Quote from: rfmwguy on 06/26/2015 01:44 pmMove along...nothing to see here: https://www.jannaf.org/mtgs/June2015/pages/sps.htmlActually, there is... Or to put it another way - no EmDrive, anywhere
Move along...nothing to see here: https://www.jannaf.org/mtgs/June2015/pages/sps.htmlActually, there is...
Quote from: wallofwolfstreet on 06/26/2015 03:30 pmQuote from: saucyjack on 06/26/2015 02:57 pmI would like to say, that I appreciate @TheTraveller's enthusiasm for Mr. Shawyer's work (not to mention the value of his personal relationship to him) and hope he returns to the discussion. He has for sure, provided unique data points to this forum, Reddit, and in particular the wiki (I'm the guy who set it up).We can probably all agree that Mr. Shawyer appears to be in a difficult position, where any desire he may have to announce details (theoretical or experimental) would be at odds with any existing licensing agreements. The various DIY'ers here thankfully don't have that problem (yet!). Any crumbs dropped in the meantime (see: @TheTraveller, Paul March, etc.) will continue to be insufficient to satisfy the audience in one way or another, no matter what they were. Perhaps we could crowdsource some marketing consultants for SPR Ltd. to help manage the public expectations better? If the phenomenon is real, the huge possibilities here, mean this vacuum is filled with speculation; unfortunately some of this drifts into personal attacks. I do hope @TheTraveller disregards these and rejoins the conversation.-RolfRolf, I just wanted to address a specific part of your quote, namely:QuoteWe can probably all agree that Mr. Shawyer appears to be in a difficult position, where any desire he may have to announce details (theoretical or experimental) would be at odds with any existing licensing agreements.I have commented a few times, at least with my reddit posts, that I am very skeptical that any such licensing agreements actually exist. I am also skeptical that there are many, if any at all, private companies working on this tech. I know this goes against what we have heard from Shawyer, but I have reason to doubt what he says.Simply put, All of Shawyer's patents are in the UK alone. He claims that the west is not developing technology, and that "we need to think about the developing countries that don't have a vested interest in the long-haul aircraft market" (paraphrasing). He claims that these mysterious countries/companies have licensing agreements, and this is the cause of his silence. (At least thetraveller was of this opinion, which he may have heard directly from Shawyer).Here is the kicker though: A foreign country/company, outside of the UK, has zero obligation to have an sort of licensing deal with SPR whatsoever.SPR's patents are only in the UK. China or India, or any organization therein, has zero need to license anything. He has nothing they need. They can go online and read his patents, or look at his papers, just like we can. I see absolutely no reason why a private company would have a licensing agreement with SPR, it has no patents outside of the UK to license! Edit: Rodal already covered this above. I am not sure if the attached has been covered on here before but it states "EmDrive Licence: 10 year exclusive master licence £100,000,000 comprised of2 years development to Flight Qualified status @ £10m per year pro rata, plusconsultancy from Roger Shawyer to divest expertise.Break clause at 2 years, if project fails to achieve FQ status all rights revert to SPR.A further 3 year exclusive use of EmDrive @ £10m per annum.After 3 years of exclusive use, master licensee is required to sub licence technology onsimilar terms, if requested, to third parties.For 10 years, royalties of £150k per space vehicle using EmDrive (equivalent to 10% ofthe saving on build cost).After 10 years, master licensee has first right of refusal on renewing master licence"I know this possibly quite old but may be of interest.Mike.
Quote from: saucyjack on 06/26/2015 02:57 pmI would like to say, that I appreciate @TheTraveller's enthusiasm for Mr. Shawyer's work (not to mention the value of his personal relationship to him) and hope he returns to the discussion. He has for sure, provided unique data points to this forum, Reddit, and in particular the wiki (I'm the guy who set it up).We can probably all agree that Mr. Shawyer appears to be in a difficult position, where any desire he may have to announce details (theoretical or experimental) would be at odds with any existing licensing agreements. The various DIY'ers here thankfully don't have that problem (yet!). Any crumbs dropped in the meantime (see: @TheTraveller, Paul March, etc.) will continue to be insufficient to satisfy the audience in one way or another, no matter what they were. Perhaps we could crowdsource some marketing consultants for SPR Ltd. to help manage the public expectations better? If the phenomenon is real, the huge possibilities here, mean this vacuum is filled with speculation; unfortunately some of this drifts into personal attacks. I do hope @TheTraveller disregards these and rejoins the conversation.-RolfRolf, I just wanted to address a specific part of your quote, namely:QuoteWe can probably all agree that Mr. Shawyer appears to be in a difficult position, where any desire he may have to announce details (theoretical or experimental) would be at odds with any existing licensing agreements.I have commented a few times, at least with my reddit posts, that I am very skeptical that any such licensing agreements actually exist. I am also skeptical that there are many, if any at all, private companies working on this tech. I know this goes against what we have heard from Shawyer, but I have reason to doubt what he says.Simply put, All of Shawyer's patents are in the UK alone. He claims that the west is not developing technology, and that "we need to think about the developing countries that don't have a vested interest in the long-haul aircraft market" (paraphrasing). He claims that these mysterious countries/companies have licensing agreements, and this is the cause of his silence. (At least thetraveller was of this opinion, which he may have heard directly from Shawyer).Here is the kicker though: A foreign country/company, outside of the UK, has zero obligation to have an sort of licensing deal with SPR whatsoever.SPR's patents are only in the UK. China or India, or any organization therein, has zero need to license anything. He has nothing they need. They can go online and read his patents, or look at his papers, just like we can. I see absolutely no reason why a private company would have a licensing agreement with SPR, it has no patents outside of the UK to license! Edit: Rodal already covered this above.
I would like to say, that I appreciate @TheTraveller's enthusiasm for Mr. Shawyer's work (not to mention the value of his personal relationship to him) and hope he returns to the discussion. He has for sure, provided unique data points to this forum, Reddit, and in particular the wiki (I'm the guy who set it up).We can probably all agree that Mr. Shawyer appears to be in a difficult position, where any desire he may have to announce details (theoretical or experimental) would be at odds with any existing licensing agreements. The various DIY'ers here thankfully don't have that problem (yet!). Any crumbs dropped in the meantime (see: @TheTraveller, Paul March, etc.) will continue to be insufficient to satisfy the audience in one way or another, no matter what they were. Perhaps we could crowdsource some marketing consultants for SPR Ltd. to help manage the public expectations better? If the phenomenon is real, the huge possibilities here, mean this vacuum is filled with speculation; unfortunately some of this drifts into personal attacks. I do hope @TheTraveller disregards these and rejoins the conversation.-Rolf
We can probably all agree that Mr. Shawyer appears to be in a difficult position, where any desire he may have to announce details (theoretical or experimental) would be at odds with any existing licensing agreements.
It is proposed to licence the technology on an exclusivebasis to an initial partner to take the product to a flightqualification stage (18 – 24 months), to have them build and operate satellites using thetechnology, and later to offer the technology on a sub-licence basis.The minimum value of such a licence over 10 years would be in the region of £100,000,000plus royalties.
I am not sure if the attached has been covered on here before but it states"EmDrive Licence: 10 year exclusive master licence £100,000,000 comprised of2 years development to Flight Qualified status @ £10m per year pro rata, plusconsultancy from Roger Shawyer to divest expertise.Break clause at 2 years, if project fails to achieve FQ status all rights revert to SPR.A further 3 year exclusive use of EmDrive @ £10m per annum.After 3 years of exclusive use, master licensee is required to sub licence technology onsimilar terms, if requested, to third parties.For 10 years, royalties of £150k per space vehicle using EmDrive (equivalent to 10% ofthe saving on build cost).After 10 years, master licensee has first right of refusal on renewing master licence"I know this possibly quite old but may be of interest.Mike.
@WarpTech, @notsosureofit, and others.......<snip>The duty cycle would be:- Pluck the string and give it some energy.- Compress it on the side that "exposes less inertial mass".- Re-expand it on the side that "exposes more inertial mass".- Measure net velocity imparted to the system, and the energy of the wave in the string.- Hopefully for CoE the kinetic energy gained will be related to the energy lost by the wave in the string.Does this make sense as a thought experiment, or even as a physical experiment?Or am I going completely off track and totally missed something?
Quote from: SeeShells on 06/19/2015 06:54 pmhttps://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/jpa-00246781/documentOn the other hand, the 60 mm length of this region corresponds to a delay time of 0.2 nsec of light in vacuum, this is clearly longer than the measured delay in the first 5 nsec duration of the pulse superluminal conditions are present both for the center of gravity and the maximum value of the electromagnetic packet. Furthermore this confirmes the correctness of the frequency domain data and the corresponding Fourier evaluation [2, 3]. The zerc-time traversal described in references [2] and [3] proves to be correct, I-e- there is no additional time delay caused by an additional length of the evanescent region.<end quote>I know group velocities can appear greater than the speed of light but because the wave form information was previously propagated at light speed. I suspect that may be what is happening and maybe this is what this paper is also suggesting. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=3707515693059191286&hl=en&as_sdt=5,48&sciodt=0,48It is an interesting question. hmm on a second maybe they are implying that group velocity can't explain the results? "Finally, we discussed a pos-sible interpretation of the results, favoring the argument that the group velocity cannot be interpreted as a tunneling ve-locity." Fascinating.
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/jpa-00246781/documentOn the other hand, the 60 mm length of this region corresponds to a delay time of 0.2 nsec of light in vacuum, this is clearly longer than the measured delay in the first 5 nsec duration of the pulse superluminal conditions are present both for the center of gravity and the maximum value of the electromagnetic packet. Furthermore this confirmes the correctness of the frequency domain data and the corresponding Fourier evaluation [2, 3]. The zerc-time traversal described in references [2] and [3] proves to be correct, I-e- there is no additional time delay caused by an additional length of the evanescent region.<end quote>
...I've also found a mechanism to boost the force many times over that of a photon rocket, such that this little bit of energy that escapes may in fact be enough to cause the observed thrust. More when I finish the paper...Todd
ArticleHarmonic inversion of time signals and its applications Vladimir A. Mandelshtam Vladimir A. Mandelshtam Howard S Taylor Howard S TaylorDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Ángeles, California, United StatesThe Journal of Chemical Physics (Impact Factor: 3.12). 11/1997; 107(17):6756-6769. DOI: 10.1063/1.475324ABSTRACT New methods of high resolution spectral analysis of short time signals are presented. These methods utilize the filter-diagonalization approach of Wall and Neuhauser [J. Chem. Phys. 102, 8011 (1995)] that extracts the complex frequencies ωk and amplitudes dk from a signal C(t) = ∑kdke−itωk in a small frequency interval by recasting the harmonic inversion problem as the one of a small matrix diagonalization. The present methods are rigorously adapted to the conventional case of the signal available on a sparse equidistant time grid and use a more efficient boxlike filter. Various applications are discussed, such as iterative diagonalization of large Hamiltonian matrices for calculating bound and resonance states, scattering calculations in the presence of narrow resonances, etc. For the scattering problem the harmonic inversion is directly applied to the signal cn = (χf,Tn(Ĥ)χi), generated by the dynamical system governed by a modified Chebyshev recursion, avoiding the usual recasting the problem to the time domain. Some challenging numerical examples are presented. The general filter-diagonalization method is shown to be stable and efficient for the extraction of thousands of complex frequencies ωk and amplitudes dk from a signal. When the model signal is “spoiled” by a moderate amount of an additive Gaussian noise the obtained spectral estimate is still superior to the conventional Fourier spectrum.
Quote from: rfmwguy on 06/26/2015 02:05 amQuote from: DrBagelBites on 06/26/2015 01:16 amQuote from: rfmwguy on 06/26/2015 01:04 amI saw that in your information. I used traveller's spreadsheet, which is the only working spreadsheet publicly released, (many thanks Mr T.) and it came up with 185 mg of gram-force with a Q of 50K. Not expecting to see that type of Q, I scaled it back to 10K. Plug some numbers into the spreadsheet and see where gram force comes out. Your numbers would be far too small for EMDIYers to validate. Let me know.That is the problem I have been having. My calculated values, by using experimental data found on the emdrive wiki, are far to small to be measured by the EMDIYer. So, I am a bit stuck on what to expect.I don't have that kind of space to create what you have, so I have to figure out a smaller way of testing this thing.If I achieve null results using the shawer inspired spreadsheet, then I would conclude his position is irrelevant. Reason I chose to follow it was its the only public tool I am aware of and its within a diyers measurement capability. Should nasa cough up a designers tool, which I highly doubt, I would consider it provided it doesn't require NIST to test the results.But then, to be consistent with Shawyer, you have to use his mode shapes, Shawyer uses transverse ELECTRIC TE01 modes, just like Yang. So you should choose the dimensions that give TE013 at 2.45GHz instead of the dimensions that give the transverse magnetic TM212 mode (used by NASA) at 2.45 GHz.////////////////////////////////bigDiameter = 11.01 inches; smallDiameter = 6.25 inches;axialLength = 10.2 inches; NOTICE 10.2 inches -- in this casewith FLAT ENDs with a TRANSVERSE ELECTRIC MODE. It resonates at 2.45044 GHz with TE013////////////////////////////////It would be inconsistent for you to use the dimensions that give the transverse magnetic TM212 mode (used by NASA) at 2.45 GHz
Quote from: DrBagelBites on 06/26/2015 01:16 amQuote from: rfmwguy on 06/26/2015 01:04 amI saw that in your information. I used traveller's spreadsheet, which is the only working spreadsheet publicly released, (many thanks Mr T.) and it came up with 185 mg of gram-force with a Q of 50K. Not expecting to see that type of Q, I scaled it back to 10K. Plug some numbers into the spreadsheet and see where gram force comes out. Your numbers would be far too small for EMDIYers to validate. Let me know.That is the problem I have been having. My calculated values, by using experimental data found on the emdrive wiki, are far to small to be measured by the EMDIYer. So, I am a bit stuck on what to expect.I don't have that kind of space to create what you have, so I have to figure out a smaller way of testing this thing.If I achieve null results using the shawer inspired spreadsheet, then I would conclude his position is irrelevant. Reason I chose to follow it was its the only public tool I am aware of and its within a diyers measurement capability. Should nasa cough up a designers tool, which I highly doubt, I would consider it provided it doesn't require NIST to test the results.
Quote from: rfmwguy on 06/26/2015 01:04 amI saw that in your information. I used traveller's spreadsheet, which is the only working spreadsheet publicly released, (many thanks Mr T.) and it came up with 185 mg of gram-force with a Q of 50K. Not expecting to see that type of Q, I scaled it back to 10K. Plug some numbers into the spreadsheet and see where gram force comes out. Your numbers would be far too small for EMDIYers to validate. Let me know.That is the problem I have been having. My calculated values, by using experimental data found on the emdrive wiki, are far to small to be measured by the EMDIYer. So, I am a bit stuck on what to expect.I don't have that kind of space to create what you have, so I have to figure out a smaller way of testing this thing.
I saw that in your information. I used traveller's spreadsheet, which is the only working spreadsheet publicly released, (many thanks Mr T.) and it came up with 185 mg of gram-force with a Q of 50K. Not expecting to see that type of Q, I scaled it back to 10K. Plug some numbers into the spreadsheet and see where gram force comes out. Your numbers would be far too small for EMDIYers to validate. Let me know.
Quote from: dustinthewind on 06/20/2015 07:01 pmQuote from: SeeShells on 06/19/2015 06:54 pmhttps://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/jpa-00246781/documentOn the other hand, the 60 mm length of this region corresponds to a delay time of 0.2 nsec of light in vacuum, this is clearly longer than the measured delay in the first 5 nsec duration of the pulse superluminal conditions are present both for the center of gravity and the maximum value of the electromagnetic packet. Furthermore this confirmes the correctness of the frequency domain data and the corresponding Fourier evaluation [2, 3]. The zerc-time traversal described in references [2] and [3] proves to be correct, I-e- there is no additional time delay caused by an additional length of the evanescent region.<end quote>I know group velocities can appear greater than the speed of light but because the wave form information was previously propagated at light speed. I suspect that may be what is happening and maybe this is what this paper is also suggesting. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=3707515693059191286&hl=en&as_sdt=5,48&sciodt=0,48It is an interesting question. hmm on a second maybe they are implying that group velocity can't explain the results? "Finally, we discussed a pos-sible interpretation of the results, favoring the argument that the group velocity cannot be interpreted as a tunneling ve-locity." Fascinating. I guess I am still skeptical that near field's can travel faster than light. If that were so I don't know what would stop us from building a circular array and sending messages back in time. That is actual signals that move faster than light would travel back in time like tachyons.
but name a breakthrough...ion engines aside. There have been none.
We have enough accepted theories without solid experimental evidence, lets get some proof and let the theories catch up.../end ramble* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_chance_in_scientific_discoveries
I play guitar too, so I had the same idea! Vary the linear mass density by making the string gradually thicker. Waves will have different velocity on each end. As such, it does model the frustum. My conclusion is the same as well. <snip>But since I was just schooled on this, I will school everyone here too. :-/ The issue is, when you push and it resists, the energy put in is then reflected toward the big end and when it is reflected at that end, whatever momentum was gained from the push is lost. Same thing happens in the other direction. NET momentum gained is zero!
The only way these things will work is to interact with an outside environment. ...So heat and poor conductivity allow flux to escape (tunnel) through the copper. I've also found a mechanism to boost the force many times over that of a photon rocket, such that this little bit of energy that escapes may in fact be enough to cause the observed thrust. More when I finish the paper...Todd
I am not sure if the attached has been covered on here before but it states "EmDrive Licence: 10 year exclusive master licence £100,000,000 comprised of2 years development to Flight Qualified status @ £10m per year pro rata, plusconsultancy from Roger Shawyer to divest expertise.Break clause at 2 years, if project fails to achieve FQ status all rights revert to SPR.A further 3 year exclusive use of EmDrive @ £10m per annum.After 3 years of exclusive use, master licensee is required to sub licence technology onsimilar terms, if requested, to third parties.For 10 years, royalties of £150k per space vehicle using EmDrive (equivalent to 10% ofthe saving on build cost).After 10 years, master licensee has first right of refusal on renewing master licence"I know this possibly quite old but may be of interest.Mike.
Philip Owen and Brian Milnes have been retained to negotiate the sale of a licence todevelop and use EmDrive technology. They are approaching the European and Americanmarkets and the Chinese and Oceanic markets respectively.
The company has been funded with the following:Funds PoundsDirector's Loans 132,000DTI awards 126,000External Investor 250,000 Total 508,000The current remaining working capital is around 100,000 pounds and the current cash burn rate is 7,000 per month.
...a Demonstration Model which is on schedule.
I found information about the original paper for Harminv, unfortuantely it is still behind a paywall. Here is the abstract.Quote ArticleHarmonic inversion of time signals and its applications Vladimir A. Mandelshtam Vladimir A. Mandelshtam Howard S Taylor Howard S TaylorDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Ángeles, California, United StatesThe Journal of Chemical Physics (Impact Factor: 3.12). 11/1997; 107(17):6756-6769. DOI: 10.1063/1.475324ABSTRACT New methods of high resolution spectral analysis of short time signals are presented. These methods utilize the filter-diagonalization approach of Wall and Neuhauser [J. Chem. Phys. 102, 8011 (1995)] that extracts the complex frequencies ωk and amplitudes dk from a signal C(t) = ∑kdke−itωk in a small frequency interval by recasting the harmonic inversion problem as the one of a small matrix diagonalization. The present methods are rigorously adapted to the conventional case of the signal available on a sparse equidistant time grid and use a more efficient boxlike filter. Various applications are discussed, such as iterative diagonalization of large Hamiltonian matrices for calculating bound and resonance states, scattering calculations in the presence of narrow resonances, etc. For the scattering problem the harmonic inversion is directly applied to the signal cn = (χf,Tn(Ĥ)χi), generated by the dynamical system governed by a modified Chebyshev recursion, avoiding the usual recasting the problem to the time domain. Some challenging numerical examples are presented. The general filter-diagonalization method is shown to be stable and efficient for the extraction of thousands of complex frequencies ωk and amplitudes dk from a signal. When the model signal is “spoiled” by a moderate amount of an additive Gaussian noise the obtained spectral estimate is still superior to the conventional Fourier spectrum.Of course for my purposes within Meep, Gaussian noise is added. Harminv runs for an infinite time when I try to use it without noise. And as mentioned previously the narrower the noise bandwidth the longer the run time.It does appear, not suprisingly, as though the authors are quite proud of the technique.
Quote from: Rodal on 06/26/2015 02:08 amQuote from: rfmwguy on 06/26/2015 02:05 amQuote from: DrBagelBites on 06/26/2015 01:16 amQuote from: rfmwguy on 06/26/2015 01:04 amI saw that in your information. I used traveller's spreadsheet, which is the only working spreadsheet publicly released, (many thanks Mr T.) and it came up with 185 mg of gram-force with a Q of 50K. Not expecting to see that type of Q, I scaled it back to 10K. Plug some numbers into the spreadsheet and see where gram force comes out. Your numbers would be far too small for EMDIYers to validate. Let me know.That is the problem I have been having. My calculated values, by using experimental data found on the emdrive wiki, are far to small to be measured by the EMDIYer. So, I am a bit stuck on what to expect.I don't have that kind of space to create what you have, so I have to figure out a smaller way of testing this thing.If I achieve null results using the shawer inspired spreadsheet, then I would conclude his position is irrelevant. Reason I chose to follow it was its the only public tool I am aware of and its within a diyers measurement capability. Should nasa cough up a designers tool, which I highly doubt, I would consider it provided it doesn't require NIST to test the results.But then, to be consistent with Shawyer, you have to use his mode shapes, Shawyer uses transverse ELECTRIC TE01 modes, just like Yang. So you should choose the dimensions that give TE013 at 2.45GHz instead of the dimensions that give the transverse magnetic TM212 mode (used by NASA) at 2.45 GHz.////////////////////////////////bigDiameter = 11.01 inches; smallDiameter = 6.25 inches;axialLength = 10.2 inches; NOTICE 10.2 inches -- in this casewith FLAT ENDs with a TRANSVERSE ELECTRIC MODE. It resonates at 2.45044 GHz with TE013////////////////////////////////It would be inconsistent for you to use the dimensions that give the transverse magnetic TM212 mode (used by NASA) at 2.45 GHz@rfmwguy,Please also keep in mind that to achieve the projected Q=50000 would likely require the use of spherically curved end plates. (unless I misunderstood TheTraveller's description)The use of flat end plates will result in a much smaller Q. If I'm reading the emdrive.wiki correctly, I believe Shawyer's early attempt using flat end plates had a reported Q=5900. I can't remember if the Q=5900 was with a tunable end plate, or if Q=45000 was the tunable end plate.http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results#cite_ref-Shawyer_Demonstrator_7-0http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results#cite_note-Shawyer_Demonstrator-7In either case, I would suggest that anticipating a Q=10000 for your build is a bit.... optimistic.
...QuotePhilip Owen and Brian Milnes have been retained to negotiate the sale of a licence todevelop and use EmDrive technology. They are approaching the European and Americanmarkets and the Chinese and Oceanic markets respectively. As has been discussed by Rodal and myself, this statement makes no sense. If SPR truly has only UK patents, then they have no license to sell in any market outside of the UK. Very strange. ...
...Thanks...quite confusing, I must admit in the early stages of this project...9.0 vs 10.2"L. Suppose the logical way to go is 10.2 since it will be far easier to reduce length than to add it. Rodal says 10.2, Aero sees resonance at 9.0. ...
Quote from: wallofwolfstreet on 06/26/2015 05:30 pm...QuotePhilip Owen and Brian Milnes have been retained to negotiate the sale of a licence todevelop and use EmDrive technology. They are approaching the European and Americanmarkets and the Chinese and Oceanic markets respectively. As has been discussed by Rodal and myself, this statement makes no sense. If SPR truly has only UK patents, then they have no license to sell in any market outside of the UK. Very strange. ...I have been involved in License Negotiation and License Renewal for technologies were NO patents are involved, but instead what is involved are trade secrets. This would not be unusual, and it is actually quite prevalent for technology involving manufacturing technology (as opposed to design technology). While for design technology it is always a better idea to patent (because obviously a design is apparent and obvious to anybody buying or seeing the product), that is not the case for manufacturing technology. Manufacturing is only known to people involved in manufacturing and not to the customer. Hence it is often better to keep such manufacturing technology as a trade secret, because although Patents expire, trade secrets have no expiration. Also it is very difficult, onerous, expensive, almost impossible to police violation of manufacturing patents. So it would be difficult to enforce such manufacturing patents.However, a conscious effort has to be made to keep such trade secret know-how truly secret. If the "secret" gets out due to lack of proper care, one has lost all recourse (unless the trade secret was misappropriated).The problem with contemplating such a license for the EM Drive, is that to my knowledge, there is no "there" there. The licensing agreements involving royalties I was familiar with, involved successful products in the marketplace that were bringing in reall $$$ in sales and profits. Here with the EM Drive we have no sales, no markets, and it is very controversial whether there is even thrust produced by the EM Drive.Actually, some scientists, engineers and managers in aerospace have interpreted the NASA results as an outright nullification of Shawyer's and Yang's claims, because NASA obtained zero, nada, zilch thrust response when using no dielectric inserts, and because when using dielectric inserts (which Shawyer claims is not using any longer), NASA obtained force/PowerInput orders of magnitude smaller than what Shawyer is claiming.
...Does it really matter how others have interpreted their results at this stage, surly all that matters is what EW make of them. Of which you, me and no one else outside of EW know the current position so I don't see that as a relevant point at this time.