Quote from: graybeardsyseng on 10/14/2015 03:16 pm...I consider the EMDrive issue to be on the cusp of moving from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 to 2. I am preparing a white paper on that and what it means vis a vis experimentation right now and will have it ready shortly - hopefully today. Often TRL level 1 and 2 material escapes ITAR issues as it is are often considered basic science/engineering and "public". However, once EMdrive goes to TRL 3 - if ever - there WILL be people watching. BTW - accidental or inadvertent release of information under ITAR control can often be handled with minimum impact. But willful disregard - including willful ignorance - is generally much more serious. My last comments on the subject.HermanIt is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1. The science has not been demonstrated. No consistently repeatable results have occurred.
...I consider the EMDrive issue to be on the cusp of moving from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 to 2. I am preparing a white paper on that and what it means vis a vis experimentation right now and will have it ready shortly - hopefully today. Often TRL level 1 and 2 material escapes ITAR issues as it is are often considered basic science/engineering and "public". However, once EMdrive goes to TRL 3 - if ever - there WILL be people watching. BTW - accidental or inadvertent release of information under ITAR control can often be handled with minimum impact. But willful disregard - including willful ignorance - is generally much more serious. My last comments on the subject.Herman
Think its good to discuss technology regs, as I spent a lot of time in my past life dealing with the ability to export electronics products. Something like the EMDrive in its relative infancy is better broken down to its base components. Nothing in there with DIY designs are restricted commodities to the best of my knowledge (except of course exports to "unfriendly" nations as defined by the country you live in).Which, is kinda the beauty of the thing if you think about it. No exotic materials or microprocessors. So far, we basically have kitchen microwave parts and empty metal cans. Pretty innocuous components being used in a novel new way. Since the EMDrive experimentation has already been in the public domain about the only concerns out there are more aligned with corporate interests and who, if anyone, can capitalize on it. Just IMHO.
Quote from: zen-in on 10/14/2015 06:03 pm...It is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1. The science has not been demonstrated. No consistently repeatable results have occurred. Not necessary for TRL1. Many times things are deemed as TRL 1 when basic science is still in question. NASA definitions of TRL 1 and 2 are {my emphasis} :...Herman
...It is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1. The science has not been demonstrated. No consistently repeatable results have occurred.
Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/14/2015 06:25 pmThink its good to discuss technology regs, as I spent a lot of time in my past life dealing with the ability to export electronics products. Something like the EMDrive in its relative infancy is better broken down to its base components. Nothing in there with DIY designs are restricted commodities to the best of my knowledge (except of course exports to "unfriendly" nations as defined by the country you live in).Which, is kinda the beauty of the thing if you think about it. No exotic materials or microprocessors. So far, we basically have kitchen microwave parts and empty metal cans. Pretty innocuous components being used in a novel new way. Since the EMDrive experimentation has already been in the public domain about the only concerns out there are more aligned with corporate interests and who, if anyone, can capitalize on it. Just IMHO.A space qualified EMDrive would certainly have some radiation hardened electronic components (Power supply, PLL, high performance dielectric if need be ...) which could be subject to ITAR restrictions. But to put a ban on this export would only open a great opportunity for foreign manufacturers !! .
Quote from: Mezzenile on 10/14/2015 06:57 pmQuote from: rfmwguy on 10/14/2015 06:25 pmThink its good to discuss technology regs, as I spent a lot of time in my past life dealing with the ability to export electronics products. Something like the EMDrive in its relative infancy is better broken down to its base components. Nothing in there with DIY designs are restricted commodities to the best of my knowledge (except of course exports to "unfriendly" nations as defined by the country you live in).Which, is kinda the beauty of the thing if you think about it. No exotic materials or microprocessors. So far, we basically have kitchen microwave parts and empty metal cans. Pretty innocuous components being used in a novel new way. Since the EMDrive experimentation has already been in the public domain about the only concerns out there are more aligned with corporate interests and who, if anyone, can capitalize on it. Just IMHO.A space qualified EMDrive would certainly have some radiation hardened electronic components (Power supply, PLL, high performance dielectric if need be ...) which could be subject to ITAR restrictions. But to put a ban on this export would only open a great opportunity for foreign manufacturers !! . Yep, think the heart of the thing is common componentry, but controlled stuff for space apps? It would indeed be restricted I'll bet. And guess what? There's no way for me to test for cosmic radation in my humble house
Quote from: rfmwguy on 10/14/2015 07:52 pmQuote from: Mezzenile on 10/14/2015 06:57 pmQuote from: rfmwguy on 10/14/2015 06:25 pmThink its good to discuss technology regs, as I spent a lot of time in my past life dealing with the ability to export electronics products. Something like the EMDrive in its relative infancy is better broken down to its base components. Nothing in there with DIY designs are restricted commodities to the best of my knowledge (except of course exports to "unfriendly" nations as defined by the country you live in).Which, is kinda the beauty of the thing if you think about it. No exotic materials or microprocessors. So far, we basically have kitchen microwave parts and empty metal cans. Pretty innocuous components being used in a novel new way. Since the EMDrive experimentation has already been in the public domain about the only concerns out there are more aligned with corporate interests and who, if anyone, can capitalize on it. Just IMHO.A space qualified EMDrive would certainly have some radiation hardened electronic components (Power supply, PLL, high performance dielectric if need be ...) which could be subject to ITAR restrictions. But to put a ban on this export would only open a great opportunity for foreign manufacturers !! . Yep, think the heart of the thing is common componentry, but controlled stuff for space apps? It would indeed be restricted I'll bet. And guess what? There's no way for me to test for cosmic radation in my humble house Hmmm, there's a thought. With a large enough waveguide, could a space-based version of the EMDrive be passively powered by stellar and cosmic radiation?
Hmmm, there's a thought. With a large enough waveguide, could a space-based version of the EMDrive be passively powered by stellar and cosmic radiation?
Quote from: graybeardsyseng on 10/14/2015 06:52 pmQuote from: zen-in on 10/14/2015 06:03 pm...It is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1. The science has not been demonstrated. No consistently repeatable results have occurred. Not necessary for TRL1. Many times things are deemed as TRL 1 when basic science is still in question. NASA definitions of TRL 1 and 2 are {my emphasis} :...HermanThere is a difference between no science and disagreements concerning what the science is. The former is TRL0 and the latter is TRL1. NASA sometimes investigates very speculative ideas. An example of this is the Plotnikov spinning superconductor. There is no credible science to this but NASA tried to investigate Plodnikov's claims without any useful results. I believe the em-drive and other Eagleworks projects fall into this category and cannot be considered to be at TRL1.
Nice idea! Not a solar panel expert, but think those are only solar-electric. Don't know who has an electric converter for gamma rays and other nasties. Guess that would be tough to develop for us ground-based folks.Imagine that, a limitless source of power for an EMDrive.
Quote from: zen-in on 10/14/2015 06:03 pmQuote from: graybeardsyseng on 10/14/2015 03:16 pm...I consider the EMDrive issue to be on the cusp of moving from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 to 2. I am preparing a white paper on that and what it means vis a vis experimentation right now and will have it ready shortly - hopefully today. Often TRL level 1 and 2 material escapes ITAR issues as it is are often considered basic science/engineering and "public". However, once EMdrive goes to TRL 3 - if ever - there WILL be people watching. BTW - accidental or inadvertent release of information under ITAR control can often be handled with minimum impact. But willful disregard - including willful ignorance - is generally much more serious. My last comments on the subject.HermanIt is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1. The science has not been demonstrated. No consistently repeatable results have occurred. Concepts start at TRL 1, so yes, EMDrive is TRL 1 or maybe 2 since there have been devices built.(I deal with this every day - this is my professional - and informed - opinion)
Quote from: zen-in on 10/14/2015 07:39 pmQuote from: graybeardsyseng on 10/14/2015 06:52 pmQuote from: zen-in on 10/14/2015 06:03 pm...It is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1. The science has not been demonstrated. No consistently repeatable results have occurred. Not necessary for TRL1. Many times things are deemed as TRL 1 when basic science is still in question. NASA definitions of TRL 1 and 2 are {my emphasis} :...HermanThere is a difference between no science and disagreements concerning what the science is. The former is TRL0 and the latter is TRL1. NASA sometimes investigates very speculative ideas. An example of this is the Plotnikov spinning superconductor. There is no credible science to this but NASA tried to investigate Plodnikov's claims without any useful results. I believe the em-drive and other Eagleworks projects fall into this category and cannot be considered to be at TRL1. The NASA analysis of Podkletnov is flawed. For NASA to have properly investigated and discarded his research they would have had to have recreated the test article and the test rig to the specifications provided by Podkletnov. According to Podkletnov they failed in two particulars. They could not fabricate a copy of his disk with his dimensions. They could not create an apparatus with his specified RPM range. This astonished me. This is NASA. They should not have such resource issues. And then i read about Dr White and Mr March's difficulties along similar lines with their own research. Apparently they can and do have resource issues for research like this.None the less if NASA cannot replicate the experiment then they cannot nullify it with credibility. So Podkeltnov may be wrong. But NASA's replication effort was not sufficient to prove it one way or another.
Quote from: zen-in on 10/14/2015 06:03 pmQuote from: graybeardsyseng on 10/14/2015 03:16 pm...I consider the EMDrive issue to be on the cusp of moving from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 to 2. HermanIt is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1. The science has not been demonstrated. No consistently repeatable results have occurred. Concepts start at TRL 1, so yes, EMDrive is TRL 1 or maybe 2 since there have been devices built.(I deal with this every day - this is my professional - and informed - opinion)
Quote from: graybeardsyseng on 10/14/2015 03:16 pm...I consider the EMDrive issue to be on the cusp of moving from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 to 2. HermanIt is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1. The science has not been demonstrated. No consistently repeatable results have occurred.
...I consider the EMDrive issue to be on the cusp of moving from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 to 2. Herman
You seem to be under the illusion that NASA has all the money it could want for whatever it wants.NASA is chronically underfunded.
Yep, think the heart of the thing is common componentry, but controlled stuff for space apps? It would indeed be restricted I'll bet. And guess what? There's no way for me to test for cosmic radation in my humble house
Quote from: VAXHeadroom on 10/14/2015 10:49 pmQuote from: zen-in on 10/14/2015 06:03 pmQuote from: graybeardsyseng on 10/14/2015 03:16 pm...I consider the EMDrive issue to be on the cusp of moving from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 to 2. HermanIt is my belief the em-drive is not yet at TRL1. The science has not been demonstrated. No consistently repeatable results have occurred. Concepts start at TRL 1, so yes, EMDrive is TRL 1 or maybe 2 since there have been devices built.(I deal with this every day - this is my professional - and informed - opinion)The NIAC program solicits proposals that are at the TRL1 or TRL2 level at the time of awarding a phase 1 study. However one of the eliminating criteria for a proposal is: "6. Not technically credible. Conflicts with established physics or engineering principles, without acknowledging this and offering a sufficiently plausible defense."So it might be possible to consider any new concept to be at TRL1. But this is just semantics. If someone invents a device "A" that they claim has certain properties, despite violating generally accepted laws of physics, and this device "A" is assigned a TRL1 what happens after "A" is proven to be null, beyond any reasonable doubt? Is it still at TRL1? If so what is the value of using this TRL system if it continues to assign promise to a device that has been proven null? At this point device "A" should be at TRL0, or at least not considered to be at TRL1. And device "A", of course, has never been at TRL1. The inventor only wanted to believe it was at TRL1.The NIAC solicitation allows an organization to propose very speculative ideas and they very generously assign any idea a TRL1 but the reality is that any proposed investigation that appears to violate generally accepted laws of physics, for which no credible defense is offered, is rejected and therefore not considered to be at TRL1.