the proposed theoretical explanations for the anomalous thrust observed in these experiments?

If you see my earlier posts, you would see I've had great technical discussions with others on here about  proposed models and how it fits with current science. I would love to discuss the esoteric details of an acceptable and viable model that is put forth, but, to my knowledge, no such actual model has been proposed to date.

My answer is I don't know. Like most people here, we mainly discuss things from Shuttle to SLS. These advanced topic threads are very specailist and I have no dog in this race.

All I'm saying, per my post, is these threads still fall under the same moderation where you can have any opinion, but you have to present it within site rules. That other post had some unacceptable comments in it and that results in a deleted post.  I'm a moderator so I had to post.

And to show it's nothing to do with whatever opinion people have, the above post is completely fine!

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8017
  • UK
  • Liked: 1281
  • Likes Given: 168
"Because I don't like it you're all wrong" which is not objective, interesting or helpful to the evaluations on this thread, which has insightful posts from all sides of the argument.

I admit that my post was much more snarkier and offensive in hindsight, so I apologize for that. But, do you deny that the mainstream scientific and engineering community would absolutely agree and endorse the main content of my post? Would you deny that mainstream theoretical physics is largely unimpressed and even greatly annoyed by the proposed theoretical explanations for the anomalous thrust observed in these experiments?

If you see my earlier posts, you would see I've had great technical discussions with others on here about  proposed models and how it fits with current science. I would love to discuss the esoteric details of an acceptable and viable model that is put forth, but, to my knowledge, no such actual model has been proposed to date.

My answer is I don't know. Like most people here, we mainly discuss things from Shuttle to SLS. These advanced topic threads are very specailist and I have no dog in this race.

All I'm saying, per my post, is these threads still fall under the same moderation where you can have any opinion, but you have to present it within site rules. That other post had some unacceptable comments in it and that results in a deleted post.  I'm a moderator so I had to post.

And to show it's nothing to do with whatever opinion people have, the above post is completely fine!

The OP is also overlooking the fact that if there was anything in this that it would be so revolutionary that much of the testing would be done probably behind a cloud due to commercial considerations. For example Boeing might be doing nothing or everything with that drive they have.
« Last Edit: 05/26/2015 10:16 PM by Star One »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
A physicist pal has asked me a question I cannot answer about this stuff and so I will repeat it here:
"I want to know how they actually determine what the Q actually IS for the resonant mode of the particular cavity they are actually using. "
This is a very important question, that I raised before concerning the non-orthodox way that Yang et.al. report her Q's which is very different from what is done in the West.

As to how NASA Brady et.al report their Q's my understanding is that it is entirely based on S11 and S21 as for example detailed in the following reference:

A. Podcameni, L. F. M. Conrado, and M. M. Russo, “Unloaded quality factor measurement for MIC dielectric resonator application,” Electronics Letters, vol. 17, pp. 656-658, 1981.
DOI:  10.1049/el:19810459 , Print ISSN 0013-5194, Online ISSN 1350-911X
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=4245936&filter%3DAND%28p_IS_Number%3A4245914%29

which reports a procedure for scalar reaction-type measurements, using only the amplitudes of S11 and S21 for determining the loaded and unloaded Q.

Caveats:  I don't recall people bringing up this reference in these threads in the past.  This is my own understanding. Everybody is urged to comment so that we can assess how did Shawyer, Brady et.al, Fetta and Yang et.al. report their Q's.  Otherwise discussion of Q resonance is like the tower of Babel.



Alternatively, I have seen discussion in this thread of calculating the loaded Q of the system as inversely
proportional to the difference between the 3-dB frequencies f1 and f2 around fo

loadedQ=fo /(f2-f1). 

Then the unloaded Q can be calculated as the loaded Q divided by (1-S21(fo))

unloadedQ =  loadedQ / (1-S21(fo))
                = fo /((f2-f1) *(1-S21(fo)) )

« Last Edit: 05/26/2015 11:38 PM by Rodal »

Offline ragingrei

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • Canada
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 5
But, do you deny that the mainstream scientific and engineering community would absolutely agree and endorse the main content of my post? Would you deny that mainstream theoretical physics is largely unimpressed and even greatly annoyed by the proposed theoretical explanations for the anomalous thrust observed in these experiments?

I liken the situation to the Mpemba effect, where hot water sometimes freezes faster than cold water. Very few scientists are going to pursue it even though the experiment is easily replicable and relatively inexpensive, because it seems completely absurd. Yet, whether or not there's a radical explanation or a very mundane one, there are people interested in refining their experiments and attempting to explain it.

The difference between that and the EM Drive is that, as far as I know, those who choose not to pursue the Mpemba effect don't become furious at those who do.

There should seem to be a difference between "the results of this experiment appear to break the laws of physics; therefore I won't pursue it" and "the results of this experiment appear to break the laws of physics; therefore no one ought to pursue it." The former is a simple life choice, while the latter doesn't seem very much in line with the spirit of science.
« Last Edit: 05/26/2015 10:34 PM by ragingrei »

Offline wallofwolfstreet

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 165
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 436
I have seen a few posts recently speculating about whether or not Boeing is developing this technology secretly to preserve commercial interests/IP.  While I am unable to say for certain either way, the follow link contains quotes given by Shawyer that lead me to believe they are not:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/nasa-validates-emdrive-roger-shawyer-says-aerospace-industry-needs-watch-out-1499141

Quote:
"When pressed about who Shawyer might be working with on EmDrive technology, he said cryptically: "You need to think about which countries who don't have a vested interest in the aerospace long-haul aircraft industries – they will not be the Boeings and the Airbuses, but some of the developing nations.""


Note that this interview was given after the Boeing technology transfer deal.  Since he specifically mentioned Boeing by name as a company he is NOT working with, I think we may have to conclude that the Boeing technology transfer deal must not have led to any developments.

(We could guess that Boeing is developing the technology under such close secrecy that SHawyer himself doesn't know about it, or that Shawyer is trying to throw off the trail, but that is getting a bit conspiratorial.)

Online kdhilliard

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 171
  • Kirk
  • Tanstaa, FL
  • Liked: 162
  • Likes Given: 522
In Shawyers Flight Thruster test the reported max thrust achieved was around 170mN.
...
That is approx 17 gf. Is a bit over the weight of 2 x US dollar coins. If I put them in your outstretched palm, could you feel the weight? Sure it is not a kg but the level is significant and not what some mosquito produces when it lands on your arm.

Traveller, do you know how Shawyer actually measured thrust, because according to his EmDriveForceMeasurement.pdf and due to his strange interpretation of action and reaction, he believes that direct measurement of the thrust from a non-accelerating EmDrive is impossible, and the test rigs discussed here, including Iulian's balance, should not measure any thrust at all.
Quote from: Pg. 2
The most important point to be made, is that to measure force, the cavity must experience acceleration. In a fully restrained cavity, thrust and reaction force cancel out. ...

Clearly, in a static situation, where T and R both exist as forces, they will cancel out. Thus any attempt to measure them by simply placing the thruster vertically on a set of scales will fail. If however the thrust is sufficient such that a = -g, then the thruster could be made to hover above the scales. ...

In free space, the thruster will simply accelerate at a m/s/s, and R will not be measurable. To measure R it is necessary to restrain the thruster against a fixed reference point.

However at rest, no force can be measured as R will cancel out T as in Fig 1. ...
and most importantly
Quote from: Pg. 3
A number of methods have been used in the UK, the US and China to measure the forces produced by an EmDrive thruster. In each successful case, the EmDrive force data has been superimposed on an increasing or decreasing background force, generated by the test equipment itself.

Indeed, in the UK when the background force changes were eliminated, in an effort to improve force measurement resolution, no EmDrive force was measured. This was clearly a result of attempting to measure the forces on a fully static thruster, where T and R cancel each other.

Does that mean that Shaywer's device includes actuators which accelerate the drive, and the measured thrust is extracted from the signal by subtracting the expected contribution of those actuators?

~Kirk

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8017
  • UK
  • Liked: 1281
  • Likes Given: 168
I have seen a few posts recently speculating about whether or not Boeing is developing this technology secretly to preserve commercial interests/IP.  While I am unable to say for certain either way, the follow link contains quotes given by Shawyer that lead me to believe they are not:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/nasa-validates-emdrive-roger-shawyer-says-aerospace-industry-needs-watch-out-1499141

Quote:
"When pressed about who Shawyer might be working with on EmDrive technology, he said cryptically: "You need to think about which countries who don't have a vested interest in the aerospace long-haul aircraft industries – they will not be the Boeings and the Airbuses, but some of the developing nations.""


Note that this interview was given after the Boeing technology transfer deal.  Since he specifically mentioned Boeing by name as a company he is NOT working with, I think we may have to conclude that the Boeing technology transfer deal must not have led to any developments.

(We could guess that Boeing is developing the technology under such close secrecy that SHawyer himself doesn't know about it, or that Shawyer is trying to throw off the trail, but that is getting a bit conspiratorial.)

Any kind of technology whatever it was that was being actively developed in the black world would at no time be confirmed by even its inventor as they would be subject to strict NDAs. So we can take nothing from that article. I'm not saying it is in this case merely that if it was that would be the kind of answer you might well get.
« Last Edit: 05/26/2015 11:00 PM by Star One »

Offline phaseshift

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 104
  • Seattle, WA
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 97
I have seen a few posts recently speculating about whether or not Boeing is developing this technology secretly to preserve commercial interests/IP.  While I am unable to say for certain either way, the follow link contains quotes given by Shawyer that lead me to believe they are not:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/nasa-validates-emdrive-roger-shawyer-says-aerospace-industry-needs-watch-out-1499141

Quote:
"When pressed about who Shawyer might be working with on EmDrive technology, he said cryptically: "You need to think about which countries who don't have a vested interest in the aerospace long-haul aircraft industries – they will not be the Boeings and the Airbuses, but some of the developing nations.""


This says what Shawyer said in the first of the interview videos posted a few days ago - companies like Boeing and Airbus have a vested interest in aerospace and this would be highly highly disruptive. It could easily topple the companies if it bore fruit. If anything, you would expect companies like these to do what they can, if they feel it necessary, to be disruptive of the technology themselves.

On the other hand, with the money of the U.S. Military behind it, these companies would probably be able to weather such a disruptive technology.  Given that there would be military applications, and that Boeing appears to not be pursuing it (though they are a defense contractor), the conclusion is that they feel nothing is there.

So the question is, "Why hasn't Boeing simply stated that it doesn't work?" - seems simple enough, what's the downside of such a statement?

Has anyone looked through DARPA RFPs for anything related to EMdrives?
« Last Edit: 05/26/2015 11:11 PM by phaseshift »
"It doesn't have to be a brain storm, a drizzle will often do" - phaseshift

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Liked: 776
  • Likes Given: 1013
Interesting result. Still searching for symmetry violations.

Observation of a Chiral State in a Microwave Cavity
C. Dembowski, B. Dietz, H.-D. Gräf, H. L. Harney, A. Heine, W. D. Heiss, and A. Richter
Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 034101 – Published 23 January 2003

http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.034101
http://arxiv.org/pdf/nlin/0212023v2.pdf

Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline wallofwolfstreet

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 165
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 436
I have seen a few posts recently speculating about whether or not Boeing is developing this technology secretly to preserve commercial interests/IP.  While I am unable to say for certain either way, the follow link contains quotes given by Shawyer that lead me to believe they are not:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/nasa-validates-emdrive-roger-shawyer-says-aerospace-industry-needs-watch-out-1499141

Quote:
"When pressed about who Shawyer might be working with on EmDrive technology, he said cryptically: "You need to think about which countries who don't have a vested interest in the aerospace long-haul aircraft industries – they will not be the Boeings and the Airbuses, but some of the developing nations.""


Note that this interview was given after the Boeing technology transfer deal.  Since he specifically mentioned Boeing by name as a company he is NOT working with, I think we may have to conclude that the Boeing technology transfer deal must not have led to any developments.

(We could guess that Boeing is developing the technology under such close secrecy that SHawyer himself doesn't know about it, or that Shawyer is trying to throw off the trail, but that is getting a bit conspiratorial.)

Any kind of technology whatever it was that was being actively developed in the black world would at no time be confirmed by even its inventor as they would be subject to strict NDAs. So we can take nothing from that article. I'm not saying it is in this case merely that if it was that would be the kind of answer you might well get.

While you are right of course about the NDA, that really doesn't apply in this case I feel.  The interviewer didn't ask him "Is Boeing developing the technology?"; he was the one who brought up Boeing, not her (as far as I can tell).  If this was an NDA issue, there would be absolutely no reason to bring them up unless explicitly asked about them. 

Also, an NDA merely states that you can't confirm one way or another (ie. he should have said "no comment").  As far as I know, there is no such thing as an agreement that requires you to actively deny/be misleading about something.  Would such an agreement even be legal?

Tags: