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.
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.
And what do we have for our propellantless space drive? Hmm — not quite that. No refereed publications — indeed, no publications at all.
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.
Quote from: StrongGR on 05/27/2015 11:50 amEM 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 CarrollAnd 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.
http://www.pipetubeflanges.com/fittings.html
...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.
J. Rodal says:May 27, 2015 at 5:41 amNot 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).
Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/27/2015 12:04 amBased 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 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.
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.
FYI..."MAY 6, 2015Cannae 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
.... Shawyer's EM Drive proports to give you the cavity Q, many thousands of times more bang per photon.
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 regardsRoger
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.
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...
Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/27/2015 02:07 pmAs 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
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.
Quote from: SeeShells on 05/27/2015 02:00 pmNot 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!
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.
Quote from: Rodal on 05/27/2015 02:17 pmSorry, 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.