Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3  (Read 1796479 times)

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
<lurk />
Ha! Let me guess - it's the reason you bought the house  :D
Just lucky...I had sworn off electronics several years ago, built computers, ham repeaters, direction finding equipment, hifi speakers, amps, etc...kinda missed the smell of a hot soldering iron ;)

Me too. I always had a workshop and in the last few years all those toys have gathered dust. I didn't know until I started this project how much I missed it. I should have never hung up that soldering iron.

Got this beautiful sheet of copper in from 
https://www.onlinemetals.com/merchant.cfm?pid=15244&step=4&showunits=inches&id=966&top_cat=87
 Took me a 1/2 hour to unbox it. ;) @ .032 thick it will make a great frustum.

Shell
Looks like nice metal. The copper clad pcbs really tarnish quickly. Guess I've always known that, just forgot.

Its great therapy working on this project. today so much is plug and play, its taken a lot of fun out of electronics. Remember heathkit? Can u imagine someone building a radio from a kit nowadays? Lost art I think.

Another thing is surface mount components and ICs rather than discrete components... not as easy to work with...however, this project is scratch built and haven't had to use tweezers and a magnifying glass once! ;)

Offline tchernik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 247
  • Liked: 297
  • Likes Given: 576
FYI

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1507.05828.pdf
http://arXive.org/pdf/1311.1095.pdf

2nd link is dead
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.1095.pdf
try

That's a remarkable paper.

At least it gives credence to the idea that quantum computers and maybe many more quantum systems would work better (or at all) only in space.

But the more tantalizing hints are about macroscopic effects. Could we see more quantum weirdness at our scale up there far from a gravity well?

And if so, how far?

Sorry for the deviation from the topic.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8148
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 103
{snip}
It has become obvious to me the EM-drive is bogus science.   I don't believe anything Mr. Shawyer claims.   The Eagleworks project just got less and less "thrust".   Yang doesn't want to discuss the research she did.   Maybe the Chinese authorities see a benefit in using it for a misinformation campaign, akin to the USAF UFO hoax of the 50's.   So I don't think it is worth polluting RF spectrum anymore with this pointless activity.


Something is causing this box to move.


Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2324
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2952
  • Likes Given: 2586
<lurk />
Ha! Let me guess - it's the reason you bought the house  :D
https://www.onlinemetals.com/merchant.cfm?pid=15244&step=4&showunits=inches&id=966&top_cat=87
Shell
Looks like nice metal. The copper clad pcbs really tarnish quickly. Guess I've always known that, just forgot.

Its great therapy working on this project. today so much is plug and play, its taken a lot of fun out of electronics. Remember heathkit? Can u imagine someone building a radio from a kit nowadays? Lost art I think.

Another thing is surface mount components and ICs rather than discrete components... not as easy to work with...however, this project is scratch built and haven't had to use tweezers and a magnifying glass once! ;)

Ha, I started out soldering thick wires onto the bottoms of tubes and it just got smaller and smaller and my eyes weaker. lol

Other than I'm flabbergasted at a SA that fits in the palm on my hand going from 0-3GHz. This is truly a great hands on build. Sawing, Screwing, gluing, hammering, working with and bending metal, to finesse thrust out of a unknown process. Things have changed over the years but some things we learned with burning little fingers on the soldering iron are still handy.


Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
Just want to make sure I am reading Tajmar's paper correctly here.

His testing in hard vacuum only used the magnetic damper and did not feature the oil damper.

Right?

For curiosity's sake, is it even possible to use an oil damper in vacuum? Would the oil boil off and coat everything? What would be a suitable fluid?

It is not explicit if, after identifying interactions with the magnetic damping, in vacuum, later test were done with oil damping still in vacuum. I thought all later tests were in vacuum, why I asked if cooking oil was suitable (as Tajmar mentioned at the conference that cooking oil were used) but now I doubt so. Thank you for bringing this as a point of clarification to ask Tajmar and/or his team, as maybe a lot of people like me are reading the last set of experiments with oil damping as the best in terms of removal of potential spurious signals, but this is no longer the case if they were in air.

I was thinking cooking oil isn't suitable, but as far as food industry interest goes (not hard vacuum), the reported vapor pressure are 0 at ambient temperatures... must be a little bit above that though. There certainly exist fluids suitable to use in hard vacuum like the oils for vacuum pumps (diffusion pumps), for instance. It's not like we are doing surface chemistry (?). Probably more knowledgeable people here can confirm.

Online aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2736
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 235
I made significant changes to the Yang-Shell model for this run. That is, I changed the axis of rotation to correspond to the "z" coordinate axis. (It had previously been "x.") This was for consistency with conventional physics notation where z is the longitudinal axis of a waveguide, so the EM field components Ez and Hz are in the longitudinal direction. This is important because as I read on meep-discuss (Steven G.) TE = Ex Ey Hz. With my previous x longitudinal coordinate, the conventional Hz direction would have been Hx and so there was a liklyhood that the EM field components were being confused.

In any case, I changed coordinates, excited the cavity with a TE source (Ex EY Hz) using 3 co-located and oriented antennas, and am still in the process of evaluating, but this data set (the first) is quite interesting to look at.

You can help with this  - What should the placement and direction of the 3 antennas really be? Trying to excite totally different field components, I think they should certainly be oriented in different directions and likely located in different places.

I uploaded the data here:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tfktkSTVyMDhrWW83ektlcjdJS1lxa1RJMG5zUmxjaHVId0NFZmVrdElLX2s&usp=sharing

Note that the end fields (z-views) appear to rotate clockwise one revolution per cycle. By comparing these views with the views uploaded yesterday,
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tflFzUEREeWtJMVZucl9nOWtGaGUtUzlkdnczSkthYVVNVDU4UGNMZ29iRm8&usp=sharing
You can see that the change in coordinate systems made a difference. (same 3 antennas/sources, same cavity, different coordinate convention.)
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline Quintaglio

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
A theory to the EM Drive Thrust

When you shine light or thrust from any of the electromagnetic wavelength the object you are hitting will move in the opposite direction and the force applied will bounce off. But when two wavelenghts of different amplitude collide they cancel each other out

The reason the Em Drive has a net thrust in one direction is because when the electromagnetic wave reaches the wide end there is a greater likelihood of the waves being canceled out, equating in a net thrust at the smaller end.

It would be simpler to just have a copper plate and bounce the wavelenghts off this.

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2324
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2952
  • Likes Given: 2586
I made significant changes to the Yang-Shell model for this run. That is, I changed the axis of rotation to correspond to the "z" coordinate axis. (It had previously been "x.") This was for consistency with conventional physics notation where z is the longitudinal axis of a waveguide, so the EM field components Ez and Hz are in the longitudinal direction. This is important because as I read on meep-discuss (Steven G.) TE = Ex Ey Hz. With my previous x longitudinal coordinate, the conventional Hz direction would have been Hx and so there was a liklyhood that the EM field components were being confused.

In any case, I changed coordinates, excited the cavity with a TE source (Ex EY Hz) using 3 co-located and oriented antennas, and am still in the process of evaluating, but this data set (the first) is quite interesting to look at.

You can help with this  - What should the placement and direction of the 3 antennas really be? Trying to excite totally different field components, I think they should certainly be oriented in different directions and likely located in different places.

I uploaded the data here:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tfktkSTVyMDhrWW83ektlcjdJS1lxa1RJMG5zUmxjaHVId0NFZmVrdElLX2s&usp=sharing

Note that the end fields (z-views) appear to rotate clockwise one revolution per cycle. By comparing these views with the views uploaded yesterday,
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tflFzUEREeWtJMVZucl9nOWtGaGUtUzlkdnczSkthYVVNVDU4UGNMZ29iRm8&usp=sharing
You can see that the change in coordinate systems made a difference. (same 3 antennas/sources, same cavity, different coordinate convention.)
Interesting indeed.

I would put the three antennas in the bottom equal distance from each other to keep the single antenna from pushing the modes around which could cause a decrease in effective Q.

Any more thoughts? Love to hear them.

Shell

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2324
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2952
  • Likes Given: 2586
<lurk />
Ha! Let me guess - it's the reason you bought the house  :D
Just lucky...I had sworn off electronics several years ago, built computers, ham repeaters, direction finding equipment, hifi speakers, amps, etc...kinda missed the smell of a hot soldering iron ;)

Me too. I always had a workshop and in the last few years all those toys have gathered dust. I didn't know until I started this project how much I missed it. I should have never hung up that soldering iron.

Got this beautiful sheet of copper in from 
https://www.onlinemetals.com/merchant.cfm?pid=15244&step=4&showunits=inches&id=966&top_cat=87
 Took me a 1/2 hour to unbox it. ;) @ .032 thick it will make a great frustum.

Shell
Looks like nice metal. The copper clad pcbs really tarnish quickly. Guess I've always known that, just forgot.

Its great therapy working on this project. today so much is plug and play, its taken a lot of fun out of electronics. Remember heathkit? Can u imagine someone building a radio from a kit nowadays? Lost art I think.

Another thing is surface mount components and ICs rather than discrete components... not as easy to work with...however, this project is scratch built and haven't had to use tweezers and a magnifying glass once! ;)
At this point in the process we are doing something that's as old as humanity and one of the finer gifts we have. When we learned to hit a rock on another rock and think, damn this is a sharp rock! I'll do it again, it doesn't work and he mashed his fingers! Do it again, with a different rock. Do it thousands of times, mash the heck out of fingers... and finally through the process of elimination and generations of mashed fingers our ancestors figured out a way to make fire and sharp flint and slice steaks for their BBQ grills.
It took us a long time but I think we have gotten better at it, that process of elimination and that is where we are now, mashing fingers.

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
I made significant changes to the Yang-Shell model for this run. That is, I changed the axis of rotation to correspond to the "z" coordinate axis. (It had previously been "x.") This was for consistency with conventional physics notation where z is the longitudinal axis of a waveguide, so the EM field components Ez and Hz are in the longitudinal direction. This is important because as I read on meep-discuss (Steven G.) TE = Ex Ey Hz. With my previous x longitudinal coordinate, the conventional Hz direction would have been Hx and so there was a liklyhood that the EM field components were being confused.

In any case, I changed coordinates, excited the cavity with a TE source (Ex EY Hz) using 3 co-located and oriented antennas, and am still in the process of evaluating, but this data set (the first) is quite interesting to look at.

You can help with this  - What should the placement and direction of the 3 antennas really be? Trying to excite totally different field components, I think they should certainly be oriented in different directions and likely located in different places.

I uploaded the data here:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tfktkSTVyMDhrWW83ektlcjdJS1lxa1RJMG5zUmxjaHVId0NFZmVrdElLX2s&usp=sharing

Note that the end fields (z-views) appear to rotate clockwise one revolution per cycle. By comparing these views with the views uploaded yesterday,
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tflFzUEREeWtJMVZucl9nOWtGaGUtUzlkdnczSkthYVVNVDU4UGNMZ29iRm8&usp=sharing
You can see that the change in coordinate systems made a difference. (same 3 antennas/sources, same cavity, different coordinate convention.)
You got my attention with z axis rotation. Are Ds and Db rotations in sync or is Ds faster?

Online aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2736
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 235
I made significant changes to the Yang-Shell model for this run. That is, I changed the axis of rotation to correspond to the "z" coordinate axis. (It had previously been "x.") This was for consistency with conventional physics notation where z is the longitudinal axis of a waveguide, so the EM field components Ez and Hz are in the longitudinal direction. This is important because as I read on meep-discuss (Steven G.) TE = Ex Ey Hz. With my previous x longitudinal coordinate, the conventional Hz direction would have been Hx and so there was a liklyhood that the EM field components were being confused.

In any case, I changed coordinates, excited the cavity with a TE source (Ex EY Hz) using 3 co-located and oriented antennas, and am still in the process of evaluating, but this data set (the first) is quite interesting to look at.

You can help with this  - What should the placement and direction of the 3 antennas really be? Trying to excite totally different field components, I think they should certainly be oriented in different directions and likely located in different places.

I uploaded the data here:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tfktkSTVyMDhrWW83ektlcjdJS1lxa1RJMG5zUmxjaHVId0NFZmVrdElLX2s&usp=sharing

Note that the end fields (z-views) appear to rotate clockwise one revolution per cycle. By comparing these views with the views uploaded yesterday,
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tflFzUEREeWtJMVZucl9nOWtGaGUtUzlkdnczSkthYVVNVDU4UGNMZ29iRm8&usp=sharing
You can see that the change in coordinate systems made a difference. (same 3 antennas/sources, same cavity, different coordinate convention.)
You got my attention with z axis rotation. Are Ds and Db rotations in sync or is Ds faster?

I didn't check, need a movie. I'm thinking along the lines of Orbital Angular Momentum, attached.
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8148
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 103

...
 

100MHz is a nice frequency range to deal with but it is bang in the middle of the UK's civilian FM radio range (87.5 - 108MHz). Anyone using a leaky Faraday cage with a kW magnetron in that frequency range will probably receive legally enforceable complaints about interference.

Does around 100MHz mean the resonate frequency of the frustum in the EM Drive can be designed to be say 110MHz or 120MHz or 200MHz or 75MHz?

It is currently early August 2015, so the FCC, Ofcom (UK) and overseas regulators can still give 'suggestions' for a suitable frequency range before new thrust frustums are made. They will have to allow for air at 1 atmosphere, low pressure nitrogen and the vacuum of space when choosing a range.

Anyone can ask a regulator for advice but to be taken seriously a formal request to reserve a frequency range for spacecraft thrusters probably has to come from an authority such as NASA. If the government delays too long all the EM Drives will say "Made in China" and use a frequency chosen by the Chinese Government.

All EM-Drive experiments that use more than 20 Watts CW and that are not done inside a shielded room violate FCC laws in the US.   It doesn't matter what the frequency is; although some frequencies may be under the management of the NTIA instead of the FCC.   All it takes is for someone to detect the high power interference from an EM-Drive experiment, locate the source by triangulation, and then report their observations to the FCC.  Enforcement can result in hefty fines.   Other countries have similar spectrum management laws.  Experimenters tend to believe the microwave oven frequencies are free for them to use because all ovens leak some radiation anyway.   The problem is once you remove a magnetron from an oven that is a non-conforming use; something the FCC, if there is an enforcement action, will take a dim view of.  The wide range of emissions interferes with Part 15 devices and scientific work including SETI, radio astronomy, and NASA deep space satellites.

{snip}

Time to have some fun doing things like pinning kitchen aluminium foil to hardboard and hanging it on the walls, ceiling and floor. Earth well.

The legal problems come when we make machines that drive along the floor or fly.

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
Slosh fits the data for Shawyer's turntable experiment.

There is a steadily increasing force during power ON (or a constant force, to within experimental error). At power OFF, there is a brief coast time and then a velocity jump. This is consistent with a slosh impulse. After this new velocity is established, it coasts at constant speed until friction begins to decelerate the apparatus to a halt.

I fitted the data using a least-squares fit on piecewise polynomials of position. In time order, the first 2 polynomials were cubics, the third linear, and the 4th again cubic. I matched the velocities between the 1st and 2nd polynomials as an extra fit constraint. Since it's clear by inspection that the 3rd region is constant velocity, at higher velocity than the 2nd region, matching velocities between 2nd and 3rd regions was problematic, so I did not enforce this constraint. I did match velocities between the 3rd and 4th regions.
« Last Edit: 08/05/2015 02:36 AM by deltaMass »

Offline ElizabethGreene

  • Member
  • Posts: 69
  • Nashville, Tennessee
  • Liked: 138
  • Likes Given: 3
I've stumbled across a bit of difficulty.

Mr. Shawyer's theory paper cites Cullin, p3, Equation 15 indicates that the force from radiation pressure is proportional to guide wavelength.

Jones, p361 Table 1 that the force is in proportion to the phase velocity index of refraction, not the group velocity index.

Q: Is there an obvious reason why dielectric materials would behave differently from waveguides in this regard?

Thanks.

Shawyer's theory Paper
http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf

The Measurement of Optical Radiation Pressure in Dispersive Media
R. V. Jones and B. Leslie
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences
Vol. 360, No. 1702 (Apr. 4, 1978), pp. 347-363
http://www.jstor.org/stable/79586

Absolute Power Measurement at Microwave Frequencies
A.L. Cullen
1951, Journal unknown.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3621645/1951%20Cullen%20Power%20at%20MW%20Frequencies%2011-09-1951.pdf

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
I made significant changes to the Yang-Shell model for this run. That is, I changed the axis of rotation to correspond to the "z" coordinate axis. (It had previously been "x.") This was for consistency with conventional physics notation where z is the longitudinal axis of a waveguide, so the EM field components Ez and Hz are in the longitudinal direction. This is important because as I read on meep-discuss (Steven G.) TE = Ex Ey Hz. With my previous x longitudinal coordinate, the conventional Hz direction would have been Hx and so there was a liklyhood that the EM field components were being confused.

In any case, I changed coordinates, excited the cavity with a TE source (Ex EY Hz) using 3 co-located and oriented antennas, and am still in the process of evaluating, but this data set (the first) is quite interesting to look at.

You can help with this  - What should the placement and direction of the 3 antennas really be? Trying to excite totally different field components, I think they should certainly be oriented in different directions and likely located in different places.

I uploaded the data here:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tfktkSTVyMDhrWW83ektlcjdJS1lxa1RJMG5zUmxjaHVId0NFZmVrdElLX2s&usp=sharing

Note that the end fields (z-views) appear to rotate clockwise one revolution per cycle. By comparing these views with the views uploaded yesterday,
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tflFzUEREeWtJMVZucl9nOWtGaGUtUzlkdnczSkthYVVNVDU4UGNMZ29iRm8&usp=sharing
You can see that the change in coordinate systems made a difference. (same 3 antennas/sources, same cavity, different coordinate convention.)
You got my attention with z axis rotation. Are Ds and Db rotations in sync or is Ds faster?

I didn't check, need a movie. I'm thinking along the lines of Orbital Angular Momentum, attached.
I believe the frustum may compress and accelerate rotation at Ds compared to Db.

Online aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2736
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 235
I made significant changes to the Yang-Shell model for this run. That is, I changed the axis of rotation to correspond to the "z" coordinate axis. (It had previously been "x.") This was for consistency with conventional physics notation where z is the longitudinal axis of a waveguide, so the EM field components Ez and Hz are in the longitudinal direction. This is important because as I read on meep-discuss (Steven G.) TE = Ex Ey Hz. With my previous x longitudinal coordinate, the conventional Hz direction would have been Hx and so there was a liklyhood that the EM field components were being confused.

In any case, I changed coordinates, excited the cavity with a TE source (Ex EY Hz) using 3 co-located and oriented antennas, and am still in the process of evaluating, but this data set (the first) is quite interesting to look at.

You can help with this  - What should the placement and direction of the 3 antennas really be? Trying to excite totally different field components, I think they should certainly be oriented in different directions and likely located in different places.

I uploaded the data here:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tfktkSTVyMDhrWW83ektlcjdJS1lxa1RJMG5zUmxjaHVId0NFZmVrdElLX2s&usp=sharing

Note that the end fields (z-views) appear to rotate clockwise one revolution per cycle. By comparing these views with the views uploaded yesterday,
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tflFzUEREeWtJMVZucl9nOWtGaGUtUzlkdnczSkthYVVNVDU4UGNMZ29iRm8&usp=sharing
You can see that the change in coordinate systems made a difference. (same 3 antennas/sources, same cavity, different coordinate convention.)
You got my attention with z axis rotation. Are Ds and Db rotations in sync or is Ds faster?

I didn't check, need a movie. I'm thinking along the lines of Orbital Angular Momentum, attached.
I believe the frustum may compress and accelerate rotation at Ds compared to Db.

I could imagine that happening. A movie would be good but two windows, showing the still images side by side might show the effect, if it shows in this data.
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline ElizabethGreene

  • Member
  • Posts: 69
  • Nashville, Tennessee
  • Liked: 138
  • Likes Given: 3
A theory to the EM Drive Thrust

When you shine light or thrust from any of the electromagnetic wavelength the object you are hitting will move in the opposite direction and the force applied will bounce off. But when two wavelenghts of different amplitude collide they cancel each other out

The reason the Em Drive has a net thrust in one direction is because when the electromagnetic wave reaches the wide end there is a greater likelihood of the waves being canceled out, equating in a net thrust at the smaller end.

It would be simpler to just have a copper plate and bounce the wavelenghts off this.

Pieces:
1. Two intersecting waves of the same frequency may add or subtract their total amplitudes, depending on if the waves are in phase or not.  If the Frequencies are not the same, they will combine to create a new "beat frequency" wave that is lower than both.

Explanation of Beat Frequencies
 
Demo at ~6:00

2. The remarkable bit about Mr. Shawyer's claims are the magnitude of the forces.  1,000 watts of sunlight striking a square meter of earth produce a force on the order of 10^-6 newtons.  The most powerful emdrives are claimed to produce 4 newtons for this same amount of power.  That would be difficult to explain if large portions of energy were cancelling in the cavity.

(I am not a physicist, and both of the above statements have a high probability of being wrong or worse -not even wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong-.  If that's the case, DeltaMass will point out my childish errors and I thank him in advance for it.)

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
At the risk of sounding like a broken record (if you're too young for vinyl records, it means the needle gets stuck in the same groove and repeats the same sound forever, like the last track on Sergeant Pepper, which you may also not know), there exists no theory to which I subscribe which can satisfactorily explain EmDrive thrust being orders of magnitude greater than the equivalent photon rocket thrust, for the same power input. That is not to imply that EmDrive has no thrust (i.e. that EmDrive thrust measurements are simply experimental artifacts), and nor is it to imply that a new theory will be found to explain the thrust. As matters stand, EmDrive is a highly irritating carbuncle on the derriere of physics.

Offline foghorn

  • Member
  • Posts: 1
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 3
Question, is there any more information (paper, slides, video, anything) regarding the quantum vacuum plasma simulation image that was posted with the April 29, 2015 article? Yes I found http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.0 but I wonder if the actual video or more info is out there.

edit: Found some more info here, Paul March's (username Star-Drive) post: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.1620
« Last Edit: 08/05/2015 02:45 AM by foghorn »

Tags: