Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3  (Read 1797261 times)

Offline rfmwguy

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

Dismissing curiosity or suppressing the intention to investigate something odd, based upon notion that it should not be possible, well - let me use some strong words here - I find that a form of scientific fundamentalism.

Congratulations to one of the best posts I've read in a while...well, almost as good as my tag line  ;)
« Last Edit: 05/27/2015 12:17 PM by rfmwguy »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5833
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5249
EM Drive under siege. Nothing less than Sean Carroll with this post. In the comment area there is Steven Docker "explaining" why thrust is measured but this does not seem to apply to measures in vacuum by NASA. Don't give up.


Quote from: Sean Carroll
And what do we have for our propellantless space drive? Hmm — not quite that. No refereed publications — indeed, no publications at all.

Factual correction:  Prof. Yang's papers (on her theoretical analysis and experimental measurements of the EM Drive) have been published in the peer-reviewed journal Acta Physica Sinica -Chinese Edition- (ACTA PHYS SIN-CH ED)

Quote from: Sean Carroll
So what we have is a situation where there’s a claim being made that is as extraordinary as it gets — conservation of momentum is being violated.

Incorrect. None of the EM Drive researchers in the US, UK and China have proposed that conservation of momentum is being violated.  They all  claim it does not (by different means).  So the proper response by Carroll should be that their explanations are non-viable.   As to whether space propulsion without on-board propellants is possible, the scientific answer is: definitely yes.  Besides the scientifically obvious answers of Solar Sails and electrodynamic tethers (based on external fields) we have photon rockets for example, as perfectly valid means of space propulsion that require no on-board propellant and yet do not violate the law of conservation of momentum.  Even just releasing thermal radiation (as in the Pioneer anomaly) is s perfectly valid means of space propulsion that requires no on-board propellant and yet do not violate the law of conservation of momentum.
« Last Edit: 05/27/2015 01:07 PM by Rodal »

Offline Flyby

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 382
  • Belgium
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 46
EM Drive under siege. Nothing less than Sean Carroll with this post. In the comment area there is Steven Docker "explaining" why thrust is measured but this does not seem to apply to measures in vacuum by NASA. Don't give up.

As William Camden wrote in 1605.... "all the proofe of a pudding, is in the eating"   ;D

There can be several theoretical models formulated, if it doesn't fly as said it would, it is all for nothing...
As it is a serious struggle to come up with a coherent mathematical model, only a clear, irrefutable test will have the final word on this...
Hopefully in a few months time there will be enough data to either confirm or deny an EMdrive produces a thrust.

Looking forward to :
- Eagleworks test in July
- TheTraveller's test setup
- Shawyer's 2015 report on his supercooled EMdrive v2.0. I hope that this time, his report is a bit more then a marketing leaflet with (rather hollow) future projections...
- Iullian further testing
-  and a few other testers that hopefully catch up.

Let us say that by the end of the year we'll all know for sure if we've been wasting our time, in a pleasant way, or that indeed this NASA-forum turned out to be a main contributor for a new space exploration area...
Whatever the outcome.... exciting, no? 8)
« Last Edit: 05/27/2015 12:38 PM by Flyby »

Offline StrongGR

EM Drive under siege. Nothing less than Sean Carroll with this post. In the comment area there is Steven Docker "explaining" why thrust is measured but this does not seem to apply to measures in vacuum by NASA. Don't give up.
Instead of behaving like a scientist and using his time to do research he writes a factually wrong piece:

Quote from: Sean Carroll
And what do we have for our propellantless space drive? Hmm — not quite that. No refereed publications — indeed, no publications at all.

Factual correction:  Prof. Yang's papers (on her theoretical analysis and experimental measurements of the EM Drive) have been published in the peer-reviewed journal Acta Physica Sinica -Chinese Edition- (ACTA PHYS SIN-CH ED)

Quote from: Sean Carroll
So what we have is a situation where there’s a claim being made that is as extraordinary as it gets — conservation of momentum is being violated.

Incorrect. None of the EM Drive researchers in the US, UK and China have proposed that conservation of momentum is being violated.  They all  claim it does not (by different means).  So the proper response by Carroll should be that their explanations are non-viable.   As to whether space propulsion without on-board propellants is possible, the scientific answer is: definitely yes.  Besides the scientifically obvious answers of Solar Sails and electrodynamic tethers (based on external fields) we have photon rockets for example, as perfectly valid means of space propulsion that require no on-board propellant and yet do not violate the law of conservation of momentum.  Even just releasing thermal radiation (as in the Pioneer anomaly) is s perfectly valid means of space propulsion that requires no on-board propellant and yet do not violate the law of conservation of momentum.

I tried to post a comment there with a link to NASA's paper but he just dismissed it. Very sad. Remember that he is the guy claiming that multiverse should be believed and we should modify the scientific method to accept this "reality". On the other side, he is a star and a professor at Caltech.

It is interesting to see that behaviors seen almost four centuries ago are repeating yet. Clerics are others now.

Offline Giovanni DS

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 186
    • ChibiOS/RT Project
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 162
I am still skeptical but should the EMDrive be validated in the future, it will be fun to see how quick people will jump on the bandwagon.

Anyway, what is happening here is interesting to watch regardless the outcome.

Offline rfmwguy

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




http://www.pipetubeflanges.com/fittings.html

Could not find the exact size, but the flanged reducer config looks very similar to 50 ohm rigid transmission line reducers.

EIA line sizes usually extend to 8 3/16 diameter for 50 & 75 ohms. I've heard of larger line sizes, but not common. Its a high power broadcast commodity: http://www.eriinc.com/Catalog/Transmission-Line/Rigid-Coaxial-Line/MACX850.aspx

Interestingly enough, the 8 3/16 line has an 11 inch flange adapter, close to Shawyers cavity diameter I believe:

Specifications:

Impedance: 50 ± 0.5 Ohm
Maximum Frequency: 580 MHz
Maximum Television Channel (US): 32
Velocity: 99.8 %
Peak Power: 2644 kW
Net Weight: 11.2 lbm/ft | 16.67 kg/m
Outer Conductor, Outer Diameter: 8.15 inch | 20.70 cm
Outer Conductor, Inner Diameter: 8 inch | 20.32 cm
Inner Conductor, Outer diameter: 3.468 inch | 8.81 cm
Inner Conductor, Inner Diameter: 3.38 inch | 8.59 cm
Flange, Outer Diameter:11 inch | 27.94 cm
EIA Standard: Yes
Bolt Circle, Diameter: 10.312 inch | 26.19 cm
Number of Bolts: 18
Bolt Size: 3/8 inch

« Last Edit: 05/27/2015 12:52 PM by rfmwguy »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5833
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5249
...

I tried to post a comment there with a link to NASA's paper but he just dismissed it. Very sad. Remember that he is the guy claiming that multiverse should be believed and we should modify the scientific method to accept this "reality". On the other side, he is a star and a professor at Caltech.

It is interesting to see that behaviors seen almost four centuries ago are repeating yet. Clerics are others now.
Let's see whether my answer stays or not:

Quote from: Rodal
J. Rodal says:
May 27, 2015 at 5:41 am
Not a well-researched piece:

Quote from: Sean Carroll
“And what do we have for our propellantless space drive? Hmm — not quite that. No refereed publications — indeed, no publications at all.”

Factually incorrect: Prof. Yang’s papers (on her theoretical analysis and experimental measurements of the EM Drive) have been published in the peer-reviewed journal Acta Physica Sinica -Chinese Edition- (ACTA PHYS SIN-CH ED)

Quote from: Sean Carroll
“So what we have is a situation where there’s a claim being made that is as extraordinary as it gets — conservation of momentum is being violated.”

Incorrect. None of the EM Drive researchers in the US, UK and China have proposed that conservation of momentum is being violated. They all claim it does not (with different explanations). So the proper critique should be, instead, that their (different from each other) theoretical explanations are non-viable, and showing why they are non-viable. For example, if somebody claims as an explanation that they are using the Quantum Vacuum as something to push on, the critique should be that the Quantum Vacuum is frame-less, immutable and non-degradable, instead of writing that the authors are proposing that conservation of momentum is violated.

As to whether space propulsion without on-board propellants is possible, the obvious scientific answer is: yes. Besides the scientifically obvious answers of Solar Sails and electrodynamic tethers (based on external fields) we have photon rockets for example, as perfectly valid means of space propulsion that require no on-board propellant and yet do not violate the law of conservation of momentum. Even just releasing thermal radiation (as in the Pioneer anomaly) is s valid (albeit extremely low thrust) means of space propulsion that requires no on-board propellant and yet does not violate the law of conservation of momentum.

So, again, there is a (self-admitted) failure to examine what is being criticized, it is criticized on the wrong premise (that the authors claim that they don’t care about conservation of momentum, instead of criticizing their different conjectures to satisfy conservation of momentum), it advances a wrong, broadly-stated premise (that there cannot be propellant-less propulsion, which is false: Solar Sails, ElectroDynamic Tethers, Photon Rockets, Thermal Radiation, etc.) and it claims that none of this research has been published in peer-reviewed journals, thus ignoring the Chinese authors publications (which instead should be criticized based on their theoretical and experimental results).

« Last Edit: 05/27/2015 01:09 PM by Rodal »

Offline marshallC

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 25

Based on what I have learned, blasting away with a wide band magnetron into a low Q cavity may be a good option as it really reduces lost/NO thrust from being constantly off resonance with a high Q cavity.


After I read the measurement document, I also thought it wasn't even a well-played and plausable scam. But in my present understanding acceleration or mere vibration is necessary for forces to develop.

Acceleration causes the Q-multiplied energy spectra to spread for separation and sideband filtering. No acceleration, no separation and forces balance so no thrust.

Consequently, if it works and works like I understand, it will have the amazing property of negative-inertial resistance. In one direction, you push (accelerate) it, it pushes back harder. Flip the cone over, push on it and it feels lighter. Since nobody's hand is perfectly still, the cone would feel like its vibrating. The more nervous you are, the more nervous it is  ;D

A magnetron can be modeled as a negative-resistance device. A single port oscillator or with a circulator a dual-port amplifier. It will mode-lock in its tuning range. I'll have to think about how to model and simulate the system. Would be nice to have an account at a place with Comsol. Its going to take me a while to learn Meep.

My memory could be incorrect, but I believe this behavior was suggested earlier in thread 2. It might be worth looking back into that thread to see if some of the things said there could help you.

If this is the case, perhaps we should give emdrives a tap? Maybe we can ask Iulian to hit his with a stick from a safe distance while it is on? (Or, maybe slightly more scientifically, place and then remove a weight on the drive and test whether the thrust measured changes.)
« Last Edit: 05/27/2015 01:56 PM by marshallC »

Offline rfmwguy

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

"MAY 6, 2015
Cannae has embarked on next generation prototype testing and development.  We have our new numerical lab up and running and we will be moving into a new HQ facility and research lab in June 2015.  Stay tuned for big news!" - http://cannae.com/updates





Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2324
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2952
  • Likes Given: 2586
Criticism and Ego, it's all ego driven and a very good way to split the ranks into my team your vs team. We have fine tuned that trait for millions of years years. It's how and who we are. If you want I'll link publications.

He gains credibility in saying it's bunk and if it indeed turns out bunk he running around saying I told you so, if it works he say's that's interesting and a good thing... he is loosing nothing and gaining mass. Shouldn't that be a violation of something?

People in authority and respected positions do this all the time and we see it with politicians denying climate change. I'm no scientist or engineer but, I can gain your respect in dissing something you know little about. Tesla ran into the same problems with Edison who lead a campaign to the point of frying elephants with AC saying it was a bad idea.

My thought on this?  Mother Nature made the rules not man (or woman) and Mother Nature can break out rules if she so desires. It may not be so but we cannot be so egotistical to believe we know it all.

So don't get your panties in a wad, it's who we are,  just let grit your teeth and use it to drive and focus your dreams.

Offline CW

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

"MAY 6, 2015
Cannae has embarked on next generation prototype testing and development.  We have our new numerical lab up and running and we will be moving into a new HQ facility and research lab in June 2015.  Stay tuned for big news!" - http://cannae.com/updates

Let's just hope that the news resonant cavity does not thermally detune by hot air being produced inside the cavity, so that there won't by any measurable news due to news cutoff frequency kicking in.
;D
Reality is weirder than fiction

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1223
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1290
  • Likes Given: 1740
.... Shawyer's EM Drive proports to give you the cavity Q, many thousands of times more bang per photon.


What the experimental data shows is that it doesn't. It gives you less than Q x momentum/photon, per bang. It stores them up and lets them go all at once. It cannot operate continuously at Q*Power in. That would violate CoE.

Todd
« Last Edit: 05/27/2015 05:07 PM by WarpTech »

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2324
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2952
  • Likes Given: 2586
Not to many years ago I remember sitting in a meeting with the best and finest from Intel (Emerging Technologies group) presenting a new fundamental way to separate the die on Si or GaS wafers. They brought out an Elephant and tried to fry him on the table, not really but it felt that way. The group leader (and a respected scientist) of the group said he couldn't understand how it worked, so it simply couldn't. They didn't buy the technology but it yanked my chain so bad that I sent them a 100mm inch wafer with  500 micron (about 30,000 chips) separated square dies as a present.

So if someone can't understand how something works it doesn't mean it can't, it means they don't understand and that fact makes them afraid, afraid of what they don't know.

Offline TheTraveller

I've been talking with Roger Shawyer and Paul March to try to obtain for EW, the SPR FLight Thruster for them to test. Dr White did contact Boeing about this but Boeing are not interested in loaning EW their test device.

As part of this conversation, I learned EW had a copy of the report Roger Shawyer sent to the UK gov about his results with the 1st Experimental device. He has agreed that I can share the conclusions with the forum. As attached.

Additionally Roger Shawyer has offered EW access to all his findings. I have asked Paul March to follow this up. Bolding is mine.

As an engineer I HATE reinventing the wheel.

Quote
Hi Traveller,

Thank you (and Paul) for the updates.

I guess the report you are referring to is the one we issued to the UK government in September 2002. This was very early work and is now outdated. However I have attached a scan of the conclusions which you may wish to share on your thread. Note that the experimental thruster was designed with a dielectric section to increase the guide wavelength at the small end. This also had the effect of decreasing the Q which led to the low thrusts we measured. All subsequent designs by ourselves and the other research groups we support have used non dielectric designs to ensue high Q values.

All our work since then has been documented in a similar style and issued to government and commercial customers including Boeing. If NASA has access to these documents then I find it extraordinary that they should continue with their QV theories. If they do not have this access then, if they send me a formal request, I will try to arrange it for them.

Best regards

Roger

I suggest this offer by Roger Shawyer, to allow EW access to his research findings, is very generous and a genuine effort to eliminate doubt, hand over solid test data and procedures that should accelerate EW's efforts to see 200mN and larger thrust levels.

I would also point out that replicators working with dielectrics should respect Roger's advice and leave them in the past and go for high Q cavities.

When Roger talks about "Cooling Air" that is hot air leaving the cavity, which cools the cavity.

Please note this report is 13 years old.

PIctures of the test device and the balance beam test setup are attached.
« Last Edit: 05/27/2015 02:28 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 CW

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Germany
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 51
Not to many years ago I remember sitting in a meeting with the best and finest from Intel (Emerging Technologies group) presenting a new fundamental way to separate the die on Si or GaS wafers. They brought out an Elephant and tried to fry him on the table, not really but it felt that way. The group leader (and a respected scientist) of the group said he couldn't understand how it worked, so it simply couldn't. They didn't buy the technology but it yanked my chain so bad that I sent them a 100mm inch wafer with  500 micron (about 30,000 chips) separated square dies as a present.

So if someone can't understand how something works it doesn't mean it can't, it means they don't understand and that fact makes them afraid, afraid of what they don't know.

Fun fact:
More often than not, when someone tells you "You can't do this" or "This can't be done", they just tell you that they themselves can't do it. This becomes especially comedic when you already have physical proof it can be done. I guess we don't have airplanes, multi-GHz computers and can't analyze the human genome within a couple hours now. What a pity. An amazing world it would be!
:D
Reality is weirder than fiction

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5833
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5249
I've been talking with Roger Shawyer and Paul March to try to obtain for EW, the SPR FLight Thruster for them to test. Dr White did contact Boeing about this but Boeing are not interested in loaning EW their test device.

As part of this conversation, I learned EW had a copy of the report Roger Shawyer sent to the UK gov about his results with the 1st Experimental device. He has agreed that I can share the conclusions with the forum. As attached...
Sorry, but I only see the final conclusions of the report.  The "meat" of the report is missing.  It goes against my academic training, professional and business experience to accept the conclusions of a report without being able to examine what is the evidence that the conclusions are based on.

I certainly would not invest  in a company, for example, by just being able to look at the conclusions of a report.  I understand that you may reply by stating that Mr. Shawyer does not have to release the "meat" of the report, nobody has asked him to do so. What I am stating is that without being able to see the evidence that the conclusions are based on, no business or technical person would automatically accept the conclusions.   :)
« Last Edit: 05/27/2015 02:37 PM by Rodal »

Offline TheTraveller

As part of this conversation, I learned EW had a copy of the report Roger Shawyer sent to the UK gov about his results with the 1st Experimental device. He has agreed that I can share the conclusions with the forum. As attached.

Thanks Traveller.  Is there any chance that more than just the conclusions section of that report will be released anytime soon?

~Kirk

I'm working behind the scenes to get Roger and EW working together. As that seems to be starting to happen, at least between Roger and Paul, I expect more info to drop and if I can, will post it.
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.”
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline VAXHeadroom

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 194
  • Whereever you go, there you are. -- BB
  • Baltimore MD
  • Liked: 255
  • Likes Given: 151
Not to many years ago I remember sitting in a meeting with the best and finest from Intel (Emerging Technologies group) presenting a new fundamental way to separate the die on Si or GaS wafers. They brought out an Elephant and tried to fry him on the table, not really but it felt that way. The group leader (and a respected scientist) of the group said he couldn't understand how it worked, so it simply couldn't. They didn't buy the technology but it yanked my chain so bad that I sent them a 100mm inch wafer with  500 micron (about 30,000 chips) separated square dies as a present.

So if someone can't understand how something works it doesn't mean it can't, it means they don't understand and that fact makes them afraid, afraid of what they don't know.

Fun fact:
More often than not, when someone tells you "You can't do this" or "This can't be done", they just tell you that they themselves can't do it. This becomes especially comedic when you already have physical proof it can be done. I guess we don't have airplanes, multi-GHz computers and can't analyze the human genome within a couple hours now. What a pity. An amazing world it would be!
:D

I work for a defense contractor and last year got to show a device for which I have been awarded a patent to a vice president of my company.  He told me I would never be successful because I wasn't working for a specific competitor (who makes similar devices).
We flew the device and successfully tested it on NASA's Zero-G airplane flights last summer :)
Emory Stagmer
  Executive Producer, Public Speaker UnTied Music - www.untiedmusic.com

Offline TheTraveller

Sorry, but I only see the final conclusions of the report.  The "meat" of the report is missing.  It goes against my academic training, professional and business experience to accept the conclusions of a report without being able to examine what is the evidence that the conclusions are based on.

I certainly would not invest  in a company, for example, by just being able to look at the conclusions of a report.  I understand that you may reply by stating that Mr. Shawyer does not have to release the "meat" of the report, nobody has asked him to do so. What I am stating is that without being able to see the evidence that the conclusions are based on, no business or technical person would automatically accept the conclusions.   :)

I agree but then no one is asking anybody to invest in SPR.

What Roger did share is more than we had before. As he has openly agreed to share data with EWs, lets hope they take him up on the offer and end up with non dielectric EW test devices producing 200+mN of thrust as then it is all over. Well not all over for the theory guys. But for us engineer replicators, garage DIY EM Drives will start being built all over the planet.
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.”
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 267
  • United States
  • Liked: 122
  • Likes Given: 95
Sorry, but I only see the final conclusions of the report.  The "meat" of the report is missing.  It goes against my academic training, professional and business experience to accept the conclusions of a report without being able to examine what is the evidence that the conclusions are based on.

I certainly would not invest  in a company, for example, by just being able to look at the conclusions of a report.  I understand that you may reply by stating that Mr. Shawyer does not have to release the "meat" of the report, nobody has asked him to do so. What I am stating is that without being able to see the evidence that the conclusions are based on, no business or technical person would automatically accept the conclusions.   :)

I agree but then no one is asking anybody to invest in SPR.

What Roger did share is more than we had before. As he has openly agreed to share data with EWs, lets hope they take him up on the offer and end up with non dielectric EW test devices producing 200+mN of thrust as then it is all over. Well not all over for the theory guys. But for us engineer replicators, garage DIY EM Drives will start being built all over the planet.

While I agree that no one is asking anyone to invest in SPR. I believe the intent of Rodal's comment was there was an expectation of their being more information in what you attached than what was found. That said the question I have for the theoreticians on the thread is; Does the conclusions provide any additional "useful" information?

Tags: