Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3  (Read 1877633 times)

Online WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1312
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1351
  • Likes Given: 1817
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_cavity#Cylindrical_cavity

Now I see where the expressions comes from.

The cut off frequency expressions for constant radius R cilindrical waveguide.

It's wrong because,  the expressions for constant radius waveguides are used like dispersions relations of a tappered waveguide , and the " constant radius R" is used as a function of spacial coordinates.
 Not only this, derivatives of this  expressions are done acting on the"ad-hoc" spacial dependency introduced.

Wrong!!!

I don't think so. You, yourself posted,

This guys think another way

http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.3519

:)

In the first paragraph of section 4 of this paper, they decompose the wave vector into time-like and space-like, orthogonal components. This is a more precise derivation of exactly what I am doing. The space-like component must shift mass to match the boundary conditions as the time-like component travels down the waveguide.

It seems you "believe" waveguides are linear and cannot deviate from this expectation. In the case of a tapered waveguide, it mimics gravity which is non-linear. So, I still do not see what is "wrong" with my equation. Although, now I do see a better way to derive it and reference it. Thank you!
Todd

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2335
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2982
  • Likes Given: 2601
So I've just had the cops at the door saying the neighbors are complaining about the noise coming from this thread ;) I see mod notes all over the place, so here's the deal.

1) Always, always, always remember this thread has to be about space flight applications. That's because we're a space flight site. You'd get away with talking about how this is the key to your plans to create an anti-gravity device that you're going to sell on Ebay over at the www.superwackyphysics.net forum, but not here.

2) Lots and lots of people read the threads here (all threads - this isn't some special "everyone's reading it, you should change the name of the site" thread. This is a pretty busy site. Heck if you sneeze SpaceX, hoards of people start mashing their F5 keys like a global event is about to occur). As such, your posts need to be worthwhile, otherwise all those people *reading the thread* sigh with disappointment...and some write me a 20 page e-mail about how I should read every post and personally edit them to fit the site's "tone" (that has happened a few times! ;D ) I don't get paid enough for that (I don't get paid).

Remember, this isn't some chat where only the people posting are reading. You can see from the view count those posting are less than 0.1 percent of those reading this thread. You wouldn't stand in the middle of a busy street and say something silly....same deal in a thread like this.

3) Loooooooooooong threads wander. It's natural. So I think we'll look to start a Thread 4 for this subject this week.

So let's all focus, be civil, be productive and we can all get on with our business ;)

The dilemma I see is that to intelligently discuss emdrive applicability to spaceflight, its operating characteristics need to be debated (assuming it operates at all). Right now, there are several mutually exclusive theories on what those characteristics might be (constant thrust/power, velocity limiting, inertial ratchet, etc.).   In my view the theoretical and experimental discussions are vital.
Prunesquallor, you are aware Chris has over 100,000 posts. I must ask how may has the man read over the years? My head is spinning. He must be a AI program with a sense of humor.

It might get hot and heavy in here but I back away because of it, kind of out numbered here ;).  I would not want to be doing anything else even though I retired in 08 (honestly I was feeling a little dumbed out as of late).  In just short time everyone here has stepped up to the plate offering articles and papers and thoughts to help this old gal engineer ramp up to speed. It's been incredibly empowering to feel the drive to do something wonderful. And honestly I feel young again with a passion I haven't felt since collage.

Thank you, you know who you are and I'm going to try to repay with the best DYI I can do and if it launches the beer is on me!

Shell


Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
...

In the first paragraph of section 4 of this paper, they decompose the wave vector into time-like and space-like, orthogonal components. This is a more precise derivation of exactly what I am doing. The space-like component must shift mass to match the boundary conditions as the time-like component travels down the waveguide.

It seems you "believe" waveguides are linear and cannot deviate from this expectation. In the case of a tapered waveguide, it mimics gravity which is non-linear. So, I still do not see what is "wrong" with my equation. Although, now I do see a better way to derive it and reference it. Thank you!
Todd

Todd,

Thank you for pointing this out, as I had not read this paper.  You are right:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.3519

Photons inside a waveguide as massive particles
Zhi-Yong Wang1, Cai-Dong Xiong

Section 4 RELATIVISTIC QUANTUM-MECHANICAL EQUATION OF GUIDED PHOTONS

Quote
Eqs. (20) and (21) are expressed in the arbitrary coordinate system (associated with a frame wherefrom the waveguide is viewed along an arbitrary 3D spatial direction), they can be simplified in the coordinate system (associated with a frame wherefrom the waveguide is viewed along the x123{,,}aaa123{,,}eee3-axis, and then one has L3(,0,0,)xtxμ=and 12(0,,,0)mkkμη=).

This similar to what Dr. Notsosureofit was discussing from a long time ago, and I had a hard time grasping :)
« Last Edit: 07/07/2015 03:15 AM by Rodal »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
So, trying to grasp all theories here lead me to plasmons then to landau damping: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landau_damping and langmuir waves: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_oscillation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phys_interp_landau_damp.svg

"It is possible to imagine Langmuir waves as waves in the sea, and the particles as surfers trying to catch the wave, all moving in the same direction. If the surfer is moving on the water surface at a velocity slightly less than the waves he will eventually be caught and pushed along the wave (gaining energy), while a surfer moving slightly faster than a wave will be pushing on the wave as he moves uphill (losing energy to the wave)."

Gaining energy can be viewed as gaining vector velocity I believe. What struck me is previous assertions about an emdrive needing an inertial "nudge" from a "motionless" reference frame.

Math wizards and maybe naysayers might want to look at the formulas to see if there is any correlation that can be made...we're talking particle and wave interactions yielding acceleration...not exactly my major in college ;)

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2786
  • 92129
  • Liked: 724
  • Likes Given: 249
...
;Meep progress: 13.054/13.052188647619047 = 100.0% done in 6479.3s, -0.9s to go
;run 0 finished at t = 13.054 (6527 timesteps)

It looks to me like the number you want is dt = 13.054/6527 which equals  0.002, a nice number. Or maybe you want to use the 100% done numbers.

Anyway, you should be able to use this dt for any of the csv files from the h5 files with dimensions 247x264x264 or any run of 32 cycles with resolution =250 and frequency = 2.45 GHz. That is, they should have those dimensions.
6527 timesteps ?  I thought that there were only ~325 time steps or so

No, you're confusing time slices and time steps. 320 time slices at one slice output every 1/10 of a cycle, 32 cycles. I don't know how meep gets the extra time slices or sometimes shorts us a few slices, but it does. Time steps is what meep uses to evolve the fields. It needs a minimum of 8 time steps per cycle, or a minimum of 256 (8 * 32) time steps to propagate the fields for 32 cycles. But that is not nearly enough to resolve the structure of our cavities.

So higher resolution = more time steps.
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2335
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2982
  • Likes Given: 2601
So, trying to grasp all theories here lead me to plasmons then to landau damping: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landau_damping and langmuir waves: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_oscillation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phys_interp_landau_damp.svg

"It is possible to imagine Langmuir waves as waves in the sea, and the particles as surfers trying to catch the wave, all moving in the same direction. If the surfer is moving on the water surface at a velocity slightly less than the waves he will eventually be caught and pushed along the wave (gaining energy), while a surfer moving slightly faster than a wave will be pushing on the wave as he moves uphill (losing energy to the wave)."

Gaining energy can be viewed as gaining vector velocity I believe. What struck me is previous assertions about an emdrive needing an inertial "nudge" from a "motionless" reference frame.

Math wizards and maybe naysayers might want to look at the formulas to see if there is any correlation that can be made...we're talking particle and wave interactions yielding acceleration...not exactly my major in college ;)
Well here is a primer from recommended reading from Doc Rodal himself, the man is trying his darndest to burn my gray matter up. Even if you read the very well written text and ignore the pigeon scratchings it can help a lot. I've read it once and will be refreshing by reading again.
Shell
« Last Edit: 07/07/2015 04:08 AM by SeeShells »

Offline TheTraveller

So I've just had the cops at the door saying the neighbors are complaining about the noise coming from this thread ;) I see mod notes all over the place, so here's the deal.

1) Always, always, always remember this thread has to be about space flight applications. That's because we're a space flight site. You'd get away with talking about how this is the key to your plans to create an anti-gravity device that you're going to sell on Ebay over at the www.superwackyphysics.net forum, but not here.

2) Lots and lots of people read the threads here (all threads - this isn't some special "everyone's reading it, you should change the name of the site" thread. This is a pretty busy site. Heck if you sneeze SpaceX, hoards of people start mashing their F5 keys like a global event is about to occur). As such, your posts need to be worthwhile, otherwise all those people *reading the thread* sigh with disappointment...and some write me a 20 page e-mail about how I should read every post and personally edit them to fit the site's "tone" (that has happened a few times! ;D ) I don't get paid enough for that (I don't get paid).

Remember, this isn't some chat where only the people posting are reading. You can see from the view count those posting are less than 0.1 percent of those reading this thread. You wouldn't stand in the middle of a busy street and say something silly....same deal in a thread like this.

3) Loooooooooooong threads wander. It's natural. So I think we'll look to start a Thread 4 for this subject this week.

So let's all focus, be civil, be productive and we can all get on with our business ;)

I suggest it is understood by all that until someone posts test data showing a propellantless Force generator can develop more than 9.8N/kg of total system mass, the only place such devices have any practice value is in space.

There are at least 6 propellantless devices that have been tested at NASA Eagleworks and found to generate varing levels of Force, including one from Boeing/DARPA.

Currently there is one peer reviewed paper on the EMDrive and soon to be another.

I feel this building evidence base of EMDrive data shows great courage for NSF to be covering the EMDrive emergence into the commercial space thruster market.

Over time it will become clear whose theory does and doesn't explain how the EMDrive generates Force.

This forum is also a great place for EMDrive DIY builders to compare build / measurement plans, progress and to be offered assistance by the various theory camps. The current MEEP work is an excellent example of that.

Overall it is a great place to be as we all do share a common goal, to build a future in space that involves propellantless Force generators.

While to a casual reader there may seem to be nothing but noise happening, that is about as far from reality as can be imagined. This forum is like a busy coffee shop with different groups at each table, each focused on their conservation and occassionally people moving from group to group to share and fertilise conversations at other tables.

To someone who wishes to engage a short time, to see where things are at, almost impossible as they get to hear all the various conversation streams at once, while those at the various tables have developed party hearing and can only hear what it going on in their group.

For us generating the conservations, there is little noise and great progress is being made by both builder and theory groups.

Chris, thanks for making it possible.


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

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2786
  • 92129
  • Liked: 724
  • Likes Given: 249
Dr. Rodal -
Are these the slices you are going to need? I've only shown the slices for ex, of course you'll need them for the other 5 field components.

h5totxt -t 03 -0 -x -85 -o ./NSF-1701-csv/s03-exx-m85.csv ./h5files-out/ex.h5
h5totxt -t 03 -0 -x -26 -o ./NSF-1701-csv/s03-exx-m26.csv ./h5files-out/ex.h5
h5totxt -t 03 -0 -x 26 -o ./NSF-1701-csv/s03-exx-p26.csv ./h5files-out/ex.h5
h5totxt -t 03 -0 -x 85 -o ./NSF-1701-csv/s03-exx-p85.csv ./h5files-out/ex.h5
h5totxt -t 03 -0 -y 0 -o ./NSF-1701-csv/s03-exy-one.csv ./h5files-out/ex.h5
h5totxt -t 03 -0 -z 0 -o ./NSF-1701-csv/s03-exz-one.csv ./h5files-out/ex.h5

I'll go ahead and get the other 5 component set commands ready while I wait for your answer.


Edit-Add:

Well I sure hope your answer was "Yes" because I went ahead and uploaded the set of 396 files. Put them in the NSF-1701- csv files- All folder, or somewhere close to that.

Let me know.

Let me know.
« Last Edit: 07/07/2015 06:18 AM by aero »
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline TheTraveller

Once my EMDrive is working on the rotary test rig and the test data is published, full detailed plans, bill of material and suppliers lists will be made available at no cost.

The build will include machined spherical end plates, highly polished, ding & scratch free internal surfaces and optional silver with gold flash coating on all internal surfaces. Unloaded cavity Q, for the coated cavity, is expected to be well over 100,000. Df is around 0.95. This will be a very efficient cavity which will include internal antenna and impedance matching system.

I'm buying a lathe to machine the spherical end plates and end plate flanges, plus to make a mandrel for the 2mm thick frustum and to accurately roll/form it around the mandrel. The frustum butt join & end flanges will be silver soldered to ensure excellent electrical conductivity and strength.

Design will be air tight due to an O ring between the end flanges and the end plates. The frustum side wall will have a small air valve that will allow air to be pumped out and then back filled with dry N2 at various internal pressures. This will also allow internal frustum pressure to be monitored and recorded before, during and after test runs to avoid counter claims that the Force generated was due to hot air leaks.

While the build will not be that technically challenging, I MAY consider providing tested EMDrives at my material costs, to enable anyone who wishes to test an EMDrive to be able to do so without needing to build the device themselves.

Same for the rotary test rig and data collection system.

Please don't get me wrong, this offer will cost me considerable time and make $0 profit as I expect it will take at least 2 weeks to build, align, polish, overcoat and test each EMDrive.

Device will look like the Boeing Flight Thruster and operate at 2.45GHz from a narrow band Rf generator. No magnetrons required.

Once my test data is published, interested parties can contact me to discuss.
« Last Edit: 07/07/2015 05:34 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 Ricvil

  • Member
  • Posts: 69
  • Liked: 66
  • Likes Given: 24
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_cavity#Cylindrical_cavity

Now I see where the expressions comes from.

The cut off frequency expressions for constant radius R cilindrical waveguide.

It's wrong because,  the expressions for constant radius waveguides are used like dispersions relations of a tappered waveguide , and the " constant radius R" is used as a function of spacial coordinates.
 Not only this, derivatives of this  expressions are done acting on the"ad-hoc" spacial dependency introduced.

Wrong!!!

I don't think so. You, yourself posted,

This guys think another way

http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.3519

:)

In the first paragraph of section 4 of this paper, they decompose the wave vector into time-like and space-like, orthogonal components. This is a more precise derivation of exactly what I am doing. The space-like component must shift mass to match the boundary conditions as the time-like component travels down the waveguide.

It seems you "believe" waveguides are linear and cannot deviate from this expectation. In the case of a tapered waveguide, it mimics gravity which is non-linear. So, I still do not see what is "wrong" with my equation. Although, now I do see a better way to derive it and reference it. Thank you!
Todd

The field equations are linear ( any linear combination of field solutions is a solution too).
Non linear are the dispersion relations between frequency (omega) and the wave number(kappa), and this relationship is ditacted solving the maxwell /helmoltz equations for each geometry, boundary conditions and medium of the problem under analysis, and both omega and kappa never has a espatial or temporal dependence just because they are eigenvalues of the differential operators envolved, and the modes are the eigenvectors.
When you put a ad-hoc coordinate dependence you are automaticaly, not solving the original equation.
The waveguide or cavity can be any shape,  and linearity is not related to it.
When you take the wikipedia expression for cut off frequency of e regular cylindrical waveguide, and change the constant radius R of the expression for a function of z coordinate in your expression, automatically your expression is not more consistent with the equations, basically because if c a constant, f is a function and d is a differential operator, them d(cf)=cd(f) ,  but if c is now a function then d(cf)=d(c)f+cd(f), and this new term d(c)f  will make the equations not be satisfied, neither the boundary conditions.
The article has a decomposition like any orthogonal decomposition, and if you had noted, all wave numbers kappa are constants.
You have done a transformation inofensive for algebric equation solutions, but for differential equations is wrong.
And if are trying describe fotons in a gravitational field using that same "procedures" you are in error again, because fotons in general relativity also must satisfy differential equations called null geodesic equations.

Offline CW

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Germany
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 51
...

In the first paragraph of section 4 of this paper, they decompose the wave vector into time-like and space-like, orthogonal components. This is a more precise derivation of exactly what I am doing. The space-like component must shift mass to match the boundary conditions as the time-like component travels down the waveguide.

It seems you "believe" waveguides are linear and cannot deviate from this expectation. In the case of a tapered waveguide, it mimics gravity which is non-linear. So, I still do not see what is "wrong" with my equation. Although, now I do see a better way to derive it and reference it. Thank you!
Todd

Todd,

Thank you for pointing this out, as I had not read this paper.  You are right:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.3519

Photons inside a waveguide as massive particles
Zhi-Yong Wang1, Cai-Dong Xiong

Section 4 RELATIVISTIC QUANTUM-MECHANICAL EQUATION OF GUIDED PHOTONS

Quote
Eqs. (20) and (21) are expressed in the arbitrary coordinate system (associated with a frame wherefrom the waveguide is viewed along an arbitrary 3D spatial direction), they can be simplified in the coordinate system (associated with a frame wherefrom the waveguide is viewed along the x123{,,}aaa123{,,}eee3-axis, and then one has L3(,0,0,)xtxμ=and 12(0,,,0)mkkμη=).

This similar to what Dr. Notsosureofit was discussing from a long time ago, and I had a hard time grasping :)

I also tried to point out many a post ago in (I think) the last EM drive thread, that a standing wave might be interpretable as an 'exotic' type of dynamically created massive particle. This whole tapered frustum actually looks to me as if this geometry squeezed one side of this dynamically created exotic particle equivalent. Assuming this point of view, this squeezed dynamic particle should then react and try to escape the squeezing towards the wider end of the frustum, hence being sort of accelerated, while the equivalent but opposite impulse is being imparted towards the smaller frustum end. If this were the case, the type of squeezing reaction might even depend on the type of exotic particle equivalent that is being dynamically generated in terms of frequency, energy density and field distribution/modes. Just the same as static types of particles have different properties that particle physics knows.
Reality is weirder than fiction

Offline TheTraveller

Email received from Roger Shawyer today.

Quote
Hi TT

Thank you for your observations on IPR. My thoughts about making a fortune from EmDrive are as follows:

EmDrive theories are cheap and easy to come by. I have seen many well-argued theories over the last 15 years ranging from the correct to the absurd.

Making successful EmDrive experimental hardware is more difficult, but can be done by small companies, universities and individuals. There are more out there than you think. Many clever and competent people would not dream of posting their work on a public forum due to the ignorant criticism and ridicule that will inevitably follow.

Producing a flight qualified 1st generation EmDrive thruster for space applications is difficult and expensive. There are vested interests and National Security considerations which will apply. (I know, from 20 years at senior level in Europe’s biggest space company).

Producing a commercially acceptable 2nd generation engine for terrestrial applications, where the real fortunes are to be made, is very difficult and very expensive. It calls for a courageous company to invest the time and money required.

I will be very happy for whoever makes the first fortune out of EmDrive, whoever they are and in whichever country they live.

The eventual market is huge and there is plenty of room for many suppliers.

My IAC 2014 paper has been peer reviewed and accepted for publication in Acta Astronautica, the IAF journal.

The important technical reviewers for our original work were working for the UK Ministry of Defence and are not publically named, and I guess this will remain so for some years.

Feel free to share this on your forum and good luck with your recovery.

Best regards

Roger
« Last Edit: 07/07/2015 11:42 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 Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
...
;Meep progress: 13.054/13.052188647619047 = 100.0% done in 6479.3s, -0.9s to go
;run 0 finished at t = 13.054 (6527 timesteps)

It looks to me like the number you want is dt = 13.054/6527 which equals  0.002, a nice number. Or maybe you want to use the 100% done numbers.

Anyway, you should be able to use this dt for any of the csv files from the h5 files with dimensions 247x264x264 or any run of 32 cycles with resolution =250 and frequency = 2.45 GHz. That is, they should have those dimensions.
6527 timesteps ?  I thought that there were only ~325 time steps or so

No, you're confusing time slices and time steps. 320 time slices at one slice output every 1/10 of a cycle, 32 cycles. I don't know how meep gets the extra time slices or sometimes shorts us a few slices, but it does. Time steps is what meep uses to evolve the fields. It needs a minimum of 8 time steps per cycle, or a minimum of 256 (8 * 32) time steps to propagate the fields for 32 cycles. But that is not nearly enough to resolve the structure of our cavities.

So higher resolution = more time steps.
Yes, confusion and miscommunication are bound to happen when people collaborate over the Internet thousands of miles apart.   We don't have access and knowledge of what you input in Meep.   When plotting the time response over just two cycles I thought that you were providing all the time steps information for those two cycles.  You see, in order to plot the time response one needs as many points as possible, so that one can better describe the time response, particularly when the response is not a harmonic sinusoid.  With the present number of time slices, there are not enough to fully describe the unknown shape of the wave, so that I had to interpolate.  The following picture shows the time response, where the circles are the data.  You can see from the image that there are too few circles to describe the time response with just two time cycles, and therefore the need for interpolation:



I'll try to work with what we have, but ideally it would be better to have the time slices (when plotting response data) = time steps.  That makes for a file that is 10 times bigger, I understand, though.

If one would know that the response is a sinusoid, just two points per cycle would suffice, as known from FFT analysis.  However (as shown in the above) the response is not a simple sinusoid but it is increasing with time. 

Looking forward, since the size of the file is an issue, I think it may be better to stay with your present number of time steps per cycle (10) and just increase the number of cycles, to explore the shape of the curve, as that would give us information about the growth of the Poynting vector with time and also give us information about whether this is just a transient or not. 

This is what is involved in the analysis of the response.

At the start of this exercise it was stated that the response would show just a standing wave.  We have shown that to be wrong. That's progress.

It was stated that Meep would show a Poynting vector that would be self cancelling (over integer number of periods).  We have shown that to be wrong.  That's progress.

It was stated that Meep would show a Poynting vector that would not grow with time.  We have shown that to be wrong.   That's progress. But we don't know whether this is just a transient or not.  Many other things remain to be explored.

The csv files are available for anybody to calculate the Poynting vector and extract data from them.

We have made progress in showing what's going on inside the EM Drive.  It is more complicated than what some people thought.
« Last Edit: 07/07/2015 01:18 PM by Rodal »

Offline TheTraveller

Roger Shawyer's IAC 2014 paper has been peer reviewed and accepted for publication in Acta Astronautica, the IAF journal.
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.”
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Roger Shawyer's IAC 2014 paper has been peer reviewed and accepted for publication in Acta Astronautica, the IAF journal.

So , is the "2015 peer reviewed paper" that was going to "end all doubt"  the same IAC 2014 paper he presented at the 2014 conference?

Or is there something new in the Acta Astronautica version that was not present in the 2014 presentation?

« Last Edit: 07/07/2015 12:25 PM by Rodal »

Offline TheTraveller

Roger Shawyer's IAC 2014 paper has been peer reviewed and accepted for publication in Acta Astronautica, the IAF journal.

So , is the "2015 peer reviewed paper" that was going to "end all doubt"  the same IAC 2014 paper he presented at the 2014 conference?

Or is there something new in the Acta Astronautica version that was not present in the 2014 presentation?

What is in the document has been peer reviewed.

If you have any doubts about the validity of the comments in the paper, take it up with Acta Astronautica and their peer reviewers.

Have attached a few comments from the paper. Comments that are now peer reviewed.
« Last Edit: 07/07/2015 12:31 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 Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Roger Shawyer's IAC 2014 paper has been peer reviewed and accepted for publication in Acta Astronautica, the IAF journal.

So , is the "2015 peer reviewed paper" that was going to "end all doubt"  the same IAC 2014 paper he presented at the 2014 conference?

Or is there something new in the Acta Astronautica version that was not present in the 2014 presentation?

What is in the document has been peer reviewed.

If you have any doubts about the validity of the comments in the paper, take it up with Acta Astronautica and their peer reviewers.

Have attached a few comments from the paper. Comments that are now peer reviewed.

What prompted your aggressive Non-Sequitur "If you have any doubts about the validity of the comments in the paper, take it up with Acta Astronautica and their peer reviewers." ? there was nothing in my question about doubts about  validity of anything.  I just asked about whether there was something new in the peer-reviewed paper as you had previously written that the 2015 peer-reviewed paper was going "to remove all doubt"

This is a statement ("to remove all doubt") you made, not that Shawyer made or anything to do with Acta Astronautica.  I simply don't understand how can a paper already presented in 2014 is going to "remove all doubt" when re-published in 2015, so I was asking whether there was something new in the re-publication that was going to remove all doubts in 2015 that were still lingering from the 2014 presentation. 

If it was going to remove all doubt it should have removed it in 2014 when originally presented, not when re-published in 2015, practically a year later.
« Last Edit: 07/07/2015 12:53 PM by Rodal »

Offline TheTraveller

Roger Shawyer's IAC 2014 paper has been peer reviewed and accepted for publication in Acta Astronautica, the IAF journal.

So , is the "2015 peer reviewed paper" that was going to "end all doubt"  the same IAC 2014 paper he presented at the 2014 conference?

Or is there something new in the Acta Astronautica version that was not present in the 2014 presentation?

What is in the document has been peer reviewed.

If you have any doubts about the validity of the comments in the paper, take it up with Acta Astronautica and their peer reviewers.

Have attached a few comments from the paper. Comments that are now peer reviewed.

What prompted your aggressive Non-Sequitur "If you have any doubts about the validity of the comments in the paper, take it up with Acta Astronautica and their peer reviewers." ? there was nothing in my question about doubts about  validity of anything.  I just asked about whether there was something new in the peer-reviewed paper as you had previously written that the 2015 peer-reviewed paper was going "to remove all doubt"

This is a statement ("to remove all doubt") you made, not that Shawyer made or anything to do with Acta Astronautica.  I don't understand how can a paper already presented in 2014 is going to "remove all doubt" when re-published in 2015. 

If it was going to remove all doubt it should have removed it in 2014 when originally presented, not when re-published in 2015, practically a year later.

Whatever.

Is clear you will never accept Shawyer knows more about the EMDrive than you do and that your negative opinion of him and his work will never stop.

Point is the peer review is done, 1 to 2 year peer review process is normal and the comments made in the paper are now "beyond doubt".

Don't forget this is the 2nd peer reviewed EMDrive paper, the 1st being the Chinese paper as attached.
« Last Edit: 07/07/2015 01:21 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 Flyby

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 385
  • Belgium
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 48
It can not hurt to have different opinions, certainly not at this stage, where we, external observers, are still looking for confirmation that there is indeed a force developing inside the EMdrive.

At best there is "some indication", but far from conclusive. I can imagine R.Shawyer having a different point of view, because he's been spending many years on the topic.

One of the key elements to assess which of the theories fits best, will be the experimental setups that investigate the possible contribution of the side walls. If they contribute nothing, then Shawyer is more likely to have the right direction, if they contribute something (or everything) then Shawyer will have to reconsider part of his theory, i think.

Although the paper contains some new elements, I would rather have preferred some hardcore data on the 2nd generation engine, instead of linear projections of what might/could be possible based upon mathematical models that have yet to be confirmed by experiments.

I, fe, have a hard time believing that the Q will scale so linear as has been assumed, but I would gladly be proven wrong by an experiment that shows it can be done....


Starting to get worried about the NASA highpower test. If only P.Marchal was allowed to drop a few lines on the progress made there...

Offline DrBagelBites

  • Member
  • Posts: 71
  • Orlando
  • Liked: 59
  • Likes Given: 68
I thought I would chime in with questions for the AIAA conference. I am going to be attending the event, so I will be able to report back to you guys about what happens, other questions that were asked, etc.

Let me know of a couple of definite questions that anyone would want me to ask during the Q and A, and I'll be sure to ask them and report back the answers. :)

-I
Maybe if you could video what you might find important and post the video or even pictures. Only if you are allowed to.

Shell

"Individual videotaping or audio recording of sessions or exhibits as well as the unauthorized sale of AIAA-copyrighted material is prohibited."

Only if I am with the press, which I do not have the credentials for.

However, the proceedings from the event are posted online, I believe. But, not sure if that includes transcripts from Q/A.


Tags: