Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3  (Read 1799008 times)

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5834
  • USA
  • Liked: 5908
  • Likes Given: 5253
we'll keep that a secret and we'll not tell anybody about that
« Last Edit: 07/26/2015 02:25 AM by Rodal »

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 267
  • United States
  • Liked: 122
  • Likes Given: 95
@Rodal or anyone for that matter know how to calculate shawyer's design factor?

In the conclusion Tajmar also said that the thrust measured in the oil damped torsion balance was close to the original predicted thrust if they take into consideration the smaller Q (the value they analyzed and calculated at the end of the oil damped torsion test). Since he states the original prediction of 98.2 micro newtons as if it was calculated using the output power of the magnetron via Shawyer's model. I would like to believe that his statement in the conclusion means they re ran the calculation for the prediction with the new Q value.

So assuming the Shawyer model Tajmar is referring to is Equation 1 in www.emdrive.com/Brighton2005paper.doc

then based on the original calculation that lead to a thrust prediction of 98.2 micronewtons. The design factor needed to get that result (according to wolfram alpha) is

0.430907777745901639344262295081967213114754098360655737704918...

rerunning equation 1 with the lower Q value from the end of the experiment and the new predicted thrust is

40.85 micronewtons

So under the assumption that I am using the model that Tajmar is referring to and my ability to solve for a variable hasnt completely vanished. I think its fair to say Tajmar's conclusion that the oil damped torsion balance result was close to the predicted thrust once you account for the lower Q.

Online WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1225
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1290
  • Likes Given: 1741
This graph clearly shows that the group velocity for small kr is faster than light.
Seriously?

I am interpreting what I see. If you or anyone else has a different interpretation of it, by all means let's discuss it. This is important, because this is where the breakthrough in "new physics" is going to be found. Impedance is what it is, permeability x velocity. Normalized, these plots represent relative velocity,  relative impedance or relative refractive index as a function of kr and cone angle. Take your pick.

Hmm... getting over that peak in the phase velocity sort of reminds me of jumping to warp, doesn't it? ;)
Todd

EDIT: The peak in the TE11 graph occurs at the same kr, where the light barrier is broken in the TM01 graph. It is precisely where the ingoing wave becomes evanescent.

I'm sitting here, staring at these impedance plots from Zeng and Fan, that look vaguely familiar too me. Knowing these are normalized, they represent the relative impedance or the relative refractive index. Then it dawned on me, that I saw this before. In a paper I wrote like 12 years ago.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277058111_Event_horizons_in_the_Polarizable_Vacuum_Model

Below, I've plotted the Reissner-Nordstrom "Charged" metric coefficients, normalized G=c=e0=u0=1, M=1, Q=1.2 (because it looked better), and compared this to the impedance plots from Zeng and Fan. Here is the result...

There's your metric! You be the judge.
Todd

EDIT: This is well known physics of GR, exposing a naked singularity as is given in D'inverno, "Introducing Einstein's Relativity", Ch. 18, Fig. 18.2. Is it coincidence that an EM device obeys an EM radial symmetric metric? I think not! It has always been a curiosity of mine, as to whether the R-N  metric is correct and if so, how could I use the fact that charge increases the speed of light to create FTL. FTL is what is necessary to create a thrust to power ratio greater than a photon rocket. These graphs from Zeng and Fan show precisely what I needed to see, a way to mimic the R-N metric and achieve that goal.
« Last Edit: 07/26/2015 04:28 AM by WarpTech »

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
http://jpkc.fudan.edu.cn/picture/article/90/64657339-a919-423f-b5ff-425cd2983d2d/3f750fa7-9772-40c4-802b-2a27834d20e9.pdf

Just popping in after months of lurking; this seems appropriate for context to the above post. Still behind on the math, but getting there...

edit: also still unsure if this is a huge conspiracy by Tajmar, Woodward, DeltaMass, Rodal, Shawyer, et al. but i'm giving it a chance.
If we told you the truth, we'd have to ... well, you know the rest  8)

Online WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1225
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1290
  • Likes Given: 1741
http://jpkc.fudan.edu.cn/picture/article/90/64657339-a919-423f-b5ff-425cd2983d2d/3f750fa7-9772-40c4-802b-2a27834d20e9.pdf

Just popping in after months of lurking; this seems appropriate for context to the above post. Still behind on the math, but getting there...

edit: also still unsure if this is a huge conspiracy by Tajmar, Woodward, DeltaMass, Rodal, Shawyer, et al. but i'm giving it a chance.

Well for your first post, that was a doozie! This paper supports exactly what is going on here. Thank you and welcome to the group.
Todd

Offline TheTraveller

@Rodal or anyone for that matter know how to calculate shawyer's design factor?

Shawyer's Df equation is attached. Have verified with Shawyer that it is correct.
« Last Edit: 07/26/2015 06:56 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 TheTraveller

So assuming the Shawyer model Tajmar is referring to is Equation 1 in www.emdrive.com/Brighton2005paper.doc

The equations in the Brighton paper are outdated. Please refer to the theory paper:
http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
@Rodal or anyone for that matter know how to calculate shawyer's design factor?
Shawyer's Df equation is attached. Have verified with Shawyer that it is correct.
Writing x0,x1,x2 for the 3 lambdas, this can be expressed as
D = [(1-a)/sqrt(a)] * [sqrt(b)/(1-b)], where a = x1/x2, b = x02/(x1*x2)
Notice that D is a separable function of a,b and so can be readily optimised by inspection.
Dmax -> infinity when a->0 and/or b->1.
Do other relations between x0,1,2 exist to prevent D becoming infinite?
Obviously if a > 0 and b < 1 then Dmax when a is min, b is max
« Last Edit: 07/26/2015 07:17 AM by deltaMass »

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 584
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 256
http://jpkc.fudan.edu.cn/picture/article/90/64657339-a919-423f-b5ff-425cd2983d2d/3f750fa7-9772-40c4-802b-2a27834d20e9.pdf

Just popping in after months of lurking; this seems appropriate for context to the above post. Still behind on the math, but getting there...

edit: also still unsure if this is a huge conspiracy by Tajmar, Woodward, DeltaMass, Rodal, Shawyer, et al. but i'm giving it a chance.

here is a video in which the group velocity can exceed the phase velocity and also c. 

this article was referenced in the comments of the video.  It references some past experiments where laser pulses exceed the speed of light and also a circuit in which the same occurred.  http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw105.html  There is also some mention of the faster than light evanescent waves. 

There is also this video in which there is a negative velocity pulse: which I believe to be related to this paper here where they are using meta-materials and the pulse appears at distance and travels backwards (time reversed): http://www.u.arizona.edu/~dbauer/TERM%20PAPER%20final.pdf  They appear to state they are dealing with superluminal behavior.  I get the impression the rising pulse is the past pulse from the future and then it splits into two to merge with its past self (time reversal from exceeding c).  Maybe that suggest if you meet your future self you'll be annihilated?  o.O  xD The beginnings of a star trek transporter? 

Welcome to the forum also.
« Last Edit: 07/26/2015 07:51 AM by dustinthewind »

Offline Prunesquallor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 174
  • Currently, TeV Brane Resident
  • Liked: 157
  • Likes Given: 73

it can only be seen as disappointing, as the numbers obtained by Tajmar a couple of months ago are so much lower than reported by Yang and Shawyer and even much lower (when taking into account the InputPower) than obtained by NASA.

Who thinks that one can get to Pluto in 18 months with something that only gives 50 microNewton for hundreds of watts inputPower  Vacuum. ???


I look at this quite differently. If ANY verifiable, repeatable, non-experimental-artifact thrust significantly exceeding photon rocket level is demonstrated, it is mind-blowing. I seriously doubt that the experiments being performed today would have stumbled upon the optimal combination of design parameters that maximize performance. Getting the general principles accepted and understood is step one. THEN the engineers can go wild and see what the potential really is.  Having goals for that performance (e.g. space applications) is, I think useful even if the lab results are not there yet.

I agree. By accepted theory, there should be no thrust whatsoever beyond a photon rocket. If there really is verifiable excess thrust, no matter how small, then this a breakthrough.

Still, I await the numbers and verification at other labs before I believe it. However, I am more optimistic that another test in vacuum shows some thrust.

The Wright brothers demonstrated that the combination of the tecnology of the internal combustion engine and the science of aerodynamics could result in a heavier-than-air machine with lift/weight>1.  Many experts had declared that impossible. One could argue that the P-51 or the B-29 were straightforward engineering enhancements of those basic principles.

With more hard work we went from the P-51 to the SR-71. Maybe one day the EM drive will live up to the hype.

Agree.  I always considered the jet turbine (and subsequent variations) to be a "break" in the Wright brothers' development lineage (what would today have been called a disruptive technology) as it rapidly replaced the reciprocating engine in all high performance aircraft. I'm hoping that if the EMDrive/Crazy Eddie Drive pans out, it would not require ANOTHER technical "miracle" to "live up to the hype".

Anyway, that's my analogy and I'm sticking to it. :-)
Retired, yet... not

Offline TheTraveller

Tajmar et.al.'s observation on the knife-edge balance that may be useful to rfmwgy and SeeShell's experiments:

Quote from: M. Tajmar and G. Fiedler

...The difference between upwards and downwards measurements was 229 μN and therefore close to our expectation of 2x98 μN. The horizontal direction was supposed to be our zero thrust reference, and indeed it was about only 1/3 of the downwards measure...


observations are as follows:

 The balance configuration seems to indeed measure thrust in the correct direction and magnitude as claimed by
Shawyer.

 The horizontal direction was supposed to measure only thermal effects and no thrust. We observed a turn-on
effect (of the same magnitude compared to other thrust directions but with an opposite value) and then an
increase to about 100 μN until the power was turned off. We then saw a behavior that was indeed expected from
a thermal side-effect: The thrust still further increased a bit (delay from thermal shielding) and then went down
to zero.

 The thruster up/down direction showed a very different behavior. They increased to 620 μN and 391 μN
respectively and then remained constant for a much larger time compared to the horizontal direction. A different
orientation of the magnetron (horizontal versus vertical) may have caused different thermal signatures and
therefore buoyancy effects. Still, this behavior was really different and repeatable. In the much lower power
measurements from Brady et al on the torsion balance, we can also see that it took some time after power turnoff that the balance reading went back to zero as if the EMDrive got somehow charged and produced thrust which rather decays contrary to a simple switch off after power is removed.

Our weakest part in this setup was certainly the simple connection of the magnetron with three flexible silicon
isolated wires to the power supply. A current of several Ampere is flowing over those wires which can generate
significant magnetic forces (although we tried to keep the wires close together such that the magnetic effects cancel) that may have influenced our measurements. This together with the buoyancy effect made this measurement setup less convincing compared to a torsion balance setup.

The buoyancy observations match the buoyancy observations of Iulian Berca.

Looks similar to Shawyer's 1st Experimental test setup as attached. Note at the back of the cavity, the big waveguide that connected to 5 different magnetrons (he burnt out 3 magnetrons plus burnt a hole in a waveguide getting it working).
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline TheTraveller

Interesting that Tajmar's EMDrive had the ability to vary the cavity length, to get resonance. As did the Shawyer Experimental and Demonstrator EMDrives.
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7995
  • UK
  • Liked: 1277
  • Likes Given: 168

With such small thrust and the apparatus not being self-contained, I am wary to break out any champagne here.

Tajmar concludes:


Quote from: Tajmar and Fiedler
The nature of the thrusts observed is still unclear. Additional tests need to be carried out to study the magnetic interaction of the power feeding lines used for the liquid metal contacts. Our test campaign can not confirm or refute the claims of the EMDrive but intends to independently assess possible side-effects in the measurements methods used so far 

This is the most lukewarm kind of support imaginable.  Shawyer is encouraged by this ?  ( http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-07/24/emdrive-space-drive-pluto-mission  )

Quote from: Wired article The 'impossible' EmDrive could reach Pluto in 18 months
Roger Shawyer is encouraged by Tajmar's work, which he says validates his own theoretical predictions as well as his experimental results.   

The authors state that they can not confirm or refute the claims of the EMDrive     !!!!!

(page 9 of Tajmar's report)

If the authors themselves conclude that they cannot confirm or deny the EM Drive claims, there is nothing here for John Baez or Sean Carroll to have to respond to.  All that Baez and Carroll have to do is to quote the authors saying that the authors accept that their report is inconclusive !

Considering the fact that tajmar was not able to completely refute his claims. I can see how Shawyer would be encoraged. Think about it this way. Since he went public with his claims most everyone in the scientific community as labelled him a crack pot selling snake oil, or an idiot that doesnt know how to run an experiment. I believe in an earlier segment of this thread a comment was made about not trying hard enough to find your own errors. The fact that his experiment has received this much scrutiny from a NASA lab and now Tajmar's lab and the possibility that this is actually useful thrust has not been completely taken off the table. If I were him I would be encouraged too. Sure this wont win over the hard skeptics, But I think their is pretty much no room left for skeptics claiming that the reason this signal is still being seen is because of something trivial.

I know there is plenty that could be said negatively about him for good reason. But sometimes it seems his critics feel unable or unwilling to give him even the slightest sliver of positive response. I suspect that this will be another of those occasions which will end with more negativity going in his direction.

Offline TheTraveller

This are the lowest natural frequencies I calculate for those dimensions:

4.376 GHz "TE111  Cyl"        Q=56,599

Using the "SPR" method Shawyer shared with me, the TE111 resonate frequency is 4.592GHz with a Df of 0.631. About 5% higher than Dr. Rodal's Cyl calc.

Suspect Shawyer, via Tajmar, has just given out another Breadcrumb, showing us there is a way to get an EMDrive to work using a subharmonic drive frequency of the higher cavity resonant frequency.

Will be exploring this very interesting Breadcrumb further.
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline TheTraveller

I know there is plenty that could be said negatively about him for good reason. But sometimes it seems his critics feel unable or unwilling to give him even the slightest sliver of positive response. I suspect that this will be another of those occasions which will end with more negativity going in his direction.

Suspect too many physicists and mathematicians have dug too deep a hole for themselves to ever admit they were mistaken about Shawyer.

When I get my rotary test rig up and spinning, will watch how many have the guts to admit they were wrong.

And to answer the big question: Why is the vacuum Force generated less than in air? Explained here:
http://www.emdrive.com/EmDriveForceMeasurement.pdf

Quote
A number of methods have been used in the UK, the US and China to measure the
forces produced by an EmDrive thruster.

In each successful case, the EmDrive force data has been superimposed on an
increasing or decreasing background force, generated by the test equipment itself.

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

UK flight thruster measurements employ this principle to calibrate the background
noise on the force balance prior to carrying out force measurements.

What major external force is available in air that is not available in vacuum? Air vibrations which will generate a bigger Big to Small force than Small to Big force. Perfect for moving an EMDrive from IDLE mode into MOTOR mode when being tested in atmo but no help at all when testing in vacuum.
« Last Edit: 07/26/2015 09:04 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 TheTraveller

It would appear the Tajmar EMDrive is operating on a harmonic of the 2.45GHz prime drive frequency.

Should be able to mod my spreadsheet to handle harmonics of the prime drive frequency and see what it says.

Looks like the Tajmar cavity could be running on the 3rd harmonic 7.35GHz, in TE113, Df 0.381. With a Q of 43 and 200W inside the cavity, Force is predicted at 0.022mN.
« Last Edit: 07/26/2015 09:46 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 SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2326
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2956
  • Likes Given: 2588
I know there is plenty that could be said negatively about him for good reason. But sometimes it seems his critics feel unable or unwilling to give him even the slightest sliver of positive response. I suspect that this will be another of those occasions which will end with more negativity going in his direction.

Suspect too many physicists and mathematicians have dug too deep a hole for themselves to ever admit they were mistaken about Shawyer.

When I get my rotary test rig up and spinning, will watch how many have the guts to admit they were wrong.

And to answer the big question: Why is the vacuum Force generated less than in air? Explained here:
http://www.emdrive.com/EmDriveForceMeasurement.pdf

Quote
A number of methods have been used in the UK, the US and China to measure the
forces produced by an EmDrive thruster.

In each successful case, the EmDrive force data has been superimposed on an
increasing or decreasing background force, generated by the test equipment itself.

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

UK flight thruster measurements employ this principle to calibrate the background
noise on the force balance prior to carrying out force measurements.

What major external force is available in air that is not available in vacuum? Air vibrations which will generate a bigger Big to Small force than Small to Big force. Perfect for moving an EMDrive from IDLE mode into MOTOR mode when being tested in atmo but no help at all when testing in vacuum.
The easier way to test this is to fill the Frustum with air and put it into a vacuum, or vice-versa. A sound proof enclosure with air and an evacuated Frustum can also show your effect. 
What doesn't seem to make any sense, is in a vacuum, no sound or vibration thrust is still seen although only 10% of the thrust in air. It's a piece of the puzzle that doesn't fit.


Offline TheTraveller

I know there is plenty that could be said negatively about him for good reason. But sometimes it seems his critics feel unable or unwilling to give him even the slightest sliver of positive response. I suspect that this will be another of those occasions which will end with more negativity going in his direction.

Suspect too many physicists and mathematicians have dug too deep a hole for themselves to ever admit they were mistaken about Shawyer.

When I get my rotary test rig up and spinning, will watch how many have the guts to admit they were wrong.

And to answer the big question: Why is the vacuum Force generated less than in air? Explained here:
http://www.emdrive.com/EmDriveForceMeasurement.pdf

Quote
A number of methods have been used in the UK, the US and China to measure the
forces produced by an EmDrive thruster.

In each successful case, the EmDrive force data has been superimposed on an
increasing or decreasing background force, generated by the test equipment itself.

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

UK flight thruster measurements employ this principle to calibrate the background
noise on the force balance prior to carrying out force measurements.

What major external force is available in air that is not available in vacuum? Air vibrations which will generate a bigger Big to Small force than Small to Big force. Perfect for moving an EMDrive from IDLE mode into MOTOR mode when being tested in atmo but no help at all when testing in vacuum.
The easier way to test this is to fill the Frustum with air and put it into a vacuum, or vice-versa. A sound proof enclosure with air and an evacuated Frustum can also show your effect. 
What doesn't seem to make any sense, is in a vacuum, no sound or vibration thrust is still seen although only 10% of the thrust in air. It's a piece of the puzzle that doesn't fit.

Shawyer clearly says doing static tests in an environment with decreasing external vibratory forces will result in decreasing Force generation. Can't see how air (assuming perfectly dry air and a sealed frustum) or not inside the frustum has any effect on Force generation?

What we don't know is how much vibratory external force is needed to move a IDLE mode frustum to MOTOR mode and if there is a scaling factor involved (does the Force generated scale based on the level of the external vibratory force) or is it a binary effect that too little = 0 and just over the tipping point = full force.

My gut tells me there is hysteresis involved and starting from zero there is no Force effect until a tipping point is reached and then it takes off but still in the low Force regions more external vibratory force helps the process.

What I would like to see in both air and vacuum testing is a axial vibrator attached to the centre of the big end that can be turned off and on. Would be really simple to see if there is an effect or not.
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Online Chris Bergin

Just a drive by post from me, but getting in this morning to a lot of report to mods (which is the only thing the mods react to - no one reads every post on this forum - that would be impossible). Remember not to post copyrighted material on here or link to sites where it's been blatantly ripped and uploaded (you know, sites with no morals - and there's a lot of those now social media is all over the place). Always link to the source. It's the only way to respect and thank the author - and be legal.

I'll let you get on with your business ;)

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,
AIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum and Exposition
Hilton Orlando, Orlando, Florida...
TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2015  NFF-04. Future Flight Propulsion Systems  ...5:00 PM - 5:30 PM
Direct Thrust Measurements of an EMDrive and Evaluation of Possible Side-Effects Martin Tajmar

Suggested questions to Prof. Tajmar arranged in order of importance:


Q1. What is the explanation for the very low Q (only 50) in your EM Drive experiments?.  Shawyer has reported Q=45,000 for his Demonstrator at your same tested frequency of 2.45 GHz. Is it because you did not use the usual waveguide isolator and 3-stub tuner between the magnetron and test article?

Has Prof. Tajmar's team grossly over-coupled the RF input to the EM Drive copper truncated cone?  Over-coupling is a matter of putting a larger resistive load on the resonant cavity by shunting more of the source load onto the cavity. Over-coupling can give  an "equivalent" bandwidth which includes more than one mode.

Was Tajmar trying to match it w/ ~ 50 MHz  ? How wide was the high filament current magnetron bandwidth?.

_____________________________________________________

Q2. why your experiments show approximately 60% different thrust force measurements when the EM Drive was physically rotated 180 degrees from the "forward" thrust tests to the "reverse" thrust tests?  Shouldn't the thrust be the same regardless of space orientation?  Is this orientation-dependence indicative of an experimental artifact or a dependence on an external field ?

_____________________________________________________


Q3. Does Prof. Tajmar think that the reason why Shawyer and Yang claimed much higher thrust (over 1,000 to 10,000 times greater force/InputPower than what Tajmar measured) is because Shawyer and Yang reported tests at ambient pressure (unlike Prof. Tajmar who has performed his tests in a vacuum), and Shawyer and Yang just reported thermal convection artifacts? If, not a nullification due to Shawyer and Yang not performing tests in vacuum, what does Prof. Tajmar think that the huge difference (1,000 to 10,000 times) is due to ?

_____________________________________________________

Q4:  What does Prof. Tajmar think about the "motor", "generator" conjecture of Shawyer?: that the EM Drive will not register a significant acceleration unless motivated to do so by vibrations of unspecified magnitude and frequency to produce initial acceleration in the direction pointing from the big base to the small base.  Does Prof. Tajmar think that the reason why he measured much lower thrust is because he didn't vibrate the EM Drive to provide such initial condition?

Sorry for the major delay. Was out enjoying a nice weekend vacation with my family. :)

I'll be sure to ask at least the first question. If I have the opportunity to ask more, that would be even better.

I'll be covering the event and doing updates on /r/EmDrive just because it is easier to do on mobile.

-I

Tags: