Quote from: francesco nicoli on 06/26/2015 11:55 amit is sad that @thetraveller has disappeared. I would have much appreciated some clarifications on the nature of the "new" paper. If there are no replies, it seems to me that he/she will lose any credibility left.Francesco,This is the problem with communications when people that don't use their real names indulge in promotion, claiming that they have special connections, that they are "in the know", "they know more and have better information", that they have special access to unpublished reports and unaccessible information and special influence, discussing "programs that went dark", access to "proprietary secret information" : they can always come back under another monicker, since nobody knows who they really are.There is no real credibility issue, because credibility is attached to a monicker instead of to a real name. All they have to do is to change their monicker. This is a great difference between communications in real life and communications in a forum.JR
it is sad that @thetraveller has disappeared. I would have much appreciated some clarifications on the nature of the "new" paper. If there are no replies, it seems to me that he/she will lose any credibility left.
Quote from: Rodal on 06/26/2015 12:03 pmQuote from: francesco nicoli on 06/26/2015 11:55 amit is sad that @thetraveller has disappeared. I would have much appreciated some clarifications on the nature of the "new" paper. If there are no replies, it seems to me that he/she will lose any credibility left.Francesco,This is the problem with communications when people don't use their real names to indulge in promotion, claiming that they have special connections, that they are "in the know", "they know more and have better information", that they have special access to unpublished reports and unaccessible information and special influence, discussing "dark programs" and behavior in an Internet forum that they would be more careful to indulge in if they were using their real names: they can always come back under another monicker, since nobody knows who they really are when using monickers.There is no real credibility issue, because credibility is attached to a monicker instead of to a real name. All they have to do is to change their monicker. This is a great difference between communications in real life and communications in a forum.JRWhile I enjoyed Mr Ts infectious enthusiasm, many posts were repeats and reminded me of advocacy posts. There is a growing marketing industry out there that pays people for position statements on social media; sponsored advertising in the 21st century if you will. Not saying Mr T is one, but posters should avoid these traps...it is transparent to many. And yes, nicknames are fine but real names on formal papers is a must.
Quote from: francesco nicoli on 06/26/2015 11:55 amit is sad that @thetraveller has disappeared. I would have much appreciated some clarifications on the nature of the "new" paper. If there are no replies, it seems to me that he/she will lose any credibility left.Francesco,This is the problem with communications when people don't use their real names to indulge in promotion, claiming that they have special connections, that they are "in the know", "they know more and have better information", that they have special access to unpublished reports and unaccessible information and special influence, discussing "dark programs" and behavior in an Internet forum that they would be more careful to indulge in if they were using their real names: they can always come back under another monicker, since nobody knows who they really are when using monickers.There is no real credibility issue, because credibility is attached to a monicker instead of to a real name. All they have to do is to change their monicker. This is a great difference between communications in real life and communications in a forum.JR
Quote from: rfmwguy on 06/26/2015 12:36 pmQuote from: Rodal on 06/26/2015 12:03 pmQuote from: francesco nicoli on 06/26/2015 11:55 amit is sad that @thetraveller has disappeared. I would have much appreciated some clarifications on the nature of the "new" paper. If there are no replies, it seems to me that he/she will lose any credibility left.Francesco,This is the problem with communications when people don't use their real names to indulge in promotion, claiming that they have special connections, that they are "in the know", "they know more and have better information", that they have special access to unpublished reports and unaccessible information and special influence, discussing "dark programs" and behavior in an Internet forum that they would be more careful to indulge in if they were using their real names: they can always come back under another monicker, since nobody knows who they really are when using monickers.There is no real credibility issue, because credibility is attached to a monicker instead of to a real name. All they have to do is to change their monicker. This is a great difference between communications in real life and communications in a forum.JRWhile I enjoyed Mr Ts infectious enthusiasm, many posts were repeats and reminded me of advocacy posts. There is a growing marketing industry out there that pays people for position statements on social media; sponsored advertising in the 21st century if you will. Not saying Mr T is one, but posters should avoid these traps...it is transparent to many. And yes, nicknames are fine but real names on formal papers is a must.Not just a "new paper" was promised but what was much more outlandish (and completely unneeded), it was claimed that the paper was going to appear in a "peer-reviewed journal" (apparently addressing the poster's self-perceived problem that none of Shawyer's prior publications ever appeared in peer-reviewed journals), that the paper "was under peer-review", and that, upon having the rare privilege of being able to read the paper before publication (a privilege that people usually keep in confidence and never disclose in a public forum), it was (again, without any need) claimed that the paper would "end all doubt" about the EM Drive. Instead, rather than "ending all doubt" about the EM Drive, the recently posted (what is claimed to be) abstract of the paper is in the process of becoming the sum total of all doubts about the EM Drive. Rather than acting as an advocacy group, it ultimately acts as a demolition of credibility. I wonder whether Mr. Shawyer is reading this and perhaps he can clarify in his blog whether it was true that other people had been given access to a paper of his that was being peer-reviewed, and whether the abstract that was published (as purportedly being the peer-reviewed paper) is correct or is it a verbatim reproduction of his old 2014 conference paper.
This author commented on the emdrive earlier this month: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-t-solomon/photon-based-propulsion_b_7489064.htmlAlso note his book, which may be getting more attention now. Book preview here:https://books.google.com/books?id=1Lmk1MtX-aUC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false"An Introduction to Gravity Modification: A Guide to Using Laithwaite's and Podkletnov's Experiments and the Physics of Forces for Empirical ResultsBenjamin T. SolomonUniversal-Publishers, 2012 - Science - 532 pagesAn Introduction to Gravity Modification, Second Edition is the result of a 12-year (1999-2011) study into the theoretical and technological feasibility of gravity modification, that presents the new physics of forces by replacing relativistic, quantum and string theories with process models. Gravity, electromagnetism and mechanical forces are unified by Ni fields, and obey a common equation g = (tau)c DEGREES2. Gravity modification is defined as the modification of the strength and direction of the gravitational acceleration without the use of mass as the primary source of this modification, in local space time. It consists of field modulation and field vectoring. Field modulation is the ability to attenuate or amplify a force field. Field vectoring is the ability to change the direction of this force field . This book reaches out to a wider audience, and not just to the theoretical physicist; to engineers and technologist who have the funding to experiment; just as Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson experimented with the Holmdel Horn Antenna and discovered the microwave background radiation. The mathematics is easier than that taught in theoretical physics and therefore accessible to a wider audience such as these engineers..."
In the following paper:A Gravitational Aharonov-Bohm Effect, and its Connection to Parametric Oscillators and Gravitational Radiationhttp://arxiv.org/abs/1301.4270"If such SC mirrors for GR waves were indeed to exist in Nature, then moving SC mirrors would notonly be able to do work like a piston on these waves, but would also simultaneously lead to a Dopplereffect that leads to the exponential amplification of these waves above the threshold for parametric oscillation,as explained above. Thus, a laser-like generation of coherent GR waves starting from vacuumfluctuations should become possible. If so, a Hertz-like experiment for GR radiation at microwave frequencies[15] would become feasible to perform."http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.4270
...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. ...-Rolf
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.
Move along...nothing to see here: https://www.jannaf.org/mtgs/June2015/pages/sps.htmlActually, there is...
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.
... where any desire he may have to announce details (theoretical or experimental) would be at odds with any licensing agreements *that may exist* ...