Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3  (Read 1803350 times)

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.

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?

I'm told EW has the full report. I did ask for it to be released. Was told SPR marked it Confidential, so EWs can't release it without SPR's approval. I then asked Roger for the report and he provided the conclusions I have shared. If more info comes to light, that I can share, it will be shared.

Was told that reading the full report, the thrust signatures are very strong and clear and that EW only disagreed with the theory presented.

Roger also told me of the 5 magnetrons used, he burnt out 3 and burns holes in waveguides. So there is danger here.
« Last Edit: 05/27/2015 02:46 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 StrongGR

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?

No, nothing at all. The theory by Shawyer was debunked long ago and was one of the reasons why scientific community distrusted him. What is the date of this report? Has there been an update since the initial criticisms?

Seen in this way appears as nothing else than a generic list not even credible.

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.

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?

No, nothing at all. The theory by Shawyer was debunked long ago and was one of the reasons why scientific community distrusted him. What is the date of this report? Has there been an update since the initial criticisms?

Seen in this way appears as nothing else than a generic list not even credible.

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

Quote
Shawyer says he has written a new paper about developers with second-generation EmDrive that is in the process of being peer reviewed but should make an appearance sometime in 2015.
« Last Edit: 05/27/2015 02:54 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 rfmwguy

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

 But for us engineer replicators, garage DIY EM Drives will start being built all over the planet.

DIY EMers should view this short youtube vid:

Basically, a 2,000 volt transformer then goes into a doubler making the necessary 4,000 volts for a run of the mill magnetron. This is lethal voltage along with the necessary amperage to assure it. Biggest word here is DO NOT use a DVM or analog meter to measure this voltage. Stay away from it. Be very afraid...there's a reason.

Online Flyby

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 384
  • Belgium
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 47
Please be careful with that last link as it got flagged by my Kaspersky anti virus...

Offline zen-in

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 531
  • California
  • Liked: 468
  • Likes Given: 365
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?

No, nothing at all. The theory by Shawyer was debunked long ago and was one of the reasons why scientific community distrusted him. What is the date of this report? Has there been an update since the initial criticisms?

Seen in this way appears as nothing else than a generic list not even credible.

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

Quote
Shawyer says he has written a new paper about developers with second-generation EmDrive that is in the process of being peer reviewed but should make an appearance sometime in 2015.

Your persistant reposting of Shawyer's claims and photo-ops without any data to back up his claims constitutes forum spam.   Every page is filled with the same photos posted again and again and claims that Shawyer "is just on the verge of releasing some important information that will validate his previous claims" or statements to that effect.   Where is the data to support his conclusions?

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8018
  • UK
  • Liked: 1281
  • Likes Given: 168

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?

No, nothing at all. The theory by Shawyer was debunked long ago and was one of the reasons why scientific community distrusted him. What is the date of this report? Has there been an update since the initial criticisms?

Seen in this way appears as nothing else than a generic list not even credible.

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

Quote
Shawyer says he has written a new paper about developers with second-generation EmDrive that is in the process of being peer reviewed but should make an appearance sometime in 2015.

Your persistant reposting of Shawyer's claims and photo-ops without any data to back up his claims constitutes forum spam.   Every page is filled with the same photos posted again and again and claims that Shawyer "is just on the verge of releasing some important information that will validate his previous claims" or statements to that effect.   Where is the data to support his conclusions?

He's already explained that in the posts above that.

Offline wallofwolfstreet

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 165
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 436
I am very surprised by those poll results.  Based on those results, where individuals who feel their is propellantless thrust are slightly more numerous than those who claim no thrust, implies that the general consensus places the odds of their being a genuine, previously unknown//non-classical force at about 50% (ignoring all the people who don't have an opinion).

I find that to be an extremely high estimate given everything we have seen so far.  Yes, their have been replications, but this isn't a result that can easily be validated.  Lots of hard to control for confounding factors, and  it's a huge claim being made. 

I would have put the odds at somewhere in the 2-3% range.  Maybe 5% if I was feeling optimistic.  Interesting to learn that the forum overall is leaning to a much greater likelihood.  Just my two cents.


