Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/27/2015 02:22 pmQuote 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.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?
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.
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: birchoff on 05/27/2015 02:32 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 05/27/2015 02:22 pmQuote 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.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.
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.
(...) But for us engineer replicators, garage DIY EM Drives will start being built all over the planet.
Quote from: StrongGR on 05/27/2015 02:46 pmQuote from: birchoff on 05/27/2015 02:32 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 05/27/2015 02:22 pmQuote 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.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-1499141QuoteShawyer 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.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/27/2015 02:53 pmQuote from: StrongGR on 05/27/2015 02:46 pmQuote from: birchoff on 05/27/2015 02:32 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 05/27/2015 02:22 pmQuote 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.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-1499141QuoteShawyer 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?
Should be more information shortly:http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/nasa-validates-emdrive-roger-shawyer-says-aerospace-industry-needs-watch-out-1499141QuoteShawyer 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.
...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
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?
Quote from: Rodal on 05/27/2015 04:17 pmNotsosureofit, 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
Quote from: Notsosureofit on 05/27/2015 04:42 pmQuote from: Rodal on 05/27/2015 04:17 pmNotsosureofit, 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=0Would 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.
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....
Quote from: mwvp on 05/27/2015 06:19 am.... 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
.... Shawyer's EM Drive proports to give you the cavity Q, many thousands of times more bang per photon.
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.