Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 7  (Read 1665021 times)

Offline Flyby

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • Belgium
  • Liked: 451
  • Likes Given: 48
This is info for the PNN F242. Here is another page: http://www.calmagorod.org/pnn-la-sua-genesi/
That calmagorod-experiment has been posted inhere about 12-18 months ago on this forum.
Was it posted by the inventor (Emidio Laureti) ? Any further info you can recall ?
make that 8 months.. not 12...

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1414728#msg1414728

and no it wasn't the inventor, but someone on Reddit that posted it and then it trickled down to here. I recall looking up some additional info and videos.
It was in fact our current moderator that came up with it on NSF.

It shows how hard it is to remember the massive amount of info that has passed by on this forum... :P

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 708
  • France
  • Liked: 860
  • Likes Given: 1076
I was wrong about the fact stating Serrano's Field Thruster experiments have always been conducted without any Faraday cage.

Attached below is an excerpt (page 40) of Eagleworks 2013 warp field physics PDF showing the Serrano thruster within a Faraday cage. The results were apparently positive although small, but while the experiment was placed inside a vacuum chamber, it was conducted at ambient air pressure like Eagleworks' first cavity thruster experiments.

Please note that Boeing directly provided the test article to JSC… Too bad they never accepted to also send Shawyer's flight thruster they own too. Was it because the former was managed by Boeing/Darpa and the latter by Phantom Works (same or different teams and decision-makers?) or something else, we don't know.
« Last Edit: 04/28/2016 04:01 pm by flux_capacitor »

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5557
I was wrong about the fact stating Serrano's Field Thruster experiments have always been conducted without any Faraday cage.

Attached below is an excerpt (page 40) of Eagleworks 2013 warp field physics PDF showing the Serrano thruster within a Faraday cage. The results were apparently positive although small, but while the experiment was placed inside a vacuum chamber, it was conducted at ambient air pressure like Eagleworks' first cavity thruster experiments.

Please note that Boeing directly provided the test article to JSC… Too bad they never accepted to also send Shawyer's flight thruster they own too. Was it because the former was managed by Boeing/Darpa and the latter by Phantom Works (same or different teams and decision-makers?) or something else, we don't know.
1) Please note that the figure of merit for these Q-Thrusters is the force/InputPower, and that the force/InputPower for the Boeing/DARPA Serrano Field Effect device in a Faraday cage had great results at NASA, per that slide: they eclipse any EM Drive claim: 1 to 20 N/kW. 20 N/kW is 20 times the maximum amount claimed by the EM Drive non-superconducting with maximum reported results: Yang's 1 N/kW.  It is also more than 20 times the Cannae superconducting claimed force/InputPower



2) As to Boeing terminating the Shawyer EM Drive relationship and not sending their device to NASA, please note that the Boeing official that signed the contract is still working with Boeing.  Another Boeing employee, a Boeing spokesman confirmed to the press that Boeing terminated the relationship with Shawyer and they discontinued working on Shawyer's EM Drive concept:

http://aviationweek.com/awin/propellentless-space-propulsion-research-continues
Quote
“Phantom Works is not working with Mr. Shawyer,” a Boeing representative says, adding that the company is no longer pursuing this avenue.

This is in contrast with Boeing/DARPA in 2013 sending the Serrano device to NASA for test verification, with up to 20 times the force/InputPower of the highest claimed result for an EM Drive, and 50 times the force/InputPower of the highest claimed result by Shawyer for Boeing's Flight Thruster EM Drive.
« Last Edit: 04/28/2016 07:08 pm by Rodal »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
  • Liked: 2704
  • Likes Given: 1124
This is info for the PNN F242. Here is another page: http://www.calmagorod.org/pnn-la-sua-genesi/
That calmagorod-experiment has been posted inhere about 12-18 months ago on this forum.
Was it posted by the inventor (Emidio Laureti) ? Any further info you can recall ?
make that 8 months.. not 12...

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1414728#msg1414728

and no it wasn't the inventor, but someone on Reddit that posted it and then it trickled down to here. I recall looking up some additional info and videos.
It was in fact our current moderator that came up with it on NSF.

It shows how hard it is to remember the massive amount of info that has passed by on this forum... :P
Now I remember, I saw it before I deleted my account on the other forum and thought it was...interesting to say the least. What I can recall now is a series of capacitive plates not at an RF excitation frequency so sort of lost track of it. Tell you what, I'll kick off a thread under new physics and anyone wanting to post there can, including the inventors who (not surprisingly) seem to be having trouble on the other forum.

Its done: the inventors and interested parties may start visiting

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40170.0

p.s. I locked the thread about another propellantless propulsion claim because of off topic commentary and lack of specific technical answers to legitimate questions raised. Same will occur here, but I hope a decent scientific dialogue begins.
« Last Edit: 04/28/2016 04:51 pm by rfmwguy »

Offline zellerium

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 172
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 283
  • Likes Given: 402
How Current Loops and Solenoids Curve Space-time
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1504.00333v3.pdf

What does it give mixed with some theories of the EM thruster? That is the question  :P

Sort of reminds me of Todd's paper, except it doesn't look like they employ the polarizable vacuum theory.

What is common practice for discussing a paper behind a pay wall? Is it appropriate to quote, post new plots using the equations... where do you typically draw the line?


Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5557
How Current Loops and Solenoids Curve Space-time
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1504.00333v3.pdf

What does it give mixed with some theories of the EM thruster? That is the question  :P

Sort of reminds me of Todd's paper, except it doesn't look like they employ the polarizable vacuum theory.

What is common practice for discussing a paper behind a pay wall? Is it appropriate to quote, post new plots using the equations... where do you typically draw the line?
For particular works you should always consult the fine print of the journal where the paper was published, the following is just a general guideline.

It is appropriate to quote fragments [never the whole paper !!!] as long as you clearly attribute the quotation to the authors and to the journal with a complete citation.

Concerning posting plots, as long as you cite the author and the journal completely, it may be OK if you quote and post only a few plots for scientific and R&D purposes.  Again, never the complete paper.  You are not allowed to post the complete paper.

Posting plots in a book, paper or other form whereby you may have a copyright and income from that copyright entails getting explicit permission from the author for you to do so.
« Last Edit: 04/28/2016 05:49 pm by Rodal »

Offline RERT

...
2) As to Boeing terminating the Shawyer EM Drive relationship and not sending their device to NASA, please note that the Boeing official that signed the contract is still working with Boeing.  Another Boeing employee, a Boeing spokesman confirmed to the press that Boeing terminated the relationship with Shawyer and they discontinued working on Shawyer's EM Drive concept:
...
Quote
“Phantom Works is not working with Mr. Shawyer,” a Boeing representative says, adding that the company is no longer pursuing this avenue.

You will be aware that, as reported by TT, Shawyer's story is that the program 'went black' after Yang announced results. That raises suspicions as a very convenient meme for Shawyer to voice, but nonetheless, one has to assume that 'black' programs do exist, and a verified EMDrive would be a decent candidate for one. If a program was 'black', I would expect any official spokesman to say anything they could to keep the program secret, including the above quotes. Therefore I don't think the quotes can invalidate Shawyer's claims, which are inherently difficult to disprove.

Whether or not Boeing is working with Shawyer, someone was paying modest sums to SPR in its last financial year, ended March 31st 2015, and SPRs accounts are consistent with the termination of the Boeing relationship mid-2011 as Shawyer claims.

Maybe someone with experience on black programs could comment (logically, I suppose probably not!).  :)

R.

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5557
...
2) As to Boeing terminating the Shawyer EM Drive relationship and not sending their device to NASA, please note that the Boeing official that signed the contract is still working with Boeing.  Another Boeing employee, a Boeing spokesman confirmed to the press that Boeing terminated the relationship with Shawyer and they discontinued working on Shawyer's EM Drive concept:
...
Quote
“Phantom Works is not working with Mr. Shawyer,” a Boeing representative says, adding that the company is no longer pursuing this avenue.

You will be aware that, as reported by TT, Shawyer's story is that the program 'went black' after Yang announced results. That raises suspicions as a very convenient meme for Shawyer to voice, but nonetheless, one has to assume that 'black' programs do exist, and a verified EMDrive would be a decent candidate for one. If a program was 'black', I would expect any official spokesman to say anything they could to keep the program secret, including the above quotes. Therefore I don't think the quotes can invalidate Shawyer's claims, which are inherently difficult to disprove.

Whether or not Boeing is working with Shawyer, someone was paying modest sums to SPR in its last financial year, ended March 31st 2015, and SPRs accounts are consistent with the termination of the Boeing relationship mid-2011 as Shawyer claims.

Maybe someone with experience on black programs could comment (logically, I suppose probably not!).  :)

R.
Should consider:

1) As it is publicly known, the Serrano field effect device later sent by Boeing and DARPA to NASA (after the termination with Shawyer) resulted in 50 (fifty) times the force/input power being claimed by Shawyer for the Boeing Flight Thruster. And please don't ignore that NASA was not able to replicate Shawyer's force/PowerInput claims with their truncated cone, so the difference between the Boeing/DARPA results at NASA and the truncated cone results at NASA are orders of magnitude.  Boeing had many other programs as well.  Shawyer's EM Drive was not and it is not the only Q-thruster or propellant-less project out there.  Not only it is not the only one, its claimed performance is not even the highest either.

2) The Boeing official that signed the contract is still working with Boeing.  He has been involved in many other projects as well. Please take that fact into account.  Much larger programs get cancelled all the time because there are higher priorities with better payoff.   For example, the Airlander 10 was going to be (maybe still will be?) the world's biggest aircraft (part blimp, part plane, part helicopter) with Northrop Grumman .   Developed in partnership with Northrop Grumman (NGC) as prime contractor, in 2009 it won a US$500 million US Army contract.  Budget cuts at the US Army doomed the project and UK's HAV bought the airship, for practically nothing compared to the $500 million, and it is now on your side of the pond (is it going to go commercial ?).  After all that money the Airlander did not go "dark" either, it just got terminated. It was not the stealth blimp http://www.thestealthblimp.com/   ;) . Projects get terminated all the time.  The EM Drive Shawyer/Boeing contract was for a miniscule amount of money.  The Boeing/Shawyer relationship being terminated, no doubt, was very important to Shawyer, and to EM Drive fans, but of extremely minor importance to Boeing. That is undeniable: look at the money that was involved: practically nothing for Boeing.

I can count so many scramjet programs that have been in development and then cancelled  :)

Single-stage to orbit vehicles that got cancelled, etc etc

3) Ditto for Prof.Yang's support for EM Drive experimentation in China: that was also terminated.  Programs at Universities also get cancelled. Program in R&D get cancelled.  It happens very often.  There are many competing ideas.  Not all of them can be supported long-term. It happens in the Defense industry, in the Aerospace industry, in the Technology industry, in the Biotechnology industry.  It is part of competition of ideas: all competing for funds.
« Last Edit: 04/29/2016 12:30 am by Rodal »

Offline spupeng7

FYI
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nphys3732.html
Quote
Direct measurements of the extraordinary optical momentum and transverse spin-dependent force using a nano-cantilever

M. Antognozzi,   C. R. Bermingham,   R. L. Harniman,   S. Simpson,   J. Senior,   R. Hayward,   H. Hoerber,   M. R. Dennis,   A. Y. Bekshaev,   K. Y. Bliokh   & F. Nori
AffiliationsContributionsCorresponding authors
Nature Physics (2016) doi:10.1038/nphys3732
Received 24 June 2015 Accepted 14 March 2016 Published online 25 April 2016
Article tools
Citation
Reprints
Rights & permissions
Article metrics
Radiation pressure is associated with the momentum of light1, 2, and it plays a crucial role in a variety of physical systems3, 4, 5, 6. It is usually assumed that both the optical momentum and the radiation-pressure force are naturally aligned with the propagation direction of light, given by its wavevector. Here we report the direct observation of an extraordinary optical momentum and force directed perpendicular to the wavevector, and proportional to the optical spin (degree of circular polarization). Such an optical force was recently predicted for evanescent waves7 and other structured fields8. It can be associated with the ’spin-momentum’ part of the Poynting vector, introduced by Belinfante in field theory 75 years ago9, 10, 11. We measure this unusual transverse momentum using a femtonewton-resolution nano-cantilever immersed in an evanescent optical field above the total internal reflecting glass surface. Furthermore, the measured transverse force exhibits another polarization-dependent contribution determined by the imaginary part of the complex Poynting vector. By revealing new types of optical forces in structured fields, our findings revisit fundamental momentum properties of light and enrich optomechanics.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1506/1506.04248.pdf

Thanx X-Ray,

very nice arXiv link.
Quote below is from link attached underneath. JMN..
Quote
       In conclusion we might say that, although one does not, and cannot, expect derivations at the freshman level to be uniformly rigorous, this case is of particular interest because the interaction of light with matter is of fundamental importance. Moreover, the explanations presented in textbooks and in the classroom are so seriously flawed that even students sometimes notice the difficulties. Rather than try to paper over these problems with what must be regarded as nonsensical arguments, the occasion would be better exploited to point out that physics is composed of a collection of models that are brought to bear in explaining physical phenomena, but that these models have limited domains of applicability and, as often as not, are inconsistent.

Edited: quote layout.
« Last Edit: 04/29/2016 07:44 am by spupeng7 »
Optimism equals opportunity.

Offline spupeng7

Question to the HF gurus:

If spectral variation and sort of wandering bandwidths are a problem for reliable and stable mode shaping, then I wonder if there is a way to model and build a very narrow bandwidth 'pre-filter' wave guide that eats the poluted spectrum of an off-the-shelf magnetron and only then feeds the cleared narrow bandwidth spectrum with stable center frequency into an EM drive cavity?

BR
CW
That's exactly the idea behind the prefilter structure. The output of the filter will be several dB lower than the noisy magnetron source alone but with smaller BW.

It works. It is standard technique.
http://tinyurl.com/z7b4lam


http://www.2comu.com/showroom_waveguide_filter.html
http://www.smtconsultancies.co.uk/products/rtcc/rtcc.php

Further to this...
relevant paper 'Improving the Frequency Precision of Oscillators by Synchronization'
by M. C. Cross of Caltec, attached below. JMN..
Optimism equals opportunity.

Offline SergioZ82

  • Member
  • Posts: 25
  • Italy
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 10
Hello everybody,

I'm Sergio, the author of PNN blog Neo Leges Motus. I'm writing here on behalf of Emidio Laureti, because he can't access the forum and asked me for support: apparently his IP results banned from this site and he can't register. If moderators can solve this problem he would be glad to partecipate in the discussion.
For the moment, if you like, I can try to answer some questions if I can (I'm not a physicist).

I had a look at the scheme posted by Rodal (very helpful btw). I think PNN should stay outside the Q-Thruster set, because the inventor has always stated that PNN works because there is a fault in electrodynamics - the displacement current concept - that can be exploited to generate thrust without reaction.
In fact, he always distanced himself from quantum/gravitic hypothesis to explain e.m propulsion.
« Last Edit: 04/29/2016 08:34 am by SergioZ82 »

Offline Eusa

  • Member
  • Posts: 82
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 118
I threw QG-drive into the set where it technically speaking could be positioned.  :P

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
  • Liked: 2704
  • Likes Given: 1124
Hello everybody,

I'm Sergio, the author of PNN blog Neo Leges Motus. I'm writing here on behalf of Emidio Laureti, because he can't access the forum and asked me for support: apparently his IP results banned from this site and he can't register. If moderators can solve this problem he would be glad to partecipate in the discussion.
For the moment, if you like, I can try to answer some questions if I can (I'm not a physicist).

I had a look at the scheme posted by Rodal (very helpful btw). I think PNN should stay outside the Q-Thruster set, because the inventor has always stated that PNN works because there is a fault in electrodynamics - the displacement current concept - that can be exploited to generate thrust without reaction.
In fact, he always distanced himself from quantum/gravitic hypothesis to explain e.m propulsion.
Answered on PNN thread...

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
  • Liked: 2704
  • Likes Given: 1124
I threw QG-drive into the set where it technically speaking could be positioned.  :P
I'd like permission to post this pic as part of the introduction to each new EMDrive thread. Is that OK with the authors?

Offline JaimeZX

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 184
  • South Carolina
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 268
For example, the Airlander 10 was going to be (maybe still will be?) the world's biggest aircraft (part blimp, part plane, part helicopter) with Northrop Grumman .   Developed in partnership with Northrop Grumman (NGC) as prime contractor, in 2009 it won a US$500 million US Army contract.  Budget cuts at the US Army doomed the project and UK's HAV bought the airship, for practically nothing compared to the $500 million, and it is now on your side of the pond (is it going to go commercial ?).  After all that money the Airlander did not go "dark" either, it just got terminated.
The problem with LEMV was mission creep. It was supposed to be airborne for 30 days at a time, hovering over the battlespace as needed to provide persistent ISR and comms relay. Of course, this was a very attractive idea and many organizations wanted to add their mission set to LEMV.

Add this, add that, now you need more fuel, which is heavy, and pretty soon it was going to only be airborne for a few days at a time, having to take off and land from a nearby airfield where an enormous slow-moving flying thing launching and recovering on a predictable schedule would be ridiculously tempting for every Tom, Dick, and Ahmed with an AK-47...  Rather than push back on the requirements creep, the Army just killed the project altogether in October 2013 since by then President Obama had declared that Operation ENDURING FREEDOM would end in October 2014, to be replaced with the RESOLUTE SUPPORT mission... and they wouldn't really be able to get a full-up LEMV into theater for more than a couple of months before RSM.

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5557
I threw QG-drive into the set where it technically speaking could be positioned.  :P
I'd like permission to post this pic as part of the introduction to each new EMDrive thread. Is that OK with the authors?
Thank you for asking and giving us a chance to discuss whether this would be appropriate.
This is a flattering request, but we need to address some issues before going ahead with this:

1) The thread is presently titled "EM Drive", would the thread name need to be changed to "Q-Thrusters" ? (since this picture would be featured at the start of the thread ?)
"Q-Thrusters" is the set of all thrusters that can be explained by Dr. White's theory, but adopting such designation is tantamount to supporting Dr. White's theory.

2) There appears to be confusion, that needs to be addressed:

a) one would need to agree what devices belong where. At the moment there is disagreement for example on where to place Eusa's device, and where to place PNN F242. PNN says that they don't want their device to be listed among the Q-Thusters because their device is Non-Newtonian but they don't like the QV theory. There is not enough detailed information available to know exactly where would Dr. White place these devices that he did not test, like PNN F242 and whose engineering details have not been thoroughly disclosed.

b) the set of Q-Thrusters is consistent with Dr. White's QV theory: any device that can be explained by the QV theory belongs there. It is not up to the inventor, it is up to Dr. White's theory.  For example, Shawyer explains his EM Drive by Maxwell and Newton's theories and rejects Dr. White's QV explanation.  Shawyer's EM Drive is in the set of Q-Thrusters only because it meets Dr. White's definition, even though the inventor (Shawyer) disagrees that it should be there.

So, to conclude, the picture of the set of Q-Thrusters represents only Dr. White's Quantum Vacuum explanation.

Other explanations, for example Prof. Woodward's, would show other Venn diagrams for propellant-less thrusters that can be explained by Prof. Woodward's theory.


« Last Edit: 04/29/2016 02:33 pm by Rodal »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
  • Liked: 2704
  • Likes Given: 1124
I threw QG-drive into the set where it technically speaking could be positioned.  :P
I'd like permission to post this pic as part of the introduction to each new EMDrive thread. Is that OK with the authors?
This is a flattering request, but we need to resolve some issues before going ahead with this:

1) The thread is presently titled "EM Drive", the thread name would have to be changed to "Q-Thrusters."
"Q-Thrusters" is the set of all thrusters that can be explained by Dr. White's theory, but adopting such designation is tantamount to adopting Dr. White's theory.

2) There appears to be confusion, that needs to be addressed:

a) one would need to agree what devices belong where. At the moment there is disagreement for example on where to place Eusa's device, and where to place PNN F242. PNN says that they don't want their device to be listed among the Q-Thusters because their device is Non-Newtonian but they don't like the QV theory. There is not enough detailed information available to know exactly where would Dr. White place these devices that he did not test, like PNN F242 and whose engineering details have not been thoroughly disclosed.

b) the set of Q-Thrusters is consistent with Dr. White's QV theory: any device that can be explained by the QV theory belongs there. It is not up to the inventor.  For example, Shawyer explains his EM Drive by Maxwell and Newton's theories and rejects Dr. White's QV explanation.  Shawyer's EM Drive is in the set of Q-Thrusters only because it meets Dr. White's definition, even though the inventor (Shawyer) disagrees that it should be there.

So, to conclude, the picture of the set of Q-Thrusters represents only Dr. White's Quantum Vacuum explanation.

Other explanations, for example Prof. Woodward's, would show other sets and subsets for propellant-less thrusters.

Good points. I think EMDrive is somewhat akin to "Q Tip", meaning emdrive is the common term for several RF based propellantless thrusters. In today's SEO (search engine optimization world, EMDrive is probably the way to go with our threads even though it might be a bit of a misnomer and carry some disagreement.

My thought is to place emdrive within the bigger picture, which will certainly be evolving...but a good start for newbies to understand there are multiple theoretical designs to achieve propellantless propulsion.

No problem, either way, but if our humble topic can help differentiate designs out there, was my thought...even though it will morph as we go along.

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5557
I threw QG-drive into the set where it technically speaking could be positioned.  :P
I'd like permission to post this pic as part of the introduction to each new EMDrive thread. Is that OK with the authors?
This is a flattering request, but we need to resolve some issues before going ahead with this:

1) The thread is presently titled "EM Drive", the thread name would have to be changed to "Q-Thrusters."
"Q-Thrusters" is the set of all thrusters that can be explained by Dr. White's theory, but adopting such designation is tantamount to adopting Dr. White's theory.

2) There appears to be confusion, that needs to be addressed:

a) one would need to agree what devices belong where. At the moment there is disagreement for example on where to place Eusa's device, and where to place PNN F242. PNN says that they don't want their device to be listed among the Q-Thusters because their device is Non-Newtonian but they don't like the QV theory. There is not enough detailed information available to know exactly where would Dr. White place these devices that he did not test, like PNN F242 and whose engineering details have not been thoroughly disclosed.

b) the set of Q-Thrusters is consistent with Dr. White's QV theory: any device that can be explained by the QV theory belongs there. It is not up to the inventor.  For example, Shawyer explains his EM Drive by Maxwell and Newton's theories and rejects Dr. White's QV explanation.  Shawyer's EM Drive is in the set of Q-Thrusters only because it meets Dr. White's definition, even though the inventor (Shawyer) disagrees that it should be there.

So, to conclude, the picture of the set of Q-Thrusters represents only Dr. White's Quantum Vacuum explanation.

Other explanations, for example Prof. Woodward's, would show other sets and subsets for propellant-less thrusters.

Good points. I think EMDrive is somewhat akin to "Q Tip", meaning emdrive is the common term for several RF based propellantless thrusters. In today's SEO (search engine optimization world, EMDrive is probably the way to go with our threads even though it might be a bit of a misnomer and carry some disagreement.

My thought is to place emdrive within the bigger picture, which will certainly be evolving...but a good start for newbies to understand there are multiple theoretical designs to achieve propellantless propulsion.

No problem, either way, but if our humble topic can help differentiate designs out there, was my thought...even though it will morph as we go along.
OK, if you like, in order to fix concepts, I think it would be helpful to place this attached picture (see below) at the beginning of the threads, so that people understand what are Q-thrusters.

We should add devices to this set at the beginning of the threads only upon further information disclosed from the Eagleworks team (the information in the picture below is fully consistent with the information I have seen up to now):



I would feel uncomfortable to place other devices there without reports from Dr. White showing that he would agree to call them Q-Thrusters (because what is a Q-Thruster or not is really up to Dr. White's theory and Dr. White's theory has not been fully disclosed)

The picture above is fully consistent with Dr. White's reports.
« Last Edit: 04/29/2016 02:41 pm by Rodal »

Offline Flyby

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • Belgium
  • Liked: 451
  • Likes Given: 48
Hello everybody,

I'm Sergio, the author of PNN blog Neo Leges Motus. I'm writing here on behalf of Emidio Laureti, because he can't access the forum and asked me for support: apparently his IP results banned from this site and he can't register. If moderators can solve this problem he would be glad to partecipate in the discussion.
For the moment, if you like, I can try to answer some questions if I can (I'm not a physicist).

I had a look at the scheme posted by Rodal (very helpful btw). I think PNN should stay outside the Q-Thruster set, because the inventor has always stated that PNN works because there is a fault in electrodynamics - the displacement current concept - that can be exploited to generate thrust without reaction.
In fact, he always distanced himself from quantum/gravitic hypothesis to explain e.m propulsion.
Sergio, welcome to this very long topic.

Could you please elaborate a bit more on the part I highlighted in red?
It is a rather daring statement and I would like to understand why you would say that there is a "fault in electrodynamics" ?
« Last Edit: 04/29/2016 04:16 pm by Flyby »

Offline Eusa

  • Member
  • Posts: 82
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 118
I threw QG-drive into the set where it technically speaking could be positioned.  :P
I'd like permission to post this pic as part of the introduction to each new EMDrive thread. Is that OK with the authors?

It's OK to me.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0