Edit:  Here is the link to the poll:  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37644.0
« Last Edit: 05/27/2015 03:52 PM by wallofwolfstreet »

Offline kml

For the Eagleworks team: do you report the net RF power entering the resonator (forward - reflected at feedpoint)?  Or total PA output?

For example in this picture ~50w is listed:




Online kdhilliard

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 170
  • Kirk
  • Tanstaa, FL
  • Liked: 162
  • Likes Given: 522
Should be more information shortly:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/nasa-validates-emdrive-roger-shawyer-says-aerospace-industry-needs-watch-out-1499141

Quote
Shawyer says he has written a new paper about developers with second-generation EmDrive that is in the process of being peer reviewed but should make an appearance sometime in 2015.
That should be interesting to see.  I predict that if it is truly peer reviewed (and not simply an unreviewed conference paper), then it will contain no theory but will instead only describe his test regime and results because there is no way that a competent reviewer would give a pass to Shawyer's action-reaction verbal gymnastics by which he argues that a net force which favors the interior surface of the large end plate somehow causes the drive to accelerate small end first.

I also predict (though with much less confidence) that if he does fully describe his test rig, it will be considerably more convoluted than the simple balances proposed here.  His measurement paper's "any attempt to measure them [thrust and reaction force] by simply placing the thruster vertically on a set of scales will fail." and "In each successful case [where forces have been measured], the EmDrive force data has been superimposed on an increasing or decreasing background force, generated by the test equipment itself." strongly suggests that his rigs contain additional sources of force, and that the EmDrive thrust signature must be extracted from a baseline signal via methods which are open to misinterpretation.

~Kirk

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
...

The answer is, momentum is NOT conserved in dissipative systems. There should be thrust in proportion to the amount of heat that can be absorbed by the water. It's heat capacity is not infinite so eventually the system becomes polarized, until the water is allowed to cool.

@Rodal mentioned making the cavity a one-way street. Another idea would be to make the frustum out of different metals. Having zinc at one end and copper at the other end will form a galvanic cell, but it also forms a crude diode! This makes it more difficult for current to flow in one direction vs the other direction in the frustum, accomplishing that goal. Different metals can also make it more or less dissipative at each end.

Todd

Todd, have you had a chance to read Aquino's (*) paper (  https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01074608/document ) that I mentioned in my prior post ( http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1380265#msg1380265 )?

Remember that Shawyer analyzes the EM Drive cavity as two completely disjointed, discontinuous waveguides: One waveguide having the diameter of the Big end and the other waveguide having the diameter of the Small end.

Aquino goes one step further: he considers the Power dissipated at the Small end to be different than the Power dissipated at the Big end (and indeed we know that the power is dissipated unequally at the ends of the real continuous EM Drive).  What do you think of this approach and its consequences as analyzed by Aquino ?

Force = (PowerDissBigEnd*RefrIndexBigEnd - PowerDissSmallEnd*RefrIndexSmallEnd)/c

That's why we always used a calibrated feedback force.

Notsosureofit, what do you think of Aquino considering the different Power dissipated at both ends, vs. your formula?  Is your formula considering equal power dissipation at both ends?


(*) I have been made aware that Prof. Aquino has other out of the mainstream physics papers (concerning gravitational vs inertial mass), but the the purpose here is to address these equations solely based on their mathematical physics foundation and validity.
« Last Edit: 05/27/2015 05:05 PM by Rodal »

Offline Taven

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 3
For all the flack TheTraveller gets, even so much as being called a troll and spammer (funny considering what the rest of the internet would call a troll or spammer), he's the real MVP here. It doesn't matter who is right, or who is wrong, or if there is thrust, or if there is nothing. That will be resolved in time regardless of this thread. TheTraveller on the other hand is actually working to an end - talking directly with Shawyer and EW, working to get more information for everyone, and working to get EW and Shawyer - and everyone here - to work together. That's huge. That kind of action will resolve the questions around the device. (True or not!) That's measurable progress. The bickering and accusations in this thread, not so much.

And adding to this, I think everyone should show a little more kindness towards Shawyer. (Not to mention the other posters here) For one, he's a human being just like you and me. And secondly, regardless of outcome he's discovered something puzzling enough to stump the world and that alone deserves scientific respect.

On openness, do not fail to take the human element into your equations. Shawyer is very likely hesitant to cooperate openly because of the response he's gotten in the past to his work. People aren't just disagreeing with him, they're attacking him and dismissing him as a person. Try going decades being called a crackpot and getting personally torn to shreds in all forms of media anytime you spoke (even his eye contact in the interview was scrutinized and he was blamed for the questions he was asked!) and tell me if you'd be a social butterfly when people start finally looking at your work curiously. Put yourself in his shoes.

You aren't working with just numbers and data. You don't have to agree with his theory, just show him respect and remember there is a fellow human behind the work, just as there is a fellow human being behind the screen. We look to past scientists with such high regard, but utterly forget the personal hardships they went through to achieve what they did and we continue to inflict these hardships on current and future scientists again and again.

Show respect for your fellow scientists regardless of what they think. If everyone thought the same we wouldn't have science. We're all human beings in this together.

And for the love of Einstein please stop bickering over whether the device works or not, or whether the device should be investigated or not, or whether resources should be allocated to it or not. The thread here is to investigate, evaluate theories, and build the device regardless if it works or not. And as of right now, the ball is in the engineer's court.
« Last Edit: 05/27/2015 04:23 PM by Taven »

Online Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 1364

Notsosureofit, what do you think of Aquino considering the different Power dissipated at both ends, vs. your formula?  Is your formula considering equal power dissipation at both ends?

The formula that I've posted so far does not consider dissipation.  I should be able to get the same expression using the index-of-refraction formalism, but havn't done that.  I'm way behind on my slow reading.

*****************************************************************************
PS:  I'm looking for 1 more of these plates to complete the vacuum chamber for my "hoped for " experiment at X band.  Any leads followed (cheap that is) otherwise I'll have to make one, etc etc.  Remote switch for the Cavendish is in.  No perfect cavity yet.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5rrpzvdwkwq9r11/IMAG0409.jpg?dl=0

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2326
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2956
  • Likes Given: 2589

Notsosureofit, what do you think of Aquino considering the different Power dissipated at both ends, vs. your formula?  Is your formula considering equal power dissipation at both ends?

The formula that I've posted so far does not consider dissipation.  I should be able to get the same expression using the index-of-refraction formalism, but havn't done that.  I'm way behind on my slow reading.

*****************************************************************************
PS:  I'm looking for 1 more of these plates to complete the vacuum chamber for my "hoped for " experiment at X band.  Any leads followed (cheap that is) otherwise I'll have to make one, etc etc.  Remote switch for the Cavendish is in.  No perfect cavity yet.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5rrpzvdwkwq9r11/IMAG0409.jpg?dl=0
Would Stainless work? I have a chuck left over from my company that's about the same size. Let me dig it out from storage and take a few pics... if you can use stainless. You're quite welcome to it although it might need some lathe work.

Offline cometo

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
  • Spain
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Hi to everybody.

Are somebody thinking in putting a cloud chamber under the base of fustrum in order to check if charged particles are emitted?

If Emdrive were some kind of "vacuum particle extractor" this attachment should show that.

Regards.

« Last Edit: 05/27/2015 05:38 PM by cometo »

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2326
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2956
  • Likes Given: 2589

Notsosureofit, what do you think of Aquino considering the different Power dissipated at both ends, vs. your formula?  Is your formula considering equal power dissipation at both ends?

The formula that I've posted so far does not consider dissipation.  I should be able to get the same expression using the index-of-refraction formalism, but havn't done that.  I'm way behind on my slow reading.

*****************************************************************************
PS:  I'm looking for 1 more of these plates to complete the vacuum chamber for my "hoped for " experiment at X band.  Any leads followed (cheap that is) otherwise I'll have to make one, etc etc.  Remote switch for the Cavendish is in.  No perfect cavity yet.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5rrpzvdwkwq9r11/IMAG0409.jpg?dl=0
Would Stainless work? I have a chuck left over from my company that's about the same size. Let me dig it out from storage and take a few pics... if you can use stainless. You're quite welcome to it although it might need some lathe work.
It's almost 14 inches across and the center area containing the concentric circles is 12 1/2.

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
Hi to everybody.

Are somebody thinking in putting a cloud chamber under the base of fustrum in order to check if charged particles are emitted?

If Emdrive were some kind of "vacuum particle extractor" this attachment should show that.
...
Great idea to look at convection currents when doing experiments in air.   Either natural convection currents produced by power dissipation at the EM Drive external surfaces or forced convection from heated moist air pressurized in its interior and leaving through gaps.   Something that researchers doing experiments in air can use to validate or nullify experimental explanations.  (Not so much for Quantum Vacuum as those are virtual particle pairs that have an ephemeral life governed by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle)
« Last Edit: 05/27/2015 05:49 PM by Rodal »

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2326
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2956
  • Likes Given: 2589
I guess in a virtual world almost anything can be done. Found this interesting.
https://www.osapublishing.org/optica/fulltext.cfm?uri=optica-2-5-454&id=315920

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
.... 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
Sorry, but this is flat wrong.

For example, EW is running with approximately Q*P thrust for a continuous 20 seconds. And they are one of the examples of least thrust. Is 20 seconds long enough to disprove your conjecture? - I believe so. Numbers would be good though.

Offline TheTraveller

For all the flack TheTraveller gets, even so much as being called a troll and spammer (funny considering what the rest of the internet would call a troll or spammer), he's the real MVP here. It doesn't matter who is right, or who is wrong, or if there is thrust, or if there is nothing. That will be resolved in time regardless of this thread. TheTraveller on the other hand is actually working to an end - talking directly with Shawyer and EW, working to get more information for everyone, and working to get EW and Shawyer - and everyone here - to work together. That's huge. That kind of action will resolve the questions around the device. (True or not!) That's measurable progress. The bickering and accusations in this thread, not so much.

And adding to this, I think everyone should show a little more kindness towards Shawyer. (Not to mention the other posters here) For one, he's a human being just like you and me. And secondly, regardless of outcome he's discovered something puzzling enough to stump the world and that alone deserves scientific respect.

On openness, do not fail to take the human element into your equations. Shawyer is very likely hesitant to cooperate openly because of the response he's gotten in the past to his work. People aren't just disagreeing with him, they're attacking him and dismissing him as a person. Try going decades being called a crackpot and getting personally torn to shreds in all forms of media anytime you spoke (even his eye contact in the interview was scrutinized and he was blamed for the questions he was asked!) and tell me if you'd be a social butterfly when people start finally looking at your work curiously. Put yourself in his shoes.

You aren't working with just numbers and data. You don't have to agree with his theory, just show him respect and remember there is a fellow human behind the work, just as there is a fellow human being behind the screen. We look to past scientists with such high regard, but utterly forget the personal hardships they went through to achieve what they did and we continue to inflict these hardships on current and future scientists again and again.

Show respect for your fellow scientists regardless of what they think. If everyone thought the same we wouldn't have science. We're all human beings in this together.

And for the love of Einstein please stop bickering over whether the device works or not, or whether the device should be investigated or not, or whether resources should be allocated to it or not. The thread here is to investigate, evaluate theories, and build the device regardless if it works or not. And as of right now, the ball is in the engineer's court.

Thanks for the comments.

When I came on here I clearly said I would "Follow The Data, Theory Be Damned". I will continue to dig up the data and follow it where it leads me as I build my spreadsheet model of how the various alterable elements of an EM Drive relate to each other.

My goal is to replicate the narrow band high Q Flight Thruster. Was recently advise that may be a hard road to travel as the device has a very narrow bandwidth and resultant high Q for max thrust and is highly affected by thermal changes and Rf frequency drift.

Apparently EW, after trying that narrow band high Q pathway have now decided to go down the low Q, wide band magnetron pathway as is also followed by the Chinese.

As an engineer all this tells me we are dealing with a real device that has design and operational tradeoffs, exactly what I would expect of a real device.
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Tags: